We’ve seen covid19 significantly affect the usage/life spans of VLA. I’ve been wondering whether the gradual shift towards larger single aisle planes will reverse as well. We don’t know how long covid will continue to depress travel but assuming demand is suppressed for several years perhaps the a321 is a tad too big? I know if we use much longer time frames it is probably a non-issue. Thoughts?

If the mission costs are about the same, you’d be foolish to not have extra seats available for the same price. Here’s where the A321 comes out ahead.

Also, at least in this immediate post COVID period, all the short-haul (intra-continental) traffic is leisure/VFR and there's little to no business demand. In that environment, the aircraft with the lowest CASM is almost always the best too for the job, which usually means that one with the most seats.

Yes, for airlines like United the A319 did a great job keeping the network working during the worst of it, but you're already seeing them pull a lot of 739's out of storage and replacing those A319 flights with 739's.

drdisque wrote:

Also, at least in this immediate post COVID period, all the short-haul (intra-continental) traffic is leisure/VFR and there's little to no business demand.

This also makes flight frequency less important than before. Larger aircraft makes more sense.

EA CO AS wrote:

If the mission costs are about the same, you’d be foolish to not have extra seats available for the same price. Here’s where the A321 comes out ahead.

They aren't entirely the same. The 737-8 is lighter and cruises higher (as high as 410). It burns 500lbs less an hour. Insignificant? Maybe, maybe not at 4000+ hours per year.

It is a smaller airplane. Depends on what you need.

Covid isn’t going to just kill humans desire to travel.

32andBelow wrote:

Covid isn’t going to just kill humans desire to travel.

Everything about the travel industry today suggests otherwise

Varsity1 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

If the mission costs are about the same, you’d be foolish to not have extra seats available for the same price. Here’s where the A321 comes out ahead.

They aren't entirely the same. The 737-8 is lighter and cruises higher (as high as 410). It burns 500lbs less an hour. Insignificant? Maybe, maybe not at 4000+ hours per year.

It is a smaller airplane. Depends on what you need.

Rarely do I see 737s at 410. Most are 330-370 along with the a320s. I will say I can’t remember an a320 at 410 but I have seen 737s at 400 and 410

Well, I think it would be useful to rephrase the question, to let others understand the question rather, than turn it into A vs B bashing.

The recent trend has been to go towards larger one-aisle airplane. More A321 than 320, with 319 essentially dying. More 737-9 and 737-10 than 737-8, with 737-7 also dying.
Will it remain so, or shall we see the decrease to 321/737-9 and 737-10 rate?

I'd bet it's not going to decrease. We'll see increase of large narrowbodies. Few reasons why:
1. The plane is there for 25 years. Judging by experience, it will see some two or three more slowdowns in economy in its life, so no reason to go smaller only for Covid.
2. For current situation (be it 1, 2 or 3 years, I doubt longer) delaying as long as possible will work better than switch.
3. There are so many options working better for a short decrease. Use only strong routes, consilidate fleet, release leases you took pre-covid, adjust.
4. Sure there will be casualties. But for other airlines, it will mean cheaper airplanes (lease costs will lower for sure) and ability to grow whenever they need. And with growing range and oportunities to use NB, there will be plenty of options to use larger planes (medium thin lines, or even long thin lines will see more NB replacing WB).

My 2 cents.

Cheers,
Adam

32andBelow wrote:

Covid isn’t going to just kill humans desire to travel.

There are three types of travelers, leisure, business, and visiting friends and relatives. Leisure travel will recover first. People need vacations. However business and visiting friends and relatives travels will recover quite later because with current information and telecommunication technologies those activities can be performed virtually (online).

afterburner wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Covid isn’t going to just kill humans desire to travel.

There are three types of travelers, leisure, business, and visiting friends and relatives. Leisure travel will recover first. People need vacations. However business and visiting friends and relatives travels will recover quite later because with current information and telecommunication technologies those activities can be performed virtually (online).

It’s a misnomer though. Business travel was actually for people to network and get free time off in Vegas and other places. That isn’t simply going to go away in the long term.

I see the recovery starting with the most profitable trunk routes at lower frequencies than before. Airlines need the most revenue at least cost before filling out their networks with more marginal routes. They will right size to achieve that depending on demand but offer fewer cheap seats than pre_covid for some time.

drdisque wrote:

Also, at least in this immediate post COVID period, all the short-haul (intra-continental) traffic is leisure/VFR and there's little to no business demand. In that environment, the aircraft with the lowest CASM is almost always the best too for the job, which usually means that one with the most seats.

Yes, for airlines like United the A319 did a great job keeping the network working during the worst of it, but you're already seeing them pull a lot of 739's out of storage and replacing those A319 flights with 739's.

From what we see in countries like China and Japan, business travel demand seems to rebound much quicker than leisure travel, and then for leisure travel there is a tendency for people to use their own cars instead of flying even if the distance is in usual time a bit too long for driving

exmike wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Covid isn’t going to just kill humans desire to travel.

Everything about the travel industry today suggests otherwise

Most of the reduction is due to travel bans and limitations between countries or due to inner limitations such as mandatory quarantine, the moment the borders were reopened in Europe, the flights started to recover. Per Eurocontrol, yesterday there were over 12 thousand commercial flights in EU airspace, and "small bump" from 3 thousand the week before. Business aviation is also on the rise as number of scheduled flights is still limited but some still need to fly. Furthermore the moment the quarantine was lifted here in Europe, restaurants were reopened in one form or another and borders were open again, tourists started to come back, has the pandemic ended? no, but people cannot sit enclosed at their home for months. The moment there will be opportunity people will travel again.

Viper911

gloom wrote:

Well, I think it would be useful to rephrase the question, to let others understand the question rather, than turn it into A vs B bashing.

The recent trend has been to go towards larger one-aisle airplane. More A321 than 320, with 319 essentially dying. More 737-9 and 737-10 than 737-8, with 737-7 also dying.
Will it remain so, or shall we see the decrease to 321/737-9 and 737-10 rate?

I'd bet it's not going to decrease. We'll see increase of large narrowbodies. Few reasons why:
1. The plane is there for 25 years. Judging by experience, it will see some two or three more slowdowns in economy in its life, so no reason to go smaller only for Covid.
2. For current situation (be it 1, 2 or 3 years, I doubt longer) delaying as long as possible will work better than switch.
3. There are so many options working better for a short decrease. Use only strong routes, consilidate fleet, release leases you took pre-covid, adjust.
4. Sure there will be casualties. But for other airlines, it will mean cheaper airplanes (lease costs will lower for sure) and ability to grow whenever they need. And with growing range and oportunities to use NB, there will be plenty of options to use larger planes (medium thin lines, or even long thin lines will see more NB replacing WB).

My 2 cents.

Cheers,
Adam

Just one observation, because Boeing stopped specifying models with new orders we didn't always have an accurate idea of where the trend lies within the 737 orders, but unless you have other information that what is specified on Wikipedia (I know), it doesn't seem like the trend has been to move towards larger Boeing SA aircraft like it has been with the A320 family.

Boeing 737MAX orders:

Boeing 737-7 - 52
Boeing 737-8 - 2185
Boeing 737-9 - 234
Boeing 737-10 - 483
Unknown - 1494

Total orders - 4448

Airbus A320neo orders:

A319 - 71
A320 - 3,830
A321 - 2,794

Total orders - 6524


Total of larger aircraft of total - Boeing is 16% and Airbus the A321 has 42% of the order book.

As for where the trend lies, don't see much wrong with the rest of your post. You would expect to see a return to traffic levels pre-Covid once a vaccine is found or the virus becomes less lethal. We know humans are selfish so we will return to travelling as much as possible for as cheap as possible as soon as we can.

exmike wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Covid isn’t going to just kill humans desire to travel.

Everything about the travel industry today suggests otherwise

Mostly because of border/movement restrictions than anything else.

If anything bookings in 2021 plus those regions that are recovering are suggesting exactly this - the demand for (leisure) travel is jumping back significantly after all these lockdowns.

Michael

Viper911 wrote:

exmike wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Covid isn’t going to just kill humans desire to travel.

Everything about the travel industry today suggests otherwise

Most of the reduction is due to travel bans and limitations between countries or due to inner limitations such as mandatory quarantine, the moment the borders were reopened in Europe, the flights started to recover. Per Eurocontrol, yesterday there were over 12 thousand commercial flights in EU airspace, and "small bump" from 3 thousand the week before. Business aviation is also on the rise as number of scheduled flights is still limited but some still need to fly. Furthermore the moment the quarantine was lifted here in Europe, restaurants were reopened in one form or another and borders were open again, tourists started to come back, has the pandemic ended? no, but people cannot sit enclosed at their home for months. The moment there will be opportunity people will travel again.

Viper911

Sorry, but I'm not buying the story that flights are returning in significant numbers in Europe. Have you tried traveling anywhere recently? It is next to impossible due to an almost complete lack of flights. It takes several days to get to even major cities. The departure boards in the big hubs still have several days worth of flights on them. I am currently on day 3 of a return journey from a place that normally saw 3 direct daily connections to my local airport, but now requires several trains, flights on different airlines and overnight stays to reach. This is the same situation as 1 and 2 months ago. If Eurocontrol has registered a big increase in flights, it's because of cargo flights and resumption of domestic services in countries that were totally locked down.

exmike wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Covid isn’t going to just kill humans desire to travel.

Everything about the travel industry today suggests otherwise

No, it doesn't. We are hurting to travel but bearing the the brunt now.

I safely bet that, if we have a recurrence (2nd wave) of COVID19, we will not be as tolerant to avoid travel as we are today. That's why governments, airlines and aircraft ,makers are breaking their heads in finding a compromising solution.

Even the Lockdown, in the event of a 2nd wave, will not be adhered as much as now.

32andBelow wrote:

Rarely do I see 737s at 410. Most are 330-370 along with the a320s. I will say I can’t remember an a320 at 410 but I have seen 737s at 400 and 410

Main reason: the A320 Series is only certified up to 39,100 or 39,800ft. Only ACJ go up to 41,100ft.

gloom wrote:

2. For current situation (be it 1, 2 or 3 years, I doubt longer) delaying as long as possible will work better than switch.

I join you in thinking that's the best fleet move but we're going to struggle to parse that out amongst all the observational noise.

A carrier may want to defer deliveries (both to save capital and lock in its fleet choice later) but its A/B contracts don't allow that with minimal cost so new aircraft are still coming.

A carrier may retire a subfleet, anyway, for elimination of a pilot workgroup and parts needs, even though the type may have ample green time and value that needs to be written off if retired early. (See DL MD-90.) (I haven't checked the write-offs for AA's fleet retirements.)

The incremental cost of flying a MAX 9 or 10 vs. an 8 (or 321neo vs. 320neo) CAN'T BE ZERO. The estimate of 500 pounds fuel burn per hour, and maybe another FA, has to be weighed against the probability the seats will be filled and at what fares. (WN is in a pretty good spot here: Just sub an -800 for a -700. No seat assignments to change. Every pilot can fly everything.) When U.S. Big 4 load factors were routinely 80-85% systemwide the bigger aircraft was a fairly easy choice. However, we're starting to see that numerous carriers won't implement a 50% flight cut in response to a 50% passenger count cut: they still want to keep some 'surplus' frequency and destinations to maintain connectivity across the network, even DL and UA. That suggests we will be seeing lower than typical load factors for some time to come (and diminishes likelihood of filling the extra seats).

32andBelow wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

If the mission costs are about the same, you’d be foolish to not have extra seats available for the same price. Here’s where the A321 comes out ahead.

They aren't entirely the same. The 737-8 is lighter and cruises higher (as high as 410). It burns 500lbs less an hour. Insignificant? Maybe, maybe not at 4000+ hours per year.

It is a smaller airplane. Depends on what you need.

Rarely do I see 737s at 410. Most are 330-370 along with the a320s. I will say I can’t remember an a320 at 410 but I have seen 737s at 400 and 410

A320/321 ceiling is 390.

Some 319 ACJ's are 410.

Varsity1 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

They aren't entirely the same. The 737-8 is lighter and cruises higher (as high as 410). It burns 500lbs less an hour. Insignificant? Maybe, maybe not at 4000+ hours per year.

It is a smaller airplane. Depends on what you need.

Rarely do I see 737s at 410. Most are 330-370 along with the a320s. I will say I can’t remember an a320 at 410 but I have seen 737s at 400 and 410

A320/321 ceiling is 390.

Some 319 ACJ's are 410.

All models of the 737NG/MAX are certified for 110,000 cycles and 125,000 hours going up to 41,000 ft.

The A32x family is certified for 60,000 cycles up to FL391 and 120,000 hours. It is possible fir ACJs to fly higher, but that is on a different maintenance plan. If an ACJ flies 400 cycles in a year, it us heavily utilized. The cycle limit has LH retiring A320s at about 27 years.

Here is a link on the ACJ 41k altitude:
https://prijet.com/performance/Airbus%20ACJ320neo

I couldn't find a link on how few cycles an ACJ is rated for. The extra altitude costs certified flight cycle life. As long as it is over 18,000 FC (flight cycles), that will not impact ACJ maintenance.

As to which is the right size. Both. They will both sell well as will the A320 and -9/-10, although the -9 needs the -10 gear for field performance.

There will never be one aircraft to rule them all.

I see A220 sales benefitting, but I also see many TATL routes going -8 or A321 or the -9ER.

We will debate for years...

Lightsaber

I'd suggest the better comparison would be the A321 vs. 737MAX9 or MAX10

Fair to say A321neo and 8MaX8 will have very bright future in fleets.

That is the mostest important.

MIflyer12 wrote:

The incremental cost of flying a MAX 9 or 10 vs. an 8 (or 321neo vs. 320neo) CAN'T BE ZERO. The estimate of 500 pounds fuel burn per hour, and maybe another FA, has to be weighed against the probability the seats will be filled and at what fares. (WN is in a pretty good spot here: Just sub an -800 for a -700. No seat assignments to change. Every pilot can fly everything.) When U.S. Big 4 load factors were routinely 80-85% systemwide the bigger aircraft was a fairly easy choice. However, we're starting to see that numerous carriers won't implement a 50% flight cut in response to a 50% passenger count cut: they still want to keep some 'surplus' frequency and destinations to maintain connectivity across the network, even DL and UA. That suggests we will be seeing lower than typical load factors for some time to come (and diminishes likelihood of filling the extra seats).

Nobody said the difference is zero. But the difference is caused by:
1. higher DOW (that's your cost)
2. higher payload (that's your opportunity)
3. and/or higher payload/range (that's your opportunity)

You can't do much about 1, the question is would you employ 2 and/or 3 to overcome 1. Both now (when demands for passenger flights is so low) and after-covid. And since we're in prediction here, everyone's opinion is as good.
For me, there are cargo opportunities now the passenger demand is so low. 737/32x are not cargo monsters, but for A32x, at least, you can put in a number of LD3 and use board if you have something soft. So, likely, you can at least offset a bit low passenger yields.
And in the end, post covid, you will end up with more optimum fleet.

Lets not forget, that bigger brothers are there for a reason - they have been bought recently to either be used at extreme ranges (transcons at full loads, and transatl full board being the brightest examples), or heavy payload. BUT: everyone still booked "basic size", if they felt they need a smaller plane for a number of routes. So - basically - it's not like we'll have 95% of bigger versions, I don't think so. But 321/Max9+ will work even now, I'm quite sure.

Cheers,
Adam

lightsaber wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Rarely do I see 737s at 410. Most are 330-370 along with the a320s. I will say I can’t remember an a320 at 410 but I have seen 737s at 400 and 410

A320/321 ceiling is 390.

Some 319 ACJ's are 410.

All models of the 737NG/MAX are certified for 110,000 cycles and 125,000 hours going up to 41,000 ft.

The A32x family is certified for 60,000 cycles up to FL391 and 120,000 hours. It is possible fir ACJs to fly higher, but that is on a different maintenance plan. If an ACJ flies 400 cycles in a year, it us heavily utilized. The cycle limit has LH retiring A320s at about 27 years.

Here is a link on the ACJ 41k altitude:
https://prijet.com/performance/Airbus%20ACJ320neo

I couldn't find a link on how few cycles an ACJ is rated for. The extra altitude costs certified flight cycle life. As long as it is over 18,000 FC (flight cycles), that will not impact ACJ maintenance.

As to which is the right size. Both. They will both sell well as will the A320 and -9/-10, although the -9 needs the -10 gear for field performance.

There will never be one aircraft to rule them all.

I see A220 sales benefitting, but I also see many TATL routes going -8 or A321 or the -9ER.

We will debate for years...

Lightsaber

cool thanks. But 737s above 400 are very rare. See it during slow season on routes under 2 hours mainly.

afterburner wrote:

drdisque wrote:

Also, at least in this immediate post COVID period, all the short-haul (intra-continental) traffic is leisure/VFR and there's little to no business demand.

This also makes flight frequency less important than before. Larger aircraft makes more sense.

Bring back the Airbus A380!

VSMUT wrote:

Sorry, but I'm not buying the story that flights are returning in significant numbers in Europe. Have you tried traveling anywhere recently? It is next to impossible due to an almost complete lack of flights. It takes several days to get to even major cities. (...) This is the same situation as 1 and 2 months ago. If Eurocontrol has registered a big increase in flights, it's because of cargo flights and resumption of domestic services in countries that were totally locked down.

Amsterdam Airport has 206 scheduled departures today. This is about one third of the 'normal' operation. The total number of flights and destinations has gone up slowly in recent weeks. In the case of Schiphol that's not because of extra cargo flights. The main reason is the resuming of flights by KLM. More and more destinations are being served again. Airlines like easyJet and Transavia are also back in business. I don't know how much domestic flying within European countries is on the rise. But I see the number of daily departures and available destinations from Schiphol and other airports rising steadily. Who knows for how long, but for now it is happening.

MartijnNL wrote:

afterburner wrote:

drdisque wrote:

Also, at least in this immediate post COVID period, all the short-haul (intra-continental) traffic is leisure/VFR and there's little to no business demand.

This also makes flight frequency less important than before. Larger aircraft makes more sense.

Bring back the Airbus A380!

"Larger" doesn't necessarily mean "large", or even "huge".

gloom wrote:

Nobody said the difference is zero. But the difference is caused by:
1. higher DOW (that's your cost)
2. higher payload (that's your opportunity)
3. and/or higher payload/range (that's your opportunity)

You can't do much about 1, the question is would you employ 2 and/or 3 to overcome 1. Both now (when demands for passenger flights is so low) and after-covid. And since we're in prediction here, everyone's opinion is as good.
For me, there are cargo opportunities now the passenger demand is so low. 737/32x are not cargo monsters, but for A32x, at least, you can put in a number of LD3 and use board if you have something soft. So, likely, you can at least offset a bit low passenger yields.

Thanks for responding.

It will be interesting to see what AA/DL/UA report for incremental cargo revenues year over year. It may be a fairly large % change but cargo represented a very small fraction of total revenues for 2019. I think the $ value is going to be trivial in context of businesses that had been seeing $10-$11 Billion in revenue a quarter. (And that's incremental cargo revenues from 300-500 extra mainline planes each that weren't needed in passenger service, not just the difference between an A320 and A321).

As for cost:benefit on the passenger side, indulge me as a I spend a little more time with that. I'll use a 320/321 comparison but Boeing bois shouldn't feel neglected: a 738/739 or MAX8/MAX9 comparison works the same way.

I'm going to work from the assumption that load factors are going to be a bit depressed for some years. Let's use 75% vs. the 80-85% systemwide load factors that were common for the US4 in 2018/2019.

Working from Seatguru (yeh, it's not authoritative but it's quick), assume an A320 seats 152 (AA and UA somewhat fewer; DL more), and an A321, 187.

An avg 75% load factor means the 320 will be seating 114. That means - on average - the 321 gains no extra passenger revenue until it's seating an extra 152-114+1 revenue passengers. 39 passengers.

So, what are the probabilities for every specific flight and day of week that an A321 will go out with an extra 39 to 73 revenue seats (and what fares are they getting for those incremental seats) vs. the trip cost differential?

If/when we return to a high demand environment the extra seats may have some meaningful value. That's why I suggested the best solution is to delay deliveries of new aircraft: you're not flying a bunch more empty seats now, you're not locking in a smaller size for the next 25 years, and you're not committing capital you don't have today.