Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F9 Upgrades A319 Engines  
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25144 posts, RR: 85
Posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4732 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Up until now, Frontier's routes DEN/ANC and LAX/PHL have been weight restricted.

However, there's a snappet in the abbreviated SEC quarterly filing (last paragraph of page 10):

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/041108/frnt10-q.html

They intend to upgrade the engines on 10 of the A319's so that, for example, DEN/ANC and LAX/PHL can operate without weight restrictions.

But - a subfleet of 10 aircraft for just those 2 routes? Hmmm.

cheers

mariner


aeternum nauta
50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4664 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

its just a software upgrade, nothing more.

User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25144 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4649 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Clickhappy:

"It's just a software upgrade, nothing more."

If it enables Frontier to fly these two routes without weight restrictions, then I would hardly call it "nothing more".

cheers

mariner

[Edited 2004-11-09 18:58:52]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4539 times:

then I would hardly call it "nothing more".

Heh, call it what you want. Its a software upgrade.

N


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25144 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Gigneil:

Did I dispute that? The fact remains that it - whatever it is - gives Frontier the capability to fly the routes without weight restriction.

Since there was some considerable disussion on this forum about this last summer, it may - stress "may" - be of interest to those who follow the airline.

To those who do not care, why bother to reply?

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

I do care, in fact.

N


User currently offlineLambertMan From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2073 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4501 times:

Mariner,

Have you heard of STL-LAX coming back for the summer months? To cut a flight with an 85% LF seems kind of strange.


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25144 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Gigneil:

"I do care, in fact."

Then I don't understand your response.

Let me put it simply: if it is just a software upgrade, then why not upgrade the whole fleet, instead of just 10 aircraft?

If the response is that Frontier doesn't need the whole fleet for those two routes, there is a further question:

Why as many as 10 aircraft, since 4, or at most 5, could easily fulfill the rotations for the two routes nominated?

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4434 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Let me put it simply: if it is just a software upgrade, then why not upgrade the whole fleet, instead of just 10 aircraft?

Because it costs money. More fuel and more maintenance.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4433 times:

Let me put it simply: if it is just a software upgrade, then why not upgrade the whole fleet, instead of just 10 aircraft?

Because its a very, very costly software upgrade that is licensed on a per-engine basis.

Why as many as 10 aircraft, since 4, or at most 5, could easily fulfill the rotations for the two routes nominated?

There are a few possible reasons. One is fleet scheduling flexibility. Another is that they may have routes where they'd like to haul additional cargo. They could also be planning further long routes that we're not currently privy to. CFM also might have made them a bundled deal for 10 aircraft that made it worth it on a cost-per-aircraft basis.

Not trying to be disagreeable here. I just wanted to confirm that the change is, indeed, a software upgrade. I follow F9 with some interest, being from the Springs and living in Denver many years myself.

N


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25144 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Gigneil:

Well, thank you. At last some discussion, instead of snapbacks.

Clickhappy:

You list yourself as "crew", and your flip reply #3 is becoming - sadly - typical of "crew" responses on these boards.

Which has led me to ask airliners.net to cancel my subscription.

LambertMan:

Sorry, but as you see from the above, the initial responses of some have not put me in a mood to discuss Frontier. Or anything, really.

However, since ir is you, I would suggest - only suggest - that much of what may happen with Frontier at STL depends entriely on the DOT's respnse to STL/CUN.

Only a suggestion.

Have fun, guys.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4252 times:

Because its a very, very costly software upgrade that is licensed on a per-engine basis.

Wonder if you have to plug the A319 into an internet connection and "activate" the software within 30 days  Big grin

I can see it now..."Sorry, Ladies and Gentleman we have to divert to Seattle because the IT dept. forgot to activate our copy of EngineXP and the time limit runs out in 30 minutes"

Mike


User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4231 times:

The yeilds on STL/LAX are awful...even if LF was 102%!


Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlineLambertMan From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2073 posts, RR: 36
Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4147 times:

I have a hard time believing that yields are that depressed on a route mainly overran by AA. Although there is one flight a day on WN, I believe that when tickets were being sold for STL-LAX the price was equal to that of MCI/MSP..

User currently offlineAirbrasil From Brazil, joined Nov 2003, 205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3929 times:

Mariner,

I hope F9 open more cities out of LAX. Perhaps with a future opening of PIT or RDU F9 could repead the same as it did with PHL opening flights to DEN and LAX at the same time.

Airbrasil


User currently offlineF9Widebody From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3532 times:

You list yourself as "crew", and your flip reply #3 is becoming - sadly - typical of "crew" responses on these boards.

Which has led me to ask airliners.net to cancel my subscription.


Please reconsider, you are an invaluable source of information for Frontier...your replies always are knowledgable and informative, it would be another loss for airliners.net if left. If you do leave, at least give us the link for that Frontier Yahoo Group.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



YES URLS in signature!!!
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25144 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3051 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

F9Widebody:

I shall continue to read these boards, and, if I feel I have anything to add, I might - stress "might" - post.

But I am too old to be bothered with the impolite, the rude and the flip. If someone lists themselves as Crew, then, to some extent, they represent airliners.net.

So why give money to airliners.net, if their "staff" are going to be flip, curt, rude, etc.

It is why I no longer fly legacy carriers.

In this particular case, I talked to a chum at Airbus last night, who tells me that the increase in the MTOW costs about $1 million per plane.

10 aircraft is $10 million, which in this day and age, is something for a small airline like Frontier.

So, while it may be "just a software upgrade", you don't pick it up for a couple of bucks at Good Guys.

cheers

marnier



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3012 times:

Mariner:

I look forward to your updates on F9. That said, I hope you'll continue to add to this sometimes uncouth forum.



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6751 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

Perhaps a reply was deleted from this thread, but I didn't find Clickhappy's responses to be flippant -- short, perhaps, but also to the point. The uprating of the engines is simply a change in the software. The engine manufacturer charges quite a bit (i.e six to seven figures per engine) for the "software upgrade" since the upgrade gives you a significantly more useful product, and it's cheaper for them to produce one version of the engine than three or four. Bombardier's 40/44-seat CRJ is the same as their 50-seat CRJ -- the operator pays less and agrees to only use 40 or 44 seats.

As Gigneil said, the reasoning behind upgrading 10 aircraft (instead of 4 or 5) probably lies with scheduling, future routes, and (speculation on my part) a desire for improved performance on certain routes. It wouldn't surprise me if LGA-DEN, for example, had restrictions on hot days.


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25144 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

ScottB:

At least one reply - the critical reply - has been deleted.

The point remains: the change may be "only the software", but at $1 million per plane, it is not exactly small change for Frontier.

The further point is that if it is such a small deal, then (a) why would Frontier not change all the aircraft?, and (b) why would they even bother to mention it in an SEC filing?

Call me stupid, many have, but those things are - to me - at least as worthy of discussion as the latest livery on some obscure airline.

The greater point is this: not all of us who are interested in airlines are intimately familiar with all things technical.

Even within this unhappy thread, I have learned stuff. such as - the details of what the change (be it software, or whatever) entails and (b) how it may may - stress "may" - affect the fleet.

It is sad - to me - that I had to go to another source to find out details of the MTOW, or example, when such knowledge may exist here.

And the implicit question in my original post ("Hmmmm") is the consideration of possible future routes.

That learning is, in itself, something. I think. You, of course, may not.

I also think it is a shame that people who have knowledge had to be provoked into sharing that knowledge. You, of course, may not think so.

But if we are not here to learn, then what is the point?

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2707 times:


It is sad - to me - that I had to go to another source to find out details of the MTOW, or example, when such knowledge may exist here.


You didn't have to. If you had asked me what increase in MTOW would become available after the engines were upgraded, I would have told you.

I think you were missing the point of what I was saying. I was trying to say that upgrading the engines is as simple as a software upgrade. Plug in, upload, *poof* magic new thrust.

I wasn't trying to argue that the engine upgrade was a mere firmware swap that would have no lasting or memorable impact. The software upgrade provides a significant thrust increase, and a significant available increase in the MTOW of the plane.

I thought the detail being provided (that you can now get thousands of pounds of new thrust with only a firmware swap) was interesting and valuable contribution.

Clickhappy, perhaps, was being critical.

N


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25144 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2683 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Gigneil:

Once again, not all of us who are interested in airlines are intimately familar with all things technical.

I did not ask you what the change in MTOW would be, because I already knew that, the link to the SEC filing told me. I was interested in the cause and effect.

So because of the curt replies here - and even you admitted in a later post that perhaps you had appeared disagreeable - I emailed my chum at Airbus, who gently held my hand and took me through the process.

You say you had this knowledge, but - originally - you chose not to share it. I think that's a pity.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAlphascan From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 937 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

M;

Thank you for all the knowledge I have gained from reading your contributions to this site over the past couple of years. Not only have your posts been informative, but your polite and respectful style has encouraged many other knowledgeable individuals to contribute valuable information that has enhanced my understanding of the business side of this crazy, yet addictive industry.

I hope you will reconsider your decision, in spite of the poorly trained staff of this board.

Cheers!

Alphascan



"To he who only has a hammer in his toolbelt, every problem looks like a nail."
User currently offlineAsqx From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 615 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

The engine upgrades are nice, but the landing gears don't appear to have been changed and as far as I can tell we are still limited to 154,000lb, since that's what they have stamped on them. Or I should say had, since those plates seem to be missing of late, only thing is, its not just a few, its all of the Airbus. Of course, the nice thing about having a higher powered engine on the wing is that given the same weight, it doesn't have to work as hard to product the same thrust and can improve fuel burn, which, with retail rates hovering around $1.40 a gallon, any little bit helps.

A few months ago, one of our higher ups from operations explained that while its an easy computer upgrade to change the thrust on the engines, Airbus wasn't too happy with the idea of us spending $1 million to upgrade them ourselves when they charge more to have it delivered new with the higher thrust. I have half a mind to believe that Airbus was willing to look the other way and not complain about us doing an upgrade we'd like in exchange for less of a penalty for damaging two airplanes (N935FR and N807FR) delaying delivery. Then again, he also explained that its $2mill+ with a minimum of 2 years retraining and operational proving before we could fly to Hawaii so that pretty much put a killer on HNL and OGG rumors... unless of course we bought someone already ETOPS certified.

And as to STL-LAX yeilds being lowsy, well, with yeild where it is at the moment for pretty much every airline in the US, having a lowsy yeild is pretty good, since on the whole it stinks.


User currently offlineCactus739 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2445 posts, RR: 31
Reply 24, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2555 times:

Mariner:

I hope that you reconsider and stay around. Your posts are always informative, easy to read and comprehend, and you have a grasp for the financial side that many of us do not. I too, will miss your contributions should you leave.

cheers!

cactus
 Smile



You can't fix stupid.... - Ron White
25 Post contains images Bill142 : If its just a software upgrade, why don't they just do a search on Kazaa or something of that nature and then burn it onto a CD.. would cost alot less
26 Gigneil : The engine upgrades are nice, but the landing gears don't appear to have been changed and as far as I can tell we are still limited to 154,000lb, sinc
27 Mariner : Gigneil: Given all that has been said, I dn't like to buy into this, but I did start the thread. So - airliners.net aircraft stats show a different MT
28 N1120a : >Have you heard of STL-LAX coming back for the summer months? To cut a flight with an 85% LF seems kind of strange.The yeilds on STL/LAX are awful...e
29 Gigneil : The alternative is that airliners.net is wrong Nearly all of the information in the airliners.net airliner data is, yes. You're welcome to be bitter a
30 N1120a : >The alternative is that airliners.net is wrong< Neil is right, pretty much all of the A.net data is way off for the airplanes. He is also right that
31 ScottB : "Their main reason for dropping the route was not yield, it was lack of aircraft because of what Airbus did to their A318. Since it was not making eno
32 Mariner : Gigneil: "Bitter and angry"? This is an internet message board, not the meaning of life. I don't even get "bitter and angry" about things that matter.
33 Gigneil : I wasn't referring to your disbelief of the numbers. I was referring to your reiteration that you didn't want to be further involved. You're right, th
34 Mariner : Gigneil: Any "mild annoyance" I ever feel is only over incivility, which - in my opinion - was begun by another poster, and most particularly with a p
35 Post contains images Gigneil : I checked the link you provided, the snippet I provided above and what was in the abbreviated one are the same. Frontier will operate now a fleet of 1
36 Post contains links Mariner : Gigneil: I apologize as far as the Frontier figures go. I had misread your lbs as kgs (my natural measure) - but I was still surprised about your "ove
37 Post contains images Clickhappy : all I did was post a " " is that such a big deal? If so, I apologize. It is after all just an "internet message board." So how about we move on? The f
38 Post contains images Gigneil : Correct. The engine is now a -5B6/P rather than a -5B5/P. but I was still surprised about your "over-annoyance" comment - the "over" part, at least. C
39 Clickhappy : funny that an engine with a lower bypass ratio produces more thrust, I always thought it was the other way around.
40 Gigneil : Heh, not necessarily. And its only a mildly, mildly lower bypass ratio due to higher core flow. N
41 Post contains images Mariner : Gigneil: "Drama queenitis"? Wow. I did not "threaten to have the admins delete me from the board". I made it very clear, in posts to others, that I wo
42 DIA : Mariner: You mentioned cancelling your FirstClass Membership. If you do that, will they allow you to return to, what I call, CattleClass Membership, l
43 Jetmek319 : Mariner, I for one value your insight into this wild business, so I request that you not leave. To give an insider view of this. Uprating the engines
44 Post contains images Mariner : DIA: Since I have received no reply from airliners.net to my requests to cancel my subscription, I can't begin to guess the answer to your question. I
45 Gigneil : I just deleted the payment from Paypal, personally. That got the job done. You will have to resubscribe as a "Premium Member" which is a one time $25
46 Mariner : Gigneil: You have authority to do this? Gosh. But - thank you. cheers mariner
47 Alphascan : Damn shame. Way to go Click.
48 Post contains images Mariner : Alphascan: Actually, it has its curious side. And slighty disturbing, I think. Gigneil seems to think it is proper to discuss my personal financial bu
49 Alphascan : Well hopefully he was just pulling your leg and you will stick around. Seems alot of the most knowledgable posters that were here when I joined two ye
50 Luv2fly : Mariner I to hope you'll stay around, your insight is always appreciated and at times you are the voice of reason. Plus we both have stock in similar
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A319 Engines posted Sun Aug 6 2006 14:30:58 by BA787
F9 A319 In SDF Today posted Wed Oct 25 2006 03:00:14 by Upsmd11
New A319 For 4U - IAE Engines?!? posted Tue Oct 25 2005 23:23:52 by TheSonntag
New F9 A319 Nicknamed After A.netter posted Sat Feb 19 2005 00:09:49 by Alphascan
F9 A319 @ PUW posted Sat Oct 2 2004 09:44:03 by Geg2rap
F9 Is Another 2 More Of A319 posted Fri Jul 2 2004 21:45:02 by ScottysAir
F9 A319 To Do Fly Over With F-16's posted Tue Mar 30 2004 21:36:44 by Ual747den
Just Delivered: F9 A319 W/ *New* Animal posted Tue Feb 24 2004 16:27:03 by DIA
BA's A318,A319 And A320 Engines posted Fri Sep 8 2000 22:40:46 by Aviation Fan
No Radiation Found On Germanwings A319 posted Sat Dec 9 2006 21:23:46 by A342