7e7's For Jetblue

[FM2436]

I just read in the May/June issue of Aircraft Economics magazine (page 13) that jetBlue has signed a Letter of Intent for 20 Boeing 7E7s. The article mentions that jetBlue will use the aircraft to launch transatlantic service from its New York-JFK terminal to London-Gatwick.

Boy did I miss hearing about this. If this has already been posted, I apologize.

 

[jj]

Yea i heard the cap pay rate as 50$ 15$ hour for Fo. Just kidding no flames please!

 

[ITRADE]

I'm really interested to see what the U.S. carriers do with the 7E7.

If they replace all 757s and 767s with 7E7s, replace only the 757s, or replace only the 767s.

Here are the following tech specs:

7E3 - 289 passengers 3,500 NM
7E8 - 217 passengers 8,500 NM
7E9 - 257 passengers 8,300 NM

The short range version seems a little big to be a 757 replacement, so I guess the plan would be use 737-900s to replace 757 operations, eliminate all 757s, and use 7Es as long range 757 ops and 767 ops.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

You must give credit to 'ol Dave Neeleman (jetBlueCEO) for always, always pushing the envelope edge.

But I wonder if Boeing would cut them a sweet deal similiar to jetBlue's Airbus and Embraer aircraft purchases.

Plus the blue airline would be complicating ops/costs as they expand fleet types.

I think Boeing has a huge winner with the 7E7, following the trend to smaller aircraft w/ more frequencies.

If Airbus were truly a private company they would never have launched the A380.

Already Airbus is having serious weight problems with that plane. I'll try to find the link or maybe someone else can post it.

 

[mweiss]

The short range version seems a little big to be a 757 replacement

-200, yes. But it's about the right size to replace the -300s. It may also be well-suited for DL's high-density, short hops in the South.

 

[FWAAA]

I don't see 757s going anywhere for 15-20 years. The line was canceled because nobody ordered any more of them; could be that UA, AA, DL, NW and the other operators already own enough of them. 738s and 739s can't do all that 757-200s do, so I don't really see the 7E7 as a replacement for the 757.

 

[mweiss]

738s and 739s can't do all that 757-200s do...

True enough, but what is it that you feel they need to do that a 757-200 does? They can fly between any two points in the continental US. For larger distances than that, the 7E7 seems the better choice anyway.

 

[BoeingBoy]

My 2 cents worth....

6 or 9 months ago, an analyst said that the 7E7 was an airplane designed for a carrier that didn't exist - a LCC with international presence. Who knows, maybe Dave saw that and it spawned an idea.

As for the 757/767 replacement, I suspect that the 7E7 will play that role over time. Will the 7E7 replace all the 75/76's in 10 years - probably not (NWA is still flying DC9's!). But if Boeing can meet their efficience projections (and they have a habit of doing that), the 7E7 will offer more capacity than the 757 at similiar trip cost, hence lower per seat mile cost. And the trip cost will be less than the 767, hence also lower per seat mile cost. Sounds like a win/win.

Jim

ps - someone mentioned weight problems with the A380. I've seen that it is 14 tonnes over projection (is a "tonne" the same as a "ton", or one of those metric things?)

 

[mweiss]

A "tonne" is a metric ton, which is 1,000kg or 1 million grams. It is similar enough to a US ton to be used as a rough equivalent; one metric ton is 2,204.6 pounds, or about 10% larger than a US ton.

So, if your number regarding the A380 is true, they're about 15.5 US tons, or 31,000 pounds, over plan.

 

[hp_fa]

Isn't Jet Blue significantly drifting from the Southwest example of one main type of aircraft? With a 7E7 this will make three types of aircraft.

 

[ITRADE]

A "tonne" is a metric ton, which is 1,000kg or 1 million grams. It is similar enough to a US ton to be used as a rough equivalent; one metric ton is 2,204.6 pounds, or about 10% larger than a US ton.

So, if your number regarding the A380 is true, they're about 15.5 US tons, or 31,000 pounds, over plan.

Thats a lot of weight - several pallets worth of cargo.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Since we've drifted off topic (my fault), the "14 tonnes" was reported in Av Week. Airbus is working on it so there is no reason to expect that the A380 will be that much over projections by the time deliveries start.

Jim

 

[FM2436]

Isn't Jet Blue significantly drifting from the Southwest example of one main type of aircraft? With a 7E7 this will make three types of aircraft.

Maybe,,,but Southwest isn't planning international service to Europe either. And if they were, Southwest certainly couldn't do it with even a 737NG.

 

[coolflyingfool]

I say to Jetblue - GO FOR IT! Why not. Hindsight is 20-20. You won't know if it works unless you try it.

 

[jbu320]

No firm facts here but I am hearing through fairly reliable sources that the Embraer is not coming to fruition as originally advertised. The 170 is already coming up short on performance from the predicted numbers. What I am hearing is that the fuselage is not large enough to carry the antennae dome for the live TV system and there was no overhead aisle space provided for the life rafts. The logistics effect is that the range has been reduced considerably with utilization of the bins for overwater equipment therefore reducing overhead storage, a different antennae must be designed and incorporated. Apparently there was no calculation for overwater operations in the original plans. This all adds up to a reduction in range of over 600NM from what I understand. Thus, making the E190 unable to serve the cities in the Carribean and Central America that JB wanted to operate to from JFK. I have also heard that the production is around 6 months behind promised delivery dates. Whether this is enough for the carrier to back off on their orders and let the leasing companies take the first 100 orders or justify taking on a different aircraft remains to be seen. Again, I emphasize this is only hearsay.