If I'm being dense, so be it. I bow to anyone's superior technical knowledge than my own, which is close to zero.
Howsumever, I come back to a point we've discussed before. According to GECAS, which is the easist for dense folk like me to read, the maximim gross take off weight of the A318 is 59,000 kg.
The same source says the maximum gross take of weight of the A319 is 70,000 kg.
That's an 11,000 kg difference - approx 22,000 lbs. Are they telling fibs?
I know you say that the A319 specs are for a different model (and hey, I can't prove otherwise), but if you are correct then later versions of the A319 must have been reduced by some 18,000 lbs. If I find that a tad hard to swallow, forgive me.
The thing that puzzles me is this: you are determined to prove, and may have done so to everyone's satisfaction but mine, that the A318 isn't that much of a virtue (if any) over the A319.
Okay. But what you haven't answered is this: after the first flights of the A318 prototype, when the capabilities were known and the problems of the PW
engine were revealed, all the airlines had the opportunity to convert their orders.
didn't take advantage of this. They stayed with the A318. Maybe they got an amazing deal. But I think it was you who said that even a major price advantage doesn't help if the costs are so much higher.
So unless you are claiming that the F9
management are total dodo's (which you may think but I don't), they must believe that the plane suits what they want it to do. Which is all I care about.
But let's assume you're right. FRNT's A319 CASM is a tad over 8 cents. MESA's CASM for an RJ
is around 14 cents.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you're right. That F9
's CASM for an A318 will be higher - 9 cents, say, or even 10. That's still cheaper than an RJ
, by quite a large margin.
Let's ignore issues of commonality, or of the cost savings by not having two aircraft types in the fleet, and their crews. or the savings in cost to engineering by only having one type (all of which go to the bottom line, and thus CASM).
So for those thinner routes which can't (or don't) support an A319 - say ONT
- the A318 becomes more economical (for F9
) than an RJ
But I'll go further. Let's suppose - again - that you are right in everything you say, that the A318 is simply a niche aircraft that maybe makes sense for a couple of airlines. Of which F9
may be one.
I don't have a problem with that.