JetBlue TrueBlue - BUR-JFK, Short Runways = Passenger Cap

I chatted with a JetBlue FA on a flight the other day and she mentioned that the new Burbank - JFK flights would have middle seats in rows 4-10 blocked, most likely as a move to woo the clientele usually flying F and to cope with the short runways @ BUR.

It is probably important to note that while these seats are blocked, it's not a guarantee that they will be open.

JetBlue blocks rows 1-3, 12DEF (exit row) and 26DEF (onboard wheelchair stowage) usually reserved for airport assignment and working around families and groups, single travelers without a seat assignment might end up in one of the blocked middle seats.

Remember, rows 1-10 have 32 inches of pitch, 11-12 are exit rows, and 13-26 have 34 inches of pitch.

Might be helpful to know when booking those flights!. :)

Wow -- they have to waste 14 seats?! That's good info. to know if turns out to be correct.

This should be easy to check. If any FTer is booking a flight to/from BUR, please check the seat map to see if all middle seats in these rows are blocked.

My wonderful sister is a FA with JetBlue and she informed me from her cell phone in the cockpit with the pilot (during a brief OAK layover, btw, NOT in flight!) that this is indeed true. They must cap at 130 passengers.

Now that's big news. Is there a moderator for this forum? I suggest that this is worthy of a sticky topic (e.g., "FYI re BUR-JFK Flights"). Having a middle seat blocked next to you is one of the benefits of elite status on the legacy carriers. Thanks to you two, it's there for the asking for all FTers. Thanks!

Ok so now the question is do you go for the extra legroom in the back or the empty middle in the front... And I thought flying JetBlue would be simple :) .

I'd take the empty middle seat and give up the 2" of leg room (I'm 5'10"). You and the other person in your row would have the extra storage space, tray table, seat and arm rests. You could even angle your legs toward the middle if you like.

Thanks for the heads up.... Per the request I'm going to Sticky this thread....if something changes please let me know.... I don't think BUR will be seeing an A380 anytime soon....

It is probably important to note that while these seats are blocked, it's not a guarantee that they will be open.

JetBlue blocks rows 1-3, 12DEF and 26DEF usually reserved for airport assignment and working around families and groups, single travelers without a seat assignment might end up in one of the blocked middle seats.

It is probably important to note that while these seats are blocked, it's not a guarantee that they will be open.

JetBlue blocks rows 1-3, 12DEF and 26DEF usually reserved for airport assignment and working around families and groups, single travelers without a seat assignment might end up in one of the blocked middle seats.

It was my understanding that these seats were being blocked in compliance with a weight restriction at the airport, rather than as a courtesy to families and single travlers. Therefore, while nothing is for certain I would imagine that they would remain open, as JetBlue would not be allowed to violate the restrictions.

tdb, thats not true. Those rows reguarlly have pax in them, as I usually sit in 1F everytime I fly B6. This is good information to have about the 4-10 middle seats, on a transcon, not having someone next to you, awesome!

tdb, thats not true. Those rows reguarlly have pax in them, as I usually sit in 1F everytime I fly B6. This is good information to have about the 4-10 middle seats, on a transcon, not having someone next to you, awesome!

I know those rows usually have pax in them, but we were talking exclusively about BUR-JFK flights, not all transcons.

I'd personally value the blocked middle seat as 50% of a legacy carrier upgrade -- especially considering the decline in most transcon F food service.

I know those rows usually have pax in them, but we were talking exclusively about BUR-JFK flights, not all transcons.

tdb,
Sorry I misunderstood.. my apologies. ^

I am confused here. I thought the fuel stop/weight restriction problems were on the westbound flights (JFK to BUR), where you are flying into headwinds. Is this correct?

I am confused here. I thought the fuel stop/weight restriction problems were on the westbound flights (JFK to BUR), where you are flying into headwinds. Is this correct?

Perhaps, but the BUR-JFK eastbound flights will undoubtedly be weight restricted some of the time due to the relatively short runway (6,800 ft) combined with the frequent 100+ degree afternoons in the summertime. High temperatures = more runway needed to get off the ground.

Westbound flights have the benefit of JFK's much longer runways, which allow for flights at MTOW. Headwinds might mean a fuel stop, just like other westbound B6 transcons, but at least B6 can topoff the tanks at JFK. At BUR, the A320 can't be as heavy as it can be at JFK. Less weight = fewer passengers, fewer bags, less fuel (and/or some combination of all three).

Last year, LGB-JFK flights had to stop for fuel for a short while due to runway construction that effectively reduced the amount of fuel the eastbound flights could carry.

I am confused here. I thought the fuel stop/weight restriction problems were on the westbound flights (JFK to BUR), where you are flying into headwinds. Is this correct?

The only stops on the transcons that are related to fuel are west to east.

Just to clarify...

all westbound transcons are subject to fuel stops due to headwinds.

ex-BUR eastbound transcons are subject to fuel stops due to takeoff weight restrictions due to runway length.

During the winter season with strong headwinds and long westbound flight times (often 6:30+ coast to coast), it can be messy due to JetBlue having to make one of these decisions:

-Cap customer load for booking
-Cap customer load at flight time (restrict standbys, nonrevs - bags will typically be removed before any revenue customer)
-Cap baggage (sometimes resulting in 40+ bags left behind)
-Fuel stop en route (delay + unhappy customers)

Like other posters have said, BUR-JFK suffers from the short runways available at BUR, because the A320s cannot take off safely with maximum payload, hence the caps.

While the seats are indeed blocked in the airport check-in, reservations, and online booking systems, there is always a possiblity that someone could be moved to a blocked middle seat, if they do not have a seat assignment, or under an unusual circumstance such as a wheelchair being stowed on board in 26DEF or a space needed for a service animal in row 1.

JetBlue does try to "prep" flights a few days out, making sure to seat groups of 2+ together but this doesn't always happen, especially at the big statsions. Point being - while there is a good chance that those seats will remain open, on the full nights, do expect some of those to be filled.

Thanks for the caveats, a330300. Even with them, it sounds like middle seat open is a 90% chance or better -- considerably better odds than getting an upgrade if you're a low tier elite on a legacy carrier.

I just heard that they are going to experiment with charging $10 extra for a seat with a blocked, empty middle seat next to it. If so, that should be interesting.

They might be on to something there. I'd bet they could fetch $50 extra for those seats.

rumor was that america west would be doing the handling, but does anybody know. gate a9 is empty in bur and a8 is most of the day except for a couple of swa turns

It was my understanding that these seats were being blocked in compliance with a weight restriction at the airport, rather than as a courtesy to families and single travlers. Therefore, while nothing is for certain I would imagine that they would remain open, as JetBlue would not be allowed to violate the restrictions.

It has nothing to do with a weight restriction at BUR. There's no way a full 320 can take off and fly nonstop from BUR-JFK. The runway is just not long enough for it to get off the ground.

HP will be doing the ramp work, and B6 will have the 2 gates at the end of the concourse.

It has nothing to do with a weight restriction at BUR. There's no way a full 320 can take off and fly nonstop from BUR-JFK. The runway is just not long enough for it to get off the ground.

My apologies, but I'm not following you. You said that having the seats blocked has nothing to do with a weight restriction at BUR. Then you say there's no way a full 320 can take off and fly nonstop because the runraw isn't long enough, isn't that the same as saying there's a weight restriction?

I think that a flight that is weight-restrict is weight-restricted because of some factor intrinsic to the plane itself, such as fuel tanks that can't hold enough gas. The problem with Burbank is intrinsic to the airport -- the runway is reportedly too short for a fully-loaded plane to get off the ground.

Here's a post from a B6 pilot on another website on this issue:

Based on preliminary calculations, the A320 can get 157,000 pounds off a 6800 foot runway on a 77 degree day. That puts a full boat of pax, moderate bags, and 30,000 on the gas.

http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18880

30,000 may be enough to get to JFK, may not. Problem is, BUR can be a very hot place in the summer. Sunday, it was 86 degrees. That's May 15. Wait until July-September. :eek:

BUR isn't weight restricted, but transcons on A320s may be weight restricted.

BUR isn't weight restricted, but transcons on A320s may be weight restricted.

Do other airlines run into this problem too? I know that US flies a 320 LAX-PHL once a day (the others are 321s), isn't that about the same distance, do they ever have to stop? I've been a several B6 JFK-LGB runs and we've never had to stop, and the plane was full each time.

Do other airlines run into this problem too? I know that US flies a 320 LAX-PHL once a day (the others are 321s), isn't that about the same distance, do they ever have to stop? I've been a several B6 JFK-LGB runs and we've never had to stop, and the plane was full each time.

BUR has a much shorter runway than LGB (or LAX or PHL) at a mere 6,885 feet. LAX has twice as much runway, meaning the 320 can be loaded to maximum takeoff weight. But with only 6,995 feet of pavement and average summer afternoon temps at least 25-30 degrees hotter than LAX, it becomes obvious why WN hasn't scheduled any transcons from BUR-BWI or BUR-ISP. ;)

Last year, LGB embarked on some runway repairs, and closed its longer runway on several summer evenings.

http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3127

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=315086&highlight=fuel+lgb

The result was that some B6 LGB transcon flights had to stop for fuel (I think at LAS or ONT) to top off the tanks, since the reduced runway length caused the same problem that B6 will encounter at BUR on hot summer afternoons (when temps can easily top 100). Shorter the runway, the lighter the airplane must be. Same is true with temperature. The hotter it gets, the more field is required to takeoff. Short field = lighter airplane.

No airplane (that I know of) is capable of flying with 100% passenger load, a full complement of bags, max cargo, and completely full fuel tanks. Choices always have to be made: fewer pax or less cargo or less fuel or leave some bags behind. This tradeoff means that sometimes, westbound 320s flying transcons have to stop for fuel when headwinds are particularly strong (150+, for example) even though they took off from long fields like JFK or IAD. So occasionally, w/b flights have to weight restricted to avoid the fuel stop (so the tanks can be filled to capacity).

Before someone brings up other short runway airports, like SNA, bear in mind that those airports (and long flights from them) are usually dominated by airplanes like 757s, which have far superior short-field performance. The 757 was designed for such missions (long flights from high altitude/hot/short fields. The A320 really wasn't designed to fly those missions.

One upside for B6 pax in all of this is that eventually, Neeleman will probably conclude that removing a row of seats ahead of the emergency exits makes perfect sense, especially if B6 is gonna continue with transcons to places like BUR. That would give B6 true MRTC and would help alleviate the weight restrictions. Those six seats would free up over 1,500 pounds, which could be allocated to fuel. On top of that, they could leave one FA off the flight, further reducing their fixed costs. :)

One upside for B6 pax in all of this is that eventually, Neeleman will probably conclude that removing a row of seats ahead of the emergency exits makes perfect sense, especially if B6 is gonna continue with transcons to places like BUR. That would give B6 true MRTC and would help alleviate the weight restrictions. Those six seats would free up over 1,500 pounds, which could be allocated to fuel. On top of that, they could leave one FA off the flight, further reducing their fixed costs. :)

David Neeleman might eventually conclude that, but he isn't thinking that way right now. In an informal chat I had with him, I suggested that it might be a good idea to rip out a few rows of seats on his flights to and from BUR, akin to MRTC. He smiled and shook his head no, and told me they were just going to block the middle seats up front, and charge $10 extra for a seat with a blocked, empty middle seat next to it. We will see . . .

I think that a flight that is weight-restrict is weight-restricted because of some factor intrinsic to the plane itself, such as fuel tanks that can't hold enough gas. The problem with Burbank is intrinsic to the airport -- the runway is reportedly too short for a fully-loaded plane to get off the ground.

This gives me a little pause. Is there a significant risk that the pilots, gate agents, etc., forget about the BUR runway limitations and overload the plane? Or is this just so much a part of their everyday jobs that it's not worth pondering?

This gives me a little pause. Is there a significant risk that the pilots, gate agents, etc., forget about the BUR runway limitations and overload the plane? Or is this just so much a part of their everyday jobs that it's not worth pondering?

I have confidence that pilots are very cognizant of the amount of runway available to them and the maximum safe takeoff weight of their airplane each and every time they fly. No matter the airport. Adherence to safety concerns like this is why they get paid the big bucks. :)

Even if gate agents somehow loaded too many pax, the pilots always request a count before departure. FSCs who load bags take their jobs very seriously as well to avoid overloading jetliners. I wouldn't worry about it.

Of course, mistakes are occasionally made, like in the failure to properly calculate the amount of fuel on that airplane in/from Canada that ran out of gas and glided to an emergency landing a few years back, but those are very rare incidents. :)

Thanks. I'm not much of a worrier, it's just that the situation at BUR would seem to be very unusual for a lot of domestic commercial pilots.

Also keep in mind that there is always margin of error built into things like max takeoff weight. So even several simultaneous minor screw-ups are not going to affect safety.

I have confidence that pilots are very cognizant of the amount of runway available to them and the maximum safe takeoff weight of their airplane each and every time they fly. No matter the airport. Adherence to safety concerns like this is why they get paid the big bucks.

I have confidence in the guys up front too. However, a very recent exception to what you have stated is the crash of MK #1062 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=148355&highlight=halifax+lobster), a cargo 747, at Halifax.

Of course, mistakes are occasionally made, like in the failure to properly calculate the amount of fuel on that airplane in/from Canada that ran out of gas and glided to an emergency landing a few years back, but those are very rare incidents.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the 1983 Air Canada 767 better known as the Gimli Glider (http://www.answers.com/topic/gimli-glider) or the Air Transat 330 that made a dead-stick landing in the Azores in 2001 (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ts236/photo.shtml). If it's the later, the loss of fuel was due to a combination of improper maintenance and pilot error in cross-feeding fuel from a non-leaking tank to the leaking engine. Both very interesting cases, by the way. The Air Transat incident was recently re-enacted in the National Geographic channel's excellent Air Emergency series.

Hi,

This thread is getting rather airliners.netty. There are several issues with BUR, only some of which appear to have been taken into account by this forum and more by B6, but not all.

Firstly, it depends which weight version is being operated, I don't know which B6 have but the 73500 kg version has a range of around 2600 nm and the 77000kg version around 3050 nm in standard conditions. That means maximum take-off weight unlimited by runway length, obstacles, noise, at sea level and 15 degrees C (around 60F).

The airport is not at sea level, so the air is thinner. This means that the aircraft has to go faster to generate the same amount of lift. It also means that the engines have to get more down their throats to burn to get thrust.

The temperature can be high and this reduces the effective density of the air again for more of the same effects.

Now you have a short runway, with not to much slope, I seem to remember. You can use full power (as opposed to reduced thrust take-offs on longer runways) but there comes a point where you just have to start shedding pounds to meet the performance requirements for the runway.

Then the hill might impose climb restrictions which may, or may not, dominate the runway requirements.

Low cost carriers do not like denied boarding compensation claims so tend to only sell the amount of seats that they can actually go with. So, B6 appear to have said, for publicity and cash purposes, it is better to run partly empty and lose a small amount of revenue on the days when the temperature and runway direction would have allowed us to carry more, than to risk huge bumping of the scale indicated by the number of blocked seats.

Just watch what will happen if the flight is scheduled to depart and there has just been a thunderstorm with a downpour that soaks the runway. Have to wait till it dries out a bit before they can go as standing water at those weights will be a no-no.

The most interesting thing about G-B-P airport is the location of the terminal building, at least when I was last there. I was slated to do a risk assessment of the probability of an aircraft falling off the runway and then hitting the terminal building. The day that I was due to sign the contract with the FAA, the Adminstrator herself intervened and decided that it was too political to have this considered.

The airport had the closest terminal building to a runway in the US. That is why it was fortunate that the WN 737 that went off the end of the runway went off the end and not the side. The ATC procedures, approach procedures and flight deck procedures were dreadful. However, never let the FAA put safety in front of politics, especially with all those Hollywood stars using the place.

What is interesting is how all of the B6 pax are going to get back from BUR! will we find a huge hanger full of TrueBlue punters waiting in line and having a party for a couple of weeks before they can get out?

As for the landing distance, you can stop a 320 on the runway at max landing weight, but you might have trouble with short turn around times as the brake cooling time in 100F temperatures might cause a delay, just another reason for shedding pounds before you go.

Spottie.

Deleted for redundancy. Spottie and I said almost the exact same thing.

I landed last night at BUR on 293. We used almost the entire runway and then taxied up to the gate. But we bounced and you could tell the Captain did everything he could to get the plane slowed down and stopped. As a side note, every seat was full on this jet except the center seats in the first 10 rows, but they did move people into those seats once boarding had finished. I actually had a seat in row 24, which made getting off the plane that much easier.

I think this route will work out just fine for B6. Oh... and they pull in to the old Aloha gates at the very end of the A concourse and it's a long walk (about 1/4 a mile up) to the baggage claim.

I landed last night at BUR on 293. We used almost the entire runway and then taxied up to the gate. But we bounced and you could tell the Captain did everything he could to get the plane slowed down and stopped. As a side note, every seat was full on this jet except the center seats in the first 10 rows, but they did move people into those seats once boarding had finished. I actually had a seat in row 24, which made getting off the plane that much easier.

I think this route will work out just fine for B6. Oh... and they pull in to the old Aloha gates at the very end of the A concourse and it's a long walk (about 1/4 a mile up) to the baggage claim.

Not living in California, I wouldn't know the possibility of this, but is there any way to extend the runway. Just under 7000 feet is not very long. Are there homes in the way or is it technical issues?

On another forum, there was a thread about flight 290 today 5/27 BUR-JFK...had to make a fuel stop in BUF due to a long hold time coming into JFK (thunderstorms in vicinity).

Not living in California, I wouldn't know the possibility of this, but is there any way to extend the runway. Just under 7000 feet is not very long. Are there homes in the way or is it technical issues?

The airport is hemmed in by thoroughfares on all sides, but expansion would be possible, were it not for the political impossibility of expansion.

BUR has been plagued by NIMBYism the likes of which I have never seen anywhere else. When the TSA took over the checkpoints, and hogged all the available space, noisy citizens even protested a minor expansion program to alleviate the overcrowding caused by the TSA space hogging ways. Truly unbelievable opposition to any expansion at BUR.

A couple of years ago, the FAA threatened to sue BUR for the return of $42 million or so of federal funds provided to buy land for a new terminal that the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena have blocked for many, many years. After some delay, I think the FAA settled with the airport for a sizable fraction of the money.

Here's a map of the area around the airport:

http://image.maps.yahoo.com/mapimage?MAPDATA=wG_fGud6wXWo3jOBe1.QXuVrSqm3KB3wX QxVVWngAxVURzcJLxLpEC1DjBDZ06TrtrErpRu6tj_jPIOZ8ZR 9JhPhmM1Gu89smljq7rNjjavAcx0WFTItTIgImjYgogU29i0Kb h2vP4Q773XywZBp.fq8vTWOdMUd_MM-

I have mixed feelings about the expansion of BUR. I live by the flight path and hear almost all the flights. But it's a trade off I find worth it to go to the aiport. Having B6 and WN at the airport is a big plus. AA flies 4 flights a day to DFW, and now DL has it's daily ATL flight and SLC flights.

On another forum, there was a thread about flight 290 today 5/27 BUR-JFK...had to make a fuel stop in BUF due to a long hold time coming into JFK (thunderstorms in vicinity).

Appears to be very true. It ended up landing at JFK 2-1/2 hours late at 6:11 p.m.

Interesting to note... it looks like the heat is affecting B6's ability to service BUR this summer. Both the 294 (10:50 a.m.) and 292 (3:20) were not only late on departure out of BUR today, but were diverted to DEN, presumably for fuel. Does anybody have any indications it was for reasons other than a fuel stop? FYI.. it was over 100 at BUR today. So much for non-stop flights.

They should dump some seats and make it like UA's p.s. flights. :)

UA's "Economy Plus" on p.s. service is actually the same size as most of the seats on all jetBlue planes.

UA's "Economy Plus" on p.s. service is actually the same size as most of the seats on all jetBlue planes.

Cool!!! ^ ^

I guess you learn something new each day.

It's 94 degrees in BUR right now. How's that weight restriction to JFK? Any fuel stops?

It's 94 degrees in BUR right now. How's that weight restriction to JFK? Any fuel stops?

Ok, maybe not so cool... :D

Even if gate agents somehow loaded too many pax, the pilots always request a count before departure.


Let's hope that there's no Horizontally Challenged People Convention in Burbank with B6 the carrier of choice. :)

This gives me a little pause. Is there a significant risk that the pilots, gate agents, etc., forget about the BUR runway limitations and overload the plane? Or is this just so much a part of their everyday jobs that it's not worth pondering?

There are 2 people primarily responsible for the overall safety of all flights conducted under Part 121. They are the Pilot in command and the Dispatcher. No flight may be released without the consent and approval of both individuals. One of the joint responsibilities of the PIC and Dispatcher is preparing the Dispatch release. This entails (but is certainly not limited to) weather, flight plan, fuel, weight and balance, and weight restrictions.

There are many safety redundancies built in now. I would not worry so much about restrictions at an individual airport...they are a lot more common than you realize! Cheers!

John

The airport is hemmed in by thoroughfares on all sides, but expansion would be possible, were it not for the political impossibility of expansion.

BUR has been plagued by NIMBYism the likes of which I have never seen anywhere else. When the TSA took over the checkpoints, and hogged all the available space, noisy citizens even protested a minor expansion program to alleviate the overcrowding caused by the TSA space hogging ways. Truly unbelievable opposition to any expansion at BUR.

A couple of years ago, the FAA threatened to sue BUR for the return of $42 million or so of federal funds provided to buy land for a new terminal that the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena have blocked for many, many years. After some delay, I think the FAA settled with the airport for a sizable fraction of the money.

Here's a map of the area around the airport:

http://image.maps.yahoo.com/mapimage?MAPDATA=wG_fGud6wXWo3jOBe1.QXuVrSqm3KB3wX QxVVWngAxVURzcJLxLpEC1DjBDZ06TrtrErpRu6tj_jPIOZ8ZR 9JhPhmM1Gu89smljq7rNjjavAcx0WFTItTIgImjYgogU29i0Kb h2vP4Q773XywZBp.fq8vTWOdMUd_MM-

I think NIMBY's are scum. However, in this case, regardless of NIMBY's, I think it is silly, no, make that downright ridiculous, to consider expanding BUR just so that JetBlue can use a poorly designed airplane that is incapable of taking off from short runways with a heavy load.

It was my understanding that these seats were being blocked in compliance with a weight restriction at the airport, rather than as a courtesy to families and single travlers. Therefore, while nothing is for certain I would imagine that they would remain open, as JetBlue would not be allowed to violate the restrictions.

I don't fly jetBlue that often because of its lack of a premium cabin, but whenever I do, row 1 is always full. Last time I actually sat in 1F, and I thought the leg room as fine, though I'm only 5'8''. It's my understanding that row 1 is blocked for day-of-departure seat assignments.

It's a big deal .. if an engine quits below takeoff safety speed you need to be able to stop. There is no wiggle room at all on this under the regs commercial carriers fly under. Bad news is the distances are established by test pilots in brand new airplanes with perfect brakes and both reversers deploying.

Some bizjets can be a bit more adventurous under part 91.

The RWY15 over-run , the normal BUR departure runway, winds up in a graveyard after a road and railroad tracks... so not a good place to be on a gassed up A320!

I suspect the seats blocked are changed by winds aloft, and BUR temp, humidity and surface winds on day of flight.

I have confidence that pilots are very cognizant of the amount of runway available to them and the maximum safe takeoff weight of their airplane each and every time they fly. No matter the airport. Adherence to safety concerns like this is why they get paid the big bucks. :)

Even if gate agents somehow loaded too many pax, the pilots always request a count before departure. FSCs who load bags take their jobs very seriously as well to avoid overloading jetliners. I wouldn't worry about it.

Of course, mistakes are occasionally made, like in the failure to properly calculate the amount of fuel on that airplane in/from Canada that ran out of gas and glided to an emergency landing a few years back, but those are very rare incidents. :)

thats not entrely true, JetBlue only has 34 inch pitch in the rear portion of the A320s. PS economy plus is actually slight less then E+ in other aircraft. Its because of the first and business class configuration in the special ps757 that meant taking about 1 - 2 inches away from E+.

On flight #292 last night from Burbank to JFK, we had to make the stop in Buffalo to refuel, getting us in 2 hours late. The pilot told us that it was due to high winds in Burbank, which caused them to have to use a shorter than normal runway. He said they had a choice between leaving behind 25-30 people or taking less fuel, and he chose the less fuel route. It was a full flight, and not that warm in BUR (65 or so). Is this a further contingency that B6 has to deal with out of BUR, or was the pilot feeding us a line?

On flight #292 last night from Burbank to JFK, we had to make the stop in Buffalo to refuel, getting us in 2 hours late. The pilot told us that it was due to high winds in Burbank, which caused them to have to use a shorter than normal runway. He said they had a choice between leaving behind 25-30 people or taking less fuel, and he chose the less fuel route. It was a full flight, and not that warm in BUR (65 or so). Is this a further contingency that B6 has to deal with out of BUR, or was the pilot feeding us a line?

Pilot was telling the truth. Rwy 8/26 is only 5800 feet, over a 1000 feet shorter than 15/33. Winds this weekend were very strong, and were not the typical Santa Ana winds. A cold front blew through on Saturday, and cold winds continued through Sunday:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10218033/

It's cold here today. 36 F in the Valley. :)

Two hour arrival delays due to fuel stops are no fun, but then again, the 25-30 people who would have been left behind were probably happy to get on board even with the fuel stop delay.

Reminds me of a similar incident on AA. Several months ago, I was in LIM on an AA flight and right after they door closed, the Captain came on the intercom to tell us that we were going to wait for about 25 pax who had been mistakenly left off the airplane by the LIM gate agents. A woman next to me (in F, of course) begins whining to the FA about her tight connection and that she was "very unhappy." On and on she droned.

Once we were airborne, the pilots mentioned how happy the almost left-behind pax were to be able to get on the airplane and that they expected that we would be able to make up most of the delay. Of course, Annoying F Pax started up again with the whining. Finally, I'd heard enough and looked over at her and said "next time, don't book such a tight connection." If dirty looks could kill, FWAAA would be dead. :)

If dirty looks could kill, FWAAA would be dead. :)

Well, F DOES get a lot of whine served, right?

Seriously... I still want my idea implemented... the ability for pax to vote a fellow pax off the plane, Survivor style.

The tribe has spoken.

On flight #292 last night from Burbank to JFK, we had to make the stop in Buffalo to refuel, getting us in 2 hours late. The pilot told us that it was due to high winds in Burbank, which caused them to have to use a shorter than normal runway. He said they had a choice between leaving behind 25-30 people or taking less fuel, and he chose the less fuel route. It was a full flight, and not that warm in BUR (65 or so). Is this a further contingency that B6 has to deal with out of BUR, or was the pilot feeding us a line?

This is absolutely correct. It has been very windy since Saturday. I live 3 miles south of the airport in Toluca Lake, and the planes landing pattern has been directly overhead. Usually, they take off from this runway, but have been landing on this runway, as they do during most high winds from the nw, n, or ne.

Because BUR has incredibly short runways, and especially because B6 chooses to fly the A319, this is a reality of flying into or out of BUR either during extreme heat or during high winds. However, I would probaly say the percentile of diverted flights out of the 2920 annual flights into AND out of BUR is relatively small.

But this was one line that a pilot delivered I would take as highly credible.

i don't ever remember jetblue having the A319? on a much smaller scale, for every one flight that we hear about the moans and groans of people here complaining about an intermediate fuel stop, think of how many other flights have successfully completed this trip nonstop. i think it outweighs the negativity greatly, and i would think that there are many more just as happy with the thought that jetblue came to burbank and offered a nonstop service to the east coast.

Not a B6 flyer, so haven't been on this board much, but did want to clear up one BUR NIMBY issue. Glendale and Pasadena (and their reps on the Airport Authority) have been overwhelmingly in favor of the terminal expansion.

Of course, none of the traffic heads over either city. It's the folks in Burbank and North Hollywood that are affected.

And, like JeffreyT mentions -- it's a tough call. The very things that make BUR a great place to fly out of (no taxi times, tiny terminals, ease of driving in/out, golden age of flight charm) would probably be lost in an expansion.

But, back on thread, seems to me that B6, like most things, has been handling this whole situation rather well.

i think its time to remove the sticky on this thread.

Please remove the sticky on this thread.

Not anymore!!!

I chatted with a JetBlue FA on a flight the other day and she mentioned that the new Burbank - JFK flights would have middle seats in rows 4-10 blocked, most likely as a move to woo the clientele usually flying F and to cope with the short runways @ BUR.

It is probably important to note that while these seats are blocked, it's not a guarantee that they will be open.

JetBlue blocks rows 1-3, 12DEF (exit row) and 26DEF (onboard wheelchair stowage) usually reserved for airport assignment and working around families and groups, single travelers without a seat assignment might end up in one of the blocked middle seats.

Remember, rows 1-10 have 32 inches of pitch, 11-12 are exit rows, and 13-26 have 34 inches of pitch.

Might be helpful to know when booking those flights!. :)

This is NOT true anymore.

This is NOT true anymore.

How about today? 112 F at BUR this afternoon. Wouldn't surprise me if several rows remained empty and the eastbound flights from BUR had to stop for fuel. Almost two weeks now with temp over 100 F in most of the valley.

How about today? 112 F at BUR this afternoon. Wouldn't surprise me if several rows remained empty and the eastbound flights from BUR had to stop for fuel. Almost two weeks now with temp over 100 F in most of the valley.

Hello Everyone.
New to the site and will be taking my first ever ride on an airplane on Sept 19, so I've been doing some research on what to expect.
As I said before this will be my first flight, and I'll be using Jetblue out of Burbank. I'll be on Flt350 leaving @ 7:00AM flying into JFK.

One reason I chose Jetblue is a direct flight into JFK, but based on what I've read here should I expect a stop for fuel or is the early morning flights able to make it to JFK without fuel stops?

Is there anything else I need to be concerned about (delays, passangers getting bumped things like that).

Thanks for the information-

One more thing-
I fly back on Flt353 @ 8:40AM out of JKF on 9/23

Welcome to Flyertalk, Mike. :)

Nothing to worry about on the 7:00am flight to JFK; the short runway problem at BUR isn't a problem until the temp gets in the upper 90s (or 112 two weeks ago). At 7:00am, the temperatures are cool enough that heat doesn't impact performance. So all (or nearly all) seats will be sold and the likelihood of a fuel stop is about zero. At 3:00pm with 100 degree temperatures, it's a whole new ballgame. Hotter it is, the longer the runway has to be. And BUR runways are pretty short. But you've got nothing to worry about early in the morning.

There are people who haven't flown on an airplane before? :confused:

Have a great trip. :)

MikeEMT609, welcome to FT!

You have nothing to worry about regarding being bumped off the flight - jetBlue does not oversell flights like most other airlines do.

Hope you enjoy the jetBlue experience and your first flight ever!

Looking forward to your thoughts on jetBlue and aviation! Take some pictures and post them if you can!

[QUOTE=jetBlueNYFL]MikeEMT609, welcome to FT!

You have nothing to worry about regarding being bumped off the flight - jetBlue does not oversell flights like most other airlines do.

QUOTE]

Yes and no. True, they don't oversell flights, but it is not impossible to get bumped off of a Jetblue flight.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sky/2006/08/dot.html#more

However, it is extremely rare to be kicked off a Jetblue fliight. Enjoy your flights.

Burbank - JFK flights would have middle seats in rows 4-10 blocked, most likely as a move to woo the clientele usually flying F and to cope with the short runways @ BUR.

All they'd need to do is put a small table on the middle seat and people will discover what it is like to fly real F on Air France :)