Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Icelandair To Buy 12-16 New Aircraft Plus Options  
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1015 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 21553 times:

According to an Icelandic business newspaper Icelandair is in the final stages of buying a new aircraft type. It states that the two options are from Boeing or Airbus and presumably the A320NEO or B737MAX series of aircraft. The board is expected to make a decision in the next couple of weeks.

http://www.vb.is/frettir/78710/

70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJU068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2640 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 21145 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I suppose these are not meant as direct replacements for their B757s? Are some destinations such as Seattle or Denver a bit too far?

User currently offlineGCPET From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2012, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 20130 times:

I could see them ordering 737MAX series aircraft for the European routes and 787's for the long haul routes? Will be a sad day when their 757's go; really nice livery!

GCPET



If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!
User currently offlineb735 From Denmark, joined Oct 2010, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 20039 times:

I think they already had ordered the B787, but cancelled it again. Those frames are now going to Norwegian.

B735


User currently offlineLuxair From Suriname, joined Jan 2001, 851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 19576 times:

They will never ever buy Airbus at least not for longhaul. They're comitted to US products since ever! For european routes maybe. I agree, there 757 look stunning but my favorite was the mighty eight!


Marvin Lee Cooper
User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1922 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 19504 times:

Quoting Luxair (Reply 4):
They will never ever buy Airbus at least not for longhaul. They're comitted to US products since ever! For european routes maybe. I agree, there 757 look stunning but my favorite was the mighty eight!

Well, Iceland has started negotiations with the EU for joining the EU since 27 June 2011. An Airbus order could show us some good faith...  

Cheers!   



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineLuxair From Suriname, joined Jan 2001, 851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 19475 times:

Ehhmm I mean "their" 757 look really stunning :p


Marvin Lee Cooper
User currently offlineLuxair From Suriname, joined Jan 2001, 851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 19206 times:

@LifelinerOne One can still hope   In fact, i don't have a problem with them ordering Boeings as long as they go for the 748i or the 773 hehehe


Marvin Lee Cooper
User currently offlinefinnishway From Finland, joined Jul 2012, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18628 times:

Did FI give all of their B787 purchase rights to Norwegian?

Why did they even do that? Wasn't B787 a perfect replacement for their B757?


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8370 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18489 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 737-9 MAX would be the perfect replacement for the Icelandic 757 fleet.

User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 965 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 17794 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Luxair (Reply 7):
@LifelinerOne One can still hope In fact, i don't have a problem with them ordering Boeings as long as they go for the 748i or the 773 hehehe

replacing a 757 with a 747-8 or 777? your kidding right?

you try filling a 777 from KEF to SEA or MSP.

i don't know why those 757s need to be replaced in the first place, but I think the 787 is the logical replacement....


User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 564 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 17732 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 5):
Well, Iceland has started negotiations with the EU for joining the EU since 27 June 2011. An Airbus order could show us some good faith...

As long as politics has nothing do with it.....   


User currently offlinePanAm788 From United States of America, joined exactly 6 years ago today! , 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 17555 times:

This will be very interesting as FI's current network relies on the abilities of the 757 that currently have no suitable replacement. Perhaps a special 737-9MAXER is in the works for them  


You know nothing Jon Snow
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8358 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 17555 times:

Quoting Luxair (Reply 4):
They will never ever buy Airbus at least not for longhaul. They're comitted to US products since ever! For european routes maybe. I agree, there 757 look stunning but my favorite was the mighty eight!

People used to say that about AA too.

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 11):
As long as politics has nothing do with it.....

Politics always plays a role in aircraft purchases. In some countries more than others.


User currently offlineKaiTak747 From Switzerland, joined Aug 2012, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 17313 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 10):
but I think the 787 is the logical replacement....

FI would not even seasonally be able to support a 787 with decent load factors and yields to any of their destinations. There is a lot of tourism to and from Iceland, but remember Iceland is only a country of 320,000 people. As boring as it is for us a.netters it will be either the MAX or the NEO. Maybe even the C-series, as the range is pretty good.

Quoting Luxair (Reply 4):
They will never ever buy Airbus at least not for longhaul.
Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 11):
As long as politics has nothing do with it.....

I don't see why not. If the NEO has the range/payload capabilities the business case will be strong. With that said my money is on the MAX.


User currently offlinephotoshooter From Belgium, joined Feb 2010, 454 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 17313 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

I think they'll go for the B737-9MAX. Though I'm not sure if this aircraft can replace FI's longest routes.
Just wait and see till they regret the B787 cancel.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 13):
Politics always plays a role in aircraft purchases. In some countries more than others.

Correct, it might influence the support which France will give for accepting Iceland into the EU though they will never officially say that with these direct words  .

Quoting JU068 (Reply 1):
I suppose these are not meant as direct replacements for their B757s?

Sadly they will need to look into replacing these aircraft anyway soon. Some have the age of over 20 years now. Perhaps a few more B763s might help them meanwhile.

Niek B.



'A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.' - Winston Churchill
User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 17230 times:

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 14):
With that said my money is on the MAX.

Considering the banking fiasco and the trouble it caused to significant European concerns, coupled with their desperation to enter the EU in the hope of financial stability and monetary back-up, my money goes on an Airbus order.

The 757 has had its day and it's time to move on to more advanced aircraft.


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1735 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 16929 times:

Based on Iceland's location between North America and Europe, the A321MAX should be able to manage most of Icelandair's routes bar a couple. Would be a much more economical solution although I guess cargo capacity could be an issue.


Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-CPH (320-BA), VXO-BMA (S20-TF), ARN-CPH (738-SK), CPH-LHR (320-BA)
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16901 times:

Quoting photoshooter (Reply 15):
I think they'll go for the B737-9MAX. Though I'm not sure if this aircraft can replace FI's longest routes.
Just wait and see till they regret the B787 cancel.

Couldn't the 737-7Max with additional wing tanks handle the distance? I know it does not have the seating capacity, but it might be an OK tradeoff having the 737-9MAX and 737-7MAX.


User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9362 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16840 times:

I like the Icelandair 757's. They may be old but they're still quite comfortable and a great ride. It's amazing how much stuff the flight attendants can bring around during the flight that all fits in the galley's.

At any rate, Icelandair is probably capable of filling larger planes at this point as their numbers keep going up and up and interest in Iceland is on the rise.

However, a bunch of planes pulling up to the KEF terminal much larger than a 757 would be a bit of a cluster. It's already crowded enough as it is.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineSRQKEF From Iceland, joined Jun 2011, 885 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16065 times:

Before replying I'll say that I know all of the board members very well and my dad used to be part of the dictatorship of Icelandair Group until a year ago so mst of what I'm saying are facts, not speculations..

Quoting JU068 (Reply 1):
I suppose these are not meant as direct replacements for their B757s? Are some destinations such as Seattle or Denver a bit too far?

No, those are not direct replacements. The 737/320 aircraft would be meant for Euro destinations and maybe YYZ, IAD and some of those smaller East Coast destinations. The newer 757s aren't going anywhere until at least 2020, some of them could even soldier on into the 2030s.

Quoting GCPET (Reply 2):

I could see them ordering 737MAX series aircraft for the European routes and 787's for the long haul routes? Will be a sad day when their 757's go; really nice livery!

787 is WAY too big for FI. They cancelled their order for a reason.

Quoting Luxair (Reply 4):

They will never ever buy Airbus at least not for longhaul. They're comitted to US products since ever! For european routes maybe. I agree, there 757 look stunning but my favorite was the mighty eight!

Why not? 737MAX is not a given at all.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 8):

Did FI give all of their B787 purchase rights to Norwegian?

Why did they even do that? Wasn't B787 a perfect replacement for their B757?

Because the 787 was way too big for all routes but JFK and CPH. No need for it as the 757 is still pretty economical.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 9):

The 737-9 MAX would be the perfect replacement for the Icelandic 757 fleet.

No. Lacks range for SEA, DEN, MSP, ANC, SFB and could've trouble reaching JFK, IAD in unfavourable winds. Also, FI is likely gonna order 320 321 / 738 739, not only the larger option.

Quoting g500 (Reply 10):
i don't know why those 757s need to be replaced in the first place, but I think the 787 is the logical replacement....

They don't need to be replaced and aren't gonna be until an aircraft which has the same capabilities as the 757 comes into the market.

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 5):
Well, Iceland has started negotiations with the EU for joining the EU since 27 June 2011. An Airbus order could show us some good faith...

FI is privately owned so politics won't have anything to do with their decision. Also, under 30% of the Icelandic population actually wants to join the EU.

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 14):
FI would not even seasonally be able to support a 787 with decent load factors and yields to any of their destinations. There is a lot of tourism to and from Iceland, but remember Iceland is only a country of 320,000 people. As boring as it is for us a.netters it will be either the MAX or the NEO.

Well said and absolutely true. 787 in FI colours would've been a disaster.

Quoting photoshooter (Reply 15):

I think they'll go for the B737-9MAX. Though I'm not sure if this aircraft can replace FI's longest routes.
Just wait and see till they regret the B787 cancel.

They'll never regret the 787 cancel. Never. It was ordered while Iceland was still in the "2007 mood" (spending spending spending to be the best). The economical downturn made Icelanders have a reality check and FI saw quickly that having a plane with 250 seats made absolutely no sense for the airline.

Quoting babybus (Reply 16):
The 757 has had its day and it's time to move on to more advanced aircraft.

Not true at all. It's economics are still fine and are perfect for Icelandair.

Regards,
Sveinn  



Flights flown: 280 - Airlines: 40 - Airports: 64 - Next flights: KEF-BOS-EWR-PBI-TPA/SFB-KEF
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30974 posts, RR: 86
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15994 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting babybus (Reply 16):
Considering the banking fiasco and the trouble it caused to significant European concerns....my money goes on an Airbus order.

Iceland screwed over the US financial system a fair bit, so they owe us, as well.

Solution? Order the 737-8 and the A321-200neo.  


User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15790 times:

They will go with Boeing. I can feel it in my bones!


737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1015 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15380 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 9):
The 737-9 MAX would be the perfect replacement for the Icelandic 757 fleet.

I think they'll go for the A320NEO because the B737MAX needs a very long runway to take-off from at MTOW, a runway that is longer than the one at KEF. Furthermore a lot of their destinations have even shorter runways than KEF. They would want to use MTOW in order to get the kind of range that would make this plane a reasonable plane on the North- Atlantic. This is why I think they would go for the A320NEO. It doesn't suffer from this same problem.


User currently offlineSRQKEF From Iceland, joined Jun 2011, 885 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15309 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 23):
I think they'll go for the A320NEO because the B737MAX needs a very long runway to take-off from at MTOW, a runway that is longer than the one at KEF.

Not true, KEF was even used as a space shuttle airport once or twice.

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 23):
Furthermore a lot of their destinations have even shorter runways than KEF.

That's absolutely true and if FI does what it's planning to do, opening some airports such as Trondheim in Norway than 320 would be better.

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 23):
They would want to use MTOW in order to get the kind of range that would make this plane a reasonable plane on the North- Atlantic. This is why I think they would go for the A320NEO. It doesn't suffer from this same problem.

Again, it's not likely that those planes will be used to N-America (except maybe Halifax).

regards, Sveinn  



Flights flown: 280 - Airlines: 40 - Airports: 64 - Next flights: KEF-BOS-EWR-PBI-TPA/SFB-KEF
User currently offlinephotoshooter From Belgium, joined Feb 2010, 454 posts, RR: 20
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15977 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting SRQKEF (Reply 20):
They'll never regret the 787 cancel. Never. It was ordered while Iceland was still in the "2007 mood" (spending spending spending to be the best). The economical downturn made Icelanders have a reality check and FI saw quickly that having a plane with 250 seats made absolutely no sense for the airline.

I understand but I hope you agree with me that in the Aviation industry, you always need to look forward. And FI's future looks good, I'm sure your friends/board members can confirm that. Geographically, they are the perfect place to change flight and head towards a different continent. So eventually, they will regret it some way or another.



Quoting SRQKEF (Reply 20):
Because the 787 was way too big for all routes but JFK and CPH. No need for it as the 757 is still pretty economical.

What about the B767 they have right now...Sounds like it could be too big as well.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 22):
They will go with Boeing. I can feel it in my bones!

Yes, I've got this feeling they will indeed. I also wonder if it isn't cheaper for maintenance to stick with the same aircraft manufacturer and or same aircraft type....   

Niek B.



'A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.' - Winston Churchill
User currently offlineSRQKEF From Iceland, joined Jun 2011, 885 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15955 times:

Quoting photoshooter (Reply 25):
I understand but I hope you agree with me that in the Aviation industry, you always need to look forward.

Yes, I totally agree. The 787 would've just been too big a step from the 757. If a 762-sized widebody with better economics would come out today, that would have a much better chance for FI.  
Quoting photoshooter (Reply 25):
What about the B767 they have right now...Sounds like it could be too big as well.

Yes it is too big. And because of that ALL of their 767s are leased out all around the world. 3 in Papua New Guinea flying for Air Niugini, 2 in Venezuela flying for SBA etc.
They tried using the 763 to BOS, JFK, CPH and LHR along with the new service to SFO. Apart from JFK, all flopped big. The San Fran flight was a complete disaster.

regards, Sveinn  



Flights flown: 280 - Airlines: 40 - Airports: 64 - Next flights: KEF-BOS-EWR-PBI-TPA/SFB-KEF
User currently offlinephotoshooter From Belgium, joined Feb 2010, 454 posts, RR: 20
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16152 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting SRQKEF (Reply 26):
Yes it is too big. And because of that ALL of their 767s are leased out all around the world. 3 in Papua New Guinea flying for Air Niugini, 2 in Venezuela flying for SBA etc.
They tried using the 763 to BOS, JFK, CPH and LHR along with the new service to SFO. Apart from JFK, all flopped big. The San Fran flight was a complete disaster.

If they can make a profit out of this, I can only support this!
Thanks for adding the useful and interesting information, FI sure is high on my 'to-fly' list.

Regards



'A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.' - Winston Churchill
User currently offlineKaiTak747 From Switzerland, joined Aug 2012, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16082 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 16):
Considering the banking fiasco and the trouble it caused to significant European concerns, coupled with their desperation to enter the EU in the hope of financial stability and monetary back-up, my money goes on an Airbus order.

So what? Icelandair is a business and is not state owned. It has no obligation to help Iceland get into the Euro. Any decision on aircraft will be purely based on economics, not political. And besides, I doubt an order for a dozen airbuses will make any difference to their Euro bid. If they do go for the NEO, it will be because they are the right plane for their needs and for a good price.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8358 posts, RR: 10
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15973 times:

But with more destinations in Europe served by more smaller planes, wouldn't that increase the connecting traffic at KEF for their N.America destinations, and thus require larger planes? Isn't that FI's main business model in the N.Atlantic, to connect Europe to N.America? Sure he 787 is too big today but once they grow their European network the next logical step would be to grow N.America. The question is, will they chose to grow existing cities or expand to more cities?

User currently offlineSRQKEF From Iceland, joined Jun 2011, 885 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15883 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 30):

But with more destinations in Europe served by more smaller planes, wouldn't that increase the connecting traffic at KEF for their N.America destinations, and thus require larger planes? Isn't that FI's main business model in the N.Atlantic, to connect Europe to N.America? Sure he 787 is too big today but once they grow their European network the next logical step would be to grow N.America. The question is, will they chose to grow existing cities or expand to more cities?

Hmm, good point. Maybe in a few years this could be right and the 787 will not be too big. The question is though, what cities with enough demand inside 3hr range from KEF are yet to be served? Not too many I think. Maybe some smaller Norwegian and Danish cities along with BRU could be made year-round instead of seasonal but after that, there aren't many left.

Reason for 3hr is that for a flight to be able to connect to the USA via KEF, it must be able to depart KEF at around 8am and arrive back in KEF around 3pm. Same goes for US destinations, the plane must be able to depart 5pm and arrive back 6am the next morning. Because of this SEA, SFB, DEN and ANC all get 20-23hr layovers.

regards,
Sveinn  



Flights flown: 280 - Airlines: 40 - Airports: 64 - Next flights: KEF-BOS-EWR-PBI-TPA/SFB-KEF
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1015 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15824 times:

Quoting SRQKEF (Reply 24):
Not true, KEF was even used as a space shuttle airport once or twice.

I know that KEF has a relatively long runway, that's true. However it is only 10,056 feet. The B737-8/9 MAX seem to need well over 11,000 feet to take-off from at MTOW. Most airlines won't need MTOW though but Icelandair will. Take a look at this article and the discussion:


From Air Insight:

"As an example, according to Boeing, a B737-8MAX will be unable to take off from Minneapolis at MTOW. Minneapolis is at 800 ft but its longest runway is 11,000 ft. This makes you wonder about the -9MAX. Will it need 11-12,000+ ft at sea level? The -900ER already needs almost 10,000ft at sea level on a standard day.”"

http://airinsight.com/2012/08/22/assessing-the-max-story/

Questionable B737MAX Field Performance (by eaa3 Aug 22 2012 in Tech Ops)

Quoting SRQKEF (Reply 31):
Hmm, good point. Maybe in a few years this could be right and the 787 will not be too big. The question is though, what cities with enough demand inside 3hr range from KEF are yet to be served? Not too many I think. Maybe some smaller Norwegian and Danish cities along with BRU could be made year-round instead of seasonal but after that, there aren't many left.

Eventually they will have to add another transfer time, they do this in the summer, and with two transfer times they can go further into Europe because you can have flights that are part of two different transfer times. For example you can have the same setup as in summer and have European bound flights that take passangers from the North American flights arriving at around midnight but then you could have those flights arrive back in Iceland at around 2pm for the afternoon departure for North America. Therefore by using two differnt banks to North America you can have 12 hours for flights to Europe and therefore go considerably further.

[Edited 2012-12-03 08:52:49]

User currently offlineJU068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2640 posts, RR: 6
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15657 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So what routes might see these smaller aircraft? Are there any routes out there that might lose their 757 once these planes are delivered?

Also, when would these planes be delivered?


User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9362 posts, RR: 26
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15548 times:

If smaller planes come to the fleet, I wouldn't be surprised to see more daily frequencies from Boston and Kennedy and the 757's go elsewhere.


if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13990 times:

Quoting stlgph (Reply 33):

If smaller planes come to the fleet, I wouldn't be surprised to see more daily frequencies from Boston and Kennedy and the 757's go elsewhere.

FI used to have some 737's they used to some European destinations and I think to one Canadian destination. Are these possibly for growth, or will they lease some of them out like the 738 order? Hmmm..



737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1015 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13797 times:

It seems to me that Icelandair could benefit from larger aircraft though such as the B787. As they continue to grow they should be able to fill a B787 to New York, Boston and maybe some other places. Keep in mind that they didn´t fly to Washington, Denver and Seattle up until a couple of months ago and they are able to fill those planes. So it seems that when they add more capacity they are able to fill it up with more passengers. I don´t think though that a B787 will be a part of this order.

User currently offlineJU068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2640 posts, RR: 6
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13759 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting stlgph (Reply 33):

I doubt Kennedy would get the smaller plane since it was mentioned earlier that it was one of few routes that could handle a plane larger than the 752.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25291 posts, RR: 22
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13725 times:

Quoting SRQKEF (Reply 24):
Not true, KEF was even used as a space shuttle airport once or twice.

When was that? I can´t find any evidence that the space shuttle ever made an emergency landing at KEF, or that KEF was designated as an official abort site. If a space shuttle ever landed there it was on the back of a 747 carrier aircraft at the time, possibly a fuel stop en route to/from one of its early appearances at airshows in Europe?


User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1015 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13671 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37):
When was that? I can´t find any evidence that the space shuttle ever made an emergency landing at KEF, or that KEF was designated as an official abort site. If a space shuttle ever landed there it was on the back of a 747 carrier aircraft at the time, possibly a fuel stop en route to/from one of its early appearances at airshows in Europe?

It was never used as a space shuttle landing site. However it was at one time on the list of airports where the shuttle would go in an emergency. But there were lot´s of airports that had that designation. This was because KEF was a navy base once.


User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9362 posts, RR: 26
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13305 times:

Quoting JU068 (Reply 36):

What I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised to see more frequencies added from JFK and Boston.
Boston's looking to go 3 daily next summer. JFK may follow suit. Toronto may likely end up going year around next year.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineJU068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2640 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13000 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting stlgph (Reply 39):

Oh ok, then we agree. It would be wise to add frequencies with smaller planes.


User currently offlineSRQKEF From Iceland, joined Jun 2011, 885 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12886 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37):
When was that? I can´t find any evidence that the space shuttle ever made an emergency landing at KEF, or that KEF was designated as an official abort site. If a space shuttle ever landed there it was on the back of a 747 carrier aircraft at the time, possibly a fuel stop en route to/from one of its early appearances at airshows in Europe?
http://stjornuskodun.blog.is/blog/stjornuskodun/entry/1235015/

Yes, it was a fuel stop. I think I saw it somewhere that it was an official abort site. Maybe I remember it wrong though.  

regards, Sveinn  



Flights flown: 280 - Airlines: 40 - Airports: 64 - Next flights: KEF-BOS-EWR-PBI-TPA/SFB-KEF
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12749 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GCPET (Reply 2):
I could see them ordering 737MAX series aircraft for the European routes and 787's for the long haul routes? Will be a sad day when their 757's go; really nice livery!

Definitely, they still have one of the nicer ones! Will be sad when they all leave!

They worked things well having one aircraft type for the last few years and best of luck to them!

135Mech


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 9):
The 737-9 MAX would be the perfect replacement for the Icelandic 757 fleet.

Unfortunately, the 757's performance abilities cannot be replaced by the 739ER. I was shocked to see that the 739ER NEEDS over 10,000 ft of runway on a good day for max take-off, and the 757's blow that away.

Regards,
135Mech


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8999 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 5):
Well, Iceland has started negotiations with the EU for joining the EU since 27 June 2011. An Airbus order could show us some good faith...

What does that have to do with anything FI does for their fleet? If they order Boeings, they won't be allowed into the EU? There are several airlines within the EU now that fly Boeings.

Quoting photoshooter (Reply 15):
I think they'll go for the B737-9MAX. Though I'm not sure if this aircraft can replace FI's longest routes.
Just wait and see till they regret the B787 cancel.

Why? If they want that sized airplane they can always order the B-767-300ER, or pick up a few used copies. FI's longest route is KEF-SEA, a total of 3150 nm, within the range of the B-737-9MAX.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 18):
Couldn't the 737-7Max with additional wing tanks handle the distance? I know it does not have the seating capacity, but it might be an OK tradeoff having the 737-9MAX and 737-7MAX.

If they want a smaller airplane, the B-737-7MAX would be good for them, but the B-737-8MAX and B-737-9MAX can already handle their longest ranged mission.

Quoting SRQKEF (Reply 20):
Lacks range for SEA, DEN, MSP, ANC, SFB

Nope.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Solution? Order the 737-8 and the A321-200neo.

Why would they do that? Either order the MAX or the NEO, but not both.

Years ago, FI used to fly a B-727-200ADV on their BOS and JFK routes.

I am sure if FI wanted the B-767-300ER, or -400ER, Boeing would give then a very good price just to keep them an all Boeing airline. A B-763/4 would open up California and Arizona to them, as well as other long range cities they may want to fly to in the future (South America, Africa, ME, Eastern Russia, Japan, etc.).


User currently offlineBlueBus From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8916 times:

I cannot wait to see the Icelandair livery on another a/c type. I just hope they don't change it or at least do not get rid of the yellow!

User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8204 times:

This could go either way but my money is on the A321neo due to its higher capacity.


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6448 posts, RR: 54
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7956 times:

Quoting FI642 (Reply 34):
FI used to have some 737's they used to some European destinations and I think to one Canadian destination.

Before they went "all 757" they had a mixed fleet of 737-400 and 757-200. But that is many years ago.

Quoting Luxair (Reply 4):
I agree, there 757 look stunning but my favorite was the mighty eight!

Yeah, they were great. But that's a very long time ago, some 30-40 years.

I flew on those DC-8-63 CPH-KEF several times in the late 70'es.

Quoting Luxair (Reply 4):
They're comitted to US products since ever!

Avro Anson, Vickers Viscount, Canadair CL-44, Fokker F-27 and F-50. Did I forget something? Don't think so, the PBY-5 Catalina was indeed a US product.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1993 posts, RR: 24
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6809 times:

I think they would be best served with 321NEOs and increased frequencies and more destinations in the US and Canada. Cabin something akin to what AA is doing with its 321 TCON. Less premium heavy. I'm thinking 24 lie flat J in 2-2. And 18-20 rows of Y (dependent on what pitch they want to offer and onboard facilities needed like lavs).

And then E190/195 or CS100 or something equivalently small for Europe.

They have a really strong opportunity if they could somehow get pre-clearance and target some secondary airports in the USA like BUF, BDL, BWI, MEM, MHT. Sounds unconventional. But it would make them the EK of the North Atlantic. Strong network effects, driving traffic from lots of secondary airports. Places that don't usually get international service. And even then only to a few European destinations.

Even more valuable an idea if they get into the EU. Imagine a place with EU Customs and US preclearance. Amazing transit point.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8358 posts, RR: 10
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6758 times:

Quoting SRQKEF (Reply 30):
Reason for 3hr is that for a flight to be able to connect to the USA via KEF, it must be able to depart KEF at around 8am and arrive back in KEF around 3pm. Same goes for US destinations, the plane must be able to depart 5pm and arrive back 6am the next morning.

The fact that they are planning to buy more aircraft and talking expansion tells me that they are looking at breaking that model or at least change it slightly.

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 31):
Eventually they will have to add another transfer time, they do this in the summer

That may not be viable outside of peak Summer months when Iceland itself has tourism demand. Outside of Summer I can't see more than 1 main connecting bank. Poor aircraft utilization is, unfortunately a inherent feature for an airline located in Iceland.

Quoting stlgph (Reply 33):
If smaller planes come to the fleet, I wouldn't be surprised to see more daily frequencies from Boston and Kennedy and the 757's go elsewhere.

More frequencies may work in the peak Summer months but then what do you do with the aircraft for the other 9 months of the year? Frequency is not a good business model for FI, IMO. They need to grow by serving more cities, not by increasing frequencies to existing cities. A bigger network should increase demand for some destinations and that may lead to larger aicraft.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
What does that have to do with anything FI does for their fleet?

A lot. How many EU flag carriers do you know operating 737 fleets and no A320's? Very few. I can only think of 1: LOT. And that's because they had a 737 fleet prior to joining the EU.


User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9362 posts, RR: 26
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 49):
More frequencies may work in the peak Summer months but then what do you do with the aircraft for the other 9 months of the year? Frequency is not a good business model for FI, IMO. They need to grow by serving more cities, not by increasing frequencies to existing cities. A bigger network should increase demand for some destinations and that may lead to larger aicraft.

No difference. Icelandair's fleet is a lot busier in the summer than it is in the winter months as it stands now.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlinenormie999 From United Kingdom, joined May 2009, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6524 times:

It seems to me that their current business model is largely governed by the use of single type, capable of flying all routes. If they start mixing it up with other aircraft types, changes of gauge, different performance ability etc then the simplicity of their hub and spoke operation may be lost - but this loss might also be a opportunity in slightly unpredicatable ways.

For instance if they acquire a fleet of planes for thinner European routes what use are they going to be put while they're NOT flying on to North America each afternoon? If they are sent back to Stavanger, Turku or Newcastle then they are missing out on an awful lot ofl the connecting traffic. Which might mean they'd be better used on additional later-in-the-day services to GLA, MAN, AMS etc, which have enough KEF traffic without connections.

All adds up to a lot of fun for the planners - plus perhaps good news too for KEF which is currently subject to rather a lot of quiet time, even in the summer months.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6364 times:

Wasn't Airbus working on a TATL capable neo? IMO they should go for a real 757 replacement frame, and hit the 787 from below. But hey that´s another story.

User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7164 posts, RR: 13
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6357 times:

Wasn't Iceland bankrupt like yesterday?

User currently offlinefaxiTMA From Iceland, joined Jan 2009, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6303 times:

Interesting, how reliable is this:

http://www.boeing.com/newairplane/737ng/whosFlying/#/ICE

737 looks good in FI colors


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5992 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 49):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):What does that have to do with anything FI does for their fleet?
A lot. How many EU flag carriers do you know operating 737 fleets and no A320's? Very few. I can only think of 1: LOT. And that's because they had a 737 fleet prior to joining the EU.

If that is a requirement to join the EU, then the US qualifies. Then again, I would vote against it.

Isn't FI a non-government company? I thought it is. So the government would have no say in the selection of the new airplanes it will order.

I think they would be better off with the B-737MAX order than an A-32X-NEO order. The MAX aready has the range to fly to their furtherest distination, which is SEA.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 43):
I was shocked to see that the 739ER NEEDS over 10,000 ft of runway on a good day for max take-off, and the 757's blow that away.

Both runways at KEF are slightly longer than 10,000', so that is not a problem. As you well know, the KC-135A often would see both ends of the runway while still on take-off roll. I don't see this as a problem.


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1993 posts, RR: 24
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5677 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 55):
Both runways at KEF are slightly longer than 10,000', so that is not a problem. As you well know, the KC-135A often would see both ends of the runway while still on take-off roll. I don't see this as a problem.
KEF is nearly at Sea Level and temperate all year round. But what about places like DEN?

Quoting normie999 (Reply 51):
It seems to me that their current business model is largely governed by the use of single type, capable of flying all routes. If they start mixing it up with other aircraft types, changes of gauge, different performance ability etc then the simplicity of their hub and spoke operation may be lost - but this loss might also be a opportunity in slightly unpredicatable ways.

But the model has to change when 757s aren't available. There are several paths they can take. A321s/B739s for the US. Or 787s for the US. A319s/B737s (fleet commonality) for Europe. Or CSeries or E190s.

I have my theory above. I think the best combination for FI would A321NEO/CS100. CS100 with 2200nm range can cover all of Europe or at least Western and Central Europe if restricted to 1800nm for higher payload. Admittedly, the A321NEO would probably rule out California....or be severely limited on payload.

[Edited 2012-12-04 17:16:19]

User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6448 posts, RR: 54
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5573 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 53):
Wasn't Iceland bankrupt like yesterday?

No. They had a serious bank crisis four years ago. They worked their way out of that.

Today Iceland is one of the world's most prosperous countries.

And the stupid things, which happened 4-5-6 years ago, will not happen again in a zillion years.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5519 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 9):
The 737-9 MAX would be the perfect replacement for the Icelandic 757 fleet.

Less than perfect. DEN and ANC will be a challenge, to say the least. Field performance of the 9MAX is also tepid compared to the 757.

Quoting normie999 (Reply 51):
It seems to me that their current business model is largely governed by the use of single type

Maybe, or perhaps just the flexibility of the 757 enabled a one-type business model. They are also no doubt abandoning many market opportunities by not having anything smaller than the 757.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6448 posts, RR: 54
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5419 times:

Some posters are focusing way too much on FI's North American destinations. As SRQKEF said already in reply #20 the newer 757s will soldier on for North America in the foreseeable future.

This is about FI's much heavier European traffic. FI has for a long time benefited from a mostly single type fleet, but as traffic grows it is becoming time to look for a better fitting plane for their many European destinations. 737 and 320 family planes are perfect for that. They can use them in all sizes depending on destination. And all versions can serve all FI's European destinations without range or field performance problems.

We can discuss the right size endlessly because their traffic is so seasonal. In summer they often have 5 x daily 752/753 on the CPH route. I have been with them at least one time when two FI 757s were scheduled for CPH - KEF with ten minutes interval. And they were both fully booked weeks or months in advance. For that sort of service 2 x daily A380 would be just fine. With 3 x daily A380 they could have knocked competing Iceland Express (now WOW Air) out of business. (And of course knocked themselves out when autumn came).

But considering the other 9 months 737 and 320 are the right planes for European traffic.

FI's TATL service with stopover at KEF is a welcome addition to keep the fleet slightly less idle in off season September to May, and that's great for them. But otherwise the main business is Europe.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1015 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5014 times:

On Icelandair's half year financial statement they made a note that they were talking to Airbus and Boeing so it seems that those will be the manufacturers. Furthermore they said that a smaller aircraft would complement the B757's. Therefore they aren't going anywhere. After all they can't replace them with anything. Despite what the above posters said on this thread the B737-9MAX won't be able to replace the B757 to airports like DEN, SEA, ANC but furthermore they will have significant trouble taking of at KEF with MTOW.

At some point the B757's will become to old and I think that the only real choice to replace them are B787's, especially to DEN, SEA, ANC. The B787 would allow them to go even further. By making their hub-and-spoke system stronger with more destinations it will make it easier to deploy larger aircraft like the B787 on routes to North America and perhaps other places, such as India. Interestingly flying through Iceland to India from North America is shorter than any of the big European hubs or Dubai.

I wonder how the economics of the B757's are for them given that they are very cheap aircraft to buy nowadays and I don't believe that they have any considerable debt from buying these aircraft. They do lease some of them however but the lease rates will reflect the lower value. Do you guys think that the cheap acquisition costs make up for the fuel and maintenance costs. An A321NEO, for example, will use 30% less fuel and are considerably cheaper to maintain.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4763 times:

It´s a customer like this that would be a perfect launch customer for the A322  

User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4626 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 55):
Both runways at KEF are slightly longer than 10,000', so that is not a problem. As you well know, the KC-135A often would see both ends of the runway while still on take-off roll. I don't see this as a problem.

I remember that well... seeing the "boards" at the end of Mildenhall on take off... "exciting" is a good word for it! LOL

135Mech


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4526 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 56):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 55):Both runways at KEF are slightly longer than 10,000', so that is not a problem. As you well know, the KC-135A often would see both ends of the runway while still on take-off roll. I don't see this as a problem.KEF is nearly at Sea Level and temperate all year round. But what about places like DEN?

5 of 6 runways at DEN are 12,000' long. The other runway (Rwy 16R/34L) is 16,000' long.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 58):
Field performance of the 9MAX is also tepid compared to the 757.
Quoting eaa3 (Reply 60):
Despite what the above posters said on this thread the B737-9MAX won't be able to replace the B757 to airports like DEN, SEA, ANC but furthermore they will have significant trouble taking of at KEF with MTOW.

A lot of a.netters are saying the B-737MAX is runway performance limited. The facts are nether Boeing, nor CFMI have said anything about the final thrust levels of the various LEAP-1B engine models. The B-737MAX models will be some 4,000-5,000 lbs heavier than the sister B-737NG models. CFMI has put initial thrust levels of the LEAP-1B from 20,000 lbs to 28,000 lbs, about what the CFM-56-7B engines on the NGs are. But CFMI has also said thes are preliminary thrust levels and the thrust will be higher. The LEAP family is good for up to 35,000 lbs of thrust, but Boeing doesn't need that much power. I suspect the final thrust settings for the -1B family will be very close to the levels of the -1A family, about 25,000 lbs to 33,000 lbs of thrust. The -1C engine already falls within this same range (as does the PW-1100G engines).

We also don't know what, if anything, Boeing plans on doing to the wing lift devices for the MAX. The chief project engineer, for the B-737MAX is Michael Teal. He was also the chief project engineer on the B-747-8 program.

BTW, the final runway performance numbers for the A-32X-NEO family have not been firmed up, yet, either.


User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4483 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 61):
It´s a customer like this that would be a perfect launch customer for the A322

Very true, except that A322 will unfortunately never happen with current A320 generation.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 55):
If that is a requirement to join the EU, then the US qualifies. Then again, I would vote against it.

Pure nonsense to bring that up. EU governments do not intervene in those matters.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 49):
How many EU flag carriers do you know operating 737 fleets and no A320's? Very few. I can only think of 1: LOT.

You forgot KLM, with a fleet of 46 737s and an almost all Boeing fleet except 14 A330s.



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineSomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3384 posts, RR: 3
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4342 times:

And the winner is Boeing and the 737-MAX (8 and 9) with 12 commitments

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2517


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4186 times:

How many customers are there with the needs of Iceland Air? A WB is too big and a NB has not the real range to fit their network. What will they do when the 757s are too old to fly?

User currently offlinefinnishway From Finland, joined Jul 2012, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4124 times:

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 65):
And the winner is Boeing and the 737-MAX (8 and 9) with 12 commitments

That was expected.


User currently offlineJU068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2640 posts, RR: 6
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3847 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Those aircraft look stunning! I am in love with them!

User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3472 times:

Now, will FI introduce a new Livery? Now I'm craving dried fish from the shop in KEF!


737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6448 posts, RR: 54
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3155 times:

Quoting FI642 (Reply 69):
Now, will FI introduce a new Livery?

Nobody knows. According to the press release FI expects delivery of their first 737 MAX in 2018, so they have time to think about it.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
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...
Icelandair To Buy Czech Travel Service posted Fri May 11 2007 15:28:30 by TANS
UA To Buy 777-300ER/New Routes posted Sun Jun 4 2006 06:17:10 by Dc10s4ever
Egyptair To Buy 12 737-800s posted Fri May 27 2005 15:20:28 by Bsmalls35
Air China To Buy 20 A330-200 Aircraft From Airbus posted Thu Jan 27 2005 02:19:25 by Jacobin777
Employee Trips To Take Delivery Of New Aircraft? posted Sun Sep 12 2004 11:11:59 by UAL747DEN
Tested To Destruction - BA's New Economy-plus posted Sun Oct 22 2000 22:03:11 by Capt.Picard
SK To Buy 60+ New Aircraft For 40 - 45 Billion NOK posted Thu May 10 2012 22:04:47 by Mortyman
Air Berlin To Buy 40 New Aircraft posted Sat Mar 8 2003 23:34:42 by Racko
Nigeria Airways To Buy New Aircraft posted Tue Dec 4 2001 20:40:59 by Hani
Allegiant To Buy Airbus Aircraft? posted Fri Jun 15 2012 21:45:58 by flywithken