Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
CRJ900 wrote:Has Boeing secretly beefed up the MAX 9? These flights are 3,500nm and longer - other airlines will certainly keep an eye on this development.
I have always had a soft spot for the 900/900ER/MAX 9 and now MAX 10, and if the 9 and 10 can be tweaked like the A321NEO, I think many airlines will convert MAX 8 orders into both 9 and 10. Interesting times ahead - again.
CRJ900 wrote:Has Boeing secretly beefed up the MAX 9? These flights are 3,500nm and longer - other airlines will certainly keep an eye on this development.
I have always had a soft spot for the 900/900ER/MAX 9 and now MAX 10, and if the 9 and 10 can be tweaked like the A321NEO, I think many airlines will convert MAX 8 orders into both 9 and 10. Interesting times ahead - again.
devron wrote:Well.... london via KEF, brussel at the range of the max announced, and now this at least they are not going head to head with American new service only United to EWR.
Varsity1 wrote:CRJ900 wrote:Has Boeing secretly beefed up the MAX 9? These flights are 3,500nm and longer - other airlines will certainly keep an eye on this development.
I have always had a soft spot for the 900/900ER/MAX 9 and now MAX 10, and if the 9 and 10 can be tweaked like the A321NEO, I think many airlines will convert MAX 8 orders into both 9 and 10. Interesting times ahead - again.
The Max-9 will have a useful load approaching 95,000lbs. It has a lower MTOW than the A321, but is also a lighter empty weight and cruises higher than the heavier A321.
andymartin wrote:Is Primera the new Norwegian? Lets pick some random routes out of a hat.
spinkid wrote:andymartin wrote:Is Primera the new Norwegian? Lets pick some random routes out of a hat.
Sort of, but worse in my opinion. I don't know why someone would want to fly on a narrow body across the pond when you can choose a widebody on a more reputable carrier.
YYZLGA wrote:spinkid wrote:I suspect that for most passengers, the width of the aircraft is probably fairly low down on their list of priorities.I don't know why someone would want to fly on a narrow body across the pond when you can choose a widebody on a more reputable carrier.
spinkid wrote:andymartin wrote:Is Primera the new Norwegian? Lets pick some random routes out of a hat.
Sort of, but worse in my opinion. I don't know why someone would want to fly on a narrow body across the pond when you can choose a widebody on a more reputable carrier.
FSDan wrote:Interesting that they will fly to TXL from JFK and not from EWR, where the rest of their NYC operation is... I'm guessing it'll be a super late departure since there aren't really any prime time afternoon/evening slots available at JFK these days.
spinkid wrote:andymartin wrote:Is Primera the new Norwegian? Lets pick some random routes out of a hat.
Sort of, but worse in my opinion. I don't know why someone would want to fly on a narrow body across the pond when you can choose a widebody on a more reputable carrier.
Freshside3 wrote:Primera indeed has a strange "game plan", to say the least. Their headquarters is in Latvia, and most planes in Denmark, if I recall correctly....but they have these transatlantic flights out of BRU, one of the London airports, and now Tegel, besides their "vacation" flights out of CPH.
aemoreira1981 wrote:I see lots of fuel stops. TXL-JFK is 3450 nmi. The advertised range on the B39M is 3550 nmi (with 1 auxiliary tank), and I presume that that's at 180 passengers. (Primera Air is acquiring 16 - 8 direct and 8 from ALC, with purchase rights for 4 more.) Primera Air is likely seeking out P2P routes, but there is a reason why Lufthansa wants a longer-range plane than anything Boeing or Airbus is offering---they want anywhere in Germany to JFK on a narrow-body with IAD or PHL as an alternate.
Freshside3 wrote:Primera indeed has a strange "game plan", to say the least. Their headquarters is in Latvia, and most planes in Denmark, if I recall correctly....but they have these transatlantic flights out of BRU, one of the London airports, and now Tegel, besides their "vacation" flights out of CPH.
skipness1E wrote:So why A321NEOs AND B737 MAX? Whyyyyyy?
reidar76 wrote:aemoreira1981 wrote:I see lots of fuel stops. TXL-JFK is 3450 nmi. The advertised range on the B39M is 3550 nmi (with 1 auxiliary tank), and I presume that that's at 180 passengers. (Primera Air is acquiring 16 - 8 direct and 8 from ALC, with purchase rights for 4 more.) Primera Air is likely seeking out P2P routes, but there is a reason why Lufthansa wants a longer-range plane than anything Boeing or Airbus is offering---they want anywhere in Germany to JFK on a narrow-body with IAD or PHL as an alternate.
I don't think Primera has said these will be nonstop flights. There will probably be a scheduled fuel stop at KEF on every flight, at least when flying westbound against the headwinds. I'm guessing the 737-9 MAX will need refueling in both directions. Planning flights with scheduled fuel stops is not that unusual for a carrier like Primera.
Pe@rson wrote:Starting next summer:
FRA-JFK: daily
FRA-YYZ: daily
FRA-BOS: 4x weekly
FRA-YUL: 3x weekly
EddieDude wrote:FRA-YYZ is their first flight to Canada?
Pe@rson wrote:Starting next summer:
FRA-JFK: daily
FRA-YYZ: daily
FRA-BOS: 4x weekly
FRA-YUL: 3x weekly
LGAviation wrote:Pe@rson wrote:Starting next summer:
FRA-JFK: daily
FRA-YYZ: daily
FRA-BOS: 4x weekly
FRA-YUL: 3x weekly
Personally, really happy that there will be another option out of Frankfurt.
But to the good people of Hamburg, this probably is an insult of a whole new kind. You're a start-up TATL carrier and instead of a barely one daily UA flight to EWR as competition, you choose to go against 7x Daily on 4 airlines to New York.
LGAviation wrote:Pe@rson wrote:Starting next summer:
FRA-JFK: daily
FRA-YYZ: daily
FRA-BOS: 4x weekly
FRA-YUL: 3x weekly
Personally, really happy that there will be another option out of Frankfurt.
But to the good people of Hamburg, this probably is an insult of a whole new kind. You're a start-up TATL carrier and instead of a barely one daily UA flight to EWR as competition, you choose to go against 7x Daily on 4 airlines to New York.
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:To HAM they would actually need to stimulate demand or steal half of Uniteds plane. FRA makes total sense to me. Norweigan style go after a super high O&D market like NY-LON and bottom feed.
Samrnpage wrote:Something strange is going on with these TATL narrowbody routes. A320neo vs 737MAX has the MAX a clear winner, when the consensus is the A320Neo is a "better" performer. You have WestJet, Air Canada, Norweigan, Primera, Icelandair whereas you only have what? Wow and Primera for A320Neo?
Why havent airlines put more A320neos across the pond?
DLHAM wrote:Despite the United flight there were close to 30,000 ppl flying from HAM to JFK in 2017, thats a lot of demand and should be enough for a 189 seat airplane. Furthermore they could offer HAM-YYZ which is a big unserved market (even became the "unserved route of the week" on anna.aero in April), but more in summer than in wintertime ...
Samrnpage wrote:Something strange is going on with these TATL narrowbody routes. A320neo vs 737MAX has the MAX a clear winner, when the consensus is the A320Neo is a "better" performer. You have WestJet, Air Canada, Norweigan, Primera, Icelandair whereas you only have what? Wow and Primera for A320Neo? Why havent airlines put more A320neos across the pond?
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:I think FRA makes more sense.
They need a high O&D market. They are after the bottom feeders. They just need to steal a 737 worth of people off those airlines. Probably easy at their prices. To HAM they would actually need to stimulate demand or steal half of Uniteds plane. FRA makes total sense to me. Norweigan style go after a super high O&D market like NY-LON and bottom feed.
debonair wrote:...just an update, ICELANDAIR announced to serve HAM 10/7 in S19 from 7/7 previously - albeit with 7M8 (instead of 757). The additional services will ultimately enhance the TATL connections. It seems that Primera missed a real opportunity not adding HAM.
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-06sep18/
Nicoeddf wrote:The question is rather, if they can earn money with such fares. TATL isn't exactly a high yield environment anymore, so undercutting already low fares isn't a recipe for being profitable.
On the other hand, good for them in trying.
DLHAM wrote:debonair wrote:Also Air France adding a fifth flight to Paris and Aer Lingus most likely flying 2 daily next year,