United Pulling out of JFK
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
X-Forces
Big Black Guy
X-Forces
Big Black Guy
Thanks Andy, saved me the keystrokes.
X-Forces
Big Black Guy
As it's has already been established that we are both 320 drivers, both fly out the a lot of the same airports, and both fly trans-cons, let me just be succinct in what I am trying to get across.
On an average operating day, the 320 could service LAX or SFO with little or no issue. On day in which an operation factor goes outside of standard operating ranges, the aircraft could wind up weight restricted. This isn't different then any other commercial aircraft. That's all. Agree?
X-Forces
Big Black Guy
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Largely true, but keeping in mind the devastating headwinds which are experienced in the winter. That also is a huge problem. BOS-SFO/LAX do end up making tech stops. Let alone wet, contaminated, or hot days. We're at the max envelope of the A320 doing BOS-SFO/LAX with an alternate and close to full pax. It's not just a matter of "MTOW weight is fine for a 7,000 ft runway."
And a whole lot of flying that he doesn't do too.
True, and those are shorter hops in which weight is never a problem.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Who asked you anyway!
He's got a point. I never flew the 757 but from what I hear it has phenomenal short-field performance and weight load.
X-Forces
Big Black Guy
Max envelope operations and heavy winter winds are going to dick up everyone's operations. That's just par for the 121 course. We make tech stops on our trans-cons during the winter as well. Still doesn't stop them from servicing the route, and that was my whole point from the beginning. The route could be serviced from LGA based on the aircraft's performance under average conditions. If the perimeter rule was not in place, I can guarantee you would the route offered , probably by numerous carriers.
X-Forces
Big Black Guy
True, and those are shorter hops in which weight is never a problem.
Shorter hops? Not in the bus, for the most part.
Try JFK-POS. It's funny, it looks short on paper, but Oy Vey!!
JetDoc
Pit Bull Wrangler
United used to fly 757s exclusively in and out of KSNA for that reason and for noise abatement. Static take off. It was fun when pass riding back in the day. The Captain would even make a PA telling the self loading cargo that this wasn't going to be a "your father's Buick" type take off. Even still, the looks on folks faces was priceless. And fwiw, Smisek is an idiot.
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
If they're going with all international service, then the only planes that are configured to do LAX/SFO-EWR when this goes thru are 787s, 757s, 767s, 777s, and 747s. So I'm guessing the routes will go at least mostly 757, and with some of the routes the 757 does from smaller airports I would be surprised if it had issues doing the West Coast from LGA.
As for the 737s and A320s, some times of the year it's actually pretty common for jetBlue flights on BOS-SFO/LAX to stop in DEN or LAS for fuel. Sometimes I see it several days straight at work, I'm not sure about Virgin since I only handle their international stuff but I'd imagine the same goes for them. Since jetBlue made BOS-LAX/SFO almost exclusively only flown by sharketed A320s, seems like these stops happen less frequently(do they add range?).
Point is, fuel stops on the transcons are nothing new and with the newer 737s and A320s being added over the next several years by most of the US carriers, it will likely become even less of an issue.
As for the 737s and A320s, some times of the year it's actually pretty common for jetBlue flights on BOS-SFO/LAX to stop in DEN or LAS for fuel. Sometimes I see it several days straight at work, I'm not sure about Virgin since I only handle their international stuff but I'd imagine the same goes for them. Since jetBlue made BOS-LAX/SFO almost exclusively only flown by sharketed A320s, seems like these stops happen less frequently(do they add range?).
Point is, fuel stops on the transcons are nothing new and with the newer 737s and A320s being added over the next several years by most of the US carriers, it will likely become even less of an issue.
Last edited:
Trip7
Well-Known Member
Yup. In fact, I believe 757 could go LGA to SNA with a full boat, max cargo, and plenty of alternate fuel no problem
X-Forces
Big Black Guy
Oh yes sir, they do.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Just because 'it was full' doesn't mean it will make money.
Also, let me clear something up, from a geographical standpoint, EWR is easier to get to from Manhattan.
Once again, this makes perfect sense from a business and operational stand point. With VX, B6, AA, DL, and UA beating each other up from JFK-LAX/SFO why wouldn't UA shift the flying to EWR, beef up the fortress hub there, and then let VX/B6/AA/DL fight each other from JFK-LAX/SFO? EWR is a great hub for United on the domestic and international side. You have a ton of high premium O&D traffic as well as a great connection point to go overseas. This also allows premium passengers from LAX/SFO to book a lay flat bed in a premium product the entire trip to Europe.
Here is a good blog post about this subject. Most others have been saying the same thing.
http://crankyflier.com/2015/06/18/united-exits-jfk-consolidates-its-power-at-newark/
This will also free up more 737s and 320s to replace 76 seat routes which are replacing the 50 seat jets.
If anything, I would be concerned if I was at B6 or VX. This move goes to show that Delta/United/American are going to work together to protect their interests in the markets they serve.
Screaming_Emu
Well-Known Member
Screaming_Emu
Well-Known Member
Oh no doubt.
But I still have a hard time believing that with all the incoming international traffic that there isn't some money to be had.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
What is your point of this? Did you read the blog post? Singing the same tune I am.