JetBlue TrueBlue - JetBlue planning "major announcement" Tues 9 am

From businesswire.com (and lots of other places):


NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 9, 2003--JetBlue Airways Corporation (NASDAQ: JBLU) today said that it will webcast a company announcement made by David Neeleman, Chairman and CEO, and John Owen, CFO. The webcast will begin at 9:00 a.m. ET on Tuesday June 10, 2003.
To participate in the listen-only mode webcast, listeners should access the following website several minutes prior to the scheduled start time to allow sufficient time to register and download and install any necessary software:

http://investor.jetblue.com

For those unable to listen to the live broadcast, a replay will be available at the website address above for at least 60 days.

Any guesses as to what it says. The following are mine, some farfetched, some possible, and some are inspired by other sources.

1) FLL is going to build concourse A in Terminal 1 with international arrivals capability and B6 is going to start the long rumored FLL hub.

2) B6 is going to buy F9 and use DEN as a mid-con hub.

3)B6 is going to open a mid-con hub of it's own. USAviation suggested STL, which my gut says no since even WN has had lousy loads in and out of STL. However maybe Mid-America near STL, they havent had an airline since the new new Pan Am.

4)B6 is doing a massive international push to Canada, Mexico, and or the Caribbean. Maybe but if it is the Caribbean it would seem to suggest that FLL would become a hub.

5) A major fleet announcment, ordering either A321s, A319s, or A318s in some combination or another.

6) A rather far-fetched idea but a link up with FL in either ATL or JFK where FL serves smaller cities i.e. CAK, DAY and B6 handles larger cities i.e. PHL and long haul flights.

Anyone else care to toss their $.02 in?

[This message has been edited by GWU ESIA STUDENT (edited 06-09-2003).]

stock split

.

[This message has been edited by cab747 (edited 07-15-2003).]

According to the yahoo message boards, the announcement is going to be that B6 is buying Embraer RJ's...probably the 170 or 195 for short-haul traffic in the East. The thinking behind this is that this way they can reposition their A320's on transcons. Makes some sense since they are currently constrained only by the number of planes Airbus can churn out.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by j483n:
According to the yahoo message boards, the announcement is going to be that B6 is buying Embraer RJ's...probably the 170 or 195 for short-haul traffic in the East. The thinking behind this is that this way they can reposition their A320's on transcons. Makes some sense since they are currently constrained only by the number of planes Airbus can churn out.</font>

It would be sick if jetBlue buys Embraer 170s or 195s because their the only RJ out there that have similar seat width and seat pitch as the A320s and they look sweeeeeeeeeeeeet. They can benifit alot from it, such as serving more destinations on the east coast and get more slots at LGB because I heard that there are a whole bunch of "Regional" slots open at LGB. For LGB, they could use the RJ between LGB and OAK / LAS and use their regular slots for more med to long haul destinations. But I doubt the announcement will be about purchasing RJs since everyone at jetBlue like the idea of having a standarized fleet and the A318 can serve "regional" routes just as well as a RJ but than again A318 wont qualifiy for the empty RJ slots at LGB if jetBlue wants to have more flights than is allow at LGB.

CONFIRMED! 100 ERJ190's! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redface.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SkaterJasp:
It would be sick if jetBlue buys Embraer 170s or 195s because their the only RJ out there that have similar seat width and seat pitch as the A320s and they look sweeeeeeeeeeeeet. They can benifit alot from it, such as serving more destinations on the east coast and get more slots at LGB because I heard that there are a whole bunch of "Regional" slots open at LGB. For LGB, they could use the RJ between LGB and OAK / LAS and use their regular slots for more med to long haul destinations. But I doubt the announcement will be about purchasing RJs since everyone at jetBlue like the idea of having a standarized fleet and the A318 can serve "regional" routes just as well as a RJ but than again A318 wont qualifiy for the empty RJ slots at LGB if jetBlue wants to have more flights than is allow at LGB.</font>

I've heard the economics of the A318 totally suck because it is so heavy ...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
I've heard the economics of the A318 totally suck because it is so heavy ...</font>

According to Neeleman, the A318 and B717 were considered to be too big. Plus, the A318 doesn't have engine commonality with their IAE powered A320s. The IAE is not available for the A318 since its size blocks one of the shrunken A318's cargo doors. The CRJ was not chosen because they couldn't configure it with the specs they desired.

Neeleman went to great lengths to explain that the ERJ190 is NOT a typical cramped RJ and I agree. The plane looks like a small B737 but with wider seats (even more than the A320s) and 32 inch pitch.

See http://www.embraer.com/english/content/aeronaves/aviacao_comercial/erj190100/cross_section/

Embraer 190s.. MORE REASON TO FLY JETBLUE!!!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by pk45cu:
According to Neeleman, the A318 and B717 were considered to be too big.</font>

I guess by "too big" they meant passenger capacity wise ...

Embraer 190
Length: 119 feet
Wing Span: 94 feet
Height: 33 feet
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 111,000 lbs
One-class seating: 100

Boeing 717
Length: 124 feet
Wing Span: 93 feet
Height: 29 feet
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 110,000 lbs
One-class seating: 114

Airbus 318
Length: 103 feet
Wing Span: 106 feet
Height: 41 feet
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 131,000 lbs
One-class seating: 115

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SkaterJasp:
Embraer 190s.. MORE REASON TO FLY JETBLUE!!! </font>

So...where they gonna go with all these fancy new short-haul planes? Might we finally see JetBlue in the Midwest? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

(yes, I know they're not being delivered for another 2 years, but that's never stopped speculation before...seriously, what's the latest buzz on growth strategy?)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
Embraer 190
One-class seating: 100

Boeing 717
One-class seating: 114

Airbus 318
One-class seating: 115</font>

Also...

100 seats = 2 flight attendants.

the others would require 3 (for a maxed out all coach configuration).

I like what I hear about the deal:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0611jetblue11.html

Lets not kid ourselves they bought the plane because it was CHEAP! and can be financed CHEAP!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by why fly:
Lets not kid ourselves they bought the plane because it was CHEAP! and can be financed CHEAP!</font>

Cheap acquisition cost? Cheap to operate? Cheap to finance? There are multiple ways to define cheap here.

I'm sure Airbus tried to make the acquistion cost of the A318 as cheap as possible....but for the long term, they are not efficient enough.

So, let's hear it for being cheap all around!

About the new 100-seat plane, the company CEO said "We had an opportunity to launch this airplane, and you get special consideration from manufacturers when you launch a product ... it was too good to pass up. It's a great airplane."
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,505039301,00.html

Well, based on those stats, the A318 is a lot heavier with minimal pick up in passengers. I can see why that would turn out uneconomical relative to the 717 or the E190.

Embraer is lagging a year or more behind Bombardier in the development of larger RJs (in large part due to Embraer's total redesign, versus the "stretch" done on the CRJs), and they were in desparate need of a significant launch deal. The fact that this one was so huge is significant - as it will put the majors under pressure to respond in kind and to find ways to get around their scope clauses in order to fly similar smaller markets efficiently. Because of these factors, I'm sure it was a fierce sweetheart deal for B6.

I'm still not sure about the move, though. First of all, it absolutely complicates B6's model from a strategic perspective, and potentially erodes some of the key advantages. Secondly, this is a highly levered company, and this deal further increases their leverage. I am worried that expanding too quickly is going to create a debt burden that will be very difficult to manage. As long as they continue to perform, an additional equity offering is not out of the question. But if rapid expansion means they lose track of what makes them profitable, then capital may be hard to come by.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SkaterJasp:
They can benifit alot from it, such as serving more destinations on the east coast and get more slots at LGB because I heard that there are a whole bunch of "Regional" slots open at LGB. For LGB, they could use the RJ between LGB and OAK / LAS and use their regular slots for more med to long haul destinations. But I doubt the announcement will be about purchasing RJs since everyone at jetBlue like the idea of having a standarized fleet and the A318 can serve "regional" routes just as well as a RJ but than again A318 wont qualifiy for the empty RJ slots at LGB if jetBlue wants to have more flights than is allow at LGB.</font>

This is true about LGB. There are something like 40 more slots available to RJ's. That is why AS basically gave up the fight (with AA) against B6 at LGB and uses QX (Horizon) CRJ's for their service to Seattle.

Local news here in Dallas is talking about Jet Blue serving one of the Dallas airports.

Would anyone consider a small factor in this decision to go with Embraer over Airbus could have been Neeleman's sense of patriotism?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by koppelman:
Would anyone consider a small factor in this decision to go with Embraer over Airbus could have been Neeleman's sense of patriotism?</font>

Random reply after so long http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Personally, I don't think that 'patriotism' was a factor at all. Considering the fact that JetBlue is Airbus & not Boeing... why start now?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by koppelman:
Would anyone consider a small factor in this decision to go with Embraer over Airbus could have been Neeleman's sense of patriotism?</font>

Is Neeleman from Brazil? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Granted, many of the ERJ components are manufactured in the USA, but by the same token, many components of Boeing jets are built worldwide. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

While many components of Embraer Regional jets may be manufactured in the US, the company is based in São Jose dos Campos, Brasil. And yes, Neeleman is a Brasilian.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by koppelman:
While many components of Embraer Regional jets may be manufactured in the US, the company is based in São Jose dos Campos, Brasil. And yes, Neeleman is a Brasilian.</font>

How 'bout that. I never knew, but David was born in São Paulo, and lived in Brasil until age 12! You'd sure never think it to hear him speak!