JetBlue TrueBlue - what planes jet blue uses

hello freinds
i need to fly from pit to NY , i think its only $49 each way . but i really ahte small planes ..what planes jet blue.

Assuming you are on a directly flight from PIT to JFK, you will be on an Embraer-190. It's single aisle, 4 seats across. This might help:

Jetblue Info on ERJ-190 (http://www.jetblue.com/about/whyyoulllike/about_whyembraer.html)

Seatguru info for B6 ERJ-190 (http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/JetBlue_Airways/JetBlue_Airways_Embraer_190.php)

If you hate small planes (as many people do), don't worry - jetBlue's planes are not huge but they are very comfortable - the E190 which operates PIT-JFK is 100 seats, with a very comfortable 33" seat pitch (leg room), wide 18" leather seat and amazing IFE (36 channels of free live Direct TV, 100 channels of free XM Satellite Radio and 3 $5 movies).

The E-190 is a "real" plane. You can stand up without having to hunch over. It has real overhead bins, and, of course, the way it's configured on jetBlue, there is lots of legroom, the leather seats are wide and comfortable.

In some ways it's better than the bigger planes (like the A-320 or the 737) because there are no middle seats.

You'll have an excellent flight!

jetBlue uses those planes that have a pair of wings, each with a nice blue jet engine... they also have nice comfy leather seats on the inside with alot of personal size tv screens and goes very very very fast, compared to a car.

Assuming you are on a directly flight from PIT to JFK, you will be on an Embraer-190. It's single aisle, 4 seats across. This might help:

Jetblue Info on ERJ-190 (http://www.jetblue.com/about/whyyoulllike/about_whyembraer.html)

Seatguru info for B6 ERJ-190 (http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/JetBlue_Airways/JetBlue_Airways_Embraer_190.php)

i will try next week ..i will let you know


thank guys for the good news :)

Most importantly, the e-190's fly up at "normal" altitudes (i.e. above the clouds).

Not to mention they are a dream for us to work on. I took a cut in my flight hours just so I could get on the 190 trips next month. Winter is coming, headwinds are here, and I don't like Tech Stops, so off to the shortbus for me!!

Not to mention they are a dream for us to work on. I took a cut in my flight hours just so I could get on the 190 trips next month. Winter is coming, headwinds are here, and I don't like Tech Stops, so off to the shortbus for me!!

With having to make so many tech stops in the winter, has B6 consider possibly obtaining some A330s (for better range and fuel usage)?

With having to make so many tech stops in the winter, has B6 consider possibly obtaining some A330s (for better range and fuel usage)?

Unless Neeleman wants to hasten a Ch 11 filing, I don't think he'll add a third fleet type for quite a while; especially not widebodies. :D

With having to make so many tech stops in the winter, has B6 consider possibly obtaining some A330s (for better range and fuel usage)?
The A330 would not be added in a hundred years - for a very large number of very complicated and complex issues.

If anything at all, I see one of the following happening in regards to westbound transcons:

1. Obtaining the A319 for total fleet commonality to the A320. The aircraft is smaller and has better range. In additin, it can be used on lower-traffic flights.

2. I don't think it would happen soon but I posted a few months ago and I really wish it would happen..........remove 1 more row of seats from the A320. This will have so many benefits:
- More legroom for EVERY row - at 34" pitch!
- Lighter aircraft in terms of less seats, less bags, less fuel, less people
- One less FA per aircraft, reducing payroll costs (FAA rule is a 50:1 ratio)
- An even improved pax:restroom ratio at 50 people max for 3 restrooms
- Faster boarding/Deplaning

Since airfares are slightly up year over year, demand is slightly down. Sure, flights are 100% full on peak travel days - but I think removing just 1 row from the A320 would have many benefits. The E190 should stay as is.

Unless Neeleman wants to hasten a Ch 11 filing, I don't think he'll add a third fleet type for quite a while; especially not widebodies. :D

Nice response....

JetBlueNYFL, I appreciate the insite. You're logic does make sense (and now that you mention it, I do remember you saying that before)

1. Obtaining the A319 for total fleet commonality to the A320. The aircraft is smaller and has better range. In additin, it can be used on lower-traffic flights.A-319 would make a lot sense for B6. Same type rating as the A-320, so 100% compatibility and no need for additional and costly pilot training.

In a likely B6 configuration, which I would characterize as "light all coach" (because the extra legroom of B6 means fewer seats and less payload) the A-319 would have about the same range as a B-752 (or about 3,600 nm) and could reach a number of TATL destinations from JFK.

Smooth Flight , Love Flying The Blue

Thanks All

i really ahte small planes

Why? A little more information about "small planes":

1. They use less runway during takeoff and landing. That's good.
2. They have faster boarding and faster egress.
3. Your baggage is offloaded quicker because there's less of it, so you save time.
4. You never get a middle seat. You may even get a seat that is both aisle and window!
5. The drink service is typically faster.
6. It takes less time to walk to the lavatory.

Still nothing firm about getting 319s. I know the company was looking at taking INDY's but they where the wrong engine type so they nixed that idea. I personally would think it would be a great idea to add them to the fleet. However fleet planning and the revenue planning department have a lot more options to concider then I do so we shall wait and see.

Why? A little more information about "small planes":

1. They use less runway during takeoff and landing. That's good.
2. They have faster boarding and faster egress.
3. Your baggage is offloaded quicker because there's less of it, so you save time.
4. You never get a middle seat. You may even get a seat that is both aisle and window!
5. The drink service is typically faster.
6. It takes less time to walk to the lavatory.

Sorry, I have to agree with the OP. Depends on the plane, of course. But I don't know how many times I've hit my head UAX flights in the CRJ-200, and I'm just around avg. height. Just not enough space per person.

Funny story for #6 though. On one of these CRJ flights, the 1 bathroom on the plane was broken so they warned us at COS that it we had to use the bathroom at the airport now or hold it until we got to SFO.

To each their own, but I'll take a B737 or A319 anyday.

Sorry, I have to agree with the OP. Depends on the plane, of course. But I don't know how many times I've hit my head UAX flights in the CRJ-200, and I'm just around avg. height. Just not enough space per person.

Funny story for #6 though. On one of these CRJ flights, the 1 bathroom on the plane was broken so they warned us at COS that it we had to use the bathroom at the airport now or hold it until we got to SFO.

To each their own, but I'll take a B737 or A319 anyday.Regarding a CRJ-200 or an E-145 I will, of course, agree with you. But on jetBlue, the choice is between an A-320 and an E-190.

The E-190 is really not a regional jet though, because it has a the large, spacious cabin of a mainline a/c, one in which you can stand up all the way. It has two lavatories for up to a 100 passengers, the same ratio as most single-aisle mainline planes, real overhead bins, and, of course it has the same comfy leather seats, PTV, and generous legroom (32-33" seat pitch).

The one advantage of the E-190: There are no middle seats.