PanAm747
Topic Author
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 4:00 am

Even though I am a huge Boeing fan, I greatly admire the incredible design of the A320 family. A design that has been refined greatly since 1988, I am familiar with the extended family - the 321 offering greater capacity, and the 319 which is a longer range version.

However, I don't quite understand exactly what market the 318 is supposed to serve. What is its mission? What routes was it designed for? If you had an airline, what routes would you have it flying (assuming you had an Airbus fleet commonality situation)?

Thanks in advance!!
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 4:21 am

Transcon, thin routes of 105-115 pax or so. It's a niche a/c, made possible by shrinking a successful design, similar to the 737-500/600. In general, stretch version of airliners are more successful than shrinks...

DOCs are in direct proportion to operating weight, and for that seat capacity in today's market, for most operators it is too heavy. In other words, it has too much range capability, so the empty weight (and MGTOW) is therefore much heavier than a CRJ 900 or EMB-190...so it is more costly in the sub transcon range than the above a/c.

Conversely, if the range capability is utilized, most airlines would prefer to have the 20 additional seats that the "parent" a/c offerred in the first place...

WN and CAL bought the -500 in the late 80s, when low fuel costs made such a route specific a/c viable. I doubt US operators ever get the -600, or if more 318s are ever sold. I bet Frontier wishes they could trade their 318s in on bigger busses...
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18178
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 4:38 am

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 1):
I bet Frontier wishes they could trade their 318s in on bigger busses...

You'd lose the bet. They have just ordered some more A318's - about two months ago.

http://frontierairlines.mediaroom.co...dex.php?s=press_releases&item=1274

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
BDL2DCA
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:46 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 4:47 am

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 1):
I bet Frontier wishes they could trade their 318s in on bigger busses...

Since they just ordered more, I think you might be mistaken: New A320s And A318s For Frontier. (by Manni May 2 2006 in Civil Aviation)
146,319,320,321,333,343,722,732,733,734,735,73G,738,744,752,762,763,772,ARJ,BE1,CRJ,D9S,D10,DH8,ERJ,E70,F100,S80
 
L1329II
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:52 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 5:05 am

Is F9 using these 318's for route building then?
"By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5212
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 5:11 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter):
What routes was it designed for?

From www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2749891/ F9 would be using the newly confirmed A318s for point-to-point service between LAX and SFO.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 5:14 am

Well Adria could use some A318s (they would be good for short flights to Germany and the summer charter flights) instead of leased B735 which are going to replace the more comfortable and modern A320s.
Altough it is not very popular I still believe there are going to be new orders for the A318 in the future.
 
rojo
Posts: 2256
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 6:08 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 5:18 am

Mexicana uses their A318's for route building. It has flown MEX-YYZ, MEX-YVR, MEX-JFK, MEX-BWI, MLM-ORD, ZCL-DFW some being long routes that require few seats during the first months of operation. They tried to use it for the MEX-UIO-GYE, but they had problems (it was not certified in Ecuador).
 
KL808
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 3:49 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 5:22 am

Quoting Rojo (Reply 7):
They tried to use it for the MEX-UIO-GYE, but they had problems (it was not certified in Ecuador).

Could you please elaborate.

Drew
AMS-LAX-MNL
 
L1329II
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:52 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 5:35 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 5):
From www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2749891/ F9 would be using the newly confirmed A318s for point-to-point service between LAX and SFO.

Thanks for pointing that out. However I just dont see the use of such a smaller plane for that route. Why not the 319? B6 uses thier 320's on shorter routes.

I'm not trying to be an armchair CEO but just wondering...
"By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"
 
PanAm747
Topic Author
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 5:47 am

Thank you for the replies!!

Perhaps someone at F9 can elaborate a little further for me - my itinerary for a summer trip SAN-MSP on F9 was recently changed to include a 318 segment. I am curious as to how the airline decides where a 318 would be most economical.

Also, is the cargo capacity of the entire family proportional to passenger capacity and thrust performance? Meaning if the 318 can carry say 100 passengers, plus their luggage and X pounds of cargo, would each larger version have the same ratios as passenger numbers get larger?
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18178
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 5:49 am

Quoting L1329II (Reply 9):
I just dont see the use of such a smaller plane for that route. Why not the 319?

From the press release "We will fly our mainline A318s and A319s on the route."

Frontier uses the A318 to "right-size" based on traffic at various times of the day. The same, I'm sure, will apply to the A320 when it arrives.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 7:28 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 2):
You'd lose the bet. They have just ordered some more A318's - about two months ago.

Noted, and my point was that they are niche a/c...which means that some airlines (obviously Frontier) have a specific need for A318s. Additionally, b/c of this niche, the 737-500/600 and A318s have not been high sellers.
 
rojo
Posts: 2256
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 6:08 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 9:20 am

Quoting KL808 (Reply 8):
Could you please elaborate.

Don't know exactly why MX had to use the A319 to Ecuador, but what I was told during an informal chat was that the A318 was not certified by the aviation authority of Ecuador to land in their fields. Maybe someone working in MX can elaborate...
 
airportmanager
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2001 1:49 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 9:25 am

Quoting Rojo (Reply 7):
They tried to use it for the MEX-UIO-GYE, but they had problems (it was not certified in Ecuador).

What are you talking about man? Hahaha. A plane that isnt certified here cant fly here, so why this....

http://www.planepictures.net/xsearch...-srng=1&rg-srch=&offset=0&range=25

They flew the A319 and A318. Second, they stopped operating, not for any reason like problems with acft but for passenger numbers etc.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 9:26 am

Quoting L1329II (Reply 4):
Is F9 using these 318's for route building then?

Yep, and for adding frequencies. But they've found they could also use some A320s on some routes and ordered those for the first time.

Quoting L1329II (Reply 9):
Thanks for pointing that out. However I just dont see the use of such a smaller plane for that route.

ERJs, 733s, 732s, 735s, CRJs, etc. have all been used on the LA to SF market.

Of course, so have 747s, DC10s, L1011s, etc. in the past.

If F9 thinks it makes sense on the route, and they would rather use 319s elsewhere in the system, then that's their choice.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6208
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 10:06 am

Quoting Airportmanager (Reply 14):
Second, they stopped operating, not for any reason like problems with acft but for passenger numbers etc.

I recall reading here that some days MX had good loads and some others they had bad loads. Nevertheless, it seems they want to reinstate the route later this year or next year. Does anyone know if this is true? I recall the argument was that there were other more profitable routes where MX could use the planes required to fly to Ecuador instead, but that as soon as more aircraft joined the fleet, MX was going to give this route another go.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
N405MX
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:46 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 11:02 am

Quoting Rojo (Reply 13):
Don't know exactly why MX had to use the A319 to Ecuador, but what I was told during an informal chat was that the A318 was not certified by the aviation authority of Ecuador to land in their fields. Maybe someone working in MX can elaborate...

The plane was so new that it didn´t had the permissions by Ecuatorian or Mexican authorithies for the route, that´s why in the last minute it was changed for the A319; was not about certification, was about permissions.

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 16):
Does anyone know if this is true? I recall the argument was that there were other more profitable routes where MX could use the planes required to fly to Ecuador instead, but that as soon as more aircraft joined the fleet, MX was going to give this route another go.

Actually because of the geografical situation of UIO/GYE, actually the A320 can´t operate there because it´s really high above sea level, and only the A318/A319 can fly there. The route was a great one, but problems about visas, and migration requirements made MX to cancelled the route for a moment, actually MX1681 still appears on MX system, shows that the flight is not operating, but as flight number still alive.

Quoting Airportmanager (Reply 14):
Second, they stopped operating, not for any reason like problems with acft but for passenger numbers etc.

All about goberment requirements (both Mexican and Ecuatorian).
The loads where great on the route, actually about 80% LF in average.

Saludos
Life is what happens when you have other plans.....
 
L1329II
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:52 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 11:25 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
If F9 thinks it makes sense on the route, and they would rather use 319s elsewhere in the system, then that's their choice.

Like I said... I'm no armchair CEO, I'm just trying to understand thats all.
"By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"
 
md90fan
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:15 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Wed May 03, 2006 11:33 am

I read that the 736 was meant with routes like SEA-MSY in mind and GLA-ATH.  Smile

Regards,
MD90fan  airplane   wave 
http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5212
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 2:48 am

I don't think Airbus intended the A318 to be a niche aircraft, the same way that Boeing did not intend the 736 to also be one. Both manufacturers saw the opportunity to have a complete line and enter, with relatively little investment, the then booming RJ market by offering aircraft that straddle the capacity transition fom regional to mainline. The A318's and 736's generic range figures point to that. In Airbus' case, it was also to have a competitor for the 736 which was first to market. Alas, the notorious reputation of shrinks being less economical than optimized designs was again proven in these two, thus relegating them to pinch-hitter duties like pioneering, route building and right-sizing.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 3:00 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 20):
I don't think Airbus intended the A318 to be a niche aircraft, the same way that Boeing did not intend the 736 to also be one. Both manufacturers saw the opportunity to have a complete line and enter, with relatively little investment, the then booming RJ market by offering aircraft that straddle the capacity transition fom regional to mainline.

We certainly differ on this one. A/c at either end of the Airbus or Boeing spectrum are niche a/c; that's the whole point of having a comprehensive product line, and the same argument can be made for the 737-700ER, 900/900ER and A321. One of the first things that is looked at in an a/c design or modification is airline need, which is condensed as operating weight(s). The MGTOW for the 50 seat RJs is around 50,000 lbs, the MGTOW for the -500 is in the 130,000 lb range, and probably more for the -600 and A318 if I looked it up. That is almost 3 times as much a/c as an RJ; with that comparison it is a logical conclusion that the -500/600 and A318 are not comparable to an RJ.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5212
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 3:59 am

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 21):
That is almost 3 times as much a/c as an RJ; with that comparison it is a logical conclusion that the -500/600 and A318 are not comparable to an RJ.

The point was not that the 318 and 736 were RJs, but rather were hoped to capture some of that market. And doing dual roles as regional and mainline equipment diminishes the niche aircraft classification.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 4:11 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter):
the A320 family. A design that has been refined greatly since 1988, I am familiar with the extended family - the 321 offering greater capacity, and the 319 which is a longer range version.

The A32S family wasn't greatly refined during its life, at least nowhere close to the 737.

And the A319 not only has a longer range than the A320, but it is shortened, too, however not as much as the A318.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18178
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 4:12 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 22):
The point was not that the 318 and 736 were RJs

The A318 can fly transcons, and has done so. I'm not sure how that makes it "regional" jet.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 4:22 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 24):
The A318 can fly transcons, and has done so. I'm not sure how that makes it "regional" jet.

RJs fly some seriously long stages - my only ERJ135 flight to date was Toronto to Houston, and they do plenty of longer stuff. The term "Regional Jet" is a misnomer, it just means "small plane" as far as I can tell. Just like the "Express" suffix used by the mainline brands to denote the use of smaller planes, it's not as though you get there faster or spend less time checking in. It's just a word that has randomly come to mean a certain kind of operation.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5212
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 5:30 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 24):
I'm not sure how that makes it "regional" jet.

Please note the "NOT" in the phrase you quoted.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18178
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 5:36 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 26):
Please note the "NOT" in the phrase you quoted.

Point taken. Thank you.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
PanAm747
Topic Author
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 5:43 am

Quote:
The A32S family wasn't greatly refined during its life, at least nowhere close to the 737.

And the A319 not only has a longer range than the A320, but it is shortened, too, however not as much as the A318.

Both points I understand - the 737 has been in production more than 40 years, during which time great advances in technology have transformed the jet into something the original Boeing engineers could hardly have dreamed of. Can you imagine telling them that one day a Premium-Class jet would fly transatlantic schedules?

The 319 is simply a shorter and lighter 320 with the same engines, giving it transcontinental range. Was it designed specifically for the United States market?

Perhaps for Frontier it is simpler to operate a few 318's for particular lighter markets (such as SAN in off-peak times) than to try the logistics of an RJ (and related mechanical issues that could occur).
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15253
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 5:52 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter):
What routes was it designed for?

It's designed for routes where you want all the costs of the A319 but 20 fewer seats.  Silly
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 9:46 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 29):
It's designed for routes where you want all the costs of the A319 but 20 fewer seats.

Funny, but not exactly. It has lower power engines, is lighter, etc. than the 319, so the costs are lower.

The problem, which is sort of self fulfilling, is that the 318 depreciates far more rapidly than the 319 and 320, so the depreciation expense is a large part of the CASM of the jet. It's one thing if that depreciation expense becomes favorable due to higher than expected resale, but the 318 doesn't have that.

Someone once posted F9s breakdown on the two jets showing this amazing difference in the economics of the two jets.

But maybe as more 318s slowly trickle into the market, it helps the overall used market for them, improving economics?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 9:56 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 24):
The A318 can fly transcons, and has done so. I'm not sure how that makes it "regional" jet.

I guess some people are inclined to think that all planes that seat under 120 people are considered as regional jets. The DC9 barely seated 100 people. Was that a regional jet? Of course, that was not a jet meant for transcons, but the A318 is far more fuel efficient than the DC9. Those two planes aren't even in the same ballpark in that regard...

Quoting Mariner (Reply 27):
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 26):
Please note the "NOT" in the phrase you quoted.

Point taken. Thank you.

I guess regading this, my argument is null and void?
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15253
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 1:41 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30):
But maybe as more 318s slowly trickle into the market

And therein lies the rub....one of many for this aircraft.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
tzadik
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:08 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 2:27 pm

Seeing as westjet and frontier seem to fancy the B736 and A318 which for all intensive purposes is a long range regional jet, i ask this. Is it more cost effective to fly a B736/A318 with 110 pax or a B737/A319 with some empty seats... does the addition of this aircraft to a fleet of B737's and A319's really make much sense?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18178
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 3:04 pm

Quoting Tzadik (Reply 33):
does the addition of this aircraft to a fleet of B737's and A319's really make much sense?

If it didn't, why would they order more?

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
tzadik
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:08 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 3:21 pm

delta spends money on new flight attendant uniforms when they're in bankruptcy... very little done these days makes sense. The point of my question was whether or not a full A318 is that much more cost effective then a A319 with 20 empty seats.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18178
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Thu May 04, 2006 3:36 pm

Quoting Tzadik (Reply 35):
delta spends money on new flight attendant uniforms when they're in bankruptcy... very little done these days makes sense.

Why should Delta not order new uniforms in bankruptcy? They still have to fight for passengers, they still have to present a brand, they still have to compete - arguably more so.

The greater question is why the creditors are allowing Delta to fly, but obviously, that makes sense to the creditors.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
N405MX
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:46 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Fri May 05, 2006 12:56 am

Quoting Tzadik (Reply 35):
The point of my question was whether or not a full A318 is that much more cost effective then a A319 with 20 empty seats.

Depending on the airline and/or the route, it is, as your load factor increases, and the cost is lower, you are making money.

Also, is more dificult to compare an A318 against an RJ, because the RJ don´t have the cargo capacity that the A318 has, just an example, MX´s ORD-ZCL, 100 passengers + 3tons of luggage + 1 ton cargo.

Cheers.
Life is what happens when you have other plans.....
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Fri May 05, 2006 1:31 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 28):
The 319 is simply a shorter and lighter 320 with the same engines, giving it transcontinental range.

The MTOWs of the longer-range versions aren´t much different, 75.9 tonnes for the A319 and 77.4 tonnes for the A320.

As high MTOW aircraft, all A32S have transcon range.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 28):
Was it designed specifically for the United States market?

Not really, but it has proven that it can nicely serve this market.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
L1329II
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:52 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Fri May 05, 2006 1:35 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 36):
The greater question is why the creditors are allowing Delta to fly, but obviously, that makes sense to the creditors.

Do I sense a tone of sarcasm?
"By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15253
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Fri May 05, 2006 2:10 am

Quoting N405MX (Reply 37):
Also, is more dificult to compare an A318 against an RJ, because the RJ don´t have the cargo capacity that the A318 has, just an example, MX´s ORD-ZCL, 100 passengers + 3tons of luggage + 1 ton cargo.

According to their respective websites, the E195 has about 150 cubic feet MORE bulk hold space than the A318, and the E jet has an operating empty weight of about 20,000lbs LESS than the A318, all while carrying about the same payload. In fact Airbus says a typical payload for the A318 is about 24K (probably a few thousand pounds short of the max) while the max for the E195 is 29+K.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Fri May 05, 2006 5:32 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 40):
According to their respective websites, the E195 has about 150 cubic feet MORE bulk hold space than the A318, and the E jet has an operating empty weight of about 20,000lbs LESS than the A318, all while carrying about the same payload. In fact Airbus says a typical payload for the A318 is about 24K (probably a few thousand pounds short of the max) while the max for the E195 is 29+K.

Yes, that's becuase compared to other A32S models, the wing box takes an unproportionally long part of the space below the cabin.

But, you have to consider that the A318 has a better performance and much higher range compared to the E195.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5212
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Fri May 05, 2006 7:51 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 41):
But, you have to consider that the A318 has a better performance and much higher range compared to the E195.

From Flight Global, photo of the A318 Elite VIP version which had just been exhibited for the first time at EBACE in Geneva. It will be demonstated next at ILA in Berlin on 16 May 2006. This is a good opportunity to compare it with the E190 Lineage 1000, if the latter would be there too. But it seems only the Legacy 600 would be present.

[Edited 2006-05-05 00:56:01]

[Edited 2006-05-05 01:14:31]

[Edited 2006-05-05 01:16:24]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
N405MX
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:46 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Fri May 05, 2006 1:39 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 40):
According to their respective websites, the E195 has about 150 cubic feet MORE bulk hold space than the A318, and the E jet has an operating empty weight of about 20,000lbs LESS than the A318, all while carrying about the same payload.

Let me confirm my numbers, here I´m comparing the embraer and a A318 (payload data taken from an MX´s A318)

Embraer195 (AR) A318
Maximum Takeoff Weight 52,290 kg 64,500 kg
Maximum Landing Weight 45,800 kg 57,500 kg
Maximum Zero Fuel Weight 42,600 kg 54,500 kg
Basic Operating Weight 29,070 kg 40,629 kg
Maximum Payload 13,530 kg 13,871 kg
Maximum Fuel 12,872 kg 18,728 kg

In the weights we have a significant difference between both aircraft, also have to see the amount of passengers for both and their range.

Here are the links where I got the information, in case I got it wrong, please correct me.
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...lies/a320/a318/specifications.html
http://www.embraercommercialjets.com...mb_195.asp?tela=weights_dimensions

Saludos
Life is what happens when you have other plans.....
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15253
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Fri May 05, 2006 11:15 pm

Quoting N405MX (Reply 43):
Basic Operating Weight 29,070 kg 40,629 kg
Maximum Payload 13,530 kg 13,871 kg

Wow they have basically the same max payload except you are carrying an extra 11,500kg around with the A318, and the 195 can cover every current 318 route with the possible exception of YVR/MEX.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
N405MX
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:46 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Sat May 06, 2006 1:11 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 44):
Wow they have basically the same max payload except you are carrying an extra 11,500kg around with the A318, and the 195 can cover every current 318 route with the possible exception of YVR/MEX.

Could be, but there are 318´s with way more payload (about 2 tons), also have to check how the 195 performs out of hot and high destinations like MEX and UIO where MX was very pleased with the performance of the A318, also the A318 carries a lot more fuel that can help you with the long trips or congested airports.

Saludos
Life is what happens when you have other plans.....
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Sat May 06, 2006 1:37 am

Didn't they also look at a A316 (regional jet) and a A317 which was a joint venture with the Chinese (IIRC)?
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15253
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Sat May 06, 2006 1:42 am

Quoting N405MX (Reply 45):
Could be, but there are 318´s with way more payload (about 2 tons),

540kg from the data above

Quoting N405MX (Reply 45):
also the A318 carries a lot more fuel that can help you with the long trips or congested airports.

You're going to need a lot more fuel to carry around those 12 extra tons of dead, costly weight  Silly
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
N405MX
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:46 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Sat May 06, 2006 1:57 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 47):
540kg from the data above

Yep, the compared planes, but there are A318´s that have more payload. (one of them around 15 tons)

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 47):
You're going to need a lot more fuel to carry around those 12 extra tons of dead, costly weight

Actually there are 10 extra tons with the plane from factory, those 12 tons are from an MX plane, those include duty free, entertainment and lot´s of stuff. Also you use part of that fuel for flying those extra 500kms that the A318 can go  biggrin .

Saludos
Life is what happens when you have other plans.....
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For?

Mon May 08, 2006 12:44 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 22):
The point was not that the 318 and 736 were RJs, but rather were hoped to capture some of that market. And doing dual roles as regional and mainline equipment diminishes the niche aircraft classification.

"Some" of the market...the -500s bought by CAL and WN (WN was the launch, no more were bought, no US operator for the -600) and the A318s bought by F9. That, in my book, is a niche. None of these a/c have been flown by a "regional" operator either, if that's not as ambiguous as a distinction can be.

Who is online