My main thing is a don't want an aircraft that has less than 130-seats, but not more than 160-seats. Having a 130-seat and a 160-seat airplanes makes selecting a type for a route so much simpler. I try to keep the 160-seats (149 in the case of the 737-700) on at least 15 flights a week on any given routes, and the 130-seat aircraft on whatever routes the 737-700 can't fly 15 flights a week on, but a minimum of 5 flights a week for any given route. It seems to me adding another larger aircraft makes it more difficult to allocate which aircraft go on what route.
Going back to your original problem, where you said you wanted to expand faster than Boeing can fulfill 737 orders, but also keep maintenance costs low by not taking on numerous aircraft families...and, also, you now indicate that you want to keep a clear concept of which aircraft go on which routes...I don't think you can do all of the above and only serve the 130-160 seat market. That's kind of a having your cake and eating it too thing.
I, too like to keep a designated aircraft type for a certain role, and keep my families to a minimum. It just works well with my OCD brain. My airline is structured like this:
- ATR: 50-80 pax/650 miles
- Avro: 80-130 pax/1500 miles (Pre-2002)
- E-Jets: 80-130 pax/1500 miles (Post-2002)
- 737: 130-150 pax/3500 miles
- 767: High pax/Long Range
Once I finish phasing my Avros into E-Jets I'll only have four aircraft families, each has a distinct niche, and I am pulling in new orders faster than I feel motivated to route them.
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
