User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:51 am

Up until now, Frontier's routes DEN/ANC and LAX/PHL have been weight restricted.

However, there's a snappet in the abbreviated SEC quarterly filing (last paragraph of page 10):

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/041108/frnt10-q.html

They intend to upgrade the engines on 10 of the A319's so that, for example, DEN/ANC and LAX/PHL can operate without weight restrictions.

But - a subfleet of 10 aircraft for just those 2 routes? Hmmm.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:54 am

its just a software upgrade, nothing more.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:57 am

Clickhappy:

"It's just a software upgrade, nothing more."

If it enables Frontier to fly these two routes without weight restrictions, then I would hardly call it "nothing more".

cheers

mariner

[Edited 2004-11-09 18:58:52]
aeternum nauta
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:27 am

then I would hardly call it "nothing more".

Heh, call it what you want. Its a software upgrade.

N
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:32 am

Gigneil:

Did I dispute that? The fact remains that it - whatever it is - gives Frontier the capability to fly the routes without weight restriction.

Since there was some considerable disussion on this forum about this last summer, it may - stress "may" - be of interest to those who follow the airline.

To those who do not care, why bother to reply?

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:35 am

I do care, in fact.

N
 
LambertMan
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:26 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:36 am

Mariner,

Have you heard of STL-LAX coming back for the summer months? To cut a flight with an 85% LF seems kind of strange.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:42 am

Gigneil:

"I do care, in fact."

Then I don't understand your response.

Let me put it simply: if it is just a software upgrade, then why not upgrade the whole fleet, instead of just 10 aircraft?

If the response is that Frontier doesn't need the whole fleet for those two routes, there is a further question:

Why as many as 10 aircraft, since 4, or at most 5, could easily fulfill the rotations for the two routes nominated?

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:50 am

Let me put it simply: if it is just a software upgrade, then why not upgrade the whole fleet, instead of just 10 aircraft?

Because it costs money. More fuel and more maintenance.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:52 am

Let me put it simply: if it is just a software upgrade, then why not upgrade the whole fleet, instead of just 10 aircraft?

Because its a very, very costly software upgrade that is licensed on a per-engine basis.

Why as many as 10 aircraft, since 4, or at most 5, could easily fulfill the rotations for the two routes nominated?

There are a few possible reasons. One is fleet scheduling flexibility. Another is that they may have routes where they'd like to haul additional cargo. They could also be planning further long routes that we're not currently privy to. CFM also might have made them a bundled deal for 10 aircraft that made it worth it on a cost-per-aircraft basis.

Not trying to be disagreeable here. I just wanted to confirm that the change is, indeed, a software upgrade. I follow F9 with some interest, being from the Springs and living in Denver many years myself.

N
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:06 am

Gigneil:

Well, thank you. At last some discussion, instead of snapbacks.

Clickhappy:

You list yourself as "crew", and your flip reply #3 is becoming - sadly - typical of "crew" responses on these boards.

Which has led me to ask airliners.net to cancel my subscription.

LambertMan:

Sorry, but as you see from the above, the initial responses of some have not put me in a mood to discuss Frontier. Or anything, really.

However, since ir is you, I would suggest - only suggest - that much of what may happen with Frontier at STL depends entriely on the DOT's respnse to STL/CUN.

Only a suggestion.

Have fun, guys.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
mikephotos
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 12:52 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:29 am

Because its a very, very costly software upgrade that is licensed on a per-engine basis.

Wonder if you have to plug the A319 into an internet connection and "activate" the software within 30 days  Big grin

I can see it now..."Sorry, Ladies and Gentleman we have to divert to Seattle because the IT dept. forgot to activate our copy of EngineXP and the time limit runs out in 30 minutes"

Mike
 
LRGT
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:29 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:40 am

The yeilds on STL/LAX are awful...even if LF was 102%!
Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
 
LambertMan
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:26 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:32 am

I have a hard time believing that yields are that depressed on a route mainly overran by AA. Although there is one flight a day on WN, I believe that when tickets were being sold for STL-LAX the price was equal to that of MCI/MSP..
 
airbrasil
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:12 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:17 pm

Mariner,

I hope F9 open more cities out of LAX. Perhaps with a future opening of PIT or RDU F9 could repead the same as it did with PHL opening flights to DEN and LAX at the same time.

Airbrasil
 
F9Widebody
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:47 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:16 pm

You list yourself as "crew", and your flip reply #3 is becoming - sadly - typical of "crew" responses on these boards.

Which has led me to ask airliners.net to cancel my subscription.


Please reconsider, you are an invaluable source of information for Frontier...your replies always are knowledgable and informative, it would be another loss for airliners.net if left. If you do leave, at least give us the link for that Frontier Yahoo Group.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
YES URLS in signature!!!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:29 am

F9Widebody:

I shall continue to read these boards, and, if I feel I have anything to add, I might - stress "might" - post.

But I am too old to be bothered with the impolite, the rude and the flip. If someone lists themselves as Crew, then, to some extent, they represent airliners.net.

So why give money to airliners.net, if their "staff" are going to be flip, curt, rude, etc.

It is why I no longer fly legacy carriers.

In this particular case, I talked to a chum at Airbus last night, who tells me that the increase in the MTOW costs about $1 million per plane.

10 aircraft is $10 million, which in this day and age, is something for a small airline like Frontier.

So, while it may be "just a software upgrade", you don't pick it up for a couple of bucks at Good Guys.

cheers

marnier
aeternum nauta
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:39 am

Mariner:

I look forward to your updates on F9. That said, I hope you'll continue to add to this sometimes uncouth forum.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5450
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:02 am

Perhaps a reply was deleted from this thread, but I didn't find Clickhappy's responses to be flippant -- short, perhaps, but also to the point. The uprating of the engines is simply a change in the software. The engine manufacturer charges quite a bit (i.e six to seven figures per engine) for the "software upgrade" since the upgrade gives you a significantly more useful product, and it's cheaper for them to produce one version of the engine than three or four. Bombardier's 40/44-seat CRJ is the same as their 50-seat CRJ -- the operator pays less and agrees to only use 40 or 44 seats.

As Gigneil said, the reasoning behind upgrading 10 aircraft (instead of 4 or 5) probably lies with scheduling, future routes, and (speculation on my part) a desire for improved performance on certain routes. It wouldn't surprise me if LGA-DEN, for example, had restrictions on hot days.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:35 am

ScottB:

At least one reply - the critical reply - has been deleted.

The point remains: the change may be "only the software", but at $1 million per plane, it is not exactly small change for Frontier.

The further point is that if it is such a small deal, then (a) why would Frontier not change all the aircraft?, and (b) why would they even bother to mention it in an SEC filing?

Call me stupid, many have, but those things are - to me - at least as worthy of discussion as the latest livery on some obscure airline.

The greater point is this: not all of us who are interested in airlines are intimately familiar with all things technical.

Even within this unhappy thread, I have learned stuff. such as - the details of what the change (be it software, or whatever) entails and (b) how it may may - stress "may" - affect the fleet.

It is sad - to me - that I had to go to another source to find out details of the MTOW, or example, when such knowledge may exist here.

And the implicit question in my original post ("Hmmmm") is the consideration of possible future routes.

That learning is, in itself, something. I think. You, of course, may not.

I also think it is a shame that people who have knowledge had to be provoked into sharing that knowledge. You, of course, may not think so.

But if we are not here to learn, then what is the point?

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:43 am


It is sad - to me - that I had to go to another source to find out details of the MTOW, or example, when such knowledge may exist here.


You didn't have to. If you had asked me what increase in MTOW would become available after the engines were upgraded, I would have told you.

I think you were missing the point of what I was saying. I was trying to say that upgrading the engines is as simple as a software upgrade. Plug in, upload, *poof* magic new thrust.

I wasn't trying to argue that the engine upgrade was a mere firmware swap that would have no lasting or memorable impact. The software upgrade provides a significant thrust increase, and a significant available increase in the MTOW of the plane.

I thought the detail being provided (that you can now get thousands of pounds of new thrust with only a firmware swap) was interesting and valuable contribution.

Clickhappy, perhaps, was being critical.

N
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:55 am

Gigneil:

Once again, not all of us who are interested in airlines are intimately familar with all things technical.

I did not ask you what the change in MTOW would be, because I already knew that, the link to the SEC filing told me. I was interested in the cause and effect.

So because of the curt replies here - and even you admitted in a later post that perhaps you had appeared disagreeable - I emailed my chum at Airbus, who gently held my hand and took me through the process.

You say you had this knowledge, but - originally - you chose not to share it. I think that's a pity.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
alphascan
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:04 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:10 am

M;

Thank you for all the knowledge I have gained from reading your contributions to this site over the past couple of years. Not only have your posts been informative, but your polite and respectful style has encouraged many other knowledgeable individuals to contribute valuable information that has enhanced my understanding of the business side of this crazy, yet addictive industry.

I hope you will reconsider your decision, in spite of the poorly trained staff of this board.

Cheers!

Alphascan
"To he who only has a hammer in his toolbelt, every problem looks like a nail."
 
User avatar
asqx
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 4:56 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:35 am

The engine upgrades are nice, but the landing gears don't appear to have been changed and as far as I can tell we are still limited to 154,000lb, since that's what they have stamped on them. Or I should say had, since those plates seem to be missing of late, only thing is, its not just a few, its all of the Airbus. Of course, the nice thing about having a higher powered engine on the wing is that given the same weight, it doesn't have to work as hard to product the same thrust and can improve fuel burn, which, with retail rates hovering around $1.40 a gallon, any little bit helps.

A few months ago, one of our higher ups from operations explained that while its an easy computer upgrade to change the thrust on the engines, Airbus wasn't too happy with the idea of us spending $1 million to upgrade them ourselves when they charge more to have it delivered new with the higher thrust. I have half a mind to believe that Airbus was willing to look the other way and not complain about us doing an upgrade we'd like in exchange for less of a penalty for damaging two airplanes (N935FR and N807FR) delaying delivery. Then again, he also explained that its $2mill+ with a minimum of 2 years retraining and operational proving before we could fly to Hawaii so that pretty much put a killer on HNL and OGG rumors... unless of course we bought someone already ETOPS certified.

And as to STL-LAX yeilds being lowsy, well, with yeild where it is at the moment for pretty much every airline in the US, having a lowsy yeild is pretty good, since on the whole it stinks.
 
Cactus739
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:41 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:42 am

Mariner:

I hope that you reconsider and stay around. Your posts are always informative, easy to read and comprehend, and you have a grasp for the financial side that many of us do not. I too, will miss your contributions should you leave.

cheers!

cactus
 Smile
You can't fix stupid.... - Ron White
 
bill142
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:43 am

If its just a software upgrade, why don't they just do a search on Kazaa or something of that nature and then burn it onto a CD.. would cost alot less.. lol..  Big grin
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:55 am

The engine upgrades are nice, but the landing gears don't appear to have been changed and as far as I can tell we are still limited to 154,000lb, since that's what they have stamped on them.

154,000 pounds is the maximum MTOW option available for the A320. The standard A319's maximum configuration is 151,000 pounds so I think you should be good with the gear you have.

Of course, the nice thing about having a higher powered engine on the wing is that given the same weight, it doesn't have to work as hard to product the same thrust and can improve fuel burn, which, with retail rates hovering around $1.40 a gallon, any little bit helps.

Well. Not exactly. They're still the same engine. They were always capable of producing more thrust, they were just software limited to a certain thrust.

They still work the same amount to produce the same thrust.

N
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:40 am

Gigneil:

Given all that has been said, I dn't like to buy into this, but I did start the thread.

So - airliners.net aircraft stats show a different MTOW (both standard and optional) for both the A319 and the A320 from the figures you quote.

Unless, of course, I am reading it incorrectly, which is always possible. The alternative is that airliners.net is wrong.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:52 am

>Have you heard of STL-LAX coming back for the summer months? To cut a flight with an 85% LF seems kind of strange.<

Their main reason for dropping the route was not yield, it was lack of aircraft because of what Airbus did to their A318. Since it was not making enough money (still profitable), they allocated the plane somewhere else.

>The yeilds on STL/LAX are awful...even if LF was 102%! <

Yeah, sort of like the 753 having such a high seat-mile cost?? This is a LCC flying all coach with low costs and efficient aircraft, they specialize in making money, even with low yields.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:02 pm

The alternative is that airliners.net is wrong

Nearly all of the information in the airliners.net airliner data is, yes.

You're welcome to be bitter and angry if it pleases you. I'm sorry you want to make an issue out of this.

N
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:07 pm

>The alternative is that airliners.net is wrong<

Neil is right, pretty much all of the A.net data is way off for the airplanes. He is also right that all this is is a software change for F9. Sure it does make a big difference for them, but it does not entail buying brandnew engines or anything of the sort.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
ScottB
Posts: 5450
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:23 pm

"Their main reason for dropping the route was not yield, it was lack of aircraft because of what Airbus did to their A318. Since it was not making enough money (still profitable), they allocated the plane somewhere else."

Ahhhhh Frontier lost money last quarter. I'm going to make the WILD assumption that management was smart enough to cut the poorest performers. STL-LAX doesn't return to the schedule even past mid-December, even though STL seems to get an additional frequency to DEN.

Honestly, I'm really not sure the LAX routes are such good performers. Frontier will sell you a one-way ticket for LAX-PHL one week from today for $89.10 -- including all taxes. You can get on tonight's flight for just a bit over $200. Maybe loads are only bad mid-week?

"This is a LCC flying all coach with low costs and efficient aircraft, they specialize in making money, even with low yields."

ATA was doing the same thing and they're bankrupt. At some point, the yields are too low for ANYONE to make money. High fuel costs and poor yields will probably mean losses for FRNT through the end of this fiscal year; that's part of why thay have wisely (in my opinion) decided to retire the remaining 737's early, which should reduce pressure on yields slightly by dropping capacity by several percent from the original plan. Cash was down by over $30 million from the previous quarter and it would be wise for them to try to hold on to as much as possible until things in the industry shake out a bit.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:38 pm

Gigneil:

"Bitter and angry"? This is an internet message board, not the meaning of life. I don't even get "bitter and angry" about things that matter.

I am trying to learn. You quoted a set of figures, and every source I went to gave me other figures. I used the airliners.net figure because this is their board.

So do I simply believe you because you say so?

However, the figures you quoted do not correlate to the figures quoted by Frontier in their SEC filing.

Scottb:

I note, just for the heck of it, that Frontier is adding an additional flight LAX/PHL flight, on Saturdays, as of January 8.

Or at least, they were showing it two hours ago.

cheers

mariner

aeternum nauta
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:09 pm

I wasn't referring to your disbelief of the numbers. I was referring to your reiteration that you didn't want to be further involved.

You're right, this is an Internet message board. That's why I couldn't understand your previous overannoyance.

Lets move past it.

I checked the recent Frontier filing in which they mention they've entered an agreement with CFMI to upgrade their engine thrust from 22,000 to 23,500 lbt.

Then immediately after it it details that they've entered an agreement with Airbus to increase the MTOW of affected aircraft from 70 tons to 75.5 tons.

75.5 tons is 151,000 pounds, the maximum configuration for a standard A319.

What numbers were you referring to that were in disagreement?

Below, I included the snippet from the filing.

N


We have entered into separate agreements with CFMI and Airbus to increase the engine thrust and maximum take-off weight on ten of our owned A319 aircraft to improve the operational performance of these aircraft. This sub-fleet of ten aircraft is comprised of eight aircraft that are currently in service and two aircraft that will be delivered in the summer of 2005. The agreement with CFMI calls for an increase in the maximum rated thrust from a base of 22,000 to 23,500 pounds per engine. The agreement with Airbus calls for an increase in the maximum take-off weight from a base of 70 tons to 75.5 tons. The improved operational performance will allow us to serve longer haul markets (i.e., Denver to Anchorage and Los Angeles to Philadelphia) while carrying a full passenger load. We expect the modifications on the eight aircraft currently in our fleet to be completed by March 2005. The two aircraft scheduled for delivery in the summer of 2005 will be delivered from the factory with the additional thrust and take-off weight upgrades.

[Edited 2004-11-11 05:14:59]
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:21 pm

Gigneil:

Any "mild annoyance" I ever feel is only over incivility, which - in my opinion - was begun by another poster, and most particularly with a post that he has now had deleted.

Move past it? I am delighted so to do.

The numbers that Frontier quoted are in the link I provided in the first post of this thread. It is, as I said then, an abbreviation of their SEC filing, and the figures are in the last paragraph of the (abbreviated) page 10.

As I have made clear - I think from the git-go - I am no technical whiz. I may very well be reading the numbers incorrectly.

Which would mean that I read all numbers incorrectly - yours as well as others.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:24 pm

I checked the link you provided, the snippet I provided above and what was in the abbreviated one are the same.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Frontier will operate now a fleet of 10 A319s in the maximum standard configuration available from Airbus and CFMI.

N
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:46 pm

Gigneil:

I apologize as far as the Frontier figures go. I had misread your lbs as kgs (my natural measure) - but I was still surprised about your "over-annoyance" comment - the "over" part, at least.

The figures which really puzzled me where yours for the MTOW of the A320, which are dfferent from listed on a.net, and which you say are wrong. However, this site gives similar figures to a.net.

http://www.aircraft-info.net/aircraft/jet_aircraft/airbus/A320/

However, if, as agreed, we move past all this, I come back to the provocation for the thread.

Since I have never disputed that it is a software thing, I remain surprised that Frontier is having 10 aircraft "upgraded" for the two nominated routes. I am puzzled that it is 10, not more nor less. 10 seems more than is necessary for just those two routes, even allowing for scheduling flexibility.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:04 pm

all I did was post a " Insane" is that such a big deal?

If so, I apologize.

It is after all just an "internet message board."

So how about we move on?

The funny thing is, once you get past the nonsense this thread is actually pretty interesting.

So, with said software upgrade, is the engine no longer a CFM56-5B5? Does it become a CFM56-5B6?
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:10 pm

Correct. The engine is now a -5B6/P rather than a -5B5/P.

but I was still surprised about your "over-annoyance" comment - the "over" part, at least.

Come come now... you threatened to have the admins delete you from the board. That's either entrenched Drama Queenitis or, as I suggested, overannoyance.  Laugh out loud

Since I have never disputed that it is a software thing, I remain surprised that Frontier is having 10 aircraft "upgraded" for the two nominated routes. I am puzzled that it is 10, not more nor less. 10 seems more than is necessary for just those two routes, even allowing for scheduling flexibility.

I read the filing for the first time today checking on the numbers... the part you're referring to where it talks about those two routes are examples. The filing says they're upgrading them to assist with longer haul services in general:

"The improved operational performance will allow us to serve longer haul markets (i.e., Denver to Anchorage and Los Angeles to Philadelphia) while carrying a full passenger load."

A generically wise move, especially with Denver summers the way they have been the last 5 years.

N

[Edited 2004-11-11 06:12:14]
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:14 pm

funny that an engine with a lower bypass ratio produces more thrust, I always thought it was the other way around.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:22 pm

Heh, not necessarily. And its only a mildly, mildly lower bypass ratio due to higher core flow.

N
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Fri Nov 12, 2004 12:33 am

Gigneil:

"Drama queenitis"? Wow.

I did not "threaten to have the admins delete me from the board". I made it very clear, in posts to others, that I would continue to read, and maybe, post - eg, reply #16.

I said I was cancelling my subscription - my First Class membership.

Which is what I am trying to do. And, apparently, failing.

It's been three days, I've had three attempts, but I can get no response from airliners.net whatsever. Such as - they will no longer charge my credit card.

Hey, maybe they will, maybe they won't, but if they do it won't get paid.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

It is my ongoing point about civility and the lack of it.

Which brings me to:

Clickhappy:

Thank you for your apology. You are correct, your little pictogram is, in itself "no big deal."

But there is a thing called "cumulative effect".

(Of which the non response by a.net to a money question is a teensy part).

I have posted less and less over the past few months, partly - stress "partly" - because it seems to me that various "crew" members were becoming increasingly arrogant, flip, curt, rude, etc., in their responses, especially to younger members.

So, you come along and make two dismissive posts of what I think is a perfectly reasonable thread - with which you now seem to agree.

And I decide that I prefer not to give a.net my money.

That is all. No big deal.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:46 am

Mariner:

You mentioned cancelling your FirstClass Membership. If you do that, will they allow you to return to, what I call, CattleClass Membership, like they allowed a few years ago? I'm still a CattleClass Member, but I don't think they allow new participants into this "VA hospice" anymore.

Your thoughts?

Cheers
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
Jetmek319
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 8:02 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:07 am

Mariner,
I for one value your insight into this wild business, so I request that you not leave.

To give an insider view of this. Uprating the engines is a bit more involved than "just software". There are some physical parts changing, some re-wiring, and some software changes involved. The CFM 56-5 series is rated to 33,000 lbs thrust on the A321's. Frontier uprated 10 aircraft to eliminate the weight restrictions we have on some routes. However, as earlier pointed out, this increases fuel consumption and increases the maintenance required. Somebody in the head office thought the trade off was worth it. I cringe at the increased fuel burn though.

As for most of you posting on this thread.... Read before you comment and take into mind the position and thoughts of the others before you flame or continue to try and bait someone into arguing. Sometimes silence really is the better choice.
Never, ever moon a werewolf !!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:41 am

DIA:

Since I have received no reply from airliners.net to my requests to cancel my subscription, I can't begin to guess the answer to your question.

It will be what it will be, whatever the consequences.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:42 am

I just deleted the payment from Paypal, personally. That got the job done.

You will have to resubscribe as a "Premium Member" which is a one time $25 payment.

N
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:55 am

Gigneil:

You have authority to do this?

Gosh. But - thank you.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
alphascan
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:04 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:09 am

Damn shame. Way to go Click.
"To he who only has a hammer in his toolbelt, every problem looks like a nail."
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:11 am

Alphascan:

Actually, it has its curious side. And slighty disturbing, I think.

Gigneil seems to think it is proper to discuss my personal financial business in a public forum and that it is okay to tell everyone I have a Paypal account.

Which I do.

The thing is, I have only used that account twice in the past twelve months, for payments made for purchases on ebay. The last time I used Paypal - for anything - was in April 04.

I became a First Class member of airliners.net in July 04. You do the math.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
alphascan
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:04 am

RE: F9 Upgrades A319 Engines

Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:29 am

Well hopefully he was just pulling your leg and you will stick around.

Seems alot of the most knowledgable posters that were here when I joined two years ago have flown the coop or been booted by the a.net police. Be a shame to lose you too.

I'm not sure which is worse pal, a board like yahoo where anything goes or a board like this with rookie police-type tendancies. Come to think of it, no contest, freedom is better.
"To he who only has a hammer in his toolbelt, every problem looks like a nail."