Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2477 times:
One of the answers you wanted is in your own post. BA ordered 12 A318s with options on another 12.
What's the future of the A318? It's like the B736. Neither of them is very economical. It might make some sense for airlines with a large A319/320/321 fleet who need a plane with 100 seats. Otherwise, airlines are better off looking at the ERJ-190, CRJ900, 928Jet, that is if Fairchild Dornier survives, or even the B717.
Why did BA order the A321? IMO, they made a wrong decision of ordering the A318 to replace some of BA's B757s which BA sold to DHL via Boeing when they ordered the A318. With the A318 delay, BA has the opportunity to correct that mistake. BA doesn't really need the B757 range. The A321 is probably a better fit for them. If the A321 works well in BA's fleet, they can always order more as they have quite a few options on the Airbus narrowbody.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7623 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2461 times:
The A318s were intended to go to MAN & BHX but with the Future Size and Shape Report coming out, they reassessed their needs:
The RJ100s at LGW will now go to MAN & BHX
BHX A319s to LHR
MAN 737s to LGW
Theoretically, this should reduce operating costs by reducing the number of different aircraft types at MAN, BHX & LGW. Perhaps a beancounter may elaborate?
With the RJ100s being operated outside London, the personnel at MAN & BHX would have to introduce these into the schedules over 6 to 12 months and I doubt it would be worthwhile for them to introduce another new type within a couple of years.
I think the A321s may well see action on the domestic shuttle routes. I would imagine that this is the first order for the A321 from BA for operation by themselves, with the next order coming along in 2003/2004.
Ba777-236 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 674 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2374 times:
Why oh why have they ordered A321's instead?
And why only 4?
"Lekky-Man" To answer your question, I think that BA is ordering those A321's for their subsidaries like GB Airways which already has 2 321's in service.
Aamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1063 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2255 times:
I know that already 321s are on order for BMED and GB Airways... the BMED order is for 5 or so isnt it?? and the GB airways one is for another couple... so i think when they are all delievered there should be around 10-12 in service... and i can see them ordering more when Euro traffic demands it again... if it ever does...
Rick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2108 times:
BMed are now operating two A321s in the Union Jack scheme (G-MEDF and DG I think).
They have returned 2 A320s to the lessor as a result. The fleet will become 4 A321s and 1 A320 by the year end I am (fairly reliably!) informed.
They can't get rid of the last A320 and swap it for an A321 as they want to, since it has 10 years to go on it's lease and the lessor won't take it back early without a severe penalty. That's what I heard anyway...
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2068 times:
BA777236, Neither GB Airways nor BMed are subsidiaries of BA, they are independent franchises. As such, BA cannot order on their behalf. GB and BMed will make their own decisions on aircraft procurement.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Boeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2073 times:
It would appear from the lack of 736's A318s or Even 717s is that if Airline have fleets of 737s or A320s it may not be economical to go too small.
It would be more viable to go A319 or 737 700 and use the extra capacity. The diffrence in operating cost may be so little that the smaller 318 or 736 may save you little and cost potentional capacity (20 seats of revenue)
The Regional jet has better operating costs in relation to the number of passengers carried???? that is my guess. Its a bit like light rail vs heavy rail for urban transport. The construction of the A318/736 in more like the "heavy rail" and the RJs are of lighter construction and therefore lower operating costs.
In other words if your operating a 736 or A318 you may as well operate a 737 or 738 or A319 A320 or even A321
The larger models are not handicapped by short runways/performance like they used to.
Mighluss From Spain, joined Oct 2001, 978 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2051 times:
But as I know, the difference between 717 and 318 is that 717 is a single product line, and 318 is in the A32x family, with a lot of commonality with his big brothers, and can stand with very few orders.
Hopefully the 717 will stand, as is a great plane (doesn't had a recent order from ...Midwest?)