Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
wakymike
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:44 pm

A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:30 am

As far as I know, only Spirit and Frontier operate the A320neo so far, but neither of the US3, nor f.ex. JetBlue, and there seem to be no orders for the A320neo by any of these.
So why is the A320neo so unpopular with US airlines, as they all operate large A319 and A320ceo fleets?
 
Noshow
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:32 am

Maybe because the A321neo is even better? At least Jetblue seems to think this way. With so many ordered any late newcomer will have to stand last in line. Plus: It will take a moment to get unions cooperating with narrowbody crews now being able to do long range, former Boeing pilots getting converted and such.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:15 am

It's not only in the US. Despite the huge NEO success / backlog, the A319NEO & A320NEO backlog have been shrinking. Large A320CEO operators like United, Air France have been reluctant to replace the A320CEO with a same size A320NEO. We discussed recently..

Image
NB seating evolution. sources: viewtopic.php?t=1465375
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3921
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:26 am

It can also be coincidence that the US big three, which all have 319/320s, having chosen Boeings going forward as their preferred 150-199 seater, while preferring Airbus' A321 to supply the 200-240 seaters (for 757 replacement and incremental growth). Probably the 737MAX (-900ER in case of Delta) is the most efficient option for the slightly smaller aircraft and the A321 as their future largest narrowbody. For JetBlue, the A320 is still their core aircraft. It will be interesting to see if they order 320neo's when the older 320s start falling apart or if they'll take more A220s, perhaps the -500 version and turn to a 2 type 220/321 fleet in 10 or 20 years time.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14428
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:27 am

It's not that it's unpopular per se, it's just that the A321N is so much more popular/versatile/useful/effective.
 
tvh
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:41 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 11:02 am

The trend is to have larger aicraft. If you currenly have 100 A320's and you want to have 50 A320's and 50 A321's. You replace the 50 oldest A320 with the newer A321neo.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 12:17 pm

I would like to think that in the "traditional" NB config of approx 180 (full Y, downward adjustment needed for 2 class), the Boeing product has a bit of an edge. Maybe Airbus has pimped the A320 family up too much by focusing on the A321.

The same goes to Canada, almost everyone has Maxes flying for that same size segment for the new generation of planes.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2654
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 12:58 pm

wakymike wrote:
As far as I know, only Spirit and Frontier operate the A320neo so far, but neither of the US3, nor f.ex. JetBlue, and there seem to be no orders for the A320neo by any of these.
So why is the A320neo so unpopular with US airlines, as they all operate large A319 and A320ceo fleets?

Per wiki, the US3 are currently operating 200 A320s (plus 287 A319s), vs. 344 A321s; they are operating 1.5 A321 to each A320. The trend is clear: the A321 is the right size for them in the A320Family (and usually aircraft size tend to grow)
It's no wonder that they have ordered A321neos exclusively.

DL: 57 A319s, 56 A320s, 126 A321s and 155 A321neos;
AA: 133 A319s, 48 A320s, 218 A321s, 41 A321neos + 79 on order;
UA: 97 A319s, 96 A320s, 120 A321neos on order.
A321neo orders include A321XLRs for AA & UA.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:02 pm

There is a relatively big gap between A320 and A321, in terms of seatcapacity, pay-load range, operating and price. The 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10 are all positioned in this gap.

Image
Source: Boeing

Why Airbus never launched an A320.5 is unclear. Most think it is because they are ok with the 5000 aircraft backlog / 60+% NB marketshare.

A (just right) up to 199 seat A320 Plus with engine choice and container options might push B into launching NSA, not directly in A's interest.
Last edited by keesje on Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:05 pm

Or make the A319neo some double decker? :mrgreen:
No?
Last edited by Noshow on Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14631
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:05 pm

wakymike wrote:
As far as I know, only Spirit and Frontier operate the A320neo so far, but neither of the US3, nor f.ex. JetBlue, and there seem to be no orders for the A320neo by any of these.
So why is the A320neo so unpopular with US airlines, as they all operate large A319 and A320ceo fleets?


It’s too small, the two US carriers that do operate them jam people in way more than the legacies would if they operated the aircraft. Domestic aircraft sizes are going up, look at WN who at onetime was all 737-300, 737-500 and 737-700. Now they have a mixed fleet with plenty of 737-800s and 737-8s.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10452
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:16 pm

tvh wrote:
The trend is to have larger aicraft. If you currenly have 100 A320's and you want to have 50 A320's and 50 A321's. You replace the 50 oldest A320 with the newer A321neo.


Yep. DL, UA, WN, NK, G4 and F9 have been upgauging narrowbodies for the better part of a decade now. DL started in 2010 with used 158-seat MD-90s replacing 125-seat DC-9-50s, and continued with 180-seat 739s replacing 149-seat MD-88s.

The idea that aircraft need to be replaced with the same seat count remains far too popular on a.net.

One could ask if the ~three hundred A319s of AA/DL/UA will ultimately be replaced by A320neos. AA has MAX8s on order; DL has 321neos on order; UA has MAX8s on order. (I'll argue that DL's order for fifty A223s goes to replacing 717s, not 319s.)

There's a 2017 Boeing chart that Leeham has published showing fuel burn per seat for 150-seat A320neos vs. 162-seat MAX8s on a 800nm segment. Guess who wins.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10616
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:24 pm

If you look back at the last 50 years seemingly every aircraft family has gotten larger. This trend was more obvious in the WB space but it's happening in the NB space too. A310/300 -> A330/340 -> A350. More people flying = more butts per trip = more efficiency.
Once could argue that both the A320 and A321 should have been stretched but Airbus thought otherwise. They've said that their strategy is to implement small increments and I suspect that a new engine plus a stretch would have been too much.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:35 pm

DL, AA and UA all ordered A321s and continue to increase orders.

Maybe Airbus waited for Boeing to fully commit to the NMA and then launch a bigger A320. And maybe A220-500.

Image
Source: keesje
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14631
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:40 pm

airbazar wrote:
If you look back at the last 50 years seemingly every aircraft family has gotten larger. This trend was more obvious in the WB space but it's happening in the NB space too. A310/300 -> A330/340 -> A350. More people flying = more butts per trip = more efficiency.
Once could argue that both the A320 and A321 should have been stretched but Airbus thought otherwise. They've said that their strategy is to implement small increments and I suspect that a new engine plus a stretch would have been too much.


It depends on the aircraft and the timing to market, obviously the 767-400 never sold anywhere near the 767-200 and 767-300. Same with the 757, the 300 never came
close to matching the 200.
 
DartHerald
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:42 pm

airbazar wrote:
If you look back at the last 50 years seemingly every aircraft family has gotten larger. This trend was more obvious in the WB space but it's happening in the NB space too. A310/300 -> A330/340 -> A350. More people flying = more butts per trip = more efficiency.
Once could argue that both the A320 and A321 should have been stretched but Airbus thought otherwise. They've said that their strategy is to implement small increments and I suspect that a new engine plus a stretch would have been too much.


Butts themselves have got bigger too!
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:50 pm

The US3 all operate/operated large 757 fleets. The 757 and A321 are basically the same size. So it’s not like the US3 are suddenly new to this size.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:53 pm

With the A319NEO gaining negligible sales and the A320NEO backlog shrinking Airbus, Airbus will review it's NB portfolio strategy. Confirmed yesterday by Airbus.

Airbus will consider building a larger version of the A220 once profitability has been achieved, Schultz also said. The biggest version of the jet currently seats up to 160 passengers. “We do confirm the platform has further potential,” Schultz said. Once production has increased and the program is making money, “then eventually comes the question of the product policy,” he added. “What we do on the A220 has to be coordinated with what we would do” with other Airbus single-aisle aircraft such as the A320, he said.

https://montrealgazette.com/business/local-business/aerospace/airbus-sees-need-to-hire-at-least-500-people-in-mirabel-as-a220-output-climbs

Okcflyer wrote:
The US3 all operate/operated large 757 fleets. The 757 and A321 are basically the same size. So it’s not like the US3 are suddenly new to this size.


In the US people tend to live n the outer edges, making transcon important. Indeed 757s, A300s, 767s and now A321 seem right sized, with the A321 on the small side. If it was 4-5 rows bigger, the big US 3 would probably love so.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:05 pm

Three big reasons have led to upgauging. Labor costs, industry consolidation and improved revenue management.
  • Whether it is an A319 or an A321, the airplane still requires two pilots, a gate agent, a fueler, a caterer, a lav truck, a cleaning crew, a mechanic for every flight. Spreading that cost over more seats helps.
  • Industry consolidation has reduced competition. There is less need to maintain frequency with limited capacity.
  • Revenue management has vastly improved over the last 20 years. The extra 20-30 seats would have gone empty or sold for deep discounts on the bigger airplane which would then have left too many open seats which would lead to cheap seats available near departure. In the old fare bucket world too many seats hurt RASM. Now pricing is far more dynamic which leads to higher load factors to squeeze out more revenue and protect RASM.

The upgauging isn’t unique to the A321. ERJ145s are displaced with E175s. 737-700s are replaced with 8/9/10s. Airlines adjust average seats per planes buy buying bigger and retiring smaller airplanes. An A321neo might get added to the fleet which in turns bumps an A320 to replace an A319 on a route which then bumps an E175 which then bums an ERJ145. So an A321 can get added and a 50 seat RJ gets retired.
 
Olddog
Posts: 1653
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:11 pm

It is a good thing for Airbus that the era when US carriers could make a break a plane success in the world is long gone.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5220
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:12 pm

Big planes, at one time mostly the 747, have got a little smaller, and the trend is to fewer. 789 is/was the sweet spot, with the 359 close behind. The dreary story of those unnamed other biggies continues. Those two sweet spot models aforementioned can suffer/accomodate a bigger model(s) for most of the bigger exceptions. The other not entirely solved mystery is what happened to the 767 which proudly limps along, along with the 330 which limps along - also in its own way. Somehow three other American producers flashed into the scene with those big trijets which most of us believed had a future - we were wrong. Meantime that smaller genus of little regional transports have gone viral - who wudda guessed at their birth. Surely there is a lesson to be learned in the epidemic spread of the 320/737.
 
tvh
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:41 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:15 pm

Airbus is working on a new narrow body wing. What if they use that to launch an improved family of narrow body aircraft in the size of A320.5 and A321.5.
In other words. Two aircraft sizes one smaller than the A321 but clearly bigger than an A220-500, and the current A320. The other a bit larger than the current A321 but still small enough for 5 flight attendants. (250 pas)
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10452
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:34 pm

Olddog wrote:
It is a good thing for Airbus that the era when US carriers could make a break a plane success in the world is long gone.


You think so? Come back in 5-8 years on the Embraer E2 - just 205 orders over eight years ending 4/2021, while AA/DL/UA have a thousand CR7/CR9/E70/E75 between them. DL, B6, AC and Breeze represent 45% of net A220 orders, too.
 
2eng2efficient
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:30 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:00 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Olddog wrote:
It is a good thing for Airbus that the era when US carriers could make a break a plane success in the world is long gone.


You think so? Come back in 5-8 years on the Embraer E2 - just 205 orders over eight years ending 4/2021, while AA/DL/UA have a thousand CR7/CR9/E70/E75 between them. DL, B6, AC and Breeze represent 45% of net A220 orders, too.


The E2 and A220 are unique programs, and it’s true that the US3 will be highly determinative in their ultimate success. But amongst what you might call the major programs among the major manufacturers, I think his point is valid. Thinking about programs like the MD-90 - if it weren’t for Delta’s large order, it’s doubtful the type would have ever EIS (and it was still essentially a commercial failure). Today, growth in emerging markets and amongst LCC/ULCC carriers means that a program or subtype can survive without a single order from the US3.

I’ll also add that Airbus has historically been more shielded from dependence on the US3. The A300 family did just fine without significant uptake in the US3. Ditto, the A320 took a decade before it began selling in earnest in the U.S.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2654
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:28 pm

keesje wrote:
There is a relatively big gap between A320 and A321, in terms of seatcapacity, pay-load range, operating and price. The 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10 are all positioned in this gap.

Image
Source: Boeing

Why Airbus never launched an A320.5 is unclear. Most think it is because they are ok with the 5000 aircraft backlog / 60+% NB marketshare.

A (just right) up to 199 seat A320 Plus with engine choice and container options might push B into launching NSA, not directly in A's interest.

Another way to view it: maybe the Boeing offering is too close in capacity from one another?
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1966
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:30 pm

In addition to what everyone has already mentioned, all of the US 3 had large 737 fleets. Not only does that make them more likely to order a MAX, but even if they decide to replace the 737 with a NEO, I have a hard time seeing the A320NEO penciling out as a 737-800 replacement.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2654
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:39 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
In addition to what everyone has already mentioned, all of the US 3 had large 737 fleets. Not only does that make them more likely to order a MAX, but even if they decide to replace the 737 with a NEO, I have a hard time seeing the A320NEO penciling out as a 737-800 replacement.

It seems a mixed fleet of 737-900/MAX 9 and A321 is the way to go for the US3.
UA is the outlier with A321s and 737 MAX 10s at the same time.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2936
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 4:11 pm

I think it's simply that UA and AA want to have a mixed fleet without relying too much on a single supplier. Since the A321neo is clearly the best option available in its size category it is popular, and thus the MAX 8 (which is a lot more competitive, and in some cases better than the A320neo) is the natural option to balance that out. Unsurprisingly not relevant for WN, NK and F9 as these are all single-type fleets. Though DL could go either way, I would expect to eventually see the MAX 8 in their fleet. That said, with 737NGs in the fleet and A321neos on order it's not a big leap to integrate MAX 10s and A320neos, so maybe they'll split the remainder of the A32X replacement.
 
jplatts
Posts: 5297
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 4:12 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
In addition to what everyone has already mentioned, all of the US 3 had large 737 fleets. Not only does that make them more likely to order a MAX, but even if they decide to replace the 737 with a NEO, I have a hard time seeing the A320NEO penciling out as a 737-800 replacement.


AA ordering some 737 MAX 7 planes might be a possibility as AA has some A319ceo and A320ceo planes that need to be replaced, and there are some AA routes where planes bigger than E-175 regional jets but smaller than the 737-800/MAX 8 are a better fit.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1966
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:27 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
I think it's simply that UA and AA want to have a mixed fleet without relying too much on a single supplier.

I'm not sure I buy that. AA seemed more than willing to go all Airbus narrowbody if Boeing didn't launch the Max. UA seemed like they wanted to be all Boeing narrowbody, but Boeing never came up with a great replacement for the 757.
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:30 pm

I can say for us at DL, Ed has made it quite clear that our new baseline narrow body aircraft size is the 180-190 seat range. Thats why we ordered 739's and A321s instead of 738s and A320s. The A321 CEOs we have do a lot of replacement flying for the retired mad dogs. The thought process is increasing pax throughput and connections into the hubs with each flight without having to increase the actual number of flights. This translates to increased revenue, especially with more premium seating with a more fuel efficient aircraft. The 321neos will be able to accomplish the same thing in the place of say a 757 or 738/739 but with the range that the CEO lacks. As has been said, the economics of larger aircraft tend to be more favorable. The same is true of the A221 vs A223. In the 150 seat size, I continue to think an A225 would definitely get an order from us vs an A320neo. Our 738s and 320ceos will definitely need replacing soon. The gap between our A223s and 739s/321s is 50 to 60 seats, respectively. The MAX 8 might be the better solution due to its higher seat count (then the 320neo) and we have large enough Boeing and Airbus narrow body fleets for economies of scale. A max order could balance out our massive NEO backlog, but mgt seems quite pleased with the Airbus product thus far.
Last edited by tinpusher007 on Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:35 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
I think it's simply that UA and AA want to have a mixed fleet without relying too much on a single supplier.

I'm not sure I buy that. AA seemed more than willing to go all Airbus narrowbody if Boeing didn't launch the Max. UA seemed like they wanted to be all Boeing narrowbody, but Boeing never came up with a great replacement for the 757.


I see a tendency globaly of airlines balking to become overly dependent on either A or B. UA ordered 50 -XLR to replace 757s. And a lot of 737-10s. But then also 70 A321NEO's quietly.
 
User avatar
fanoftristars
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 9:03 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:14 pm

tinpusher007 wrote:
I can say for us at DL, Ed has made it quite clear that our new baseline narrow body aircraft size is the 180-190 seat range. Thats why we ordered 739's and A321s instead of 738s and A320s. The A321 CEOs we have do a lot of replacement flying for the retired mad dogs. The thought process is increasing pax throughput and connections into the hubs with each flight without having to increase the actual number of flights. This translates to increased revenue, especially with more premium seating with a more fuel efficient aircraft. The 321neos will be able to accomplish the same thing in the place of say a 757 or 738/739 but with the range that the CEO lacks. As has been said, the economics of larger aircraft tend to be more favorable. The same is true of the A221 vs A223. In the 150 seat size, I continue to think an A225 would definitely get an order from us vs an A320neo. Our 738s and 320ceos will definitely need replacing soon. The gap between our A223s and 739s/321s is 50 to 60 seats, respectively. The MAX 8 might be the better solution due to its higher seat count (then the 320neo) and we have large enough Boeing and Airbus narrow body fleets for economies of scale. A max order could balance out our massive NEO backlog, but mgt seems quite pleased with the Airbus product thus far.


Your customers are also quite pleased with the Airbus product thus far, especially in coach where the Airbus product really is more comfortable than its Boeing counterpart. Your customers also universally despise the 737-900ER. It's configured very poorly compared to the A321. LOL. I hope to see the A320NEO or A220-500 at Delta some day in the future!!! Both are excellent aircraft from a passenger cabin perspective!
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10452
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Sun Nov 14, 2021 1:00 pm

fanoftristars wrote:
Your customers are also quite pleased with the Airbus product thus far, especially in coach where the Airbus product really is more comfortable than its Boeing counterpart. Your customers also universally despise the 737-900ER.


You want to point to the surveys that confirm your contentions?

More A320neo to 321neo conversions, as cited by qf789 in the Dubai Airbus orders thread:

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... neo-family
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1793
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Sun Nov 14, 2021 1:08 pm

The re-engine changed the dynamics of the airplane. The low fuel consumption and high thrust of the GTF mean that the A320 is suboptimal. The A321N is very well balanced.
 
User avatar
fanoftristars
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 9:03 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:09 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
fanoftristars wrote:
Your customers are also quite pleased with the Airbus product thus far, especially in coach where the Airbus product really is more comfortable than its Boeing counterpart. Your customers also universally despise the 737-900ER.


You want to point to the surveys that confirm your contentions?

More A320neo to 321neo conversions, as cited by qf789 in the Dubai Airbus orders thread:

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... neo-family


Just head over to the SkyMiles forum on Flyertalk… there are pages of threads on just how awful the 739 is configured.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23363
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:47 pm

There is one thing to consider, whenever an aircraft is re-engined, the optimal size grows.

For the first 737s, it was the 737-200
For the second generation, it grew one stretch to the 737-300
For the third (NG) generation, it grew to the 737-800

The same is true of Airbus. The new engines have more nacelle drag, more weight, and cost more. There is no avoiding this as engines improve the bypass ratio grows (weight due to increased fan diameter that is the higher nacelle drag) and the pressure ratio goes up (weight needed to contain the hoop stresses induced by the pressure and more weight as higher temperatures require more metal for the pressure vessel too). The new engines for the A321 go more cycles between overhauls (no longer a penalty on the A321 for maintenance, at least not the penalty there was on early CEO engines, I speculate engine PiPs for maintenance and fuel burn and the sharklets are why we had a late A321CEO sales surge).

In a way this is just continuing the prior trend. New engines have reduced the cost spread between flying the A320NEO and A321NEO vs. the A320CEO and A321CEO (where engine PiPs and sharklets already were reducing the cost per flight spread).



LAX772LR wrote:
It's not that it's unpopular per se, it's just that the A321N is so much more popular/versatile/useful/effective.

I think this is the root cause.
DL has lots of A321s on order (CEO and NEO)
AA has a number of A321 NEOs still to be delivered
B6 has A321 NEOs on order
Of course, Spring and Frontier

My above post is just the long winded version of what you just said. ;)

This is like worrying about why Allegiant has no NEOs. NEOs do best on high utilization and high utilization favors gauge if gauge has the range and field performance required.

cledaybuck wrote:
In addition to what everyone has already mentioned, all of the US 3 had large 737 fleets. Not only does that make them more likely to order a MAX, but even if they decide to replace the 737 with a NEO, I have a hard time seeing the A320NEO penciling out as a 737-800 replacement.

I have done system modeling for airline aircraft orders. This isn't dueling pistols, airlines look at the network benefit. Sometimes they need small gauge for routes, but at other times a reduced cost per seat brings in enough new customers (recall, airlines are an elastic market).

Looking at UA, they are upgauging to -10 MAXes. Whenever hourly per employee costs rise, the trend will be towards aircraft that reduce the employee expenses per passenger. I see discussion here on RASM and CASM, but little on how it is a strategic decision on how to optimize the two.

For example, Delta retired MD-80s/90s and soon the 717. They are buying used 739ERs, lots of new A321s, and A223s. I see an overall upgauging. My personal math says the cost per flight of the A321NEO is less than the 737-800 if utilized at least 9 hours per day (on average). As fuel prices increase, the hours needed for the A321NEO to be cheaper drops. Now on the same hand, I also see the -8MAX cheaper to fly than the A320CEO at about 8 hours per day. One must consider the need.

Keeping DL as the example, they hub a lot, but have embraced more P2P during the lockdowns. I personally think the A321s to TPA were over-gauged and I noted my last flight was on a 739ER. It happens they cut one of the LAX-TPA flights in certain seasons. For those seasons, perhaps even replacing the A321 with an A223 is appropriate? There is no one solution. For DL keeps certain aircraft to fly to/from the hubs at the most popular waves. These aircraft are inherently moderate utilization. Other aircraft are flown intensely. Improving efficiency of a type generally results in upgauging even beyond the technical reasons I listed (more routes support the per trip costs justifying the upgauge via higher profits).

Or in your example, if DL does more P2P and the A320NEO is priced right (only if priced right), they will use it in both more moderate duty flying and for more coast to coast P2P flying. However, for the US3, they do a lot of moderate utilization flying to maximize revenue (fly when passengers pay a premium to fly), so you might be right. It might be more upgauging (again, since for moderate utilization, this will be purchase price dependent).

In a way, the success of the A320NEO has resulted in fewer in US service. This isn't anything against the aircraft, but success means a price premium and since the US3 in particular fly so many aircraft at moderate utilization, it makes the A320NEO purchase price less attractive. Or put another way, a US3 airline will fly fewer hours per day and thus receive less benefit in savings on the fuel burned, so there is less reason to bid up the price as much as say Indigo in India who uses the A320NEO in high utilization, in a high fuel tax environment, so the benefit to Indigo exceeds the benefit to the US3 and thus the same price offer for an A320NEO would be less attractive to the US airline than other airlines.

Utilization drives the value of an aircraft and heavily skews the purchase decision. e.g., JetBlues TCON flights scream for A321NEOs (if for no other reason than give the aircraft without MINT more range).

I personally do not expect many A320NEO orders at the US3. JetBlue? Eventually, but when they can get them for less premium (otherwise, my back of the envelope spreadsheet says buy A321NEOs and A223s).

We have the advantage in the USA of expanding hub capacity at SLC, IAH, DEN, IAD, PHX, and DFW. The same is true of destination airports like MCO and TPA. If there is a shortage of slots, well replace 3 RJs with 3 A320s. The executives will earn their bonuses planning and while I see missions the A320NEO could do, I don't see a big drive when the A321NEO seems to make airlines more money and the A223 is such an efficient smaller plane. I just see the new A320NEOs not flying enough hours at the US3 for their premium in price. That is all.

Lightsaber
 
Speedy752
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:13 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:26 pm

fanoftristars wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
fanoftristars wrote:
Your customers are also quite pleased with the Airbus product thus far, especially in coach where the Airbus product really is more comfortable than its Boeing counterpart. Your customers also universally despise the 737-900ER.


You want to point to the surveys that confirm your contentions?

More A320neo to 321neo conversions, as cited by qf789 in the Dubai Airbus orders thread:

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... neo-family


Just head over to the SkyMiles forum on Flyertalk… there are pages of threads on just how awful the 739 is configured.


More of the same “fraction of an inch width” discussion. The only criticism I can see is no mid cabin lav but I much prefer the bigger windows and space bins vs the 321 broken up exit doors cabin and nearly nonexistent windows. Most pax see the same seats and IFE and don’t know the difference. I much prefer even the refurb a320s to the new 321s at DL. that all being said I’d assume the cost to operate a 321 vs 320 is negligible and you have a decent shot at filling the extra seats often enough that the airlines come out ahead. As climate change becomes a bigger concern having fewer planes carrying more pax will be more efficient so I don’t see the trend reversing.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:34 am

Just imagine the massive fleets of 757s if for every a321/a321 neo they ordered a 757 back in the day ;) .

AA: retired all their 757s and replaced with a321s domestically. Their huge and middle-aged 738 fleet doesn’t warrant a replacement a320 neo, plus they’re the ones who pushed for the max in the first place so went with 738 max.

UA: similar ordeal. Not a very large airbus fleet to begin with compared to 737s so the max makes sense as far as commonality.

DL: they’re the most likely to have ordered them IMO. Aren’t exactly replacing 738s and replaced many MD88/90 routes with the a321 and a220s. Also ordered a lot of 739s recently IIRC.
 
F27500
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:27 pm

The NEOs are great planes to fly in. Got my first A320NEO ride last month on Frontier .. beautiful airplane and seemed quite a bit more quiet in general than the usual A320s, both engine noise-wise and with all the weird noises and barks and sounds the older standard A320s make.
 
bfitzflyer
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:02 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:37 pm

keesje wrote:
DL, AA and UA all ordered A321s and continue to increase orders.

Maybe Airbus waited for Boeing to fully commit to the NMA and then launch a bigger A320. And maybe A220-500.

Image
Source: keesje


Why is there a fly on the image?
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: A320neo at US carriers, why is it unpopular?

Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:06 pm

bfitzflyer wrote:
keesje wrote:
DL, AA and UA all ordered A321s and continue to increase orders.

Maybe Airbus waited for Boeing to fully commit to the NMA and then launch a bigger A320. And maybe A220-500.

Image
Source: keesje


Why is there a fly on the image?

That’s his mark for images he makes

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos