lots of fuel stops for B6

[corl737]

Personally, if you have an aircraft that is truly transcon capable, than that aircraft should be able to go up against a 150kt jetstream and make it with some room to spare. Anything over that is difficult.

I rarely hear about the 737/700 operators having this much trouble making it non-stop.

Airlines generally schedule based upon the industry-standard benchmark of the Boeing 85% winds (the wind strength expected 85% of the time). The last couple of days have been well in excess (nearly double?) of that! (I flew a 737-700 from MDW to LAS yesterday with 180+ knots right on the nose at Flight Level 380. What should have easily been a 3:55 flight turned into 4:50 without any ATC contribution.

I was lucky that my destination had good weather and I didn't need to carry extra fuel to go to an alternate destination. A lot of jetBlue's destinations on the west coast were not in such good-weather scenarios. By requiring the aircraft to carry an additional 2-3,000 pounds to reach an alternate many of their flights simply didn't have the tank capacity (or weight carrying ability) to make the primary destination nonstop against those winds.

Some days it just blows!

 

[LGA / 037]

That's because they're flying the A320. I wonder if US Airways is having the same problem?
This is a great way for B6 to build their loyal passenger club!

US took a couple of fuel stops primarily on PHL/SAN run with the A320. We also took one on the PHL/LAX with the A321. But not nearly as many as B6 has taken. Even UAL flew a 767-300 here yesterday LGA/DEN with a fuel stop in DTW !

 

[AIRBORN1]

US took a couple of fuel stops primarily on PHL/SAN run with the A320. We also took one on the PHL/LAX with the A321. But not nearly as many as B6 has taken. Even UAL flew a 767-300 here yesterday LGA/DEN with a fuel stop in DTW !

I've been flying the 757 JFK/SFO no stops.
Jetblue, is really getting hit hard. Had a Pilot on
my flight from JB, and said that it's gotten bad now
at JB. He says he is worried.. XUAL pilot also.

 

[norman]

Airlines generally schedule based upon the industry-standard benchmark of the Boeing 85% winds (the wind strength expected 85% of the time). The last couple of days have been well in excess (nearly double?) of that! (I flew a 737-700 from MDW to LAS yesterday with 180+ knots right on the nose at Flight Level 380. What should have easily been a 3:55 flight turned into 4:50 without any ATC contribution.

I was lucky that my destination had good weather and I didn't need to carry extra fuel to go to an alternate destination. A lot of jetBlue's destinations on the west coast were not in such good-weather scenarios. By requiring the aircraft to carry an additional 2-3,000 pounds to reach an alternate many of their flights simply didn't have the tank capacity (or weight carrying ability) to make the primary destination nonstop against those winds.

Some days it just blows!

Yes, you are right. My thinking that A320's or B737's should be able to go non-stop with 150kts is a bit flawed.
Very tough week for any carrier going Westbound for any distance. Jetblue was not the only one that had issues with it.

 

[Hope777]

I can tell you that USAirways (WEST) did leave passengers behind on the EWR-PHX run to add the Extra Fuel. Some Aircraft made it while others did not, based on Engine type.

 

[B.O.B.]

It felt like we were flying to Tokyo.

So it took you 14 hours ? That was a walk in the park compared to NRT!

 

[LGA / 037]

I can tell you that USAirways (WEST) did leave passengers behind on the EWR-PHX run to add the Extra Fuel. Some Aircraft made it while others did not, based on Engine type.

At LCC,
Almost all A321 and A320 Westcoast out of Phl stopped in MCI,IND,PHX or DFW even for fuel. The A319's were fine.

 

[flytchick]

I work for US and worked a PHX-JFK flight on Friday with a flying time of 3 hours 38 minutes........... that is unheard of!! Next day - fuel stop in MCI. Captain said head winds were ranging from 170-180 knots - when we landed in MCI for fuel, they told us that they were anticipating another 14 aircraft there that day for refueling.

 

[767jetz]

US took a couple of fuel stops primarily on PHL/SAN run with the A320. We also took one on the PHL/LAX with the A321. But not nearly as many as B6 has taken. Even UAL flew a 767-300 here yesterday LGA/DEN with a fuel stop in DTW !

Actually, UA 353 planned a fuel stop in DTW because of LGA taxiway weight restrictions, not head winds. I was actually in LGA that day trying to get to DEN with the wife. Didn't make it.

Due to a cancellation of a full flight the day before, UA had many stranded passengers in NY. UA chose to send a 767 in to get them all out. Unfortunately, with the LGA weight restrictions, the choice was leave people behind or take everyone and stop short for fuel.

 

[SoftLanding]

Actually the one time in my six years on the Airbus(between two companies) that I had to divert was when I worked for U. It happened PHL-SFO on a 32o.
In my 3.5 years at B6 I have never had to make a stop for fuel and I fly transcons 95% of the time. I've seen this happen maybe once or twice a year in my time at B6. Unfortunately when it happens it does for a few days in a row.

On a related note the flyoff between two new winglet designs for the 320 will take place soon over the next few months. If everything goes to plan that will be a 3-5% fuel savings which may very well make the difference in stopping or not.

Care to comment on the "fly-off"? Never heard of it before...

Thanks.

 

[B6Busdriver]

Care to comment on the "fly-off"? Never heard of it before...

Thanks.

Airbus is going test their own new and improved winglet design versus a third party design. The flight testing will use a B6 A320. Fly off was their verbage used in the article not mine.

 

[PhxMama]

With all the headwinds and extra fuel necessary, I hear US Airways has left a lot of bags behind and they are starting to pile up. Is B6 having the same issues?

 

[SoftLanding]

Airbus is going test their own new and improved winglet design versus a third party design. The flight testing will use a B6 A320. Fly off was their verbage used in the article not mine.

I got it, thanks.


AIRBUS TO TEST NEW WING TIP DEVICES FOR A320 FAMILY
FEBRUARY 16, 2006


Airbus is studying the value of new wing tip devices for its Single-Aisle Family as part of its commitment of continuous improvement. Airbus seeks to apply innovations to its products whenever it makes sense and brings real benefits to operators.

Wing tip devices are designed to improve wing aerodynamics and thus reduce fuel burn.

Two different new wing tip device types will be flight-tested on Airbus’s A320 development aircraft in March. In addition, JetBlue Airways Corporation, the New York-based low-cost carrier, will also provide an aircraft for part of the flight test program. Winglet Technology LLC, located in Wichita, Kansas, will provide one of the winglet designs for testing.

With the advent of more sophisticated analysis techniques, in particular in the context of A380 development, Airbus recently reviewed the application of more advanced methodologies to the A320 Family wing. This allows Airbus today to consider the application of new wing tip devices.

The first set of wing tip devices arrived at the A320 final assembly line in Toulouse at the beginning of February, with the second set due to arrive a few weeks later. During a series of flight tests in the coming months, a large set of parameters will be recorded. Depending on the outcome of a thorough analysis of the results achieved, Airbus will decide later this year on the way forward.

Airbus is an EADS joint company with BAE Systems.

 

[MAH4546]

I rarely hear about the 737/700 operators having this much trouble making it non-stop.

No, you don't, but it is comparing apples to oranges. The 73G is comparable to an A319, not an A320. The A319 would have zero problem doing these routes. Whereareas when Alaska Airlines uses 739s on trans-cons, they were notorious for making fuel stops, especially on MIA-SEA.

The A320 is comparable to a 738, and if a one-class 738 probably would have the same issues going trans-con.

 

[GroundedBoricua]

The difference may be that Jetblue has 156 seats and USair and UA have 132 seats. If the flights are full that is an additional 5,400 lbs of weight that Jetblue is carrying.

Personally, if you have an aircraft that is truly transcon capable, than that aircraft should be able to go up against a 150kt jetstream and make it with some room to spare. Anything over that is difficult.

I rarely hear about the 737/700 operators having this much trouble making it non-stop.

Neither the 737-800 with wing tips. Hell I did BOS-IAH on a 733 and it took 4:30.