Jaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1 Posted (14 years 9 months 3 hours ago) and read 2158 times:
This post is regarding the A318 and the possibiblity it might be a failure. The reason I am sayong this is because the 737'600 has done very poorly in sales. I think I read somewhere that airlines do not like the way that it handles in turbulance. With that in mind why would anyone purchase the A318 considering it is basically the same aircraft. My thought is that the airplanes just might be too short. I truly believe that for a plane of only 100 seats or so the only way to go is the 717. Any ideas?
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 9 months 3 hours ago) and read 2100 times:
Both the 318 and 736 are meant to be complementary products for those carriers that have existing family members in their fleets. They are not meant to be stand alone products (both are overweight--the 318 even more so...).
I don't think you'll see a lot of carriers choosing either unless they:
a) already have 73G/32X planes (most cases)
b) intend to buy the larger aircraft...(SAS, etc...)
YP6370 From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 9 months 2 hours ago) and read 2055 times:
In my opinion the A318 is definitely not a failure. Airbus currently has 136 orders but I agree with the two points Greg mentioned although Air China ordered 8 A318 without having another plane from the A320 series in their fleet.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1107 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (14 years 9 months 2 hours ago) and read 2035 times:
I think the sales (or lack of) for the 737-6 and possibly the A318 may be more down to economics than anything else. For example, the 737-6 doesn't really perform in any way significant better or more cheaply than the slightly larger 737-7. I suspect that [in both cases] most airlines would choose to take the initial hit of a slightly more expensive airplane that gives them a bit more capacity which they might need in future, rather than be lumbered with an aircraft that they might outgrow.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 9 months 1 hour ago) and read 2006 times:
Both the A318 and the 736 are too heavy to be of much use. The A319 and 737-700 are only slightly larger and more expensive and have better overall economics. The only customers for the 318 and 736 are those who have large 73 and 320 fleets, where the comonality is handy. Those airlines wanting just 100 seat aircraft, should probably choose the soon-to-be, larger, Embraer/Bombardier/Fairchild-Dornier RJs, or (dare i say it?) the 717.
GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (14 years 9 months 1 hour ago) and read 1986 times:
I think that A318 and 736 is an option for airlines which already have 737's or A32X as already stated. They might not sell aswell as the bigger family members, but it's a good option for airlines who have the type in service.
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 7142 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1920 times:
Remember that the A318 is not just an "even smaller A319".
The 319 sacrifices capacity to gain longer range than the 320.
But the 318 is the low capacity short range version of the 320 family, really a regional plane. It benefits from the small, cheap, economic and leightweight P&W 6000 engine. But derated CFM56 engines are an option for airlines wishing that extra maintenance commonality.
In other words, the 318 is much more a head on competitor to B717 and ERJ-190 than a shrunk 319.
Rgds, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1904 times:
Prebennorholm In other words, the 318 is much more a head on competitor to B717 and ERJ-190 than a shrunk 319.
Yes especially if they're with carriers already having 320-family fleets, the commonality aspects are gonna save 'em a bundle, even if their 318s get fitted with the Pratt engines. That`s what Airbus seems to be counting on, that it'll overcome whatever direct operating cost advantage the 717 jumpjets have with their lower weight and so greater ease of getting them up in the sky, in a high-number-of-cycles/day type of application.