AdamHarvard From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 72 posts, RR: 0 Posted (14 years 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3881 times:
Just the other day I was going down the moving walkway at LGW following a flight from Goa, India (MON A330), to see a TAP A319. I was taken aback at the 'stubbiness' of the plane and having looked at shots of the upcoming Airbus A318 (slightly shorter than the 319 in body length) all I can ask is....why two such similar airframes?(surely pax-capacity will be simmilar....what about range?) and which airlines have already ordered the A318..........?
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16525 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (14 years 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3840 times:
To expand the 'family' concept of the A320. Commonality benefits. Of course, the seat mile costs of the A318 will be high but in theory airlines will save $ thru fleet commonality. Note all A318's customers to date are A320-family customers already.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
PSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 8140 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (14 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3775 times:
This is a question I've been wondering, what will be the overall cost savings associated of the A318 vs the A319? I guess we won't actually know until it enters service. But if the A318 & A319 are only slightly different, why not get the slightly larger aircraft with larger capacity.
Travellin'man From United States of America, joined May 2001, 530 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3740 times:
I agree that the 318 is like the 736; a niche aircraft that was almost built just to indulge current customers!
It has certainly been worth AI's while to build it though. It has allowed them to try out new manufacturing techniques, and generally apply tech upgrades that will enter the rest of the family, if they work out (to the customers' satisfaction).
It is not enough to be rude; one must also be incorrect.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 27671 posts, RR: 81
Reply 7, posted (14 years 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3714 times:
The two key "points" of the A318 are (a) range and (b) LESS passengers.
The A319 has about 140 pax. The A 318 will carry around 100. But, unlike most 100 seat planes, the A318 can fly quite long distances. So it's useful for what airlines call "high yield/low density" long routes - or "long and thin".
Example: No one is going to do this, but the A318 could fly from Denver to, say, Venezuela. This wouldn't be a heavily travelled route, but a small plane could maybe make money on it.
For a number of airlines with A319's or A320's in the fleet, they can substitute the smaller A318 (because of the "commonality") in low yield seasons.
Remains to be seen if the A318 sells well, rather like the B717, but a lot of people confuse them as competitors. In fact, the two planes are really designed to do different things. I wish both of them well.
Qatar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3686 times:
The A319 has much more range than the A318. The reason is that Airbus wants the A318 to be a more "regional aircraft". Also you all forget about aquisition costs which play a major part of the economics of operating and aircraft. I think aquisition costs account for about 40% of the airliners costs. If an airline doesn't think it can fill a 319 on a certain route then the A318 will be more econimical even with the slightly higher seat per mile costs an airline would save because the A318 list price is approx $5million less than the A319.
A319 - 3700nm
A318 - 2850nm (even less than the A320)
According to the Airbus market the A318 is designed for the demanding high cycle routes which is exactly what the 717 is aimed for. The A318 is more suited for the longer high-cycle routes and the B717 is more suited for shorter high cycle routes.