Direct flight with 1 stop?
 

Hi, JetBlue noob here trying the airline due to the American alliance. I am looking at a flight (B6886 on 4/17) from STT to EWR that is listed as "1 stop" but without a layover and no apparent info on the Jetblue site as to where the interim stop is. Sleuthing on flightaware, it looks like maybe it stops at SJU? But the flight is not bookable as STT-SJU or SJU-EWR on my date. Does that mean the plane is literally stopping in SJU and then taking off again without anyone getting on or off? I didn't think that type of flight has existed for the past 30+ years. I can't imagine that refueling would be needed given that SJU and STT are essentialy the same distance from Newark. Am I missing something?

Here's the flight tracking info for B6886 for tomorrow:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...8138b1c336.png

This route has to make what is called a "tech stop" in SJU. The plane can't take off in STT with a full passenger load AND a full fuel tank, so it stops in SJU to refuel. It's not the distance, it's the FAA takeoff procedure in STT - it has a certain climb rate requirement that couldn't be done with that much weight.

No one gets on or off - the plane literally just lands, refuels, and gets back on the road from SJU to EWR.

In my experience, the refuel is very speedy. But no, you cannot book just the STT to SJU leg or the SJU to EWR leg.

SJU is a tech stop for gas. Nobody gets off or on. They used to do this on STT-BOS when it was an A320 (or they would weight restrict it to 98/150). Absolute PITA and they never adequately overblock so it always landed late. Last time I did that I missed the last flight to JFK and had to take Greyhound home overnight.

-J.

Kinda just like what I said :p

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.)

Fascinating, thanks all. This will be a new one for me, just when I thought I had seen it all.

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 :)

The 737-700NG and A319 are higher performance aircraft.
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.

So wouldn't it be smarter for them to fly this route with an A321? I know it is never that simple due to demand, need for planes to be at certain stations, etc. But I would expect that this tech stop adds significant time, fuel, and cost.

There likely isn't enough demand to fill up an A321. Plus the tickets are usually so expensive that they can afford the tech stop :o

Interestingly (or perhaps maddeningly), the pilots and flight attendants are not paid while the aircraft is refueling (they get per diem but not their flight pay).

-J.

B6 830 offers Mint on STT-JFK; it too makes a fuel stop at SJU:


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...8482798c85.png

Wow :o That's sad. The 757 with nearly 200 seats can fly STT-JFK nonstop. An A321 that is nowhere near MTOW can't? Just sad... though this isn't what the aircraft was designed to do. FWIW the 3NS (A321neo with Mint) can fly it nonstop.

-J.

It's got to be the STT-specific climb requirement. B6 flies an A320 nonstop from LGA's 7,000' runways to DEN. LGA-DEN is just slightly shorter than STT-EWR.

It's the FAA-required Takeoff procedure. STT's takeoff climb rate is either 462' or 366' per nautical mile until reaching ~1,000 ft (depending on which direction you takeoff) vs LGA's takeoff minimums are at the strictest 330' climb per Nautical Mile until reaching 500 ft.

It really isn't the distance that matters - it is the FAA-required climb gradient. 462' per NM until 1,000 ft is actually one of the more stricter requirements there is. :)