Phosphorus wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

It does. Turkish Airlines was threatened with suspension once, in Nigeria, for having insufficiently large planes:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1436775

Because they routinely left baggage behind. Hardly relevant in this scenario. The A321XLR will have no such issues between Europe and Nigeria.

...

I'd venture to say any narrowbody operator would struggle, flying to Nigeria. A lot of luggage per pax, and pax are ready to pay for extra luggage -- but not ready to see the luggage not arriving -- to the point of actual riots at the airports. How do you think A321XLR would cope with 10 pieces of luggage per pax?

The Lufthansa flight to Lagos actually continues to Malabo, suggesting there aren't as many passengers with 10 pieces of luggage on that route as you'd think. In any case, Frankfurt to Lagos is only 6:30 flying time, it can do it without sacrificing payload. Unless the Spohr of damnation decides to put euro-business in a hypothetical A321XLR, it won't be an issue at all. And in any case, Lufthansa can just decide not to sell that many bags per passenger.

VSMUT wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Because they routinely left baggage behind. Hardly relevant in this scenario. The A321XLR will have no such issues between Europe and Nigeria.

...

I'd venture to say any narrowbody operator would struggle, flying to Nigeria. A lot of luggage per pax, and pax are ready to pay for extra luggage -- but not ready to see the luggage not arriving -- to the point of actual riots at the airports. How do you think A321XLR would cope with 10 pieces of luggage per pax?

The Lufthansa flight to Lagos actually continues to Malabo, suggesting there aren't as many passengers with 10 pieces of luggage on that route as you'd think. In any case, Frankfurt to Lagos is only 6:30 flying time, it can do it without sacrificing payload.

Because Lufthansa is not popular with traders that’s why. LH is popular with customers you want to go to the US or the U.K. and don’t want to pay BA’s /virgins extortionate fees

Opus99 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

I'd venture to say any narrowbody operator would struggle, flying to Nigeria. A lot of luggage per pax, and pax are ready to pay for extra luggage -- but not ready to see the luggage not arriving -- to the point of actual riots at the airports. How do you think A321XLR would cope with 10 pieces of luggage per pax?

The Lufthansa flight to Lagos actually continues to Malabo, suggesting there aren't as many passengers with 10 pieces of luggage on that route as you'd think. In any case, Frankfurt to Lagos is only 6:30 flying time, it can do it without sacrificing payload.

Because Lufthansa is not popular with traders that’s why. LH is popular with customers you want to go to the US or the U.K. and don’t want to pay BA’s /virgins extortionate fees

In fairness, VS and BA fares are high because the demand is there and additional frequencies are not an option.

The market is very sensible to aircraft type and certainly from Lagos, a narrow body isn't going to be popular. The high prices are reflected in customer expectations. Arik got away with a 737 for a while but a foreign carrier will struggle.

mxaxai wrote:

LXA340 wrote:

columba wrote:

Different idea - Lufthansa will be the launch customer of the new middle of the market plane ? A321LR seems not to be sufficient for them rangewise from MUC and FRA

I don't think the A321LR makes sense for the LH group as for the routes requiring larger range such as destinations like HKG, Japan or SIN for instance are very high yielding and even for existing East Coast USA routes the A321LR likely would be too small.

HKG, Japan and SIN are far, far outside of the A321XLRs range.

I agree that the A321 does not make much sense for their TATL routes. However, there are many smaller markets in central Africa, the Middle East and central Asia that could be worth serving, or could work better with higher frequency and smaller aircraft.

Fully agreed - it is the M' East, Central Asia and Africa that is of the most interest, not trans-Atlantic for A321LR.

Phosphorus wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

It does. Turkish Airlines was threatened with suspension once, in Nigeria, for having insufficiently large planes:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1436775

Because they routinely left baggage behind. Hardly relevant in this scenario. The A321XLR will have no such issues between Europe and Nigeria.

...

I'd venture to say any narrowbody operator would struggle, flying to Nigeria. A lot of luggage per pax, and pax are ready to pay for extra luggage -- but not ready to see the luggage not arriving -- to the point of actual riots at the airports. How do you think A321XLR would cope with 10 pieces of luggage per pax?

Wanted to say the same. Ofc the (X)LR can handle a bit more cargo better than a normal 737 etc, but that won't be enough for some destinations like Nigeria or eat up the left cargo capacity besides the pax luggages.

Also regarding TK, they're not going after the bigger destinations that LH (imo) would eventually serve with A321(X)LRs as already mentioned here:

VSMUT wrote:

Quite a few. The A321XLR has that additional range that will get it past sahara into the much more densely populated sub-sahara, comfortably capable of reaching East Africa and most of West Africa for example. On paper it should have the range to reach Johannesburg, but that's probably only achievable by sacrificing quite a bit of payload.

Several of the European airlines running routes to East Africa can't comfortably fill the aircraft, so run triangular routes. Swiss runs Dar-Es-Salaam and Nairobi on one flight. Brussel Airlines has quite a few multi-stop routes in Africa. Lufthansa has a small handful plus a number in the Middle East. It isn't just Lufthansa group, Air France and KLM have had to resort to doing the same. The A321XLR allows them to split up widebodies and run direct service and/or higher frequencies.

VSMUT wrote:

Turkish has been eating market share to Africa from the European carriers, with its smaller 737s. The A321XLR could be the answer to that.

Turkish is more up to connecting places that merely have/had international connectivity which is why they jumped into those destinations. Lufthansa would be eyeing splitting up triangle routes like the mentioned LX DAR-NBO etc.

Also Africa needs much more expertise in marketing and selling flights as development there is way behind e.g. the most tickets are still being sold via travel agencies etc and not over the internet. Thinking of LHG only Brussels could achieve this but it would need hard work with TK already flying to the most notable cities. (Sry if it got a bit off topic)

mercure1 wrote:

Report that per internal memo Edelweiss might remove its 2 A330-300s and focus fleet solely on its 4 A340s as it cannot justify the larger fleet.
They acknowledge A340 not long-term solution and needs replacing by 2025 when Swiss plans to remove its small 340 fleet.

https://www.aerotelegraph.com/nur-noch- ... 30-abgeben

If Edelweiss decides to remove the two A330-300s, I wonder what Lufthansa group does with them: could Lufthansa or Brussels Airlines use them, or are they put up for sale? One of them even has the 242t MTOW.

Still no news on if their A380s have any chance of coming back?

From another forum, some details from 1st March's HON Circle talk have been posted:

Apparently, there are no plans to abandon First class, all new aircraft deliveries 2022-2024 (A350, B789, B779) may or may not get a First class. And it is not fully confirmed, that all A346 and A388 will not return to service at all, although a reactivation is very unlikely in the case of the A346.

conaly wrote:

. And it is not fully confirmed, that all A346 and A388 will not return to service at all, although a reactivation is very unlikely in the case of the A346.

What about the A380s? What are the chances of them returning?

filipinoavgeek wrote:

conaly wrote:

. And it is not fully confirmed, that all A346 and A388 will not return to service at all, although a reactivation is very unlikely in the case of the A346.

What about the A380s? What are the chances of them returning?

Still in limbo, no firm decision either way.

And quite frankly, LH is in no hurry. A388 used values are zero. Scrap values should be close to 0 too. Only a few are flying, so nobody needs spare parts. Given the continued uncertainty regarding how future international air travel will look like, when borders will open up again, how much traffic is lost to video conferencing, etc. the best course of action is to keep them stored and reactivate them if / when the market is more predictable.

mxaxai wrote:

filipinoavgeek wrote:

conaly wrote:

. And it is not fully confirmed, that all A346 and A388 will not return to service at all, although a reactivation is very unlikely in the case of the A346.

What about the A380s? What are the chances of them returning?

Still in limbo, no firm decision either way.

And quite frankly, LH is in no hurry. A388 used values are zero. Scrap values should be close to 0 too. Only a few are flying, so nobody needs spare parts. Given the continued uncertainty regarding how future international air travel will look like, when borders will open up again, how much traffic is lost to video conferencing, etc. the best course of action is to keep them stored and reactivate them if / when the market is more predictable.

Exactly, and what we should also keep in mind is that unlike Air France or IAG for example, there are no pax widebody deliveries for LH group in the near future. The first scheduled for delivery are some B787s / A350s in late 2022. This limits how many widebodies are permanently retired for the time being.

OS 763 OE-LAT headed to scrapping. First leg from Vienna to Bangor in the U.S today.
The frame has 133,000 hours and 19,000 cycles after 30 years of service.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AUA ... /LOWW/KBGR


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvieSCDXMAY ... name=large

Next transfer flight will be OE-LAX in May.

https://twitter.com/jrobinsuk/status/13 ... 57702?s=21

Spohr pretty much saying 380 is not coming back

According to aviation journalist Andreas Spaeth on twitter quoting LH CEO part of LH group order for 40 (!!) 787-9 will go to LH itself : "with #A380, 747-400 and many #A340 out "we urgently need smaller long-haul aircraft"

columba wrote:

According to aviation journalist Andreas Spaeth on twitter quoting LH CEO part of LH group order for 40 (!!) 787-9 will go to LH itself : "with #A380, 747-400 and many #A340 out "we urgently need smaller long-haul aircraft"

They have 20 firm and 20 options. Unless Spohr is saying he’s using the remaining 20 options to replace all these quads

"Eventually, the group aims to reduce the number of long-haul aircraft types it operates to eight, from 14. That will reflect the complete retirement of 747-400s, 777-200s, 767-300s, A340s, A380s, A330-200s, and MD-11Fs."

source


That's a huge reduction of aircraft, but i'm super happy the 747-8 Queen of the Skies will survive (for now)

PANAMsterdam wrote:

"Eventually, the group aims to reduce the number of long-haul aircraft types it operates to eight, from 14. That will reflect the complete retirement of 747-400s, 777-200s, 767-300s, A340s, A380s, A330-200s, and MD-11Fs."

That was the plan LH had even far before the Corona-related problems (I think in in 2018 or 2019). Minus the A380 though, that one was supposed to stay and now there is hardly a chance it will come back.
Source: https://www.aero.de/news-38910/Lufthans ... rkehr.html

The new LH business class is now supposed to be introduced with the 787 by the end of 2022. There are talks, that LH may reschedule the delivery of the remaining to 26 A350 (current plan: 2023-2025) to an earlier time frame. In that case, the new business class could be introduced with the A350. So whatever will be the first new long haul aircraft delivered, that one will get the new C first. It is also mentioned, that the 20 787 will be stationed in Frankfurt. No comment on the 20 options.

Source: https://www.aero.de/news-38911/Lufthans ... 7-aus.html

Kinda weird, that all airlines within the group want to get rid of their oldest aircraft (A330-200 with Eurowings, A340-300 with Lufthansa, Edelweiss and Swiss, A340-600, A380 and 747-400 with Lufthansa, B767 and 777-200 with Austrian), but all new aircraft is currently supposed to be used with Lufthansa. How do they want to replace the planes at the other groups? The will need a lot of planes for that, even if they won't fully replace them. But so far neither another order, nor the options for the 787 have been announced.

conaly wrote:

PANAMsterdam wrote:

" The will need a lot of planes for that, even if they won't fully replace them. But so far neither another order, nor the options for the 787 have been announced.

There will be a lot of second hand 787 available soon e.g. Norwegian also Spohr seems to be very fond of the idea of leasing new planes rather than buying.....

Lufthansa seems to rely on their 747-8. Those are staying while competitors get finally retired from the fleet. Well done 747.

Interesting thing though that the fleet plan still says that eight A380s are still "temporarily decommissioned" despite statements all but confirming that they're gone for good. Any explanation for this discrepancy?

Opus99 wrote:

https://twitter.com/jrobinsuk/status/1367417662406557702?s=21

Spohr pretty much saying 380 is not coming back

A further quote from @SpaethFlies on Twitter:

CEO Carsten Spohr of @lufthansa just said "we have permanently decomissioned" #A380, while the chart says "long term storage".

Ref: https://twitter.com/SpaethFlies/status/ ... 0635498497

It's pretty clear they aren't coming back, barring a miracle. They are just too big and too inefficient for their size.

Opus99 wrote:

columba wrote:

According to aviation journalist Andreas Spaeth on twitter quoting LH CEO part of LH group order for 40 (!!) 787-9 will go to LH itself : "with #A380, 747-400 and many #A340 out "we urgently need smaller long-haul aircraft"

They have 20 firm and 20 options. Unless Spohr is saying he’s using the remaining 20 options to replace all these quads

One interesting thing via @SpaethFlies

"We will introduce our new Business Class at the end of 2022, will announce on which type within the next months" says @lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr now. Guess is it will be on the #Boeing787-9 #PaxEx #avgeek

Ref: https://twitter.com/SpaethFlies/status/ ... 5546201089

This almost certainly means 789 since 779 will not be an option in 2022.

It seems given the needs of the LH Group that it's only a matter of time that the options will be firmed.

A CHS-build 789 operated by LH, sooo many a.net narratives are about to either die or catch fire...

Revelation wrote:

A CHS-build 789 operated by LH, sooo many a.net narratives are about to either die or catch fire...

I am not a regular vistitor on a.net anymore what is the narrative? It is as big as AA would never ever operate any Airbus aircraft anymore? Or NW will never phase out its DC 9s

columba wrote:

Revelation wrote:

A CHS-build 789 operated by LH, sooo many a.net narratives are about to either die or catch fire...

I am not a regular vistitor on a.net anymore what is the narrative? It is as big as AA would never ever operate any Airbus aircraft anymore? Or NW will never phase out its DC 9s

So many to pick from. CHS products are garbage, LH would not accept them. A339 will be taken rather than 789. LH itself will not take any 787s, they are for the "non-premium" airines. Etc.

Revelation wrote:

A further quote from @SpaethFlies on Twitter:
CEO Carsten Spohr of @lufthansa just said "we have permanently decomissioned" #A380, while the chart says "long term storage".

Ref: https://twitter.com/SpaethFlies/status/ ... 0635498497

It's pretty clear they aren't coming back, barring a miracle. They are just too big and too inefficient for their size.

As I already pointed out in the other thread, this is a misquote. Spohr did not say that. He said - and I listened to it - that from today's perspective, he does not see a path back for the A380 andthe A340-600 into Lufthansa's fleet.

Opus99 wrote:

columba wrote:

According to aviation journalist Andreas Spaeth on twitter quoting LH CEO part of LH group order for 40 (!!) 787-9 will go to LH itself : "with #A380, 747-400 and many #A340 out "we urgently need smaller long-haul aircraft"

They have 20 firm and 20 options. Unless Spohr is saying he’s using the remaining 20 options to replace all these quads

He also said that Lufthansa assumes that travel will not be back to 90 per cent of pre-COVID level before 2024, if at all. IIRC, he also said that long-haul will take the longest to recover. He said the 747-8 will mostly replace the A380 and given the larger number of 747-8 (19) compared to A380s (14), it should also leave some capacity to take over some former 747-400 operations. So we are mostly looking at the replacement of 34 A340-300/600s. As there are also 8 outstanding A350-900 orders due to arrive in 2023/24, 20 787-9s should do the job, given the scaled-back long-haul operation - even before the Boeing 777-9X makes its debut.

That would leave the fleet at something like:

15 A330-300X
25 A350-900
20 Boeing 787-9
19 Boeing 747-8

My guess is that they are happy to push back deliveries for the Boeing 777-9X and shift some 787-9 to OS/SN at a time when traffic has recovered sufficiently that the larger capacity of the Boeing 777-9X can be gradually introduced into the market (the Boeing 747-8 seems to have a longer future with Lufhansa as Spohr said that by the mid-2020 quads will be down to 15 per cent in the group's fleet - with the A340s gone, the 747-8i will be the only quad remaining by then).

As far as I have seen, there is not much news regarding the fleet in the 2020 annual report https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... 2020-e.pdf :
* The 7 A319s that Austrian will retire will be transfered to Lufthansa, and 7 CRJ900 will be retired at Lufthansa Cityline.
https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfl ... onal/fleet shows that the first CRJ900 (D-ACKC) is already being phased out at LJU.
* There is one fixed order and one option for a 777F with delivery scheduled for 2024. Is this a new order? I remember that there were some rumors about the 777X and the 777F, but I am surprised that the delivery was scheduled only for 2024. In the current environment, I would expect LH group to accelerate the delivery as much as possible. Is there really no earlier production slot for a 777F?
* I have had a look at the widebody fleet on page 25, and I have got the impression that the numbers for the A330 and A340 fleet don't add up. 4 A330s are scheduled for retirement, and the report mentions that there are 3 Brussels Airlines A330-200 to be retired, but which is the 4th? Similarly regarding the A340s, there are 9 to be retired, but only 7 A340-600 are mentioned.

Revelation wrote:

One interesting thing via @SpaethFlies

"We will introduce our new Business Class at the end of 2022, will announce on which type within the next months" says @lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr now. Guess is it will be on the #Boeing787-9 #PaxEx #avgeek

Ref: https://twitter.com/SpaethFlies/status/ ... 5546201089

This almost certainly means 789 since 779 will not be an option in 2022.

The seat was planned to debut on the 779, though, but with the delayed EIS it makes no sense to delay the seat as well.

Unless he's talking about yet another new seat.

https://www.aero.de/news-30432/Kleinere ... nchen.html [German, 29/11/2018]

Also quite interesting in hindsight how LH considered the 777-9 as a possible replacement for the A343, now it will replace the A388.
And:

Spohr, 2018:
"Both the A350 and Boeing 787 are well suited for thinner routes out of the larger hubs, but also for our smaller hubs. We wouldn't operate A350s and B787s side by side at the same hub, but at different locations it may well be an option."

Question is would be (some of) the Norwegian 787s a possibility for LH group?

I think this is not likely to happen as they have ordered their own factory new aircraft themselves for the group.

a2b7 wrote:

As far as I have seen, there is not much news regarding the fleet in the 2020 annual report https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... 2020-e.pdf :
* The 7 A319s that Austrian will retire will be transfered to Lufthansa, and 7 CRJ900 will be retired at Lufthansa Cityline.
https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfl ... onal/fleet shows that the first CRJ900 (D-ACKC) is already being phased out at LJU.
* There is one fixed order and one option for a 777F with delivery scheduled for 2024. Is this a new order? I remember that there were some rumors about the 777X and the 777F, but I am surprised that the delivery was scheduled only for 2024. In the current environment, I would expect LH group to accelerate the delivery as much as possible. Is there really no earlier production slot for a 777F?
* I have had a look at the widebody fleet on page 25, and I have got the impression that the numbers for the A330 and A340 fleet don't add up. 4 A330s are scheduled for retirement, and the report mentions that there are 3 Brussels Airlines A330-200 to be retired, but which is the 4th? Similarly regarding the A340s, there are 9 to be retired, but only 7 A340-600 are mentioned.

What i don't understand is, if the A319s are uneconomical to operate why retire them from the OS fleet and introduce them to the LH fleet to replace CRJ900s when they have E190/E195s for that job?

The Austrian A319s will not go to Mainline, but to Cityline. Maybe the lower cost structure at Cityline makes them feasible there.

Cityline only has a small fleet of E190s left - I guess mostly to be able to operate into LCY. The rest has been moved to Austrian.

marcogr12 wrote:

a2b7 wrote:

As far as I have seen, there is not much news regarding the fleet in the 2020 annual report https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... 2020-e.pdf :
* The 7 A319s that Austrian will retire will be transfered to Lufthansa, and 7 CRJ900 will be retired at Lufthansa Cityline.
https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfl ... onal/fleet shows that the first CRJ900 (D-ACKC) is already being phased out at LJU.
* There is one fixed order and one option for a 777F with delivery scheduled for 2024. Is this a new order? I remember that there were some rumors about the 777X and the 777F, but I am surprised that the delivery was scheduled only for 2024. In the current environment, I would expect LH group to accelerate the delivery as much as possible. Is there really no earlier production slot for a 777F?
* I have had a look at the widebody fleet on page 25, and I have got the impression that the numbers for the A330 and A340 fleet don't add up. 4 A330s are scheduled for retirement, and the report mentions that there are 3 Brussels Airlines A330-200 to be retired, but which is the 4th? Similarly regarding the A340s, there are 9 to be retired, but only 7 A340-600 are mentioned.

What i don't understand is, if the A319s are uneconomical to operate why retire them from the OS fleet and introduce them to the LH fleet to replace CRJ900s when they have E190/E195s for that job?

Maybe it isn’t black and white? Maybe planes can be less economical than others in the fleet and therefore be the candidates for the chop, while still being good and efficient planes in other roles or other combinations?

CRJockey wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

a2b7 wrote:

As far as I have seen, there is not much news regarding the fleet in the 2020 annual report https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... 2020-e.pdf :
* The 7 A319s that Austrian will retire will be transfered to Lufthansa, and 7 CRJ900 will be retired at Lufthansa Cityline.
https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfl ... onal/fleet shows that the first CRJ900 (D-ACKC) is already being phased out at LJU.
* There is one fixed order and one option for a 777F with delivery scheduled for 2024. Is this a new order? I remember that there were some rumors about the 777X and the 777F, but I am surprised that the delivery was scheduled only for 2024. In the current environment, I would expect LH group to accelerate the delivery as much as possible. Is there really no earlier production slot for a 777F?
* I have had a look at the widebody fleet on page 25, and I have got the impression that the numbers for the A330 and A340 fleet don't add up. 4 A330s are scheduled for retirement, and the report mentions that there are 3 Brussels Airlines A330-200 to be retired, but which is the 4th? Similarly regarding the A340s, there are 9 to be retired, but only 7 A340-600 are mentioned.

What i don't understand is, if the A319s are uneconomical to operate why retire them from the OS fleet and introduce them to the LH fleet to replace CRJ900s when they have E190/E195s for that job?

Maybe it isn’t black and white? Maybe planes can be less economical than others in the fleet and therefore be the candidates for the chop, while still being good and efficient planes in other roles or other combinations?

I do not have the numbers right now, but if Cityline uses the A319 with low cycles just during morning and evening rush hours the relative high trip cost is no problem as parking old frames during the day is cheap. OS used them all day long so it is cheaper to use an aircraft with low trip cost.
If Cityline on the other hand uses a new aircraft for low cycle usage then the fixed cost (leasing, financing) is very expensive and eats the trip costs savings while it sits around.

I don't think operation is planned that way. Cityline's A319s operate throughout the LH network. I have not really spotted specific patterns that would distinguish them from LH's own A319s.

FluidFlow wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

What i don't understand is, if the A319s are uneconomical to operate why retire them from the OS fleet and introduce them to the LH fleet to replace CRJ900s when they have E190/E195s for that job?

Maybe it isn’t black and white? Maybe planes can be less economical than others in the fleet and therefore be the candidates for the chop, while still being good and efficient planes in other roles or other combinations?

I do not have the numbers right now, but if Cityline uses the A319 with low cycles just during morning and evening rush hours the relative high trip cost is no problem as parking old frames during the day is cheap. OS used them all day long so it is cheaper to use an aircraft with low trip cost.
If Cityline on the other hand uses a new aircraft for low cycle usage then the fixed cost (leasing, financing) is very expensive and eats the trip costs savings while it sits around.

No offense, FF, but this A319 ain't DC-8s or 707s. In the specific role for OS they were the "least efficient" planes. A319 continue to be used extensively all over the world (as are 73Gs) and will have a good and efficient role to play. They replace 90 seaters and will bring down CASM for LHs Cityline operation by double digits on a like for like basis with the CRJs. They will be used 8-12 cycles a day from six in the morning to eleven in the evening, just as any other plane in the fleet.

Wonder how long the A343s have left in the group fleet?

CRJockey wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Maybe it isn’t black and white? Maybe planes can be less economical than others in the fleet and therefore be the candidates for the chop, while still being good and efficient planes in other roles or other combinations?

I do not have the numbers right now, but if Cityline uses the A319 with low cycles just during morning and evening rush hours the relative high trip cost is no problem as parking old frames during the day is cheap. OS used them all day long so it is cheaper to use an aircraft with low trip cost.
If Cityline on the other hand uses a new aircraft for low cycle usage then the fixed cost (leasing, financing) is very expensive and eats the trip costs savings while it sits around.

No offense, FF, but this A319 ain't DC-8s or 707s. In the specific role for OS they were the "least efficient" planes. A319 continue to be used extensively all over the world (as are 73Gs) and will have a good and efficient role to play. They replace 90 seaters and will bring down CASM for LHs Cityline operation by double digits on a like for like basis with the CRJs. They will be used 8-12 cycles a day from six in the morning to eleven in the evening, just as any other plane in the fleet.

What exactly was their specific role in OS that sets it apart from the LH role? It has been often mentioned that trip cost of a A319 is very similar to A320,so it makes more sense to use A320 with more seats to bring down CASM

If you have both models in the inventory and both are written down, sure...

If you have to acquire the A320s first while you have A319s written down, things may be different.

Didn't see this posted yet, but the annual report states "Key targets are the systematic renewal of the fleet to cut fuel consumption, reduce carbon emissions and trim the number of aircraft models by retiring and phasing out older, less efficient aircraft, such as the Airbus A340-600 and A380."

There's also this graphic that makes clear the A380 and A346 are not coming back.

So no need to cite twitter for evidence that LH is planning a permanent phase-out of the A380 and A346. It's explicitly stated in the annual report.

marcogr12 wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I do not have the numbers right now, but if Cityline uses the A319 with low cycles just during morning and evening rush hours the relative high trip cost is no problem as parking old frames during the day is cheap. OS used them all day long so it is cheaper to use an aircraft with low trip cost.
If Cityline on the other hand uses a new aircraft for low cycle usage then the fixed cost (leasing, financing) is very expensive and eats the trip costs savings while it sits around.

No offense, FF, but this A319 ain't DC-8s or 707s. In the specific role for OS they were the "least efficient" planes. A319 continue to be used extensively all over the world (as are 73Gs) and will have a good and efficient role to play. They replace 90 seaters and will bring down CASM for LHs Cityline operation by double digits on a like for like basis with the CRJs. They will be used 8-12 cycles a day from six in the morning to eleven in the evening, just as any other plane in the fleet.

What exactly was their specific role in OS that sets it apart from the LH role? It has been often mentioned that trip cost of a A319 is very similar to A320,so it makes more sense to use A320 with more seats to bring down CASM

I understand that they wanted to upgauge to reduce CASM due to the increasing competition from LCCs at VIE, but then the pandemic started, and when you check which planes are active at https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfl ... rian/fleet , almost all of the Q400, E195 and A319 are, but only 5 out of 29 A320. Wouldn't it make sense to delay their retirement until traffic levels improve substantially? (The A319 are owned)

So no need to cite twitter for evidence that LH is planning a permanent phase-out of the A380 and A346. It's explicitly stated in the annual report.

What was discussed were statements by the Lufthansa CEO about the future of the A380 which followed the publication of the report. .

I am a little perplexed as to why LH Group would go solely for the 787-9 instead of a mix of 787-8/787-9s which would better suit: a) thin/ner longhaul routes b) the capacity needed to be replaced in OS fleet after the retirement of both 767 and 777s

They are using the A330-300/A340-300 but not the A330-200. Same size as the 787-8 and the 787-9. Apparently they do not see a place for an aircraft of that size in their network. If the 787-9 does not work for OS, I expect Lufthansa to axe OS longhaul service instead of adding a few 787-8s.

marcogr12 wrote:

I am a little perplexed as to why LH Group would go solely for the 787-9 instead of a mix of 787-8/787-9s which would better suit: a) thin/ner longhaul routes b) the capacity needed to be replaced in OS fleet after the retirement of both 767 and 777s

You are perplexed by a lot of things. How does your calculation look about the superior efficiency of the 788 in some use vs the 789? Has the LH Group made an algebra mistake in evaluating them?

Nicoeddf wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

I am a little perplexed as to why LH Group would go solely for the 787-9 instead of a mix of 787-8/787-9s which would better suit: a) thin/ner longhaul routes b) the capacity needed to be replaced in OS fleet after the retirement of both 767 and 777s

You are perplexed by a lot of things. How does your calculation look about the superior efficiency of the 788 in some use vs the 789? Has the LH Group made an algebra mistake in evaluating them?

I didn't know it was forbidden to pose questions on an airline's fleet choice...And having so many operators like AA,UA,AC,UX,RJ,BA,LATAM,RAM,ET,LY,AM,QR operate both types, matching demand/capacity, taking also into account the slump in long-haul travel which will take longer to recover, i don't think it was so far-fetched to ask about the 787-8 too..

marcogr12 wrote:

I am a little perplexed as to why LH Group would go solely for the 787-9 instead of a mix of 787-8/787-9s which would better suit: a) thin/ner longhaul routes b) the capacity needed to be replaced in OS fleet after the retirement of both 767 and 777s

The trip costs difference between a 787-9 and a 787-8 is negligible.

seahawk wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

I am a little perplexed as to why LH Group would go solely for the 787-9 instead of a mix of 787-8/787-9s which would better suit: a) thin/ner longhaul routes b) the capacity needed to be replaced in OS fleet after the retirement of both 767 and 777s

The trip costs difference between a 787-9 and a 787-8 is negligible.

Are there by chance any reliable numbers available? As a hobby AV-Geek I would be very much interested in the cost delta between a 787-8 and the 9. Furthermore, what is the difference in the purchase price between the 8 and the 9? Is that negligible as well?

Pure trip costs are less than 10% different (most numbers point to around 5-8% more for the 787-9), but the 787-9 offers more extra capacity. So if you can fill both the cost per seat mile is better for the -9. The price is a matter of negotiation, but with the 787-8 being a bit "special" compared to the larger siblings, Boeing usually did not make a much better deal for the -8 in most tenders. (again it will always depend on the actual tender and Boeing will make you a splendid price for the -8 if the alternative is the A338)

I guess then it makes little sense to add a 787-9 if the cost differences are as marginal as you indicate. Maybe LH will take some used former DY 787-8s for their leisure carriers. Might be a better deal than ordering new birds directly from BA.

seahawk wrote:

Pure trip costs are less than 10% different (most numbers point to around 5-8% more for the 787-9), but the 787-9 offers more extra capacity. So if you can fill both the cost per seat mile is better for the -9. The price is a matter of negotiation, but with the 787-8 being a bit "special" compared to the larger siblings, Boeing usually did not make a much better deal for the -8 in most tenders. (again it will always depend on the actual tender and Boeing will make you a splendid price for the -8 if the alternative is the A338)

I cannot remember any significant orders for the Boeing 787-8 in the past couple of years (there have only been 20 or so deliveries over the past four years, so orders must have dried up significantly even before 2017). I'd say it is pretty much a dead horse as far as a newly-built aircraft are concerned.

vfw614 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Pure trip costs are less than 10% different (most numbers point to around 5-8% more for the 787-9), but the 787-9 offers more extra capacity. So if you can fill both the cost per seat mile is better for the -9. The price is a matter of negotiation, but with the 787-8 being a bit "special" compared to the larger siblings, Boeing usually did not make a much better deal for the -8 in most tenders. (again it will always depend on the actual tender and Boeing will make you a splendid price for the -8 if the alternative is the A338)

I cannot remember any significant orders for the Boeing 787-8 in the past couple of years (there have only been 20 or so deliveries over the past four years, so orders must have dried up significantly even before 2017). I'd say it is pretty much a dead horse as far as a newly-built aircraft are concerned.

so far 375 787-8s have been sold, so it's not exactly dead horse