Jump to content

Photo

Long Haul Lower Cost but not low cost ideas


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1
pinksnowbirdie

pinksnowbirdie

    Aurora Borealis

  • Member
  • 84 posts

I'm curious to hear from you what you guys would do if you owned a real airline.

Say you operate Airbus A220s on short to medium haul flights at smaller cities and A321 to connect bigger cities and then for long haul routes out of the further away bigger cities what plane would you use?
787, A330neo, or A350?

 

Give your explanation as to why you'd pick that plane with that specific fleet, I'd be intrigued to hear what you all have to say.



#2
atnt71eb

atnt71eb

    Emperor of AE

  • Member
  • 257 posts

User's Awards

43    73    31    5    2   

I'm curious to hear from you what you guys would do if you owned a real airline.

Say you operate Airbus A220s on short to medium haul flights at smaller cities and A321 to connect bigger cities and then for long haul routes out of the further away bigger cities what plane would you use?
787, A330neo, or A350?

 

Give your explanation as to why you'd pick that plane with that specific fleet, I'd be intrigued to hear what you all have to say.

 

These planes are so close in real-world operating economics and capabilities that it would come down to the deal offered by Boeing/Airbus for the particular airline imagined. 

 

At the margins there are differences - A330NEO has less range than 787-9, for example. But on the whole there is no getting around the laws of physics and the state of current technology: Americans and Europeans basically have the same technical capabilities. 

 

The rare exception to this rule is a mega-disaster like the A380 program. But that's attributable to non-technical issues, mainly Airbus' irrational fixation on having the biggest plane.



#3
pinksnowbirdie

pinksnowbirdie

    Aurora Borealis

  • Member
  • 84 posts

These planes are so close in real-world operating economics and capabilities that it would come down to the deal offered by Boeing/Airbus for the particular airline imagined. 

 

At the margins there are differences - A330NEO has less range than 787-9, for example. But on the whole there is no getting around the laws of physics and the state of current technology: Americans and Europeans basically have the same technical capabilities. 

 

The rare exception to this rule is a mega-disaster like the A380 program. But that's attributable to non-technical issues, mainly Airbus' irrational fixation on having the biggest plane.

very true, I think it would come down to how ambitious Boeing was willing to get a sale over Airbus especially from a new customer.

A330neo I believe Airbus would be more likely to heavily discount than the A350 for a variety of reasons



#4
N420TR

N420TR

    New Member

  • Member
  • 5 posts

I'd pick the A350. Per seat, it burns less fuel than the 787 and supports 3-4-3 config in Economy.

 

FrenchBee (a tiny French long-haul LCC, used to be called FrenchBlue before JetBlue had a hissy fit) has an all-A350 fleet, and I'm pretty sure is currently the most efficient long-haul airline, and seems to be profitable unlike its Norwegian rival.

 

Hainan/Hong Kong Air seem to have tons of A350-900s sitting around which they're trying to get rid of, I'd take advantage of the extremely low lease rates being offered currently and put them to good use.


screenshot-2020-06-08-696faa453a48bd8147


#5
pinksnowbirdie

pinksnowbirdie

    Aurora Borealis

  • Member
  • 84 posts

I'd pick the A350. Per seat, it burns less fuel than the 787 and supports 3-4-3 config in Economy.

 

FrenchBee (a tiny French long-haul LCC, used to be called FrenchBlue before JetBlue had a hissy fit) has an all-A350 fleet, and I'm pretty sure is currently the most efficient long-haul airline, and seems to be profitable unlike its Norwegian rival.

 

Hainan/Hong Kong Air seem to have tons of A350-900s sitting around which they're trying to get rid of, I'd take advantage of the extremely low lease rates being offered currently and put them to good use.

yeah I think that'd also make a lot of sense, I've heard about FrenchBee and their all A350 fleet. I think with A220s and A321s it'd be fairly easy for those pilots to move up into a A350.

I know the thinking behind the A220 isn't what Airbus would do because it was built by Bombardier but it fits in well enough with Airbus's main flight deck philosophy and the A350 is closer to the A380's flight deck. But it seems like training costs aren't really that much of a deal breaker for how similar both planes are.

I do wish the A350 had an American engine option lol but GE has some options but they might be exclusively for Boeing and well getting them modified for Airbus and around any exclusivity deals would cost quite a bit of money either scaled up GEnx or tweaked GE9x would be very cool but I doubt we'll see those on the A350



#6
DeltaIVSSBN

DeltaIVSSBN

    Project 667BDRM

  • Member
  • 194 posts

User's Awards

2      

I might just use the 777-9x. It's very efficient like the A350 but with a higher capacity. Although filling up such a large aircraft might be an issue. 



#7
atnt71eb

atnt71eb

    Emperor of AE

  • Member
  • 257 posts

User's Awards

43    73    31    5    2   

I'd pick the A350. Per seat, it burns less fuel than the 787 and supports 3-4-3 config in Economy.

 

FrenchBee (a tiny French long-haul LCC, used to be called FrenchBlue before JetBlue had a hissy fit) has an all-A350 fleet, and I'm pretty sure is currently the most efficient long-haul airline, and seems to be profitable unlike its Norwegian rival.

 

Hainan/Hong Kong Air seem to have tons of A350-900s sitting around which they're trying to get rid of, I'd take advantage of the extremely low lease rates being offered currently and put them to good use.

 

A350 in 3-4-3 is hell - worse than a 9ab A330. That's why only low cost airlines have chosen it. I can see the merit for them but for a full-service or even decently-branded airline it's a no-go. 



#8
N420TR

N420TR

    New Member

  • Member
  • 5 posts

A350 in 3-4-3 is hell - worse than a 9ab A330. That's why only low cost airlines have chosen it. I can see the merit for them but for a full-service or even decently-branded airline it's a no-go. 

British Airways has its A350s with 3-4-3, and from personal experience it's not too bad (however I'm the size of a stick insect so I'm probably not one to judge). Definitely wouldn't class BA as being decently-branded anymore though.


screenshot-2020-06-08-696faa453a48bd8147


#9
RehanTheBlock

RehanTheBlock

    known weeb and commulist infiltrator

  • Member
  • 194 posts

I might just use the 777-9x. It's very efficient like the A350 but with a higher capacity. Although filling up such a large aircraft might be an issue. 

 

Also many runways aren't large enough for a 777-9X, some engine options on the 777-300 (Non ER) can't even land on some of the major airports in the world



#10
DeltaIVSSBN

DeltaIVSSBN

    Project 667BDRM

  • Member
  • 194 posts

User's Awards

2      

Also many runways aren't large enough for a 777-9X, some engine options on the 777-300 (Non ER) can't even land on some of the major airports in the world

True, but at least it can fit in a normal 777 gate with the folding wingtips. However, it would be harder to server secondary airports with the cheaper costs due to the runway length.



#11
atnt71eb

atnt71eb

    Emperor of AE

  • Member
  • 257 posts

User's Awards

43    73    31    5    2   

British Airways has its A350s with 3-4-3, and from personal experience it's not too bad (however I'm the size of a stick insect so I'm probably not one to judge). Definitely wouldn't class BA as being decently-branded anymore though.

 

Before We suffered mutilation of Our statue at the hands of the mob, it would have been difficult for Us to keep Our legs together on a long flight in this layout. 

 

Please keep this in mind before mutilating statues. 

Attached Files



#12
atnt71eb

atnt71eb

    Emperor of AE

  • Member
  • 257 posts

User's Awards

43    73    31    5    2   

Also many runways aren't large enough for a 777-9X, some engine options on the 777-300 (Non ER) can't even land on some of the major airports in the world

 

Which? I know EK didn't serve FLL because of runway restrictions of the 77W. And I'm sure there are other examples... Nonetheless, places to which you'd want to fly a 77W tend to be 77W-capable. The exceptions to the rule are so small that they don't come close to accepting, in the alternative, the economic penalties flowing from contemporaries of the 77W such as A346. 

 

The 779 should have far lower runway requirements.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users