Without veering into unsafe territory of comparing with other airframes from the same or other manufactures the question is can an Airbus A319 wash its own face as the saying goes.

Nothing makes sense if you don’t have butts to fill seats.

Once this blows over there are airlines like Lufthansa, BA and IAG who can sell business seats but Ryanair/Easyjet steals their budget customers on the same city pairs. If relatively fresh A319s are available they can make good profit with the A319s.

If they could get it for free.

I mean before the pandemic, the trend is that larger narrowbody with more range and smaller widebodies are the best selling types of aircrafts these days. Airlines found the sweet-spot in the P2P market we are in today.

A319 and MAX7 doesn't make sense anymore these days. Especially when A220-300 is on offer.

An A220-300 isn't cheap and requires different pilots

In certain situations yes it can, which is why United was buying relatively young, used A319s (China Southern, EasyJet etc.)

Is the trip cost even that much lower than a320?

find the fresh A320ceo.

There are some fresh A319s out there.
I was on a flight with Lufthansa between DUB and FRA using an A319. The business passengers will fly with Lufthansa even if they can't fill an A320 due to Ryanair and Aer Lingus taking all the economy passengers..

leghorn wrote:

An A220-300 isn't cheap and requires different pilots

Of course not. But looking at the redundancy of planes like MAX7 or A319neo. One might say, why bother? why don't we invest the money now because 5 years down the line we HAVE to replace A319 with something new anyway.

It's not like they could just avoid it all together.

32andBelow wrote:

Is the trip cost even that much lower than a320?

If you buy them second hand cheap at the current oil price yes, it could make sense
as theres very low capital investment especially if you're an existing A320 operator.

But direct operating costs, outside ownership costs aren't going to be that different
to the A320. No different to the 737-700 and the 737-800. I could see it having a
roll replacing some older F100s etc but it wont be a long term solution. The A321
is the soft spot now. Once the industry returns to normal, unless you have a specific
need for it(like short runways to get in and out of) I don't see any large orders for it new.

I don't understand the OP's question. There's currently demand for used, late model 319 (and 73G) -- it isn't like these planes are being retired early and/or parked indefinitely. I doubt low oil prices will increase the residuals of these aircraft, although I suspect that if the residuals fell (e.g. the NEO and MAX were to have made it onto the market in large numbers faster than they will), that additional operators - such as DL - would've been interested.

You're seeing a 25% reduction in a component that makes up 20-25% of operating costs (maybe a little more if it's a low-overhead LLC). That's not make-or-break. More important in the short term are:

1. carriers' efforts to conserve cash (and so avoiding buying capacity they certainly don't need now)
2. yields, lowered by coronavirus or competition

leghorn wrote:

Once this blows over there are airlines like Lufthansa, BA and IAG who can sell business seats but Ryanair/Easyjet steals their budget customers on the same city pairs. If relatively fresh A319s are available they can make good profit with the A319s.

One cannot make purchasing decisions based on short term factors. Sure, it may make more sense now than it did 3 weeks ago, but 3 months from now, there's a chance it won't be sufficient.

The other issue is, there aren't cheap new a319s lying around.

Not talking about new but it does appear that Saudi Arabia and Russia are trying to kill shale oil investments which will affect oil prices in the medium, not short term future.
I'm not talking about new A319s either which cost what they cost.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

I don't understand the OP's question. There's currently demand for used, late model 319 (and 73G) -- it isn't like these planes are being retired early and/or parked indefinitely. .

Supposedly not so old A319s are being sent to scrapyards at the moment.

Antarius wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Once this blows over there are airlines like Lufthansa, BA and IAG who can sell business seats but Ryanair/Easyjet steals their budget customers on the same city pairs. If relatively fresh A319s are available they can make good profit with the A319s.

One cannot make purchasing decisions based on short term factors. Sure, it may make more sense now than it did 3 weeks ago, but 3 months from now, there's a chance it won't be sufficient.

The other issue is, there aren't cheap new a319s lying around.

Sure one can; if the ROI is positive on the short term, then making purchasing decisions on short term factors makes sense, and is happening.

ROI period is very important, and usually the main decision factor.

UA and AA have been buying used A319s for parts and for capacity for years. Lower oil prices makes them even more attractive. Whether or not there is the demand to fill them is now another question.

leghorn wrote:

Without veering into unsafe territory of comparing with other airframes from the same or other manufactures the question is can an Airbus A319 wash its own face as the saying goes.

It depends on the economics of the airplane. Where is it coming from and what is it's maintenance status? Is it presently IN service, or how long has it been Out of service? If it's still In service then probably nothing more than a C check could be needed. If the airplane is in storage? Then a heavy C check or the next series in D check or Heavy Maintenance Visit with all the subsequent Service bulletins and/or Airworthiness Directives having been looked at in the records and accomplished as Needed. Not to mention Cabin refits and any Engine work that needs to be done. I still do this kind of work on occasion and it's good work however? It's not cheap and it's not really Quick, Just sourcing parts is a big deal.

leghorn wrote:

Not talking about new but it does appear that Saudi Arabia and Russia are trying to kill shale oil investments which will affect oil prices in the medium, not short term future.
I'm not talking about new A319s either which cost what they cost.

They didn't retire A319 because of high oil prices. They replaced it because it's not good enough for their operations.

Also, the other factor is the payload. A320 isn't that much bigger than A319. 20-26 more seats at most.

If airlines could easily fill A320, why would they want to use A319? As far as I know, many airlines, especially LCC which are one of the largest costumers for A320 family. Able to fill their 180-186 seats A320 easily on daily basis.

There are a fair few routes where the legacies can't fill an A320 because the LCCs are on the same city pairs.

ericm2031 wrote:

UA and AA have been buying used A319s for parts and for capacity for years. Lower oil prices makes them even more attractive. Whether or not there is the demand to fill them is now another question.

American and United have been buying "Matched" A319's American's via USAir had CFM-56's mounted and United's have V2500's mounted so they more than likely?
want to have their engines matched to what they already have and support. the rest of the equation? is cabin and Paint. as a lot of the Avionics is more or less standard. So the cabin and Pax Entertainment systems would require the most change.

leghorn wrote:

There are a fair few routes where the legacies can't fill an A320 because the LCCs are on the same city pairs.

What are the chances that these airlines have smaller aircraft like E-Jet, CRJ or Q400 that would be cheaper to operate than A319?

If they are in such situation, using smaller regional jets or turboprops seems like a better move rather than using aircraft like A319.

ewt340 wrote:

leghorn wrote:

There are a fair few routes where the legacies can't fill an A320 because the LCCs are on the same city pairs.

What are the chances that these airlines have smaller aircraft like E-Jet, CRJ or Q400 that would be cheaper to operate than A319?

If they are in such situation, using smaller regional jets or turboprops seems like a better move rather than using aircraft like A319.

I don't see how running a different model from a different manufacturer helps to keep maintenance and staff costs under control

strfyr51 wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

UA and AA have been buying used A319s for parts and for capacity for years. Lower oil prices makes them even more attractive. Whether or not there is the demand to fill them is now another question.

American and United have been buying "Matched" A319's American's via USAir had CFM-56's mounted and United's have V2500's mounted so they more than likely?
want to have their engines matched to what they already have and support. the rest of the equation? is cabin and Paint. as a lot of the Avionics is more or less standard. So the cabin and Pax Entertainment systems would require the most change.

Actually, on the A320ceo Family at AA:
- LAA A319s are all CFM56-5B7;
- LUS A319s are CFM56-5B6 or V2524-A5;
- LUS A320s are CFM56-5B4 or V2527-A5;
- LAA A321s are all V2533-A5;
- LUS A321s are CFM5-5B3 or V2533-A5.
Looks like they bought mixed fleet (engine-wise).

strfyr51 wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

UA and AA have been buying used A319s for parts and for capacity for years. Lower oil prices makes them even more attractive. Whether or not there is the demand to fill them is now another question.

American and United have been buying "Matched" A319's American's via USAir had CFM-56's mounted and United's have V2500's mounted so they more than likely?
want to have their engines matched to what they already have and support. the rest of the equation? is cabin and Paint. as a lot of the Avionics is more or less standard. So the cabin and Pax Entertainment systems would require the most change.

AA has A32x's with both IAE and CFM engines. HP had IAE and US had CFM pre-merger. United I'm not sure about.

The oil prices are low because of the same reason that demand for seats is low. It is certainly likely that once this virus is under control and travel gets back to normal, oil prices will rise. I don't think there is an airline in the world that needs additional lift right now. AA is accelerating retirements by a couple of years in some cases.

planecane wrote:

The oil prices are low because of the same reason that demand for seats is low. It is certainly likely that once this virus is under control and travel gets back to normal, oil prices will rise.

No, that is not what is happening at the moment; Saudi Arabia is trying to drive shale oil out of the market.

leghorn wrote:

planecane wrote:

The oil prices are low because of the same reason that demand for seats is low. It is certainly likely that once this virus is under control and travel gets back to normal, oil prices will rise.

No, that is not what is happening at the moment; Saudi Arabia is trying to drive shale oil out of the market.

I thought it is Russia that is trying to do that. The reason they are able to is that coronavirus has reduced demand and they are not reducing production.

planecane wrote:

leghorn wrote:

planecane wrote:

The oil prices are low because of the same reason that demand for seats is low. It is certainly likely that once this virus is under control and travel gets back to normal, oil prices will rise.

No, that is not what is happening at the moment; Saudi Arabia is trying to drive shale oil out of the market.

I thought it is Russia that is trying to do that. The reason they are able to is that coronavirus has reduced demand and they are not reducing production.

Yes it is Russia. As you say worldwide oil demand is falling but Russia is resisting production cuts, it’s simple supply vs demand in action.

As the situation improves oil prices will increase as demand starts to increase again and production is either at current levels or lower (if oil production eventually gets cut).

e though if it were iupwt340 wrote:

leghorn wrote:

There are a fair few routes where the legacies can't fill an A320 because the LCCs are on the same city pairs.

What are the chances that these airlines have smaller aircraft like E-Jet, CRJ or Q400 that would be cheaper to operate than A319?

It also could be their Pilot contracts have provisions. ALPA's contract with United has clauses of airplanes operated by mainline and UAX and just HOW many UAX airplanes of a certain size may be operated BY UAX.. Because if it were up to United ALPA? There would BE no UAX operation above the 50 passenger jets if there were ANY!!
Though were it up to UA management? UAX might be flying 737-500's and -600's, or A319's. So? It's entirely contract!
Will a showdown ever come? Not while UAL is making money and that's for sure. But let there be a downturn or a recession? And it might be ON!

there is a whole big world beyond the reach of american airline pilot unions.

Polot wrote:

planecane wrote:

leghorn wrote:

No, that is not what is happening at the moment; Saudi Arabia is trying to drive shale oil out of the market.

I thought it is Russia that is trying to do that.

Both are. They might not be successful as the U.S. National Emergency will be used to protect the shale oil producers.

No one knows anything right now because airlines done know where the bottom is yet.

Why does only the A319 make sense but not the 737-7/A220-300 or even the E195 ????

Antaras wrote:

Why does only the A319 make sense but not the 737-7/A220-300 or even the E195 ????

a) its a question, not a statement
b) the arguments in this context would of course equally apply to all other high fuel burn per seat frames like the 737-700.
c) the E195 is quite a bit smaller, unless you mean the E2, in which case just like for the
d) A223 the very question of this thread is if the lower oil price makes those same size older frames attractive again.

Best regards
Thomas

From where I sit, if the virus fundamentally alters the general public and business communities travelling behaviour, an aircraft like the A220-300 may be the better option for the future. Similar seat mile costs to the larger MAX and NEO's, substantially lower emissions (on a trip basis) and a more comfortable ride.

Where we were seeing the heart of the narrow body market hovering just under 200 seats, a change in travelling behaviour could see a fundamental change of 10-40 seats. If this occurs, everything changes.

On a business trip to the Pacific Islands last year flying on a narrow body (5 hours) the airline attendent asked if I was a frequent flyer. My off the cuff reply was "I try not to be".

It could well be the case that airlines will need to reinvent themselves if they want the general public to return to previous pre-virus levels.

It seems that European carriers are replacing their A319s with A220 or A320 while American carriers buy their aircraft at low prices to operate at higher frequencies

travelhound wrote:

From where I sit, if the virus fundamentally alters the general public and business communities travelling behaviour, an aircraft like the A220-300 may be the better option for the future.

I'd agree that this may be correct for legacy carriers once a substitute product(i.e. pre-owned a319s) is no longer available.
LCCs will still try to buy a near 200 seater narrowbody.

leghorn wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

leghorn wrote:

There are a fair few routes where the legacies can't fill an A320 because the LCCs are on the same city pairs.

What are the chances that these airlines have smaller aircraft like E-Jet, CRJ or Q400 that would be cheaper to operate than A319?

If they are in such situation, using smaller regional jets or turboprops seems like a better move rather than using aircraft like A319.

I don't see how running a different model from a different manufacturer helps to keep maintenance and staff costs under control

If they already have dozens of those aircraft currently flying, why would they need to add A319? Sure there is commonality with A320. But if they already operated E-Jet, CRJ or Q400. The chance are they gonna use those aircraft rather than acquire A319.

Doing nothing is cheaper than streamlining your operations.

Might as well use A320 on it. As long as they break even on the routes, they could keep using A320. If it's became too unprofitable then either close the routes or keep it running at a lost for connecting passengers.

One needs to discuss utilization (hours) to see the break even. The sad reality is that demand for used A320s will be so low their price will drop too much to have a business case.

This means new aircraft pricing will drop too When the MAX returns to service, that will be about a thousand new aircraft into a depressed market.

The A220-300 also saves on maintenance and ATC fees, but sales will be slow for 2 years.

The smaller E2 and MRJ are in for an even rougher time selling.

For the most part, A319s will be worth more as parts, so parts they will become.

planecane wrote:

The oil prices are low because of the same reason that demand for seats is low. It is certainly likely that once this virus is under control and travel gets back to normal, oil prices will rise. I don't think there is an airline in the world that needs additional lift right now. AA is accelerating retirements by a couple of years in some cases.

It is likely oil will recover to a higher price as some frackers will go out of business and little oil field expansion can occur at these prices. To expand production to support the prior oil demand, prices will have to be very profitable for frackers.

Lightsaber

Considering that the Corona Virus effect may be over in a year I'm surprised that relatively young A319s get scraped. I conclude:
-The narrow-body supply is not as tight as orders for Neo/ Max suggests.
-Or airlines are badly short on cash and prefer to get some cash now over maintaining value for later.
-Or CASM for the next smaller plane is not much higher/ CASM for the next bigger plane is much lower.
-Does capital cost matter much if interests are as low as they are?

No airline needs currently any new or used aircrafts. Once the demand is increasing again the oil price will go up too.