A couple of days ago we learned that JetBlue will start flying an Airbus A321neo rather than an Airbus A321LR on a route to London, which I find to be an interesting development. We’ve now learned that this has some significant implications for service in economy class, which I wanted to cover.
In this post:
JetBlue will start flying A321neo to London Gatwick
In 2021 JetBlue made a splash by launching its much anticipated transatlantic flights. JetBlue has innovated the passenger experience within the United States (in both economy and business class), and many of us have been rooting for JetBlue to do the same on transatlantic flights.
JetBlue specifically ordered Airbus A321LRs for its transatlantic flights. The airline ordered 14 of these planes, and four have already been delivered. These planes are in an ultra-premium configuration, with just 138 seats, This includes 24 business class seats, 24 extra legroom economy seats, and 90 economy seats. So far JetBlue is flying these from both Boston and New York to London.
The plan was for JetBlue to exclusively fly A321LRs across the Atlantic, but that has changed. Between October 29 and December 18, 2022, JetBlue has instead scheduled an Airbus A321neo on the New York (JFK) to London Gatwick (LGW) route. Presumably this has the potential to be extended.
For context, JetBlue’s newest A321neos feature 160 seats, including 16 business class seats, 42 extra legroom economy seats, and 102 economy seats. The A321neo was actually the first JetBlue plane to get JetBlue’s new business class, including the Mint Suite and Mint Studio.
JetBlue will now have to get ETOPS certification for these A321neos, which is required to operate these planes over large bodies of water. This approval is expected in the coming weeks. While this route is within range for the A321neo (especially in a non-dense configuration), there’s not nearly as much of a margin as with the A321LR.
JetBlue will modify its onboard service on A321neo
For passengers there are some implications to this aircraft swap, beyond the plane just having a different configuration. As you’d expect, airlines install different galleys on planes depending on where planes are intended to fly to, and what kind of service will be offered.
While JetBlue’s A321LRs have ovens in both the front and rear of the aircraft, JetBlue’s A321neos only have ovens in the front of the aircraft. As noted by Seth Miller, JetBlue will be modifying the economy meal service on A321neos — JetBlue won’t be serving hot meals in economy on transatlantic flights operated by these planes. Mint service, meanwhile, should see minimal adjustments.
This will no doubt be a disappointment for some economy passengers, as JetBlue has greatly invested in the economy passenger experience. JetBlue has partnered with New York-based restaurant group Dig for its transatlantic economy catering, with passengers being able to choose one hot main course and two sides.
On A321neos, passengers can instead expect cold meals in economy. While hot food isn’t always going to be better than cold food, in this case I’m guessing it’ll be a bit of a downgrade.
What’s JetBlue’s motivation for this aircraft change?
Is JetBlue flying an Airbus A321neo rather than Airbus A321LR across the Atlantic because executives think the economics are better of flying a less premium plane? If so, that doesn’t bode well for the success of JetBlue’s transatlantic flights:
- Many airlines carry a significant amount of cargo across the Atlantic, but that’s severely limited on JetBlue, given that JetBlue has narrow body planes
- On transatlantic flights, most airlines make their money in business class; JetBlue not being able to sell the business class cabin makes the economics of service like this tough
- New York to London is an uber-competitive market in economy, and roundtrip fares are regularly under $550 per person including all taxes & fees; JetBlue also isn’t a high fee airline, so that seems like a recipe for losing money, especially with oil prices where they are right now
In all likelihood that’s not the explanation, though. Rather JetBlue seems to be experiencing delivery delays with new Airbus A321LRs, and the airline is expanding in London. As of October 29, 2022, JetBlue is adding a second daily New York to London Gatwick flight, so that timing seems to coincide with this aircraft being introduced on transatlantic flights.
My guess is that JetBlue doesn’t have enough A321LRs to operate this route for now, hence the A321neo. Still, I can’t help but wonder if A321neos might be a part of JetBlue’s long term transatlantic plans.
Bottom line
Starting this fall, JetBlue will fly an Airbus A321neo to London for the first time, rather than an A321LR. While this plane has the same kinds of seats, it’s in a less premium configuration, with fewer business class seats. Furthermore, service will have to be modified in economy due to the lack of ovens in the rear of the plane, meaning passengers will be served cold food.
I suspect the motivation for this change is delivery delays with the A321LRs. Still, I can’t help but wonder if we might see A321neos on longer routes in the future. Regardless, I don’t really see how the economics of this are supposed to work, given cheap transatlantic economy fares, JetBlue’s lack of ancillary fees, and the A321neo’s lack of ability to carry cargo.
What do you make of JetBlue flying the A321neo to London?
The right way to write that phrase is "less-premium planes." The use of the hyphenated compound adjective "less-premium" makes it clear that "less" modifies "premium" and not "premium planes."
Unfortunately the ability to correctly use compound adjectives has faded away in the USA.
@David; Thank you for explaining the correct usage of less-premium. I was just about to post this myself.
OTOH Ben does seem to use the oxford comma to props to him for that:-)
PaxEx has confirmed that, since the NEO rear galleys don't have ovens, JetBlue will “adjust our complimentary meal service in core to include two, non-Dig meal offerings – a non-vegetarian and vegetarian meal option, both of which come with an entrée, side salad and dessert" aka cold meals. Not great.
This makes sense to me. Gatwick is known as a less premium market compared to Heathrow. They don’t need to fly an aircraft the A321NEO with a high capacity business class cabin. The reduced capacity Mint cabin makes the most sense from the financial standpoint allowing JetBlue to hopefully make money on this busy, competitive market.
As many people here in the know have repeated on here, this addition frequency that launches in Oct goes to the 321LR once the delayed tails get delivered in Dec….this is a stopgap measure.
The LR Delivery delays are the only reason. They want as much MINT to London as possible. The NEOs that will take their place are the same aircraft with 8 less mint seats and no AUX fuel tanks in the cargo compartment but it still has the legs. This is good because the NEOs need to get ETOPS anyway since they will be doing Hawaii when JetBlue launches it.
"Less Premium Planes" is correct in this case.
If the number of flights had been reduced, it would have been fewer. There has been no increase in frequencies afaik.
Since the article is referring to aircraft with fewer seats in business class, "less premium" refers to the configuration of the planes and not the number of flights.
This is an increase in frequency, the second daily JFK/LGW will launch initially with this Non LR A321…..in December (when they get the delayed airframes) it will change to the A321LR.
From a competing site:
"JetBlue will bring less-premium Airbus A321 to London"
It refers to configuration, not frequency.
You too can fly Spirit to Gatwick.
It might also come down to the opportunity cost of putting the premium a321s on transatlantic. B6 might find that they can make more money using them on transcon, which doesn't necessarily mean the transatlantic routes are doing bad. However, I think they'll struggle making money on transatlantic with the less premium a321s unless they can lower costs by flying to out of city airport like Stansted etc. I also think B6 management could be...
It might also come down to the opportunity cost of putting the premium a321s on transatlantic. B6 might find that they can make more money using them on transcon, which doesn't necessarily mean the transatlantic routes are doing bad. However, I think they'll struggle making money on transatlantic with the less premium a321s unless they can lower costs by flying to out of city airport like Stansted etc. I also think B6 management could be very cut-throat given recent financial results so I think *anything* could be possible, including cut transatlantic service.
None of this. It’s just the delivery delays.
Now I understand why my Boston to LAX flight 11am one (9am still has mint studios) is changed from A321neo with Mint studios to A321 with regular mint seats earlier this week.
My question is that if these A321Neos are equipped with oven in the aft galley. I cannot imagine the Mint cabin being able to share their ovens with economy cabin. These meal flights to and from London will require more galley spaces....
Now I understand why my Boston to LAX flight 11am one (9am still has mint studios) is changed from A321neo with Mint studios to A321 with regular mint seats earlier this week.
My question is that if these A321Neos are equipped with oven in the aft galley. I cannot imagine the Mint cabin being able to share their ovens with economy cabin. These meal flights to and from London will require more galley spaces.
Hopefully it is just a temporary solution till JetBlue gets more A321LRs soon or maybe JetBlue A321Neos can use a premium cabin in future deliveries.
This isn’t at all the reason why your aircraft swapped. Those NEOs can’t yet go to London.
The comments here are hilariously uninformed. This is a temporary measure for a couple of months because they will have one less available LR than planned. The choice would be to not add additional capacity or fly one of the NEOs with near identical inflight product with slightly less Mint seats. End of story.
It also gives them the ability to certify the plan for ETOPS. The London experiment has been a great success...
The comments here are hilariously uninformed. This is a temporary measure for a couple of months because they will have one less available LR than planned. The choice would be to not add additional capacity or fly one of the NEOs with near identical inflight product with slightly less Mint seats. End of story.
It also gives them the ability to certify the plan for ETOPS. The London experiment has been a great success so far as they continue to add new capacity.
@Sharon's mention of AS-- the carrier that continues to shrink outside of SEA and has no flights at to Europe-- has no relevance at all to the topic at hand. If their model were so successful, they would not be shedding airplanes and flights as fast as there are...LOL
AS is profitable, something that B6 can only dream about esp. as they acquire another money-losing airline.
Maybe size isn't really as important as some think, esp. if it means adding new flights to Europe going into the fall and winter and having to run the risk operational challenges and brand confusion as a result.
And if the point is to help get aircraft ready for Hawaii, a market where Southwest is adding...
AS is profitable, something that B6 can only dream about esp. as they acquire another money-losing airline.
Maybe size isn't really as important as some think, esp. if it means adding new flights to Europe going into the fall and winter and having to run the risk operational challenges and brand confusion as a result.
And if the point is to help get aircraft ready for Hawaii, a market where Southwest is adding tons of capacity and where B6 will end up as an even smaller carrier relative to the competition, is a pencil thin network from Hawaii to Europe and into S. America really what will turn B6 around or are we looking at the narrowbody version of Pan Am?
Tim,
As I said earlier, your initial impression was incorrect, this is a temporary fix for over optimistic fleet planning, nothing more, nothing less (just as you astutely subsequently stated), it just happens to coincide with the push to “ETOPS” the aircraft type for an eventual introduction out to Hawaii. Transatlantic is and always will be a minuscule part of the overall operation, as I’m sure Hawaii will be…. like you said “pencil thin” and...
Tim,
As I said earlier, your initial impression was incorrect, this is a temporary fix for over optimistic fleet planning, nothing more, nothing less (just as you astutely subsequently stated), it just happens to coincide with the push to “ETOPS” the aircraft type for an eventual introduction out to Hawaii. Transatlantic is and always will be a minuscule part of the overall operation, as I’m sure Hawaii will be…. like you said “pencil thin” and no one including the airline is claiming the goal is anything other than that. They’ve never been into the market share battle, more into siphoning off premium revenue where they can. The transatlantic operation is no different. Again this is just a convenient solution to a temporary problem until the LRs are delivered. Somehow you have gone down the rabbit hole and have arrived with PanAm comparisons……it’s an equipment substitution to preserve the launch of the second daily JFK/LGW, that’s it!
Dan,
whether I went down a rabbit hole about B6' network or not, this statement is patently false
"They’ve never been into the market share battle, more into siphoning off premium revenue where they can."
As Delta began to build BOS, B6 responded by flooding multiple markets with capacity and drove down their own yield in order to keep Delta from gaining market share. That is the definition of market share grab.
And...
Dan,
whether I went down a rabbit hole about B6' network or not, this statement is patently false
"They’ve never been into the market share battle, more into siphoning off premium revenue where they can."
As Delta began to build BOS, B6 responded by flooding multiple markets with capacity and drove down their own yield in order to keep Delta from gaining market share. That is the definition of market share grab.
And I'm not sure what premium revenue B6 is supposed to gain but their own financial statements and DOT data show they don't get a fare premium to their legacy competitors and I'm not sure how they would since they have premium cabins on a relative handful of aircraft and even in major markets like JFK-LAX and SFO, they don't get a fare premium to either AA or DL. In both BOS and JFK, B6 has an average fare deficit to DL in the markets where they directly compete - according to the DOT.
Whether the reason for the use of the LR is related to financial considerations or not, you made the statement that the comments were hilarious when people accurately noted that B6' financial success to Europe is far from assured; B6' average fare data to Europe will become known in time but their current profitability IS at the bottom of the industry.
Tim,
That was Bill that said “the comments were hilarious not me”….I have not commented one bit on their financial performance. Nor the performance on this particular route. I was informing you as to the reason why this change was made, that’s it…. Stop trying to argue a point with me that I’m not addressing. If you want to argue financial performance argue with Bill!
sorry for confusing your comments with Bill's
No worries…. I’m here to provide information not analysis or opinion, I agree with most of your views.
AS is profitable because of where there are, not their model. They are profitable in Seattle and likely Alaska. The rest of the network could be tossed. AS may be satisfied with only serving SEA but which other airline could use that model and be successful?--none. Had B6 replicated the AS model they would have been dead and gone long ago.
B6 never had the ability to be based in an area with little...
AS is profitable because of where there are, not their model. They are profitable in Seattle and likely Alaska. The rest of the network could be tossed. AS may be satisfied with only serving SEA but which other airline could use that model and be successful?--none. Had B6 replicated the AS model they would have been dead and gone long ago.
B6 never had the ability to be based in an area with little competition, nor were they willing to outsource flying like AS is doing--to OO.
Taking a temporary substitution of one plane for a few weeks to make an argument about which model is "best" is just ridiculous.
So successful that the airline is hemorrhaging cash and the only US carrier losing money in the most favorable environment imaginable.
FEWER! You don't even have to know the rule. "Less" just sounds wrong here.
I thought it should be fewer at first, but they are actually flying the same number or more planes, but with fewer premium seats. So the planes are less premium (configured) than the current planes.
A321LR is a NEO too; long and short of this post is mostly that they’re adding non-LR A321Ns into LGW which have a smaller Mint cabin.
Fewer. It's fewer. If you can count them, it's fewer. Fewer cookies, less flour.
Sorry.
So I’m curious. Why do you think we need two words to distinguish between two types of smaller amounts (less / fewer) BUT we somehow manage with only one word for larger amounts (more)?
Or do you think everyone is hopelessly confused when we are describing “more”, while being blessed with total clarity when discussing reduced amounts?
Or is this really a pointless differential which is mostly (sic) used by people who like to prove...
So I’m curious. Why do you think we need two words to distinguish between two types of smaller amounts (less / fewer) BUT we somehow manage with only one word for larger amounts (more)?
Or do you think everyone is hopelessly confused when we are describing “more”, while being blessed with total clarity when discussing reduced amounts?
Or is this really a pointless differential which is mostly (sic) used by people who like to prove they know a grammatical “rule” that someone else doesn’t?
@The nice Paul
A lot of things are pointless and will make you curious.
We fight for equality in things such as race or gender, yet we can't even make our grammar equal.
Get's even worse for Romance Languages. Maybe we should 'cancel' Spanish or Portuguese or just call everyone who uses these language a racist.
Just enjoy the show that only exists in a period that we are forcing a one size...
@The nice Paul
A lot of things are pointless and will make you curious.
We fight for equality in things such as race or gender, yet we can't even make our grammar equal.
Get's even worse for Romance Languages. Maybe we should 'cancel' Spanish or Portuguese or just call everyone who uses these language a racist.
Just enjoy the show that only exists in a period that we are forcing a one size fits all because it makes us equal.
I support equality but somethings are just too many (sic).
They are flying MORE planes. The plane itself is *less premium* because there are *fewer premium seats*.
Reading comprehension skills are key when offering corrections.
@ReadingIsFundamental gets it right! Fewer/less is one of my pet aversions so I opened the thread in high dudgeon about to say the same thing, but B6 indeed plans a less premium service. Whether that involves more or fewer premium seats or flights in total is beside the point!
Sorry.
"Less premium planes" refers to the configuration of the aircraft.
"Fewer premium planes" would refer to the quantity of aircraft.
As a B6 frequent flier and former Mosaic member, I offer a combination of the learned comments from my fellow readers. I frequently fly MCO-BGR (typically via LGA) on DL. The fares fluctuate like you wouldn't believe as a mixed city pair for middle-income leisure travelers, business travelers and high-net worth travelers commuting to their beach/mountain vacation property.
My work schedule can be a real challenge. Finding an evening departure can require creative thinking when...
As a B6 frequent flier and former Mosaic member, I offer a combination of the learned comments from my fellow readers. I frequently fly MCO-BGR (typically via LGA) on DL. The fares fluctuate like you wouldn't believe as a mixed city pair for middle-income leisure travelers, business travelers and high-net worth travelers commuting to their beach/mountain vacation property.
My work schedule can be a real challenge. Finding an evening departure can require creative thinking when I need to fly north right after my shift. When B6 nonstop service MCO-BOS has an evening option (preferably 20:00 hours or later), it works out CHEAPER for me to fly B6 with an Even More Space seat and use my National Car Rental corporate rate to drive a single-day one-way rental to reach BGR and return my vehicle, despite fuel prices and tolls. I will do exactly this come U.S. Thanksgiving, using one of my Marriott credit card free nights to layover for shuteye, a shower and breakfast in Portsmouth, NH. I'm on B6 nonstop MCO-BOS Wednesday night and DL Saturday afternoon BGR-LGA-MCO, with a comfortable layover to grab dinner in the lounge in New York. The times suit me and I saved a bundle.
That said, when the fares are roughly comparable, I prefer Delta because the SkyMiles program carries me farther than True Blue (at least on domestic routes).
Except around holidays, I routinely find a mixture of leisure and business travelers on B6, especially with departures from DCA, EWR and LGA, even members of Congress. My wife is about to travel MCO-FRA, wants lie-flat for the transatlantic leg but would be intimidated changing terminals in LGW or LHR. The code-share with SQ would be a great option except that it uses JFK terminal 4 and jetBlue hasn't seen fit to offer airside shuttle service besides T5-T8. Despite this code-share, I likely will end up sending her MCO-JFK on DL since it arrives at T4 (or airside via the Jutney) for an easy connection to SQ. We'll pay more but have a smoother experience.
If this is our view for a leisure journey, imagine how it is for business travelers who frequently cross the pond. Many of them likely would want Mint service for their domestic leg but B6 offers it on too few routes. Without business travelers to fill Mint pods and make the route profitable, it won't work as a year-round option. Good grief, for similar reasons, DL just downgraded its LAX-MCO nonstop service to seasonal after years of multiple flights per day. DL likewise has maintained this approach for nonstop service MCO-SEA even though AS runs it nonstop the whole year. Even F9 understands the value here and offers a westbound MCO-SEA redeye via LAS!
I hope B6 pulls off year-round JFK-LHR. I really do, because I look forward to using it frequently when the ground staff crisis abates. Given that the airline has enough cash lying around to buy Spirit gives me hope that it will continue the fight until it secures enough market share for things to make sense but I have my doubts.
It’s due to delivery delays, including damage to galley components during installation on an upcoming LR delivery. The damaged galley components have to be replaced by the manufacturer and shipped back to the U.S. for installation.
Jetblue to LON won't survive more than a couple more years.
No corporate contracts, no commission to corporate travel agencies, no adequate premium domestic feed, and a terrible frequent flyer program means no high-end corporate travelers.
If that’s the case why are they adding this flight? This is ADDITIONAL capacity not less!
Keep in mind this airline is losing insane sums of money and has the worst reliability. Management has no clue what they’re doing.
Yes we are well aware to everyone here
@Omar
How many times u gonna say that on here, you sound like a broken record!
B6 is finding that there simply is not the business demand into LGW that they thought there would be. Whether the standard Mint A321NEO will bring cost per passengers down with more coach seats remains to be seen but this might be a telling outcome for the notion that narrowbody transatlantic flights can work in lots of markets, esp. in the winter. Coach fares are low during the winter, other carriers that have large business...
B6 is finding that there simply is not the business demand into LGW that they thought there would be. Whether the standard Mint A321NEO will bring cost per passengers down with more coach seats remains to be seen but this might be a telling outcome for the notion that narrowbody transatlantic flights can work in lots of markets, esp. in the winter. Coach fares are low during the winter, other carriers that have large business class cabins on widebodies plus large coach cabins plus cargo revenue will aggressively compete in whatever market B6 or any carrier thinks they can come along and siphon off enough revenue to make their flights work.
Given B6' overall financial situation and merger, they really don't have much margin to not get their transatlantic operation right.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who can’t see the B6 business case for narrowbody transcons.
Nice speculation, but incorrect! Delivery delay on the LRs coming to operate the additional JFK/LGW frequency (just like the delay this summer of BOS service). The frequency reverts back to the LR in short order once the new tails arrive on property.
If that is true, then B6 is being way too aggressive in announcing new routes without having the assurance of aircraft on property.
Other airlines put a lot more time between planned deliveries and starting new flights w/ those new aircraft. Given that this is the 2nd time it has happened, B6' credibility to publish reliable schedules on its most high profile routes is at stake.
None of which changes that the entire narrowbody...
If that is true, then B6 is being way too aggressive in announcing new routes without having the assurance of aircraft on property.
Other airlines put a lot more time between planned deliveries and starting new flights w/ those new aircraft. Given that this is the 2nd time it has happened, B6' credibility to publish reliable schedules on its most high profile routes is at stake.
None of which changes that the entire narrowbody transatlantic model is far from proven, esp. in a configuration with less than 140 seats. To think that the same demand exists and same configuration is needed for LGW as for LHR is naive.
I don’t disagree with any of what you wrote…...just telling you the facts from someone who has them. Also of note the 321Neo LD is the airframe of choice for the (open secret) expansion to Hawaii, might as well accelerate it’s ETOPs certification and sub these airframes in to fill the delay in LR deliveries. It also provides ETOPs capable spares on the transatlantic frames once the LRs take over the route.
Sounds like everyone on here knows their stuff! It’s clearly delivery delays for the LR
Doesn’t the Neo have more cargo space than the LR due to the fuel tanks? Wonder if that’s also a factor.
simple - more demand for economy than for business at Gatwick. Not a surprise.
This isn’t true at all Mint load factors have been really good for a new route.
JetBlue’s business model doesn’t work. It is one of two airlines that is still unprofitable. It’s expenses are through the roof and they do not henge.
Alaska is probably the most comparable airline to JetBlue (I know differences re mint), but Alaska is one of the best managed airlines in the nation. JetBlue is constantly delayed, Alaska always on time.
If JetBlue was smart, they would have added as many economy seats to...
JetBlue’s business model doesn’t work. It is one of two airlines that is still unprofitable. It’s expenses are through the roof and they do not henge.
Alaska is probably the most comparable airline to JetBlue (I know differences re mint), but Alaska is one of the best managed airlines in the nation. JetBlue is constantly delayed, Alaska always on time.
If JetBlue was smart, they would have added as many economy seats to the cabin as necessary to seat 150 seats which would probably result in about 16-18 mint suites on the plane. Under this scenario, JetBlue would have been able to sell more economy seats while only having 3 crew members and still offering plenty of mint seats.
This move to use the 321 neo is a poor choice because now JetBlue has to add another FA to this route, adding additional expense since there is over 151 seats.
It seemed like JetBlue was working decently well as a hybrid airline. Pretty much all of the airlines managed by David Neeleman have done well (A notable example being Azul, which is JetBlue’s Brazilian equivalent). At least they are a lot better at it than Virgin America, who was a money pit for most of its existence and is now gone.