A320neo

[freetoview33]

With the first delivery of the A320neo expected to be any day now. I thought it was worth talking about possible applications of the new aircraft.

From what I understand from London Gatwick an A320neo could comfortably operate fully loaded to New York and Dubai. Okay I know it wouldn't be the most comfortable or even profitable but it is now technically possible for these to be short/medium haul destinations from Western Europe.

And I guess even theoretically an A319neo could operate London Gatwick to Denver and western parts of India!

 

[jopsuk]

As ever it's down to whether or not airlines believe there's a market for it. If they think there's enough of a market for narrow body long distance, and they can figure out a cabin layout that would financially work for them, they'll give it a go.

But 4 or 5 hours on charter and budget airlines from northern europe (including Britain) to the canaries isn't the most delightful way to travel

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Given that they can fill a much larger plane on these routes, where is the market for small jets?

Maybe more less frequent services to smaller destinations for those of us who like flying direct would be good. I enjoyed my half full BA Heathrow to Austin flight, although I can't imagine it was too profitable.

 

[freetoview33]

How about from regional UK airports to New York? Bristol, Newcastle ect? That have been served by 757-200's. There must be a some demand for this!

 

[jopsuk]

it's not entirely clear there is demand for that- that's why Boeing haven't developed a 757 successor and why so far the 32x family hasn't offered quite the range of 757s. There's demand from the larger regional airports (Manchester etc) which is handled by the smaller widebodies- 330, 350, 767, 787.

 

[atillathehunn]

There is clearly a market for this plane, else they would not have built it.

The smaller efficient planes capable of flying long-ish haul flights should open up routes considered marginal before.

For instance; WOW air based out of Keflavik operates A321 on mid-haul routes to European and North African destinations.

There is a SAS flight Copenhagen - Newark which is operated with a 737 most of the year.

Turkish airlines operate A321 etc on many almost long haul flights. My flight the other day from Istanbul - Manchester was operated by an aircraft that had just returned from Ulan Bataar.

The downside is the lack of cargo uplift, which is a major profit centre, in the smaller aircraft.

 

[WestCoast]

I think in the medium to long term we will see more transatlantic routes from low cost airlines as we've already seen with Norwegian, facilitated by the 737 MAX and A320neo.

 

[atillathehunn]

There's nothing to say, though, that the smaller aircraft should remain in the domain of the low cost carriers.

SAS, which operate the TATL 737, is a full service airline.

British Airways operate an A318 TATL, admittedly on an all-business class flight which changes the economics. In Australia, cross continental flights are operated by smaller narrow body aircraft even on full service airlines; the same in Russia.

But the poor sales of the A380 is evidence of a changing air travel market. Partly helped by changes in passenger markets and partly due to the very poor cargo uplift compared to a B777 for example.

However, the strong market lead towards smaller but more efficient planes is indicative of where the market is going. The Dreamliner and the A350 is a good indicator of this. While the Dreamliner has been beset by problems from the outset (I hope they hurry up and replace those god-awful seats in Y) they are on paper a very good plane.

So a smaller plane capable of TATL distances could well open up marginal airports. This desire to open up new routes rather than building on present capacity is quite well demonstrated. EI's new route from Dublin to Hartford, Connecticut is indicative of the desire within the industry.

 

[ivanhoe]

As ever it's down to whether or not airlines believe there's a market for it. If they think there's enough of a market for narrow body long distance, and they can figure out a cabin layout that would financially work for them, they'll give it a go.

But 4 or 5 hours on charter and budget airlines from northern europe (including Britain) to the canaries isn't the most delightful way to travel

I could think of much worse. Bad memories of travelling in a Vickers Viscount from Liverpool to Isle of Man in the 70's. I'd have rather been on the ferry but wanted to see how the other half live.

 

[atillathehunn]

I have travelled in a mid-haul configured A321 and B737. Flight time up to 6 hours. It was indistinguishable from long haul planes. Actually a nicer environment. Service is quicker, leg room the same or even slightly better. Seat pitch good. The only tiny potential problem is access to the toilet.

A recent flight out of Istanbul to Entebbe resulted in a massive queue for the toilet stretching right up the length of the plane.

 

[NYCSubway137]

Qatar Airways is once again (as with the Airbus A350) will be the launch customer. Since we are now in mid-November, is there a set-up date when the first flight will happen?

 

[Puffing Devil]

How about from regional UK airports to New York? Bristol, Newcastle ect? That have been served by 757-200's. There must be a some demand for this!

it's not entirely clear there is demand for that- that's why Boeing haven't developed a 757 successor and why so far the 32x family hasn't offered quite the range of 757s. There's demand from the larger regional airports (Manchester etc) which is handled by the smaller widebodies- 330, 350, 767, 787.

Manchester has regular transatlantic services by 757 - It's a useful way of getting daily service on a thin route.

 

[atillathehunn]

Manchester has regular transatlantic services by 757 - It's a useful way of getting daily service on a thin route.

Quite, not just Manchester. Birmingham, Glasgow and Edinburgh have 757 serviced routes to North America. Manchester has services to PHL, JFK, IAD (seasonal) and ORD (seasonal) from AA/UA serviced by the 757. The PHL route has recently been upgauged to an A330 but I don't know how long this will last. There are also routes to Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Las Vegas(VS/Thomas Cook) operated by a larger aircraft, usually an A330 or B747.

 

[me123]

Manchester has regular transatlantic services by 757 - It's a useful way of getting daily service on a thin route.

In fact, it could be argued that without the 757s, there'd be very few scheduled operations to UK regional airports from the USA. Certainly none from Scotland. For example, Edinburgh has UA twice daily to EWR (using 757s), UA daily to ORD (using a 757), AA daily to JFK (using, guess what, a 757!). And Delta will soon start a route to JFK... using a 757.

Glasgow, similarly, benefits from 757 operation to EWR (UA) and PHL (AA, previously US).

Of course, Scotland does have scheduled and charter wide body flights to Orlando and Las Vegas but these are very seasonal and limited in frequency to no more than a few rotations a week.

The situation above is similar to that at other UK regional airports, with the exception of Manchester and LHR. (Although both still have regular 757 operation to the US!)

The upcoming loss of the Boeing 757 will be at the detriment of many routes unless there's a direct replacement. Obviously, for the busier routes (such as EDI-EWR), upgrading to a wide body could be the solution that's employed - it also has the benefit of releasing a slot at Newark for United. Some routes could go to 737 or A320neo operation, however I suspect it would be a loss of capacity compared to the 757. I am slightly worried that a lot of these routes will be lost when the 757s are retired.

 

[freetoview33]

In fact, it could be argued that without the 757s, there'd be very few scheduled operations to UK regional airports from the USA. Certainly none from Scotland. For example, Edinburgh has UA twice daily to EWR (using 757s), UA daily to ORD (using a 757), AA daily to JFK (using, guess what, a 757!). And Delta will soon start a route to JFK... using a 757.

Glasgow, similarly, benefits from 757 operation to EWR (UA) and PHL (AA, previously US).

Of course, Scotland does have scheduled and charter wide body flights to Orlando and Las Vegas but these are very seasonal and limited in frequency to no more than a few rotations a week.

The situation above is similar to that at other UK regional airports, with the exception of Manchester and LHR. (Although both still have regular 757 operation to the US!)

The upcoming loss of the Boeing 757 will be at the detriment of many routes unless there's a direct replacement. Obviously, for the busier routes (such as EDI-EWR), upgrading to a wide body could be the solution that's employed - it also has the benefit of releasing a slot at Newark for United. Some routes could go to 737 or A320neo operation, however I suspect it would be a loss of capacity compared to the 757. I am slightly worried that a lot of these routes will be lost when the 757s are retired.

The A321LR should offer exactly the same as the 757-200 in terms of passengers and range.

And the 787-800 offers a good replacement for the 757-300 (Although WB and not NB)

Although take my local airport as an example (Bristol Airport), they say they can handle all commercial aircraft other that A380, B747, B777. Although saying that it has taken 767's well loaded and I think A330. Just a bit precarious.

So there are suitable replacements for the 757!

 

[me123]

I'm aware of the replacements, and I hope that something suitable comes to fruition, but....

The A321LR should offer exactly the same as the 757-200 in terms of passengers and range.

This is currently a hypothetical aircraft with no definite orders as far as I'm aware. Although, if it comes to fruition, it would be a good direct replacement.

Sadly, the 737 options currently don't offer the same combination of passengers and range that the 757 offered.

And the 787-800 offers a good replacement for the 757-300 (Although WB and not NB)

This is, as you've said, a widebody replacement for a narrow body aircraft. It would work in some areas, but not as a great replacement for some of the thinner 757-200 routes. TBH, the 757-300 had a limited run of only about 50 aircraft - most customers opted for a wide body aircraft for this number of passengers anyway. There's not a huge need for a direct replacement - airlines will choose either a 737/A320, or a wide body depending on their needs.

 

[heart-of-wessex]

I wonder if we can expect the A320neo demo at the Farnborough show next year?

New York to Dubai would on a 320 would be like a Class 150 from Penzance to Edinburgh ! The range on some of the older 'buses surprised me though, especially seeing an Air Canada A319 from St John (Canada) to London Heathrow, that's a hike for a 319 ride!

The New York to London City A318 is a trek too, but then it's First Class only so probably not that bad!

 

[freetoview33]

There are orders for 30 A321LR and Airbus envisage a total of 1000 aircraft to be sold.

 

[miami]

Qatar Airways is once again (as with the Airbus A350) will be the launch customer. Since we are now in mid-November, is there a set-up date when the first flight will happen?

I was impressed with the 787 and A350 on Qatar. My last flight with them was an A319 from Doha to London though, I prefer the A350, and even the rickety old A330s they have to Manchester, over that distance any day though.

 

[freetoview33]

Slightly different topic, what is the point in the A330neo! I can't see any advantages over the A350, as the A350 seems cheaper, more seats, more range. So any reasons why the A330neo is a better option?

 

[me123]

I'm no expert, but perhaps if the A350 is larger, it isn't more economical for markets where the additional seats aren't going to be used? Therefore, the A330neo may be cheaper as a direct replacement for the A330, but the A350 better for operators who are expecting an increase in passenger numbers, or to compete with the 777 and larger 787s?

 

[freetoview33]

I'm no expert, but perhaps if the A350 is larger, it isn't more economical for markets where the additional seats aren't going to be used? Therefore, the A330neo may be cheaper as a direct replacement for the A330, but the A350 better for operators who are expecting an increase in passenger numbers, or to compete with the 777 and larger 787s?

A330-900neo is very slightly larger than the A350-800 yes the 800neo is smaller but considering most orders are for the 900neo what is the point over the A350-800? But the A350-800 is cheaper ect. Just makes no sense to me!

 

[me123]

Airbus have recieved more orders for the A330-900neo (149) than they have for the A350-800 (16). Obviously the airlines have seen something we haven't. Or, perhaps it's simply familiarity with the A330 family that's driving the orders?

It's hard to tell if Airbus are losing A350 orders to the A330neo, or if these orders are over and above what they would already have (competing with the 787). Either way, it seems to be working for them.

 

[freetoview33]

"the A320neo, has received joint Type Certification from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 24th November 2015."

From Airbus so this does pave the way for the first delivery.

 

[freetoview33]

After looking at it again I am going to call the A330-neo the A350-700 and A350-800 as they are basically just cut down versions of the A350 rather than updated A330-neo.

 

[Stompehh]

After looking at it again I am going to call the A330-neo the A350-700 and A350-800 as they are basically just cut down versions of the A350 rather than updated A330-neo.

Not even close.

 

[jopsuk]

After looking at it again I am going to call the A330-neo the A350-700 and A350-800 as they are basically just cut down versions of the A350 rather than updated A330-neo.

Eh? The A330neo has the same aluminium fuselage and modified aluminium wings as the A330. The A350 is completely different plane, with an all-carbon-fibre fuselage and carbon wings.

The A330 (including, and this is very important here, the neo versions) have the same fueslage cross section as the original A300 - a 5.64m circular tube. The A350 has a larger diameter 5.96m tube.

And officially the two A330neo are the A330-800neo and A330-900neo. Calling them A350-700 and A350-800, especially as the latter is an official A350 varient with 16 orders, is wilfully obtuse and confusing. Why on earth would you do that?

 

[ivanhoe]

Given that they can fill a much larger plane on these routes, where is the market for small jets?

Maybe more less frequent services to smaller destinations for those of us who like flying direct would be good. I enjoyed my half full BA Heathrow to Austin flight, although I can't imagine it was too profitable.

If Business Class and First Class were full, the flight was profitable. Economy is the icing on the cake , albeit very important

 

[fowler9]

I wouldn't mind flying medium haul on an A320 if it was configured for such a journey. I wouldn't if it was like a Wizzair or Easyjet example (Nothing against them, they are fine for what they normally do).

 

[miami]

I wouldn't mind flying medium haul on an A320 if it was configured for such a journey. I wouldn't if it was like a Wizzair or Easyjet example (Nothing against them, they are fine for what they normally do).

I flew Doha to London on an all-business A319 (2-2) and it was fine. Not as good as the A350 (which is 1-2-1), but the Copenhagen-Singapore-London trip was cheaper than BA in economy, and far better than BA in business (the A350 and 787 legs were better than BA in First), so can't complain too much

The cabin interior makes all the difference though, flying BA in europe is horrendous, even in 'business', it's not the plane that makes the difference, it's how many seats they cram in.