If JetBlue wants nonstop BUR/JFK flights on a consistent basis, they will need to reduce the payload of the A320. Does any else get the feeling that JetBlue is expanding not because it has a business reason to but because it is getting too many aircraft and it needs routes to fly them on? David R http://home.comcast.net/~damiross/books.html www.sequoians.com www.chanticleers.org =>-----Original Message----- =>From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of =>Vince LaMonica =>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 22:34 =>To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx =>Subject: Re: re Jet Blue flying into Burbank - but can that airport =>handle airbuses? => => =>On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Alireza Alivandivafa wrote: => =>} Not all of the field is at 725' and that is one of the problems =>if you are =>} not running normal ops (Santa Anas, etc.). One of the runways =>inclines about =>} 300' up to '725. => =>Not sure where you're getting that info from, but it incorrect. Runway 26 =>starts at 697' and ends at 727'. Runway 33 starts at 694' and ends at =>778'. Runway 33/15 is the longer of the two runways at 6886'. There is no =>300' incline, as that would be quite a bear to land and take off on! => =>This info comes from the FAA online airport diag at: => =>http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco/online/airportdiagrams/00067AD.PDF => =>Personally, I think the A320 will have issues with a nonstopper BUR/JFK. =>When they start service, in May 2005, the heat at BUR will just be =>starting up, so if jetBlue can survive the summer at BUR, then they'll be =>ok, but it gets darn hot in Burbank! => =>It would have been much easier for jetBlue to fly out of/to ONT than BUR. => =>/vjl/ =>-- =>No virus found in this incoming message. =>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. =>Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 3/2/2005 => -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 3/2/2005