Rumor: Jetblue E190 Decision imminent and Europe news?

Boof02671 · Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:03 pm

You don’t know that at all.

Widebodies over the pond carry lots of cargo and generates money.

airbazar · Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:14 pm

[quote="Boof02671"]But airlines flying widebodies carries lots of cargo and that cargo generates revenue. /quote]
Cargo is lower yield than passengers.

LupineChemist · Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:00 pm

tphuang wrote:
They make plenty of money on transcon flights of 300 miles longer. So now they get to charge more and the fares are far higher. They will make a killing here.

I generally agree but costs are definitely higher when operating internationally like this. Particularly since you'd want to deal with a fair amount of UK POS and that would mean a fair amount of administrative costs just in running the UK subsidiary, without any airline operations concerns at all.

superjeff · Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:12 pm

LupineChemist wrote:
tphuang wrote:
They make plenty of money on transcon flights of 300 miles longer. So now they get to charge more and the fares are far higher. They will make a killing here.

I generally agree but costs are definitely higher when operating internationally like this. Particularly since you'd want to deal with a fair amount of UK POS and that would mean a fair amount of administrative costs just in running the UK subsidiary, without any airline operations concerns at all.

Absolutely correct. And if you look at the airfares across the pond between the U.S. and the U.K., it looks like taxes take up well more than 50% of the total. This is a very low yield business.

acreinholz · Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:27 pm

jumbojet wrote:
We all keep talking about B6 and JFK/BOS to LON. Well, what about FLL - LON? I think its just outside of the range of the A321LR but the only other airline flying non stop out of FLL is Norwegian. Some facts:

B6 has a rather large operation at FLL

B6 has been very successful with MINT out of FLL

The greater Fort Lauderdale area surely has enough business traffic to warrant non stop flights to LON out of FLL

The only other south Florida non-stop action to LON is out of MIA on AA and BA. I bet B6 would make an instant hit out of a non-stop FLL to LON service. AA fares out of MIA are ridiculously high.

Getting back to the aircraft choice, this would mean that JetBlue would indeed need several A330's. JetBlue owns the FLL market and no doubt would poach from the MIA market, it could really pay off for them in getting some 330's.

LON is well within range and only 120 min ETOPS requirements, as well as LIS and MAD...

I believe, even though flying twin aisle aircrafts is a little more comfortable, the future of aviation will be single aisles, longer ranges, same family of aircrafts... B6 is working on it as it flies airbuses and the maintenance, pilot and crew training? Done...

Airbus, with all due respect, is way ahead on that...

Their first delivery of A321LR will be by the 3rd qtr of 2018. Boeing is still thinking about MoM/797?

Okcflyer · Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:43 pm

I have a hard time seeing how Bombardier can compete given B6’s extensive existing Embraer infrastructure and the theoretically lower frame price EMB can offer due to their existing production facilities and lower overall program cost. While it’s quite clear the CSeries does outperform on longer stages, it’s not clear the performance difference is material. I have a hard time imagining profitable transcon pairs (significant number) on a CS100/E2-195 or even CS300 sizes. I think it’s better to optimize on coastal connection flying of smaller city pairs or the ultra high frequency stuff and let the A320 and A321 do the lower margin transcon stuff. There are plenty of regional pairs to grow the network and probably even help feed the better-margin A321’s anyway.

Color me surprised if CSeries wins this one ... despite the fact both brands have solid planes.

tphuang · Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:06 am

Boof02671 wrote:
You don’t know that at all.

Widebodies over the pond carry lots of cargo and generates money.

I have seen their fare numbers and lf from BTS before and after mint, the yields are up 20 to 35% depending on the route while cost according to B6 is only up 6%. They have also constantly said mint routes are their most profitable.

Based on what you are saying, then an airline like DY which has by far the lowest cost TATL operation and operates the most modern wide body B787 should be raking it in with all the cargo revenue they are taking in, right? Yet, their long haul business is loosing huge amount of money. Take a look at the many threads on how much money DY's LH business is loosing.

If cargo revenues pays all the cost by itself, then why do we constantly hear that the only way long haul flying makes money is through the premium cabin?

superjeff wrote:
LupineChemist wrote:
tphuang wrote:
They make plenty of money on transcon flights of 300 miles longer. So now they get to charge more and the fares are far higher. They will make a killing here.

I generally agree but costs are definitely higher when operating internationally like this. Particularly since you'd want to deal with a fair amount of UK POS and that would mean a fair amount of administrative costs just in running the UK subsidiary, without any airline operations concerns at all.

Absolutely correct. And if you look at the airfares across the pond between the U.S. and the U.K., it looks like taxes take up well more than 50% of the total. This is a very low yield business.

Taxes, Fees and Charges
United States - Transportation Tax (US)
$36.60
United States - September 11th Security Fee(Passenger Civil Aviation Security Service Fee) (AY)
$5.60
United States - Passenger Facility Charge (XF)
$4.50
United Kingdom - Air Passenger Duty (APD) (GB)
$222.20
United Kingdom - Passenger Service Charge (UB)
$64.00
United States - Immigration and Naturalization Fee(Immigration User Fee) (XY)
$7.00
United States - Custom User Fee (YC)
$5.65

jumbojet actually posted fare breakdown earlier showing this as tax/fee portion. It seems like only $346 of a R/T business class ticket are these additional costs, so about $170 each way. That's only for London, Dublin would be lower than that. So if they can charge $400 each way more than what they charge domestically, then that's another $230 of revenue each way for 300 miles. Pretty good tradeoff if you ask me.

Boof02671 · Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:22 am

Who’s says Norwegian is carry cargo and their business model isn’t like most airlines.

When you sell a ticket for less than your costs of course they are going to lose money.

tphuang · Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:35 am

DY is definitely carrying cargo. They would be stupid if they are not.

just using T100 number for October of 2017 between JFK and LGW.
I presume aircraft type 889 is B787-9
SEATS PASSENGERS FREIGHT MAIL CARRIER ORIGIN DEST AIRCRAFT_TYPE MONTH
19608 18317 1427193 0 DY LGW JFK 889 10
19608 17227 37578 0 DY JFK LGW 889 10

you can download it from here https://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp

And https://www.economist.com/news/business ... much-space

Since the financial crisis, there has been no let-up in the growth of passenger demand, so carriers have been expanding their fleets. This means the amount of cargo space in the belly of passenger planes has risen sharply. Combined with flat demand for shipping by air, the result is that average capacity utilisation across the air-cargo business has fallen to 43.5%, the lowest since the crisis. So, customers have been able to demand big price cuts.

Some all-cargo airlines have gone bust in recent years, and other carriers with big cargo divisions have been suffering, despite the fall in the cost of jet fuel. Last August, for instance, Midex, at one point the largest all-cargo airline in the Middle East with a ten-strong fleet of freighters, closed down. Lufthansa Cargo, the freight division of Germany’s largest airline, slipped into loss last summer. South America’s largest airline, LATAM, reported a 27% year-on-year fall in cargo revenue for the fourth quarter of 2015. LATAM has responded by cutting its use of freighter planes to focus on belly-hold cargo. IAG, the owner of British Airways, now looks prescient for having got rid of its freighter fleet altogether.

There are some routes on which there is more cargo than the passenger aircraft flying them can handle, says Andrew Herdman of the Association of Asia-Pacific Airlines. Exports from Africa to Europe and mainland China to America are more significant than passenger flows between them. Long journey times across the Pacific mean that many passenger aircraft do not have the range to take off with a full hold.

Even so, airlines operating freighters are being squeezed into such niches by the expansion of integrated logistics businesses such as DHL, FedEx and UPS. These firms, with their vast fleets of planes, lorries and vans, and their highly efficient distribution centres, are sucking up much of the business from e-commerce companies. FedEx said this week that net profits in its most recent quarter were up 18% year-on-year, beating expectations.

Another thing to consider, if cargo was making so much money, why would Airbus be designing new berths modules for cargo belly on A330?
http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/11/news/ai ... index.html

Beatyair · Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:03 am

If I was the CEO, I would line up an JetBlue A320, a E190, and a CS100. As staff and some passengers what cabin feels better boarding and sitting in? Compare the cabins. The A320 is 6 across seating - feels ok, the E190 is 4 across seating and very long, the CS100 is 5 across seat a much better feel. To me the E190 feels like you are entering a torpedo. It is too long and feels tight, the E175’s feel ok because the plane in not that long. For the passenger experience I would suggest the CS100.

With the CSeries you can also get a bigger plane if you need too. At the E190/E195 you are at the top end already.

VS4ever · Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:40 am

I like the space of the E190, what I absolutely hate about the E190 are the paltry luggage bins, that barely fit anything, I think you would have to line up a 321 as well, because there is a space differential in those to the current 320. That said, i would prefer 4 abreast to 5, but that's just me. However you assume that the CEO's really care ultimately which cabin feels better, remember the driver is CASM and RASM, how much money can you earn off each flight against the cost of investment, that's what matters to a CEO, the cabin feel is a secondary metric, if it wasn't we wouldn't have 28 inch seat pitches with many airlines, B6 thankfully is not in that arena and do take passenger comfort a little more seriously as a marketing tactic. The new 321's are actually pretty good even though their seat pitch is slightly smaller than the older 320's, i've taken a couple back and forth BOS-MCO-BOS and they have frankly been comfortable, especially in the even more legroom, which i got last time out as a result of flight changes, that said they do need more of them, because if something goes wrong (like it did on 2 of them on 4/12), only have 55 in the fleet of which many are mint-configured makes IRROPS with those planes difficult to catch up with. I haven't take a CS100 yet, so can't comment on that, but if the ancedotal reports are true, then i would pick them over the 190.

gatibosgru · Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:02 am

VS4ever wrote:
I like the space of the E190, what I absolutely hate about the E190 are the paltry luggage bins, that barely fit anything, I think you would have to line up a 321 as well, because there is a space differential in those to the current 320

The E2s have bigger bins.

New overhead bins are about 40% larger compared to current-generation E-Jets. Space is so generous that each passenger on the aircraft can stow his/her own standard-size carry-on bag in the bins.

PlanesNTrains · Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:27 am

Beatyair wrote:
If I was the CEO, I would line up an JetBlue A320, a E190, and a CS100. As staff and some passengers what cabin feels better boarding and sitting in? Compare the cabins. The A320 is 6 across seating - feels ok, the E190 is 4 across seating and very long, the CS100 is 5 across seat a much better feel. To me the E190 feels like you are entering a torpedo. It is too long and feels tight, the E175’s feel ok because the plane in not that long. For the passenger experience I would suggest the CS100.

With the CSeries you can also get a bigger plane if you need too. At the E190/E195 you are at the top end already.

Make sure you also post comparable ticket prices based on average route length and CASM/RASM expectations. Just having them tell you which plane they like most won’t help when they’d prefer to pay less for a ticket.

Personally I’m hoping to see a CSeries order for them, but a few birds have consistently chirped that the E2 is the front runner.

MKIAZ · Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:47 pm

I could see a small chance of B6 taking HA's 338 order, for the right price - or picking up some a333/339.

If B6 gets LHR slots they are going to want to use something larger than a 321.

A330 would allow them to
1. operate heavy routes like NYC/BOS/FLL-LON or CDG with a higher capacity plane.
2. operate longer routes that might not be possible/economical with 321LR (FLL-LON, GRU/EZE, (very unlikely but maybe TYO, TLV, HNL)
3. carry cargo
4. upgague some domestic routes that are performing well during peak travel times, i.e. JFK-LAX

Then they could use the 321LR to fill in all the other routes to europe, not to mention south america routes out of FLL.

It kind of makes sense as AA is pulling down their JFK hub, if B6 could make a deal to get those slots. The other issue is as the europe operation grows they will need more domestic feed. And there will be a question as to if they should run mint on shorter, 2+ hour routes that would feed europe flights.

INFINITI329 · Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:08 pm

Ive read the DUB as a potential destination on here alot....but I don't understand why. Unless their codeshare with EI is in danger they shouldn't bother with DUB as I feel it would be a waste of an airplane.

I think the Cseries is the best fit for Jetblue. Higher upfront cost than E2 bu better in the long run

LAXLHR · Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:16 pm

Austin787 wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
Where is JetBlue going to get the slots from at JFK? I would guess that they will have to give up a bunch of domestic flights to make room for international flying at JFK?

JetBlue could buy slots from AA.

You think AA would give up/sell slots to allow another carrier to start operations against its most profitable route/region. Hmmmm, no.
B6 if need be will just juggle slots like all carriers do, they have enough. Drop unprofitable routes.

MIAFLLPBIFlyer · Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:14 pm

jumbojet wrote:
We all keep talking about B6 and JFK/BOS to LON. Well, what about FLL - LON? I think its just outside of the range of the A321LR but the only other airline flying non stop out of FLL is Norwegian. Some facts:

B6 has a rather large operation at FLL

B6 has been very successful with MINT out of FLL

The greater Fort Lauderdale area surely has enough business traffic to warrant non stop flights to LON out of FLL

The only other south Florida non-stop action to LON is out of MIA on AA and BA. I bet B6 would make an instant hit out of a non-stop FLL to LON service. AA fares out of MIA are ridiculously high due to the lack of competition. DL served it for a while after the AA/US tie up but ever since, AA owns the south Miami to LON market. I am actually surprised DL/VS hasn't jumped on FLL to LON.

Getting back to the aircraft choice, this would mean that JetBlue would indeed need several A330's. JetBlue owns the FLL market and no doubt would poach from the MIA market, it could really pay off for them in getting some 330's.

BA actually does fly FLL to LON albeit to LGW. No first class but it does have business class. The load factors haven't been great on this flight FWIW, though B6's product and flyer base in Broward/Palm Beach might help well down the road if this happens.

airbazar · Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:38 am

FlyHappy wrote:
airbazar wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:
Super dumb question - I get that ETOPS certification is not trivial, that WN, with all their resources has had it in the works for a long time, etc. But I am curious - how come a bit player like Sun Country seemed to just decide to launch LAX-HNL and did so with little noise? Is it due to their heavy outsourcing of maintenance and other functions? Is this a case where a smaller carrier with a much higher cost base actually has an "advantage" and can be more nimble?

Because it is trivial. only a.neters with an axe to grind against B6 keep coming up with non-existing reasons why B6 will fail.

I don't know that I'm willing to accept that ETOPS certification "is trivial", even if there are axe-grinding posters on this site. (I'm not one, but B6 TATL success is not automatic to me)
Look at a statement by WN's CEO, for example.......

“We are pleased with the progress made thus far to obtain authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration for Extended Operations (ETOPS) to operate between the mainland and the Hawaiian Islands later this year…. Our goal has been from the outset to be flying by the end of the year…. Achieving that goal is not totally within our control. In terms of the work that we do control, we are right on target.” — Gary Kelly, SWA CEO (1/25/18)

Again, Hawaii and TATL are two completely different animals. Nevertheless there is nothing in that statement that changes my opinion. Countless airlines of all different sizes and business models have ETOPS certification. Some airlines have it for a single route, like Azul whose only ETOPS route in their entire network is VCP-LIS, I think. Yes there is a certification process but no one is breaking new ground here. It's a path well beaten.

AA94 · Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:02 pm

There are no plans for B6 to pick up anything larger than the 321 at this point. Perhaps if TATL pans out, the company will start thinking about widebody aircraft, but JetBlue is a conservative airline, and they're not going to introduce TATL service and a widebody aircraft at the same time, especially with the realities of pilot contract and inflight unionization. All changes will be incremental.

Super80Fan · Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:11 pm

AA94 wrote:
There are no plans for B6 to pick up anything larger than the 321 at this point. Perhaps if TATL pans out, the company will start thinking about widebody aircraft, but JetBlue is a conservative airline, and they're not going to introduce TATL service and a widebody aircraft at the same time, especially with the realities of pilot contract and inflight unionization. All changes will be incremental.

Maybe they can start moving forward if they stop fighting with their employees. I like B6 but enough is enough with them treating their FA's and pilots as the enemy.

jumbojet · Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:13 pm

AA94 wrote:
There are no plans for B6 to pick up anything larger than the 321 at this point. Perhaps if TATL pans out, the company will start thinking about widebody aircraft, but JetBlue is a conservative airline, and they're not going to introduce TATL service and a widebody aircraft at the same time, especially with the realities of pilot contract and inflight unionization. All changes will be incremental.

Then the airline is not being run by the right people. The BOD should fire all the top management folks at B6 and replace with folks who first off, know how to treat their employees (I hear employee morale is in the toilet) and secondly will take reasonable risk and buy the right plane for the right market

PlanesNTrains · Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:13 pm

jumbojet wrote:
AA94 wrote:
There are no plans for B6 to pick up anything larger than the 321 at this point. Perhaps if TATL pans out, the company will start thinking about widebody aircraft, but JetBlue is a conservative airline, and they're not going to introduce TATL service and a widebody aircraft at the same time, especially with the realities of pilot contract and inflight unionization. All changes will be incremental.

Then the airline is not being run by the right people. The BOD should fire all the top management folks at B6 and replace with folks who first off, know how to treat their employees (I hear employee morale is in the toilet) and secondly will take reasonable risk and buy the right plane for the right market

That may be one opinion, but when you are actually a CEO looking at all the variables, you might make a different decision. Acquiring wide bodies would be a huge departure from their business model, and that’s before they even announce, let alone fly, a transatlantic route.

What if the economy tanks?
What if there’s a terroir event that suppressed demand?
What if there’s a domestic opportunity that needs those resources?
What if interest rates keep moving up?
What if they get into strikes?
What if mollifying those strikers costs them in CASM?
What if they can’t get desirable slots?
What if Norwegian, WOW, Icelandair etc don’t go away, and carriers like AA/BA decide to screw with you out of the gate to make a point?
What if the A330-800 seems like the right plane but nobody else is biting?
What if you decide you can have better yields flying A321lr’s and reduce the risk tremendously?
What if you’re trying to keep your carrier attractive in the market?
And on and on and on.

Sitting here on a.net, it’s easy to say “They should do xyz” - it isn’t your money or job or company on the line, and the answers that you espouse here may not be so easy or even realistic once you’re in the drivers seat.

pitbosflyer · Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:34 pm

I feel like people on the widebody train are missing the point that them starting with A321LR s doesn't rule out the possibility of widebodies in the future. It makes way more finacial sense to dip their toe in the water with a smaller plane that could be used elsewhere if TATL doesn't work out. The narrow body TATL plan is a safe way to see if this works for them. Then if its a massive success and they can't keep up with demand....they buy widebodies no problem.

lowfareair · Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:42 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
AA94 wrote:
There are no plans for B6 to pick up anything larger than the 321 at this point. Perhaps if TATL pans out, the company will start thinking about widebody aircraft, but JetBlue is a conservative airline, and they're not going to introduce TATL service and a widebody aircraft at the same time, especially with the realities of pilot contract and inflight unionization. All changes will be incremental.

Then the airline is not being run by the right people. The BOD should fire all the top management folks at B6 and replace with folks who first off, know how to treat their employees (I hear employee morale is in the toilet) and secondly will take reasonable risk and buy the right plane for the right market

That may be one opinion, but when you are actually a CEO looking at all the variables, you might make a different decision. Acquiring wide bodies would be a huge departure from their business model, and that’s before they even announce, let alone fly, a transatlantic route.

People also need to step back and stop thinking that widebodies are a necessity for the shorter TATL routes. EI has used 757s for years out of DUB without issue and are buying 321neos for additional TATL capacity. The US3 all have 757 TATL flights, UA even flies them on EWR-LHR in the winter!

While there may be a preference for widebodies overall (and I am among those who prefer widebodies on TATL flights), flying a 321 with lie flat J will not kill a route. The difference is small enough that if an airline can't profitably fill a 321, there won't be enough extra people wanting a widebody to profitably fill a 330

AA94 · Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:58 pm

jumbojet wrote:
AA94 wrote:
There are no plans for B6 to pick up anything larger than the 321 at this point. Perhaps if TATL pans out, the company will start thinking about widebody aircraft, but JetBlue is a conservative airline, and they're not going to introduce TATL service and a widebody aircraft at the same time, especially with the realities of pilot contract and inflight unionization. All changes will be incremental.

Then the airline is not being run by the right people. The BOD should fire all the top management folks at B6 and replace with folks who first off, know how to treat their employees (I hear employee morale is in the toilet) and secondly will take reasonable risk and buy the right plane for the right market

I don't disagree with you that the airline is not being run by the right people, but finding the "right people" doesn't necessarily equate to acquiring widebodies. Why would the airline want to incur significant financial and operational risk by making a huge capital investment in aircraft/training/product/etc. when the transatlantic market hasn't even been proven viable? I do think there's a reasonable chance that they seek to acquire widebody aircraft as they mature, but I think that chance is very minimal until they actually establish themselves in the European market.

acreinholz · Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:02 pm

lowfareair wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
jumbojet wrote:

Then the airline is not being run by the right people. The BOD should fire all the top management folks at B6 and replace with folks who first off, know how to treat their employees (I hear employee morale is in the toilet) and secondly will take reasonable risk and buy the right plane for the right market

That may be one opinion, but when you are actually a CEO looking at all the variables, you might make a different decision. Acquiring wide bodies would be a huge departure from their business model, and that’s before they even announce, let alone fly, a transatlantic route.

People also need to step back and stop thinking that widebodies are a necessity for the shorter TATL routes. EI has used 757s for years out of DUB without issue and are buying 321neos for additional TATL capacity. The US3 all have 757 TATL flights, UA even flies them on EWR-LHR in the winter!

While there may be a preference for widebodies overall (and I am among those who prefer widebodies on TATL flights), flying a 321 with lie flat J will not kill a route. The difference is small enough that if an airline can't profitably fill a 321, there won't be enough extra people wanting a widebody to profitably fill a 330

I agree 100%...

Profitability means filling up the plane... Cost per seat and revenue...

Easier to fill up an A321Lr than and A330...

Belperflyer · Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:57 pm

And Bombardier reports Q1 results 3rd May and the only thing that makes the share price move is positive news from Aerospace business

LAXintl · Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:23 pm

Sounds like neither of these will happen soon per todays earnings call.

On aircraft:
”Not going to rush on E190 or other small jet decisions because of changing OEM landscape"

On Europe:
”If we choose to convert an existing A321neo to A321LR we have to give Airbus 2 year's notice to do that. So summer 2020 would be the earliest, and that's unlikely right now.”

Boof02671 · Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:27 pm

jumbojet wrote:
AA94 wrote:
There are no plans for B6 to pick up anything larger than the 321 at this point. Perhaps if TATL pans out, the company will start thinking about widebody aircraft, but JetBlue is a conservative airline, and they're not going to introduce TATL service and a widebody aircraft at the same time, especially with the realities of pilot contract and inflight unionization. All changes will be incremental.

Then the airline is not being run by the right people. The BOD should fire all the top management folks at B6 and replace with folks who first off, know how to treat their employees (I hear employee morale is in the toilet) and secondly will take reasonable risk and buy the right plane for the right market

Not sticking up for management, but their fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholders, not the employees.

EMBSPBR · Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:59 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Sounds like neither of these will happen soon per todays earnings call.

On aircraft:
”Not going to rush on E190 or other small jet decisions because of changing OEM landscape"

On Europe:
”If we choose to convert an existing A321neo to A321LR we have to give Airbus 2 year's notice to do that. So summer 2020 would be the earliest, and that's unlikely right now.”

So the rumors were just ... gossip !!!

WaywardMemphian · Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:03 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Sounds like neither of these will happen soon per todays earnings call.

On aircraft:
”Not going to rush on E190 or other small jet decisions because of changing OEM landscape"

Translation: We will wait till the C Series purchase by AB and the E2s by Boeing are complete on this.

LockheedBBD · Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:54 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Sounds like neither of these will happen soon per todays earnings call.

On aircraft:
”Not going to rush on E190 or other small jet decisions because of changing OEM landscape"

On Europe:
”If we choose to convert an existing A321neo to A321LR we have to give Airbus 2 year's notice to do that. So summer 2020 would be the earliest, and that's unlikely right now.”

So this "rumor' thread (without a source given) was a flop. Not that we needed another one:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1365041
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1385847&p=20206943
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1389327&p=20258879

Big surprise. Time to go home folks, nothing to see here. :wave:

arcticcruiser · Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:01 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
airbazar wrote:
jumbojet wrote:

It's worth pointing out that "Carrier imposed surcharge" is a fancy way of saying "more money" and artificially reduce the fare value. In other words: it's a bookkeeping scam.
It started as a "fuel surcharge" when oil prices ballooned to nearly $100/bbl but then when oil prices collapsed they changed the description from "Fuel surcharge" to what you see now. No airline is under any obligation to demand that and it's entirely up to the airline whether to collect this "fuel surcharge" or not and how much.

Boof02671 wrote:
Just because the plane is ETOPS certified, the carrier has to have an approved FAA ETOPS program, which JetBlue doesn’t have.

Yet.
Like i said, they can operate ETOPS 120 routes on day 1 which is all you need for TATL.

Boof02671 wrote:
Like I’ve stated WN has had the 738 in their fleet for years and they don’t have an approved ETOPS program yet and they are two years into preparing a plan. None of their pilots nor mechanics have even been trained. And the 738 is the plane they first plan to use for their Hawaii flights.

Hawaii is a completely different ball game. It requires ETOPS 180. It's also entirely up to WN how long they want to take on deciding to establish their ETOPS program. DY did it in only 1 year.

What don’t you grasp?

Just because a plane is ETOPS capable doesn’t mean they can fly an ETOPS route.

They have to have a FAA approved ETOPS program.

Pilots, mechanics, dispatchers, flight attendants, stock clerks and vendors have to trained.

Those planes are not ETOPS maintained at JetBlue.

You can argue back and forth I’m speaking with 20 years in Aircraft Maintenance.

Are B6’s A320 equipped with rafts, EPRs, HF radios, etc?

ETOPS certified and capable planes are in a special maintenance program which JetBlue isn’t following, nor approved for.

Flight Attendants, stock clercks and vendors ETOPS trained? Why not the accountants? This is bollocks. Having flown ETOPS since 1990, I can tell you you are making this out to be much more complicated than it is.

tphuang · Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:07 pm

I listened to the entire earnings call and never got the sense they are not going to make an Europe announcement soon. They just said we are not announcing it today. So it’s probably going to be around th shareholders meeting as others have said.

737307 · Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:07 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Sounds like neither of these will happen soon per todays earnings call.

On Europe:
”If we choose to convert an existing A321neo to A321LR we have to give Airbus 2 year's notice to do that. So summer 2020 would be the earliest, and that's unlikely right now.”

This is not "On Europe". This is "On Conversion".
If B6 wants to go to Europe, they can buy or lease any capable plane. No need for conversions...

EMBSPBR · Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:26 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
Sounds like neither of these will happen soon per todays earnings call.
On aircraft:
”Not going to rush on E190 or other small jet decisions because of changing OEM landscape"
On Europe:
”If we choose to convert an existing A321neo to A321LR we have to give Airbus 2 year's notice to do that. So summer 2020 would be the earliest, and that's unlikely right now.”

So this "rumor' thread (without a source given) was a flop. Not that we needed another one:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1365041
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1385847&p=20206943
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1389327&p=20258879
Big surprise. Time to go home folks, nothing to see here.

As I said the rumors were just gossip ...

PlanesNTrains · Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:29 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
LockheedBBD wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
Sounds like neither of these will happen soon per todays earnings call.
On aircraft:
”Not going to rush on E190 or other small jet decisions because of changing OEM landscape"
On Europe:
”If we choose to convert an existing A321neo to A321LR we have to give Airbus 2 year's notice to do that. So summer 2020 would be the earliest, and that's unlikely right now.”

So this "rumor' thread (without a source given) was a flop. Not that we needed another one:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1365041
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1385847&p=20206943
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1389327&p=20258879
Big surprise. Time to go home folks, nothing to see here.

As I said the rumors were just gossip ...

And you know for a fact how they will proceed? Short of a decision being made, it is indeed all rumors. Or gossip. Or unsubstantiated chit chat. Or whatever you wish to label it.

fastmover · Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:11 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
LockheedBBD wrote:
So this "rumor' thread (without a source given) was a flop. Not that we needed another one:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1365041
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1385847&p=20206943
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1389327&p=20258879
Big surprise. Time to go home folks, nothing to see here.

As I said the rumors were just gossip ...

And you know for a fact how they will proceed? Short of a decision being made, it is indeed all rumors. Or gossip. Or unsubstantiated chit chat. Or whatever you wish to label it.

Exactly BUT sometimes rumors are true.
I have known about the LGB announcement for a few months but can’t give details.

Just saying some people on here know more than you may think.

It is also a discussion board this is exactly what we do talk about.

luv2cattlecall · Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:35 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Sounds like neither of these will happen soon per todays earnings call.

On aircraft:
”Not going to rush on E190 or other small jet decisions because of changing OEM landscape"

On Europe:
”If we choose to convert an existing A321neo to A321LR we have to give Airbus 2 year's notice to do that. So summer 2020 would be the earliest, and that's unlikely right now.”

What are the drivers for the 2 year notice on a conversion to an LR order? Are there some long lead items that are involved? I had assumed they were quite similar other than ACTs and a paperwork change?

767333ER · Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:53 pm

fastmover wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:

As I said the rumors were just gossip ...

And you know for a fact how they will proceed? Short of a decision being made, it is indeed all rumors. Or gossip. Or unsubstantiated chit chat. Or whatever you wish to label it.

Exactly BUT sometimes rumors are true.
I have known about the LGB announcement for a few months but can’t give details.

Just saying some people on here know more than you may think.

It is also a discussion board this is exactly what we do talk about.

Exactly, this has become one of the problems here. Many complain that it isn’t the way it used to be since for whatever reason one of them being that there are less people on here that actually work in the industry in comparison to one of us that don’t now than there used to be. If I did work at an airline that had rules about what I could and couldn’t post on the internet such as company plans and things like this,but could mention that something might be happening along those lines with is generally the case (example an airline is coming out with a new livery and one working there can say that there is one coming but can’t really describe it or leak it) I would get very frustrated when people that don’t work there and don’t know any better demand a source or proof.

richierich · Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:15 pm

jumbojet wrote:
AA94 wrote:
There are no plans for B6 to pick up anything larger than the 321 at this point. Perhaps if TATL pans out, the company will start thinking about widebody aircraft, but JetBlue is a conservative airline, and they're not going to introduce TATL service and a widebody aircraft at the same time, especially with the realities of pilot contract and inflight unionization. All changes will be incremental.

Then the airline is not being run by the right people. The BOD should fire all the top management folks at B6 and replace with folks who first off, know how to treat their employees (I hear employee morale is in the toilet) and secondly will take reasonable risk and buy the right plane for the right market

Thanks for making me laugh.
JetBlue should just listen to jumbojet, the man with all the answers!

Boof02671 · Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:18 pm

arcticcruiser wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
airbazar wrote:

It's worth pointing out that "Carrier imposed surcharge" is a fancy way of saying "more money" and artificially reduce the fare value. In other words: it's a bookkeeping scam.
It started as a "fuel surcharge" when oil prices ballooned to nearly $100/bbl but then when oil prices collapsed they changed the description from "Fuel surcharge" to what you see now. No airline is under any obligation to demand that and it's entirely up to the airline whether to collect this "fuel surcharge" or not and how much.

Yet.
Like i said, they can operate ETOPS 120 routes on day 1 which is all you need for TATL.

Hawaii is a completely different ball game. It requires ETOPS 180. It's also entirely up to WN how long they want to take on deciding to establish their ETOPS program. DY did it in only 1 year.

What don’t you grasp?

Just because a plane is ETOPS capable doesn’t mean they can fly an ETOPS route.

They have to have a FAA approved ETOPS program.

Pilots, mechanics, dispatchers, flight attendants, stock clerks and vendors have to trained.

Those planes are not ETOPS maintained at JetBlue.

You can argue back and forth I’m speaking with 20 years in Aircraft Maintenance.

Are B6’s A320 equipped with rafts, EPRs, HF radios, etc?

ETOPS certified and capable planes are in a special maintenance program which JetBlue isn’t following, nor approved for.

Flight Attendants, stock clercks and vendors ETOPS trained? Why not the accountants? This is bollocks. Having flown ETOPS since 1990, I can tell you you are making this out to be much more complicated than it is.

Apparently you have no clue about ETOPS and what it entails.

Different equipment and procedures for flight attendants vs a non ETOPS flight.

Stock Clerks handle all the aircraft parts and ETOPS equipped planes have certain different components.

And JetBlue won’t have their own maintenance in Europe so vendors will be required to perform the mandated ETOPS check for the plane to be dispatched for its flight back.

Instead of attacking someone, ask them to clarify their post.

Boof02671 · Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:19 pm

I worked ETOPS Maintenance on 762, A333, A332 and 757.

Even the person who serviced tha lavs and water has to sign their block off on the check paperwork.

fastmover · Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:31 pm

767333ER wrote:
fastmover wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

And you know for a fact how they will proceed? Short of a decision being made, it is indeed all rumors. Or gossip. Or unsubstantiated chit chat. Or whatever you wish to label it.

Exactly BUT sometimes rumors are true.
I have known about the LGB announcement for a few months but can’t give details.

Just saying some people on here know more than you may think.

It is also a discussion board this is exactly what we do talk about.

Exactly, this has become one of the problems here. Many complain that it isn’t the way it used to be since for whatever reason one of them being that there are less people on here that actually work in the industry in comparison to one of us that don’t now than there used to be. If I did work at an airline that had rules about what I could and couldn’t post on the internet such as company plans and things like this,but could mention that something might be happening along those lines with is generally the case (example an airline is coming out with a new livery and one working there can say that there is one coming but can’t really describe it or leak it) I would get very frustrated when people that don’t work there and don’t know any better demand a source or proof.

Exactly right.
It would be like me going into a military forum without every serving and telling people they are wrong.

This industry is fueled by rumors.

pitbosflyer · Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:37 pm

richierich wrote:

Thanks for making me laugh.
JetBlue should just listen to jumbojet, the man with all the answers!

I mean why doesn't B6 have a hub in ATL?? The only thing they can do to succeed is hub widebodies out of DTW. Lol

MD80MKE · Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:47 pm

Reuters said A220 (CSeries) is a "lock" now. And it looks like Airbus provided B6 some early delivery slots for A321neo to win this order.

The CSeries has been locked in a fierce competition for a deal to supply jets to U.S. carrier JetBlue (JBLU.O) and is in poll position to win as Airbus also offers more attractive delivery positions on its larger planes, industry sources said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1K015H

PlanesNTrains · Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:16 pm

MD80MKE wrote:
Reuters said A220 (CSeries) is a "lock" now. And it looks like Airbus provided B6 some early delivery slots for A321neo to win this order.

The CSeries has been locked in a fierce competition for a deal to supply jets to U.S. carrier JetBlue (JBLU.O) and is in poll position to win as Airbus also offers more attractive delivery positions on its larger planes, industry sources said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1K015H

I don't read that quite the same way as you do. "Locked" just means "enjoined" or something akin to that. "Locked in battle" vs "Locked order":

"The CSeries has been locked in a fierce competition for a deal to supply jets to U.S. carrier JetBlue (JBLU.O) and is in poll position to win as Airbus also offers more attractive delivery positions on its larger planes, industry sources said."

It doesn't mention the A321neo either, though I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they are referring to. I take it as meaning the "larger" A320 series.

Obviously the article implies a deal is imminent - I just don't see the actual wording telling us as much.

Quantos · Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:25 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
MD80MKE wrote:
Reuters said A220 (CSeries) is a "lock" now. And it looks like Airbus provided B6 some early delivery slots for A321neo to win this order.

The CSeries has been locked in a fierce competition for a deal to supply jets to U.S. carrier JetBlue (JBLU.O) and is in poll position to win as Airbus also offers more attractive delivery positions on its larger planes, industry sources said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1K015H

I don't read that quite the same way as you do. "Locked" just means "enjoined" or something akin to that. "Locked in battle" vs "Locked order":

The CSeries has been locked in a fierce competition for a deal to supply jets to U.S. carrier JetBlue (JBLU.O) and is in poll position to win as Airbus also offers more attractive delivery positions on its larger planes, industry sources said.

It doesn't mention the A321neo either, though I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they are referring to. I take it as meaning the "larger" A320 series.

I read it the same, yes. I don't think there's no new information here, just a wild guess that the A220/C Series might be in the lead now that Airbus is in control.

avi8 · Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:08 pm

It would be really dumb from B6 if they didn’t consider the CS-Series. And it would be dumb for airbus to not make aggressive offers. All of that said, I really wish B6 buys the E-Jets.

PlanesNTrains · Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:19 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
Nothing is final until they release an official announcement. Boeing/Embraer can still sweep in with a more attractive proposal. From my understanding, JetBlue was close to ordering the E2 last year before Airbus announced that they were buying the CSeries.

What does Boeing have to offer? They aren't even part of the process at this stage, unless someone believes that JetBlue is open to bringing 737s onboard?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net