Originally Posted by
guv1976
This must be due to a combination of the climb-rate requirement and performance limits of the A320. AA flies STT-JFK nonstop on an A319; UA flies STT-EWR nonstop on a 737-700. (Not sure if either of those flights is weight restricted.)
The 737-700NG and A319 are higher performance aircraft.
Originally Posted by
mbg1998
One important point though, is that pax load differs greatly on all of those aircraft! UA's 737-7's seat either 118 or 126, AA's A319 seats 128, while
B6's 320 on that route seats 162. Not only is it an additional ~40 pax, but also all of their bags!
Additional fun fact for you: UA and AA use similar engines (CFM56 family) on those aircraft, while the B6 A320 uses an IAE v2500 family engine (though IMO they don't really operate that differently in the first ~2,000 ft. of climb). Take what you will from that
JetBlue still took a fuel stop even when the A320s held 150 pax. The smaller versions (A319, 737-700) have higher power-to-weight ratios than the A320 (the 737-800 is slightly higher performance than the A320, though I don't know if it could do STT-NYC nonstop without a weight restriction). The A321 has a larger fuel tank and therefore has the range to get around some of the performance issues -- especially when using a Mint-configured A321 with only 159 seats.
-J.