jetBlue Orders More Fuel Efficient and Larger Aircraft

[firedude 985]

The Forest Hills, NY-based airline has purchased 40 more fuel efficient Airbus A320neo aircraft, and converted 30 of its 52 outstanding classic A320 orders to larger A321 aircraft.

Full Article (from NYCAviation.com)

Very interesting, can't wait to what routes they would be added to. Cound we see these new aircraft at HPN? Probably not.

This Photo shows the new A321 with winglets in jetblue colors (Rendering by Airbus/Fixion)

[voltage1256 42]

Probably wont see these guys at HPN. As B6 is fading towards the E190 on most routes into HPN. Is that indeed the official winglet? Or are they remaining with the current signature triangle winglet? Either way... interesting choice on JBLU's end.

[x635 4,066]

Although these new planes are awesome, and I want to see what new markets they open us, jetBlue has lost me as a loyal customer and fans

They are no different then any other airline now. They constantly have performance problems, the customer service sucks, planes are filthy, and most of the time friends, family, and I have flown- the TV's didn't work or worked poorly. Since that's one of their main selling points, you'd think they would do something about that-especially since they own the company who installs and repairs these TV's! And the "free snacks"...you used to get a large portion of snacks and a full can of a beverage...now the snacks sizes are minicule, and they give you this tiny can for beverages.

They also don't have any plans to offfer Wi-Fi on board anytime soon.

We'll see how this pans out.....hopefully they will become the jetBlue I knew and loved once again. Not that I'm planning to travel anytime soon, but whenever I do,it will probaly be whoever has the direct flight at the lowest cost.

[dadbo46 50]

Although these new planes are awesome, and I want to see what new markets they open us, jetBlue has lost me as a loyal customer and fans

They are no different then any other airline now. They constantly have performance problems, the customer service sucks, planes are filthy, and most of the time friends, family, and I have flown- the TV's didn't work or worked poorly. Since that's one of their main selling points, you'd think they would do something about that-especially since they own the company who installs and repairs these TV's! And the "free snacks"...you used to get a large portion of snacks and a full can of a beverage...now the snacks sizes are minicule, and they give you this tiny can for beverages.

They also don't have any plans to offfer Wi-Fi on board anytime soon.

We'll see how this pans out.....hopefully they will become the jetBlue I knew and loved once again. Not that I'm planning to travel anytime soon, but whenever I do,it will probaly be whoever has the direct flight at the lowest cost.

What is the weight of the A321 ? That will probably determine if it can utilize HPN.

As for me, my frequent trips between HPN and MCO have mostly been with Air Tran. While they have only one direct flight a day, I agree with Seth, Jet Blue is starting to look like all of the legacy airlines......especially their prices !

[firedude 985]

What is the weight of the A321 ? That will probably determine if it can utilize HPN.

As for me, my frequent trips between HPN and MCO have mostly been with Air Tran. While they have only one direct flight a day, I agree with Seth, Jet Blue is starting to look like all of the legacy airlines......especially their prices !

I do not think that Airbus has realeased the new performance and specs on the new A321. It's not just weight that determines whether or not it can use HPN's 6500ft runway. The county and the FAA would have to approve it, and I don't think that will happen. It won't fit in the gate area since it is a lot longer then the A320 and the over-crowded terminal and parking structure can't handle more volume. A lot of things would have to change if jetBlue wants to bring the A321 to HPN. It is more likley that the new A321s would fly the more popular routes, like JFK-MCO, JFK-LAS and JFK-LAX. What I am looking foward to seeing is what happen when Southwest come to HPN, now that should be interesting!

Anyway, I did some research and this is what I fould. All this info is for the old A321 and not the new A321 which jetBlue ordered. The A321 has a wheelbase of 55ft, which is to wide HPN's widest taxiway which is only 60ft wide. The A321 is 146ft long, which would require the airport to do serious improvemnets. The range is listed as 3,600 miles. The A321 does operate out of LGA's 7,001ft runways, but uses most, if not all, of the runway on warm summer days. jetBlue built their new terminal (T6) with the idea that they would purchase larger aircraft. So they are ready for it at JFK but not HPN.

Edited June 22, 2011 by firedude

[JBE 328]

I'm a little surprised, Seth. I have only had one issue in nearly ten years of flying JetBlue, and that was the plane ran low on fuel because of a holding pattern at JFK and we diverted to Stewart to gas up. Never a problem with them ever. I'm looking forward to seeing these new planes.

[mfc2257 464]

Anyway, I did some research and this is what I fould. All this info is for the old A321 and not the new A321 which jetBlue ordered. The A321 has a wheelbase of 55ft, which is to wide HPN's widest taxiway which is only 60ft wide.

Typically when the term wheelbase is used, it is referring to the length between the midpoint of the front wheels or axle

And the same of the rear, not width as you hypothosise with regard to the taxiway.

[firedude 985]

Typically when the term wheelbase is used, it is referring to the length between the midpoint of the front wheels or axle

And the same of the rear, not width as you hypothosise with regard to the taxiway.

Yea, your're right. my appoligies for any confusion.

[mfc2257 464]

I'm not sure why an A321 would represent such an issue for HPN. The A318, 319, 320, 321 are essentially variants of the same airframe with the 318 being the shortest and the 321 being the longest. They use the same tube to form the cabin and add or remove sections depending on the model. Avionics will be similar and pilots can be certified across the model line (not on A330, 340, upcoming 350, or double decker 380 which are unique airframes not related to the 318-321 series). Fuel capacity and engine choice most likely vary between them. I suspect a 321 is about 20 feet longer than a 320.

[dwcfireman 656]

As someone who works in the Westchester County Airport Operations Department, I would like to throw my 2 cents in, as well as clarify some things.

voltage1256: Is that indeed the official winglet? Or are they remaining with the current signature triangle winglet?

I see that you are a pilot, and as one aviation professional to another, I'm going to teach you something new. The "signature" triangle winglet that you see on jetBlue's A320's is indeed a winglet. A winglet is an attachment to the wing tip to assist in the disruption of vortices that create uneven airflow around the ailerons (for those unfamiliar with the term, these are the flaps that control the roll of an aircraft). The E190 that jetBlue currently flies, and the new A321 series that they are purchasing, have blended wing tips, which is a wing tip that curves upward. I didn't know this before I worked at the airport. It's just an interesting point that I thought I could share. As far as the order goes, the A321 tends to be delivered with the blended wing. I don't see jetBlue changing that to a winglet.

firedude: It's not just weight that determines whether or not it can use HPN's 6500ft runway.

You are 100% correct. Officially Runway 16/34 (the main runway) is measured at 6548 feet. Typically commercial aircraft land at the aiming points (the large white boxes painted on the runway), and those are located 500 from the either end. So now we're looking at 6000 feet of runway. Thankfully turbine (jet) aircraft have thrust reversers, which assist in decelerating during landing, and the aircraft stop and exit the runway well before the end. This is where weight comes into play. dadbo46, you asked about the A321's weight. To break it down for you, the A320 has a maximum take-off weight of 170,000 lbs versus the A321 at 206,000 lbs (I know I switched from landing capabilities to take-off, just hang with me while I explain). With these weights, the A320 needs 6860 feet of runway to take off, whereas the A321 would need 8400 feet. The A320 is the largest aircraft servicing HPN at this time, and if it has a full passenger load then weight needs to be reduced elsewhere. That weight comes out of the fuel tanks. jetBlue cannot take off out of HPN with full fuel, which is why we don't have more popular flights, i.e. Las Vegas. Just by going off of take-off weights and the loads that jetBlue carries, I can tell you right now that we will never see the A321 fly commercially in and out of Westchester.

Another issue with the runway, playing off the above information, is the weight that it can handle. The current runway design is not for heavy aircraft. RWY 16/34 takes a beating from every A320, B737, A319, etc that lands and takes off. There is a plan in place to redesign and rebuild the runway to accommodate the weights of these aircraft, but the new design still will not be able to withstand a landing from a A321.

firedude: All this info is for the old A321 and not the new A321 which jetBlue ordered.

Yes, the weights above are for the "old" A321, however, the weights for the new A321 will be much similar. Aircraft manufacturers don't tend to change much of a design if they intend to keep the "new and improved" design within the same family.

firedude: HPN's widest taxiway which is only 60ft wide.

Sorry, man, but I have to call you out on this one. Taxiway A is 75 feet wide full length, as is most of C and L, parts of K, and high-speed exit G. The rest of the primary taxiways are 50 feet wide. But you bring up an excellent point about the size of the aircraft. The main gear on the A321 are 55 feet apart! That means the aircraft is going into the grass if it tried to taxi along half the field. Mind you, HPN is designed for it's largest aircraft to be the Boeing 737 Classic (the 300, 400, and 500 series). The A320 is just a little bigger that the B735, so we're already pushing the limits that we can handle. You also mention the A321 is 146 feet long. Well, the A320 is 123 feet long, and I can tell you first hand that it barely fits on the gates. Granted, HPN will be undergoing major construction in the near future; increasing the size of the gates, increasing the size of the terminal, etc, but I will remind you of what I previously mentioned. The A321 cannot land or take off out of Westchester.

Now, since this website is a forum for emergency services information, I'm going to explain the ARFF requirement and the effect it could have: Federal Aviation Regulation states that an ARFF index is determined by the longest commercial aircraft that lands at the airport, as long as it averages 5 or more landings per day in the busiest week of a 12 calendar month period. For Westchester that is ARFF Index B, aircraft 91 feet in length up to but not including 126 feet. Our determining aircraft is the A320, as mentioned before ate 123 feet long. At a minimum we are required to provide one vehicle that carries and applies a minimum of 500 lbs of a sodium-based dry chemical extinguishing agent, 1500 gallons of water, and a commensurate quantity of foam concentrate for 2 tanks of water. Current HPN has double this capacity, operating two Oshkosh Striker 1500's (if you've never seen one, look at firedude's avatar). Now, if the A321 were to service HPN to the point where we need to change the ARFF index, we would have to upgrade to Index C. But, alas, HPN already meets the standard for Index C. With two trucks we already provide the minimum; 500 lbs of a sodium-based dry chemical extinguishing agent, 3000 gallons of water, and a commensurate quantity of foam concentrate for 2 tanks of water. But what if one of the trucks breaks down? Our back-up is a 1987 P-19 with only 1000 gallons of water. So if we have one Striker and one P-19, we now only have 2500 gallons of water. Now the airport is out of standard, which will cause the airlines to change schedules and swap out aircraft, costing an insurmountable amount of money, until that second Striker is operational. People don't really ever think about it, but any little hiccup can cause the airline industry to spin out of control.

mfc2257: Avionics will be similar and pilots can be certified across the model line...

Even though the aircraft are extremely similar and are indeed members of the same family, current FAA regulations still require training and check rides for each aircraft type. That means a pilot would have to train and check out on the A318, 319, 320, and 321 individually. I'll leave you with the reminder that the FAA is a federal government agency, and 99% of the stuff they come up with will never make sense.

[firedude 985]

dwcfireman: my apoliges for the mix in info. I am never on Alpha, or on the north side of the airfield. I am always on Kilo and Lima. Taxiways are a lot smaller on the southern side.

Is the airport going through renovations? I know they are doing some work on the ramp but little work has been done to the terminal or parking garage. They keep talking about building a new airport garage in armonk, but it looks lees and less likely. As for the runway (16/34), it seems to be in good condition. I'm comparing it to some of the terrible runways I've landed on. When is it due for repaving?

As for ARFF, don't you have 4 trucks? 2 Oshkoshs, 1 E-one and 1 P-19? Do you consider the spill cart part of your "apparatus"? Sorry to disapoint you but my avatar is of LGA's ARFF not HPNs, although they do look simmilar. Do you have any pics to share of HPN arff? And do you ever think HPN will upgrade to a "C" index?

Edited June 23, 2011 by firedude

[dwcfireman 656]

dwcfireman: my apoliges for the mix in info. I am never on Alpha, or on the north side of the airfield. I am always on Kilo and Lima. Taxiways are a lot smaller on the southern side.

Is the airport going through renovations? I know they are doing some work on the ramp but little work has been done to the terminal or parking garage. They keep talking about building a new airport garage in armonk, but it looks lees and less likely. As for the runway (16/34), it seems to be in good condition. I'm comparing it to some of the terrible runways I've landed on. When is it due for repaving?

As for ARFF, don't you have 4 trucks? 2 Oshkoshs, 1 E-one and 1 P-19? Do you consider the spill cart part of your "apparatus"? Sorry to disapoint you but my avatar is of LGA's ARFF not HPNs, although they do look simmilar. Do you have any pics to share of HPN arff? And do you ever think HPN will upgrade to a "C" index?

The renovations at the airport are still in the beginning phases. First we're reconstructing parking lots to accommodate rental cars and meet security regulations, as well as alleviate traffic in front of the main terminal. The ramp will increase in size (eventually), and drastically, when a TWY A restructuring project happens. This won't be for a while, though. The runway does need to be replaced, and that will most likely start in 2013, along with a realignment of 11/29. As far as that parking garage in Armonk, your guess is as good as mine.

We no longer have the E-One Titan. It was sold about three years ago after being replaced with the '07 Striker (The E-One was the old ARPT7). And, no, the spill cart doesn't count. The spill cart actually falls under the environmental department rather than ARFF. And an interesting little piece of information: ARPT11 is actually from the same batch of Strikers as the Port Authority's 1500s.