WN has more than one config of their 737s, though everything is a 737.

I agree that B6 is better off building their existing cities rather than expanding the number of cities served, but it is a balancing act for a carrier of B6's size. WN can easily wait and decide on a city, and then attack. They have capacity and plenty of dots to connect to from anywhere they want to build a new home. B6 has a limited number of planes and a limited number of places that they can connect any new destination to, though that number is growing.

S.

This thread is not about the success of Southwest, but on that topic: Southwest operates the 737-300, -500 and -700 series aricraft. The NG 737's are extremely different than their older -300 ones. They require different MX and pilots...no different than jetBlue's A320 and E190 comparison.

Southwest might not be duking it out at the major airports you point out...but they are at LAX, IAD, MCO and other major ones.

JetBlue is a "new and improved" Southwest.

3rd Aircraft Type = Bye, Bye JetBlue.

I don't think we where right in launching the E190 aircraft. The 190 aircraft is a wonderful aircraft and wonderfully fits into our current business model, but the inital phase has been plauged with software problems. The plane has been nicknamed "The Boomerang Jet" because you send it out to the runway and it comes right back, or the "Embraer E180" because all it does is 180s.

Most of the major problems are sorted out and we have quick fixes for them, but they still go through "spells". At the end of last week over the weekend we had several 190s down for maintenance and dozens of flights where cancelled or delayed because we don't have that many operational spares. We don't have enough aircraft yet, not to mention we use them as much as possible, thus causing the problems.

I personally think we should have just stuck with the 320s for a few more years and then hopped onboard the 190 program, but time will tell and hopefully prove me wrong.

Since you're inflight, I am sure that you had many negative experiences with the E190...however, keep in mind that jetBlue was the launch customer for this aircraft mainly to block the competition out of taking delivery of it first. While the CASM is higher, it affords jetBlue the opportunity to enter some great markets that otherwise would not/could not be served with the A320. Just give it some time...it will get much better than it already has improved.

Actually, they don't required different pilots. That would be a huge cost. Our pilots routinely jump from the NG's to the -300 and -500's, all in the same day. I don't believe that they require different mechanics either.

I agree completely, and it matches what I've posted all along (ever since the ill-fated decision to add a new fleet type was announced). As a jetBlue investor, I've become very disappointed with the lack of focus on profits and the increased focus on becoming all things to all people. Adding the new fleet type (190s) is an attempt at becoming all things to all people instead of simply chasing profits.

Successful LCC is one thing; successful network carrier is quite another.

B6 was making huge profits not long after it launched, while the legacies were bleeding money post-September 11. Why? Low costs. Just like Southwest (where Neeleman learned all about low costs), the B6 business model was designed around a single fleet type. Adding the 190 (as great an airplane as the cheerleaders claim) increased those costs.

Another huge mistake was growing too fast, even with a single fleet type.

The mis-steps have now caused two consecutive annual net losses just as the legacies have recovered and are showing net profits.

Maybe Neeleman can pull out of the dive and turn things around. I certainly hope so. Best of luck to him.

It's interesting to read your comments regarding the E-190. A couple of observations:

1. The E-190 is a new a/c and many of the bugs you describe are endemic to any new device this complicated & this sophisticated.

2. If B6 were--in fact--to choose a 3rd model it might do well to stay in the A-320 family. The A-319 & A-321 are essentially the same plane, the main difference being in payload & range capacity (all these Airbuses have the same type rating). I would imagine B6 would be interested in pursuing the A-319 with its extended range vs. the A-320, thus opening markets such as HNL and other Central American destinations.

There would be much commonality between these two Airbus models and thus it would be an efficient investment to make.

I am not a JetBlue investor -- I figure if they have George Soros, they don't need me -- but I share your disappointment in the company's recent priorities and financial performance.

To some extent the fiscal results are a function of any airline maturing -- your payroll and maintenance costs are bound to go up. But I think the majority of JetBlue's problems are self-inflicted and unnecessary. And they do remind me of the way PeopleExpress started to teeter, back in 1984 or so (I was a reporter covering transport issues in a key PE market at the time, so I had a front-row seat for the implosion).

At PE there was this blind faith that if they could just grow to a certain critical-mass size, they'd become bulletproof -- too big to fail -- and PE sacrificed pricing, fleet rationality, sober market assessments, etc. in pursuit of growth. Then when they stopped making money -- and when Bob Crandall at AA sliced 'em up with ruthless yield management -- they did not have any idea what to do.

It would be tragic for B6 to focus on becoming a mature network carrier serving 100+ stations with three aircraft types while deemphasizing every other goal, including profit margins, and experience the same result.

Why can't any growing airline except Southwest stick to its knitting? Why is discipline so difficult? :mad:

Neeleman knows a lot more about airline management than I do, but I would never have turned a new, unproven aircraft loose on mission-critical routes at a crucial moment in the company's growth. With canx still rampant and not enoguh spares, JetBlueFA indicates the E190s are costing B6 lucrative long-term customer relationships every day. Tell me they'd acquire the 190s over again, given what it's cost 'em lately.

A third fleet type would be madness.

Don't get me wrong, I, almost exclusively, fly the 190 out of BOS. I love working the plane have really haven't run into very many operational problems that resulted in a delay of more than 30minutes.

The plane is a dream to fly and the customers love it. The galleys are big enough for me to work in comfortably, the TVs work almost 100% of the time, it is easier for me to serve the customers in the 2x2 configuration, it boards and deplanes very quickly, it almost has a full-sized cabin, and the list goes on. It is an all around great aircraft to ride in and work on.

That being said, it does have it's quirks. It is a new aircraft built on new technology. The aircraft if full of sensors, control surfaces, engines, doors, you name it it has a sensor. Not only a sensor but a bunch of them. If one of these sensors detects even the slightest problem it is going to send a warning to the flight deck. That warning either needs to clear its self or a technician needs to come on board, the pilots weren't able to clear the problem on their own. Now that we have a vast majority of the bugs figured out the pilots are now being allowed to clear the minor problems with the aircraft, thus resulting in less delays (I believe, i'm not a pilot or maintenance technician so i'm not positive). There are also a few structural problems I do have with the aircraft, the wing is way to stiff, this results in us feeling every little bump we hit while airborne. The wing could have built with a little more flex in it, in my opinion. Also, because of the length, the tailsection takes the brunt of the turbulence. The front could be feeling light chop where as the back is teetering on moderate. I think the frame could have been reinforced a bit more to take this tendency away, but that again is my opinion.

This aircraft is just starting to show it's full potiential. I believe by the end of this year, if not sooner, we will get to see what the plane can really do. It has allowed us to go into markets that we wouldn't have been able to if we had a stricktly 320 fleet. Take RIC, CLT, RDU, AUS, PWM, BNA, the shuttle runs. All of these cities started off extremely slow, i'm talking 20 to 30 people on a flight. The economics of the 190 allowed us to stay in these markets and allow them to mature and now look at the loads! RDU, CLT, and possibly AUS may see a 320 to take the pressure off as the loads have been in the high 90s.

I know we where the launch customer for the airframe to lock out the competition but I still think we should have waited a bit longer. I believe we still have the most airframes on order. However if we had stayed with the 320permenantly we would have started to suffer. There are only so many cities we can fly into with the 320 and expect to be profitable on. The 2 main reasons Southwest is a single airframe company are; Brand Name Recognition and fleet size. Southest has been in business since 1967, that's 40 years, everybody and their uncle knows who Southwest is, even if they have never flown on them. That along with the sheer size of their fleet allows them to go into a new city and offer 20 daily departures to 30 different cities and be profitable. We don't yet have either of those as we've been in business for only 7 years. Southwest has a 33 year head start. Our fleet isn't big enough and there is a large chunk of the country that has never seen our product. We needed to find a way to get into those markets, test the waters, and see if there was money to be made. The 190 allows us to do that with relativly little loss.

Had the 190 come out of the cage swinging, then we wouldn't be talking about 2 consecutive years of loss, we still would be unblemished, for the most part. Every aircraft has teething problems, if they didn't then this industry wouldn't be as interesting!

JetBlueFA, brilliant and very true post on the E190! I'll say it once again...jetBlue is very lucky to have crewmembers such as yourself working there. YOU and your peers are what makes this company so great!

But are the 733, 735 and NG all the same type rating? You can, if corporate policy allows, have more than one type rating, but being rated on one doesn't automatically mean the rest, unlike, say, the 757/767, or the 318/319/320/321. There's nothing to say that a B6 pilot can't be rated on the 320 as well as the E90, but it's usually not airline policy to have pilots operating different types.

First, the 733 and 735 have the same type rating. The 73NG series has a full "glass" cockpit and a re-designed airframe and, therefore, has a different type rating.

Regarding pilots having different type ratings, it really depends on the airline, but it is not uncommon at all for pilots to have more than one type rating. I have a friend of mine who is a F/O with Continental who currently flies the 735, 73-NG series, and the 757-300, all different type ratings.

A380 to be used on bisiest routes?

I wrote that February 8. In light of subsequent events I would like to retract this statement.