Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 79
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4761 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.
LambertMan From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2102 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4475 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..
F9Widebody From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3860 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.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 7516 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3089 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.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 79
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3035 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.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 27677 posts, RR: 81
Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3011 times:
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.
Alphascan From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 938 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2995 times:
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.
"To he who only has a hammer in his toolbelt, every problem looks like a nail."
Asqx From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2898 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.
Cactus739 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2457 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2883 times:
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.
You can't fix stupid.... - Ron White
: 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
: 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
: 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
: >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
: 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
: >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
: "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
: 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.
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: funny that an engine with a lower bypass ratio produces more thrust, I always thought it was the other way around.
: Heh, not necessarily. And its only a mildly, mildly lower bypass ratio due to higher core flow. N
: 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
: Mariner: You mentioned cancelling your FirstClass Membership. If you do that, will they allow you to return to, what I call, CattleClass Membership, l
: 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
: 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
: 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
: Gigneil: You have authority to do this? Gosh. But - thank you. cheers mariner