Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?  
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6736 times:

Even though I am a huge Boeing fan, I greatly admire the incredible design of the A320 family. A design that has been refined greatly since 1988, I am familiar with the extended family - the 321 offering greater capacity, and the 319 which is a longer range version.

However, I don't quite understand exactly what market the 318 is supposed to serve. What is its mission? What routes was it designed for? If you had an airline, what routes would you have it flying (assuming you had an Airbus fleet commonality situation)?

Thanks in advance!!


Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6686 times:

Transcon, thin routes of 105-115 pax or so. It's a niche a/c, made possible by shrinking a successful design, similar to the 737-500/600. In general, stretch version of airliners are more successful than shrinks...

DOCs are in direct proportion to operating weight, and for that seat capacity in today's market, for most operators it is too heavy. In other words, it has too much range capability, so the empty weight (and MGTOW) is therefore much heavier than a CRJ 900 or EMB-190...so it is more costly in the sub transcon range than the above a/c.

Conversely, if the range capability is utilized, most airlines would prefer to have the 20 additional seats that the "parent" a/c offerred in the first place...

WN and CAL bought the -500 in the late 80s, when low fuel costs made such a route specific a/c viable. I doubt US operators ever get the -600, or if more 318s are ever sold. I bet Frontier wishes they could trade their 318s in on bigger busses...


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25008 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6635 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 1):
I bet Frontier wishes they could trade their 318s in on bigger busses...

You'd lose the bet. They have just ordered some more A318's - about two months ago.

http://frontierairlines.mediaroom.co...dex.php?s=press_releases&item=1274

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineBDL2DCA From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6616 times:

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 1):
I bet Frontier wishes they could trade their 318s in on bigger busses...

Since they just ordered more, I think you might be mistaken:
New A320s And A318s For Frontier. (by Manni May 2 2006 in Civil Aviation)



146,319,320,321,333,343,722,732,733,734,735,73G,738,744,752,762,763,772,ARJ,BE1,CRJ,D9S,D10,DH8,ERJ,E70,F100,S80
User currently offlineL1329II From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6564 times:

Is F9 using these 318's for route building then?

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4781 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6539 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter):
What routes was it designed for?

From www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2749891/ F9 would be using the newly confirmed A318s for point-to-point service between LAX and SFO.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineAdria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6527 times:

Well Adria could use some A318s (they would be good for short flights to Germany and the summer charter flights) instead of leased B735 which are going to replace the more comfortable and modern A320s.
Altough it is not very popular I still believe there are going to be new orders for the A318 in the future.


User currently offlineRojo From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 2443 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6497 times:

Mexicana uses their A318's for route building. It has flown MEX-YYZ, MEX-YVR, MEX-JFK, MEX-BWI, MLM-ORD, ZCL-DFW some being long routes that require few seats during the first months of operation. They tried to use it for the MEX-UIO-GYE, but they had problems (it was not certified in Ecuador).

User currently offlineKL808 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1584 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6486 times:

Quoting Rojo (Reply 7):
They tried to use it for the MEX-UIO-GYE, but they had problems (it was not certified in Ecuador).

Could you please elaborate.

Drew



AMS-LAX-MNL
User currently offlineL1329II From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6422 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 5):
From www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2749891/ F9 would be using the newly confirmed A318s for point-to-point service between LAX and SFO.

Thanks for pointing that out. However I just dont see the use of such a smaller plane for that route. Why not the 319? B6 uses thier 320's on shorter routes.

I'm not trying to be an armchair CEO but just wondering...


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6376 times:

Thank you for the replies!!

Perhaps someone at F9 can elaborate a little further for me - my itinerary for a summer trip SAN-MSP on F9 was recently changed to include a 318 segment. I am curious as to how the airline decides where a 318 would be most economical.

Also, is the cargo capacity of the entire family proportional to passenger capacity and thrust performance? Meaning if the 318 can carry say 100 passengers, plus their luggage and X pounds of cargo, would each larger version have the same ratios as passenger numbers get larger?



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25008 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6371 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L1329II (Reply 9):
I just dont see the use of such a smaller plane for that route. Why not the 319?

From the press release "We will fly our mainline A318s and A319s on the route."

Frontier uses the A318 to "right-size" based on traffic at various times of the day. The same, I'm sure, will apply to the A320 when it arrives.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6225 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 2):
You'd lose the bet. They have just ordered some more A318's - about two months ago.

Noted, and my point was that they are niche a/c...which means that some airlines (obviously Frontier) have a specific need for A318s. Additionally, b/c of this niche, the 737-500/600 and A318s have not been high sellers.


User currently offlineRojo From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 2443 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6087 times:

Quoting KL808 (Reply 8):
Could you please elaborate.

Don't know exactly why MX had to use the A319 to Ecuador, but what I was told during an informal chat was that the A318 was not certified by the aviation authority of Ecuador to land in their fields. Maybe someone working in MX can elaborate...


User currently offlineAirportmanager From Ecuador, joined Mar 2001, 558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6068 times:

Quoting Rojo (Reply 7):
They tried to use it for the MEX-UIO-GYE, but they had problems (it was not certified in Ecuador).

What are you talking about man? Hahaha. A plane that isnt certified here cant fly here, so why this....

http://www.planepictures.net/xsearch...-srng=1&rg-srch=&offset=0&range=25

They flew the A319 and A318. Second, they stopped operating, not for any reason like problems with acft but for passenger numbers etc.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6068 times:

Quoting L1329II (Reply 4):
Is F9 using these 318's for route building then?

Yep, and for adding frequencies. But they've found they could also use some A320s on some routes and ordered those for the first time.

Quoting L1329II (Reply 9):
Thanks for pointing that out. However I just dont see the use of such a smaller plane for that route.

ERJs, 733s, 732s, 735s, CRJs, etc. have all been used on the LA to SF market.

Of course, so have 747s, DC10s, L1011s, etc. in the past.

If F9 thinks it makes sense on the route, and they would rather use 319s elsewhere in the system, then that's their choice.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7561 posts, RR: 43
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6016 times:

Quoting Airportmanager (Reply 14):
Second, they stopped operating, not for any reason like problems with acft but for passenger numbers etc.

I recall reading here that some days MX had good loads and some others they had bad loads. Nevertheless, it seems they want to reinstate the route later this year or next year. Does anyone know if this is true? I recall the argument was that there were other more profitable routes where MX could use the planes required to fly to Ecuador instead, but that as soon as more aircraft joined the fleet, MX was going to give this route another go.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineN405MX From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1378 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5931 times:

Quoting Rojo (Reply 13):
Don't know exactly why MX had to use the A319 to Ecuador, but what I was told during an informal chat was that the A318 was not certified by the aviation authority of Ecuador to land in their fields. Maybe someone working in MX can elaborate...

The plane was so new that it didn´t had the permissions by Ecuatorian or Mexican authorithies for the route, that´s why in the last minute it was changed for the A319; was not about certification, was about permissions.

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 16):
Does anyone know if this is true? I recall the argument was that there were other more profitable routes where MX could use the planes required to fly to Ecuador instead, but that as soon as more aircraft joined the fleet, MX was going to give this route another go.

Actually because of the geografical situation of UIO/GYE, actually the A320 can´t operate there because it´s really high above sea level, and only the A318/A319 can fly there. The route was a great one, but problems about visas, and migration requirements made MX to cancelled the route for a moment, actually MX1681 still appears on MX system, shows that the flight is not operating, but as flight number still alive.

Quoting Airportmanager (Reply 14):
Second, they stopped operating, not for any reason like problems with acft but for passenger numbers etc.

All about goberment requirements (both Mexican and Ecuatorian).
The loads where great on the route, actually about 80% LF in average.

Saludos



Life is what happens when you have other plans.....
User currently offlineL1329II From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5901 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
If F9 thinks it makes sense on the route, and they would rather use 319s elsewhere in the system, then that's their choice.

Like I said... I'm no armchair CEO, I'm just trying to understand thats all.


User currently offlineMD90fan From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 2931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5885 times:

I read that the 736 was meant with routes like SEA-MSY in mind and GLA-ATH.  Smile

Regards,
MD90fan  airplane   wave 



http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4781 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5545 times:

I don't think Airbus intended the A318 to be a niche aircraft, the same way that Boeing did not intend the 736 to also be one. Both manufacturers saw the opportunity to have a complete line and enter, with relatively little investment, the then booming RJ market by offering aircraft that straddle the capacity transition fom regional to mainline. The A318's and 736's generic range figures point to that. In Airbus' case, it was also to have a competitor for the 736 which was first to market. Alas, the notorious reputation of shrinks being less economical than optimized designs was again proven in these two, thus relegating them to pinch-hitter duties like pioneering, route building and right-sizing.


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5509 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 20):
I don't think Airbus intended the A318 to be a niche aircraft, the same way that Boeing did not intend the 736 to also be one. Both manufacturers saw the opportunity to have a complete line and enter, with relatively little investment, the then booming RJ market by offering aircraft that straddle the capacity transition fom regional to mainline.

We certainly differ on this one. A/c at either end of the Airbus or Boeing spectrum are niche a/c; that's the whole point of having a comprehensive product line, and the same argument can be made for the 737-700ER, 900/900ER and A321. One of the first things that is looked at in an a/c design or modification is airline need, which is condensed as operating weight(s). The MGTOW for the 50 seat RJs is around 50,000 lbs, the MGTOW for the -500 is in the 130,000 lb range, and probably more for the -600 and A318 if I looked it up. That is almost 3 times as much a/c as an RJ; with that comparison it is a logical conclusion that the -500/600 and A318 are not comparable to an RJ.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4781 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5427 times:

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 21):
That is almost 3 times as much a/c as an RJ; with that comparison it is a logical conclusion that the -500/600 and A318 are not comparable to an RJ.

The point was not that the 318 and 736 were RJs, but rather were hoped to capture some of that market. And doing dual roles as regional and mainline equipment diminishes the niche aircraft classification.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5405 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter):
the A320 family. A design that has been refined greatly since 1988, I am familiar with the extended family - the 321 offering greater capacity, and the 319 which is a longer range version.

The A32S family wasn't greatly refined during its life, at least nowhere close to the 737.

And the A319 not only has a longer range than the A320, but it is shortened, too, however not as much as the A318.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25008 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5397 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 22):
The point was not that the 318 and 736 were RJs

The A318 can fly transcons, and has done so. I'm not sure how that makes it "regional" jet.

mariner



aeternum nauta
25 Cedarjet : RJs fly some seriously long stages - my only ERJ135 flight to date was Toronto to Houston, and they do plenty of longer stuff. The term "Regional Jet
26 DEVILFISH : Please note the "NOT" in the phrase you quoted.
27 Mariner : Point taken. Thank you. mariner
28 PanAm747 : Both points I understand - the 737 has been in production more than 40 years, during which time great advances in technology have transformed the jet
29 Post contains images MaverickM11 : It's designed for routes where you want all the costs of the A319 but 20 fewer seats.
30 Ikramerica : Funny, but not exactly. It has lower power engines, is lighter, etc. than the 319, so the costs are lower. The problem, which is sort of self fulfill
31 Steeler83 : I guess some people are inclined to think that all planes that seat under 120 people are considered as regional jets. The DC9 barely seated 100 peopl
32 MaverickM11 : And therein lies the rub....one of many for this aircraft.
33 Tzadik : Seeing as westjet and frontier seem to fancy the B736 and A318 which for all intensive purposes is a long range regional jet, i ask this. Is it more c
34 Mariner : If it didn't, why would they order more? mariner
35 Tzadik : delta spends money on new flight attendant uniforms when they're in bankruptcy... very little done these days makes sense. The point of my question wa
36 Mariner : Why should Delta not order new uniforms in bankruptcy? They still have to fight for passengers, they still have to present a brand, they still have t
37 N405MX : Depending on the airline and/or the route, it is, as your load factor increases, and the cost is lower, you are making money. Also, is more dificult
38 A342 : The MTOWs of the longer-range versions aren´t much different, 75.9 tonnes for the A319 and 77.4 tonnes for the A320. As high MTOW aircraft, all A32S
39 L1329II : Do I sense a tone of sarcasm?
40 MaverickM11 : According to their respective websites, the E195 has about 150 cubic feet MORE bulk hold space than the A318, and the E jet has an operating empty we
41 A342 : Yes, that's becuase compared to other A32S models, the wing box takes an unproportionally long part of the space below the cabin. But, you have to co
42 DEVILFISH : From Flight Global, photo of the A318 Elite VIP version which had just been exhibited for the first time at EBACE in Geneva. It will be demonstated n
43 Post contains links N405MX : Let me confirm my numbers, here I´m comparing the embraer and a A318 (payload data taken from an MX´s A318) Embraer195 (AR) A318 Maximum Takeoff We
44 MaverickM11 : Wow they have basically the same max payload except you are carrying an extra 11,500kg around with the A318, and the 195 can cover every current 318
45 N405MX : Could be, but there are 318´s with way more payload (about 2 tons), also have to check how the 195 performs out of hot and high destinations like ME
46 Scouseflyer : Didn't they also look at a A316 (regional jet) and a A317 which was a joint venture with the Chinese (IIRC)?
47 Post contains images MaverickM11 : 540kg from the data above You're going to need a lot more fuel to carry around those 12 extra tons of dead, costly weight
48 Post contains images N405MX : Yep, the compared planes, but there are A318´s that have more payload. (one of them around 15 tons) Actually there are 10 extra tons with the plane
49 EssentialPowr : "Some" of the market...the -500s bought by CAL and WN (WN was the launch, no more were bought, no US operator for the -600) and the A318s bought by F
50 Steeler83 : To me, a regional aircraft is any aircraft designed to carry under 90 or so pax... That means, that given that the A318 and 737 aircraft are designed
51 DEVILFISH : Manufacturers always want the widest acceptance for their products. That was the reason Airbus required 100+ commitments before launching the A318 -
52 Mariner : And LAX-PHL was soemthing rather more. mariner
53 Zeke : It will also serve airports that 737-100 and 737-200 can operate into with its low tire pressures. Its also being certified for 5.5 degree approaches
54 LTU932 : What is this geographical situation you're talking about? UIO is close to 10000 ft high, but GYE is actually close to sea level. Or is it simply beca
55 EssentialPowr : Of course any company wants the widest acceptance of their products...that's true for nail guns and airliners and everything in between, and if a com
56 BuyantUkhaa : I'm surprised nobody mentioned this before! Wasn't this one of the main niches for the A318?
57 N405MX : My mistake to add GYE, the problem was about UIO because of it´s 9,228ft of elevation, as far as I remember (correct me if I´m wrong) the A320 max
58 A342 : I'm quite sure that's wrong, even the A330/340 can go until 12500ft. Add to this, the A319 is operated to the world's highest airport, Bangda in Chin
59 N405MX : A330/340, just found my A320 manual; it says 8500ft. Maybe it can operate at higher locations but: Maybe, but you´ll be w&b penalized. Cheers
60 A342 : Thank you. However, isn't that weird ?
61 Zeke : Depends on the 320, some can go higher, I believe the unmodified current build aircraft can do 9200 ft, they can be modified for up to 14100 ft press
62 LTU932 : Ah OK, I understand now.
63 N405MX : Thanks for clarify And it does, we go back to the w&b issues. Cheers
64 Rojo : I took a TA flight UIO-GYE-SJO operated by an A320, so there are A320 operating out of UIO. Lan Peru also operates the A320 to LIM.
65 N405MX : It´s possible for the A320, like Zeke said, some can go higher, with or without modifications, but you are heavily restricted about the weight you c
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...
What Is/Was The Code For The Metro? posted Mon May 29 2006 21:32:08 by Leo8448
What Airline Was It? posted Wed Apr 28 2004 18:25:49 by Ord777
AF A318:What Routes? posted Sat Jan 3 2004 05:02:00 by AS739X
What Airline Was It? posted Mon Jun 2 2003 20:42:40 by Pecoua
What Aircraft Was It? posted Fri Dec 8 2000 21:06:33 by 340300
Leisure AIR, What Is/was It? posted Wed Jan 19 2000 12:08:14 by Montenegro
Aircraft Companies: What Was It Like? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 06:34:07 by Vnvlain
ZRH A.net Meet: What A Great Day It Was! posted Sat Jul 29 2006 19:42:01 by SwissA330
O&D - What Does It Stand For? posted Thu Jul 6 2006 22:27:38 by AC330
Just Saw A Flying Freak! What Was It? posted Thu Mar 9 2006 00:55:49 by Redneckslim