There has been talk on here many times about easyJet flying long haul and using wide bodied aircraft on these routes...

I just wanted to turn that idea on its head, and wanted peoples opinions on if the airline purchased wide bodied aircraft (which for arguments sake, Im going to suggest the A330-200), on their existing route network, would this work?

I was looking at some of the airlines frequencies on their popular routes to the major tourist destinations that they operate and noticed they are flying up to12 flights a day to the likes of Palma just from the London area in the summer time, with similar numbers to Alicante, Malaga and Barcelona. Also destinations to the likes of Sharm El Sheikh, Corfu, Ibiza and Paphos see 3-4 departures a day.

Would it not make sense to consolidate many of these flights which are flown by A319/A320's, to larger aircraft like the A330-200 which could accomodate update about 360-380 passengers in a high density economy config?

Many of the flights are at present flown within 2-3 hour of each other and as these are primarily tourist flights, frequencies and timings of the flights are not as important as they maybe are to business travellers who require high frequency routes to major business centres.

Im not going to pretend Im any expert and have no ideas of costs, but would the economics not stand up for flying a single larger aircraft to a destination as opposed to two A320's to the same place? I would imagine this would especially be true on longer destinations like SSH, TLV, AMM and TFS.

I was thinking of a small sub-fleet of around 50-60 A330-200's.

Actually looking back on it, charter airlines have been doing this for years like Monarch and Thomson, operating the 767's, Tristars and A300's within Europe. Would this concept work for low cost airlines?

Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter): I was thinking of a small sub-fleet of around 50-60 A330-200's.

That's not a very small subfleet  

NS

I think they won´t fit very much in current network, maybe to very long routes like Egypt, full of holiday makers, but i still think one of the advantages of Easyjet is offering few flight in the same route and attracting more pax doing so.

Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter): I was thinking of a small sub-fleet of around 50-60 A330-200's.

Pretty small....
Delta 32
Emirates 25
Thai 25
Cathay 35
Air China 33
Qatar 29



    

Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter): I was looking at some of the airlines frequencies on their popular routes to the major tourist destinations that they operate and noticed they are flying up to12 flights a day to the likes of Palma just from the London area in the summer time, with similar numbers to Alicante, Malaga and Barcelona. Also destinations to the likes of Sharm El Sheikh, Corfu, Ibiza and Paphos see 3-4 departures a day.

And what do to with that planes the rest of the year???

[Edited 2012-11-27 12:50:38]

If Norwegian's model proves to be successful, what are the odds easyJet might do the same? Not necessarily out of the United Kingdom but maybe out of a less competitive market.

Exactly. Yes, they would fill them on the longer leisure routes at peak times, but then be wasted during the rest of the time. Also, wide-bodies aren't condusive to rapid 30 - 40 min turnaround times that LCC's demand of their fleet.
Same as why WN, WS etc haven't gone for 767/A330's.

It does not fit with their model. As stated earlier the question of wide bodies is what to do with them in the off season.
Would these aircrafts extra capacity compensate the extra acquisition and running costs. Probably no.
This carrier is about focusing more on business routes which could provide revenue 365 days a year. They want to be no 1 or 2 on the top 100 business routes in Europe. Which means narrow body high frequency.

They have had however used wet lease a/c on longer routes I.e 757, 767 from Titan and i believe sold the extra capacity.
On routes that are slot restrained like cdg and special routes like tlv and Moscow a larger a/c could be handy.
I would expect the largest a/c to be ordered as a321 or 737-9. In lcc config prob would hold 220 pax which would be useful
Increase.

Key question: what do they do with them in the autumn, winter and spring? There is no demand for such a large fleet of widebodies outside the peak holiday season, and only a short blip for the ski season. Short term charter work is an option for smaller carriers with a few aircraft spare, but such a large fleet would flood this relatively small market.

Regarding long haul, if this was to happen it would almost certainly not be the current easyJet, but a separate company formed as a vehicle to drive the project independently and establish a firewall between it and easyJet. Although it's conceivable that they would use the same branding, much like easyJet Swiss or the WizzAir's.

But still, I don't see this happening.


Dan  

But aren't there other airlines like Monarch, Thomson or Air Berlin which operate wide-body aircraft to the Mediterranean all year round?

I can't speak for AB, but MON & THO do use A300 / 767 to Canary Islands and Egypt all year round but not Med routes in winter. But these flights are mostly IT charters where tour opertaors take seats in bulk, which is not easyJet's modus operandi ( yet, until the Thomas Cook contract starts next summer )
MON A300's and THO 767's also do the weekend ski charters in winter, again mostly for the ski tour operators.

I can see them fitting in, in the winter months when there isn't the demand then lease them out, I remember Garuda taking Britannia/Thomson 767s on lease, I'm sure they would take an EZY A330 for a couple of months, especially as they now operate the type.

Glenn

Reminds me of the time Air Inter used their A300 and even A330 on internal French flights...

Quoting TC957 (Reply 4): Also, wide-bodies aren't condusive to rapid 30 - 40 min turnaround times that LCC's demand of their fleet. Same as why WN, WS etc haven't gone for 767/A330's.

In 1977 Eastern briefly tried using the L-1011 on the LGA-BOS Shuttle service. Boarding/deplaning took too long to permit short turnarounds and they dropped that experiment fairly quickly. In 1980 they tried again with 280-seat A300s. That didn't last much longer, for similar reasons.

It could work, and actually with a fleet of 50-60 aircraft as you suggest, could be quite cost effective.
However, they won't do it because it's not their model - which is lots of multiple frequency on a single type (albeit they have the 319 and 321 now) aircraft.

An A330 is considerably more expensive to operate, and therefore the yields would need to be a lot higher - which is something EZY would struggle to do. Remember too, any 330 in an all economy configuration actually seats a lot of people!

The only reason the charter airlines use widebodies (including on short haul) is because 99% of them have a long-haul network. The widebodies then get used on the shorthaul trips because of the lower utilisation most charters usually have with them. Monarch, Thompson certainly didn't order A330's/767's due to heavy Friday night demand to Malaga/Kos/Rhodes et al!

The operating costs would also be higher, higher take off/landing fee's, turn around fee's would also be longer and more £££.

Also it would require more than 4 cabin crew (they would probably operate it with about 8)

Airlines like TCX, TOM and MON can fill a wide body on these high demand holiday routes because they have a Travel Agent/Tour Operator behind them pushing and filling the seats. I know EZY work with a lot of travel agents/tour operators

However a more logical step would be for EZY to start with a sub-fleet of A321's. It's 40-ish more seats, it's implementation costs would be low as it's a sister ship of the A319/320, the crew training costs would be minimal and it offers growth opportunities, it's could also be used on the routes that are busier in the winter months such as Ski/Winter Sun destinations, leaving the 319/320's to operate rest of the network. It would probably fit in well at LGW and MAN.

The ex-MYT A321's (now at TCX) are fitted with 220 with 4 LAV's and a full galley at the rear and 1 1/2 galley at the front so it would be interesting to see how much capacity could be stretched in a EZY config.

Quoting AAMDanny (Reply 13): The ex-MYT A321's (now at TCX) are fitted with 220 with 4 LAV's and a full galley at the rear and 1 1/2 galley at the front so it would be interesting to see how much capacity could be stretched in a EZY config.

Zero additonal seats, because the A321 is not certified for more then 220 seats.  

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 14): Zero additonal seats, because the A321 is not certified for more then 220 seats.

ah that explains that then!

Quoting AAMDanny (Reply 13): The operating costs would also be higher, higher take off/landing fee's, turn around fee's would also be longer and more £££. Also it would require more than 4 cabin crew (they would probably operate it with about 8)

Quoting LX138 (Reply 12): An A330 is considerably more expensive to operate, and therefore the yields would need to be a lot higher - which is something EZY would struggle to do. Remember too, any 330 in an all economy configuration actually seats a lot of people!

I fully appreciate that and hence why I am suggesting an A330 replaces an A319 or A320 two for one on routes where they fly twice daily, where there is not necessarily the need for lots of frequencies but just the demand to travel between two destinations.

So it would be interesting to note what the cost differences would be to fly an A330 like LTN-TLV or SSH as opposed to operating two A320's as they do at present, to cope with the demand.

True you would need atleast 7-8 crew, but that is no more than flying two A320's, but you save on pilots only requiring two as opposed to four.

Also the A330-200 would enable the airline to open up new routes to longer destinations that fit within the LCC model, but are just too much of a stretch for an A320 like London to Dubai or maybe routes to like Nigeria or Ghana. Which are only about a 6hr flight and could be flown with the same crew there and back in one day.

Also the turnaround time on the longer routes with easyJet is 45 mins to an hour. Im sure an A330 could be turned around in that time. No cleaning required, passengers exit via the rear door and board via the front!

Air Asia do their turnarounds of their A330's in 1hr 15mins, and I am sure that can be improved upon!

I love been an armchair CEO!

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 14): Zero additonal seats, because the A321 is not certified for more then 220 seats.

Plus Easyjet doesn't cram anymore seats in than the charters and actually has better seat pitch. The advertised 29" only refers to the last row which is tight.

Quoting LX138 (Reply 12): Thompson certainly didn't order A330's/767's due to heavy Friday night demand to Malaga/Kos/Rhodes et al!

But they didn't order them exclusively for long haul either.

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 16): Also the A330-200 would enable the airline to open up new routes to longer destinations that fit within the LCC model, but are just too much of a stretch for an A320 like London to Dubai or maybe routes to like Nigeria or Ghana. Which are only about a 6hr flight and could be flown with the same crew there and back in one day.

Don't dwell on the there and back ethos too much. If a route was profitable but slightly out of range for a one crew there and back, most LCC's would work it some how....even if that involved layover.

My opinion..... There are routes that would support A330 type of aircraft but those routes wouldn't be sufficient justification for operating them in the Winter season. Perhaps if slot constrained airports became critically constrained then there might, in theory, be a real need for them but that would also involve a bit of a change in culture for the whole European industry in terms of frequency taking a back seat.

I think someone is right in saying that the A321, the 739 (or both) are more likely.

Long haul: Not in the company's plans but one time ATH was the absolute furthest destination and rumoured only to be on the network for Stelios' benefit. How things can change so who knows.......I think you would be looking at 5+ years before long haul if it was to happen.

someone mentioned in another thread that you couldn't pay them enough to the fly the saha 707s......I say the sameabout a U2 A330....yuck....the only thing worse would be an FR 330...:-P

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 16): True you would need atleast 7-8 crew, but that is no more than flying two A320's, but you save on pilots only requiring two as opposed to four. Also the A330-200 would enable the airline to open up new routes to longer destinations that fit within the LCC model, but are just too much of a stretch for an A320 like London to Dubai or maybe routes to like Nigeria or Ghana. Which are only about a 6hr flight and could be flown with the same crew there and back in one day.

But that proposal is most defintely not within their LCC model - high aircraft utilisation versus yield ratio per flight time is hugely important to EZY and FR. The economics are completely different. On another note, I doubt that yields are good ex-UK to both those countries right now.

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 16): Also the turnaround time on the longer routes with easyJet is 45 mins to an hour. Im sure an A330 could be turned around in that time. No cleaning required, passengers exit via the rear door and board via the front!

I think you are really pushing it with a 45 min turnaround on the A330. There was another thread somewhere about record turnaounds but someone else on here might know what the general - and min record turnaound is for a 330.

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 16): Air Asia do their turnarounds of their A330's in 1hr 15mins, and I am sure that can be improved upon!

You have to remember too they're turning it around for a long haul operation, and with 2 classes and enough for 9 abreast in economy and enough for several services. That takes longer than a shorter flight....just refuelling time alone dictates that.

Quoting LX138 (Reply 19): I think you are really pushing it with a 45 min turnaround on the A330. There was another thread somewhere about record turnaounds but someone else on here might know what the general - and min record turnaound is for a 330.

I'll give you a few closer to home examples and another LCC. Jetstar. Jetstar successfully uses the type on medium and long haul flights. Some are 10 hrs, some are just 4. and there are the odd flights in Australia they do that are a little over 1 as a 'stop' before the long haul. These flights can be turned around quite fast.

But while i'm looking at these two examples lets look at what Qantas and Virgin Australia do. They use the type between Sydney and Melbourne. a mere 1.5 hr flight. But they mix those flights with flights to perth. a 5 hr flight. What this means, is that daily aircraft utilisation is still high. You don't need to minimise turn around times if your average stage length is longer, they key is, how many hours is the aircraft being utilised in a day. With short haul aircraft, that only fly an hrs stage length on average, if you take an hr to turn it around, yes that's a lot less flying per day. But if the average stage length is longer, then it becomes less important. A friend of mine regularly boards the A330-200 in high density domestic configuration at QF in around 20 mins. Remember the thing has containerised cargo bins, and if you only need to take on a smaller amount of fuel for a 5 hr flight instead of an 11 hr flight it takes less than half the time. So to conclude, I think yes, if the thing was operating 3 or 4 hr flights it could be done and still get a good 12 hours utilisation out of it. or if it was shorter flights, say 2 hrs mixed with a few longer ones, once again I think it would work. it just won't work as well if you want it to do 1 hr hops all day every day. And on the longer flights, it would have the added benefit of being able to carry cargo, when the a320/737 its stretched too close to its limits. That's additional revenue.

Quoting GT4EZY (Reply 17): Quoting LX138 (Reply 12): Thompson certainly didn't order A330's/767's due to heavy Friday night demand to Malaga/Kos/Rhodes et al! But they didn't order them exclusively for long haul either.

But a heavy longhaul aircraft like the A330 makes no sense for a strictly shorthaul carrier like U2. Landing fees (based on maximum takeoff weight regardless of the length of the flight) would be much higher on every flight. You're flying all that weight around for nothing. And what do you do with the aircraft in the off-season? Just doesn't make sense for a LCC that seems to be doing very well without widebodies.

I used to hate them and Ryanair, just because it was the "thing" to do. Granted i've only ever had one flight with Ryanair and can't remember ANYTHING from it, as it was done hungover, and I remember a visit with my head into the bowl in the back due to turbulence. But Easyjet, if you dont mind the hassle of boarding, or even if you buy the extra's as speedyboarding, and pay for bags, then they are really good. Always quite cheerio crew.

I'd paid for row 3 in MAN airport yesterday. Well worth it, as most people on the flight were tourists not willing to pay for that stuff. I ended up with all of 3a to c for myself. Although im gold with KLM, 400 pounds one way from MAN to AAL is insane. I paid 129 GBP for 2 bags, speedyboarding, and the flightitself. Alot of cash saved. And the flight offered alot of great spotting as we had "close calls" with a 332 or 333 and an 320 also.

I hate all monkeyclass config, but if I wasn't going for work, and had to pay myself, a 330 would be nice to get onboard with Easyjet. Didn't they lease 757 a couple of years back ?

I wonder how an A330 with 300+ passengers would fit into the 20 minute turnaround model. Not very well, I guess.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 23): I wonder how an A330 with 300+ passengers would fit into the 20 minute turnaround model. Not very well, I guess.

It was never 20 minutes, that's at Southwest. It used to be 25 minutes, but that has been increased to 30 minutes at most airports these days. It's even longer (up to 45-50 minutes) at some Mediterranean airports and/or after very long flights.

I wonder how much money they would actually save. An A330 costs probably about the same as 2 A320s, it probably costs about twice as much to fuel, you have to pay the pilots more and have twice the cabin crew, landing fees are higher and maintenance costs are much higher. And you have a lot less flexibility, and can offer just one flight a day rather than two, and these aircraft can't be easily be substituted with another one in the event of technical problems, whereas the rest of them are more or less interchangable (same pilots, crew, capacity, etc). Another thing to consider is that a plane that flies to Moscow, for example, might make a trip to Belfast or Edinburgh or whatever fits in the schedule during the rest of the day, whereas an A330 wouldn't really fit on those routes. So where is the advantage?

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 16): Air Asia do their turnarounds of their A330's in 1hr 15mins, and I am sure that can be improved upon!

CI turn their 333 TPE-SYD-AKL-SYD-TPE flight around with 1h10 at every stop. I believe we actually achieved a 56 minute turn the other day.... so yes definitely possible

Is there any year-around high demand route currently flown by U2 which can't possibly get a frequency increase and an A321 wouldn't be enough?
Is there any year-around medium to high demand route currently flown (or suspended) by U2 which sees major airport costs increase due to U2 frequencies but still may be OK to fly daily with a wide-body with a premium schedule?
Is U2 interested in flying from LTN to JFK/EWR (or another 7:30+hour route) anytime soon?
If the answer to any is yes, then it might be worth for U2 to study getting a couple (yes, I wrote only a couple) of A330.
Bear in mind something like U2 GLA/EDI/BFS-BOS/MHT may be flown w/A319 but it might not be quite profitable.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 21): But a heavy longhaul aircraft like the A330 makes no sense for a strictly shorthaul carrier like U2. Landing fees (based on maximum takeoff weight regardless of the length of the flight) would be much higher on every flight. You're flying all that weight around for nothing. And what do you do with the aircraft in the off-season? Just doesn't make sense for a LCC that seems to be doing very well without widebodies.

You're preaching to the converted here. I never said they could. What I did say in reply to someone saying that Thomson didn't order 767's for short haul, is that they didn't buy then exclusively for long haul either.

If you read my full post you'd see my views specifically on a EZY 330.

Why would U2 want an aircraft this large? Passengers want flexibility- the choice of multiple departures per day rather than one single flight which may or may not be convenient.

Alot of U2's summer holiday destinations only operate during the summer - when the cold winter comes in they are all cancelled until the following season. What is U2 going to do with a large A330? Where on the network is it going to be used on? The only longish haul destinations could be to Israel and Egypt or Jordan, which won't happen as demand has gone down to those destinations since the Arab Uprising and ongoing problems in Egypt and Israel.

That leaves some of the Canaries but there is not the demand to fill a wide bodied aircraft there either. I think most British charters stopped operating widebodies there in 2007/8. I enjoyed a few nice flights out there on Britannia's 767s around that time but I think they are mostly 737s on that route now.
Competition on these routes is also fierce. Even Iberia/British Airways can be cheaper via Madrid with complimentary snacks, beverages and baggage (BA, anyway!)

This is ofcourse, my opinion. U2 will have mulled the ideas of long haul expansion and bringing in widebodied aircraft.
The fact that they haven't thus far would tell us that it wouldn't be beneficial.
The only way I could see them ordering larger aircraft is if they followed Norwegian's example and opening up some longer haul destinations which could feed into their short and medium haul network.

I imagine you could not nomally fly short ranges using aircraft designed to fly long ranges. If you take off with tanks half empty and do not have demand to carry a lot of cargo to get close to MTOW, how can that be efficient?

Quoting LX138 (Reply 19): I think you are really pushing it with a 45 min turnaround on the A330. There was another thread somewhere about record turnaounds but someone else on here might know what the general - and min record turnaound is for a 330.

I don't quite follow the turnaround argument. If you carry 50% more pax on a larger aircraft that takes 50% longer to turn around, where's the problem?

Quoting art (Reply 30): I imagine you could not nomally fly short ranges using aircraft designed to fly long ranges.

I know that MEA during the summer use their A330s to Larnaca - 30 minutes, Cairo -1 hour and Amman, 40 minutes.
But their yields are quite high- there isn't the competition there that is in place in Europe where you have several airlines trying to milk one route. But long haul aircraft can carry out short haul missions.

Quoting art (Reply 30): I don't quite follow the turnaround argument. If you carry 50% more pax on a larger aircraft that takes 50% longer to turn around, where's the problem?

The problem is that the 50% more passengers do not cover the (significantly) increased overheads operating under the EZY business model.

Quoting GT4EZY (Reply 28): Thomson didn't order 767's for short haul, is that they didn't buy then exclusively for long haul either.

Really? What did Thompsom (or Britannia) buy them for then?

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 27): Bear in mind something like U2 GLA/EDI/BFS-BOS/MHT may be flown w/A319 but it might not be quite profitable.

Quoting LX138 (Reply 32): Really? What did Thompsom (or Britannia) buy them for then?

It's Thomson, not Thompson! The 767's were ordered for longhaul in combination with short - and mediumhaul during peak times when demand is very high.

Quoting LX138 (Reply 32): Really? What did Thompsom (or Britannia) buy them for then?

They didn't buy them exclusively for long haul. They were used widely across the med and canaries and not necassarilly for increasing utilitisation. Back in the day (when I was a child) I flew 8 short haul sectors to the med and 6 of this were scheduled on a 767. Thomson could fill them short haul and quite often the flights would only operate a few times a week.

Quoting AAMDanny (Reply 13): Airlines like TCX, TOM and MON can fill a wide body on these high demand holiday routes because they have a Travel Agent/Tour Operator behind them pushing and filling the seats. I know EZY work with a lot of travel agents/tour operators

MON have announced they are dropping wide body operations (and they canx their 787 order) and are moving to a single type, narrow body fleet in order to compete against EZY. It seems unlikely to me that, if this move is logical for MON (who have WB experience/knowledge), the opposite move is logical for EZY. EZY A321NEOs, for the longer routes, seems a much more likely option.

Monarch Plans 45-Jet Order (by Chiad Nov 30 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Regarding turnaround - BA manage to turn a 767-300 on shorthaul in under an hour, I've been on a CPH where the turn around was about 45 minutes as we were running late.

Quoting danielkandi (Reply 22): Didn't they lease 757 a couple of years back ?

Yup they did, they had 4 of them. 2 came from Air Finland, 1 was from Titan and the other Astraeus.

View Large View Medium Photo © Matt D

View Large View Medium Photo © Nikos Fazos

View Large View Medium Photo © Rui Miguel

View Large View Medium Photo © Viktor Gombas

Also you probably know already but anyway, they had some A321's also (I hope they get some new ones in the future).


View Large View Medium

Photo © Martin Stephen

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 16): So it would be interesting to note what the cost differences would be to fly an A330 like LTN-TLV or SSH as opposed to operating two A320's as they do at present, to cope with the demand.

It's simple economics! Those widebodies ain't cheap to run! (Unless you're carrying cargo).
Doing LTNSSH is about 2200NM via air routes, assuming with no wind... the air distance is the same...

Pack the 320 with 180 seats, with reserves, you'd get a landing weight about 55 tons... that would give you a trip fuel burn of 12 tons.. each seat, if filled, will cost you 66.67kgs in fuel to go LTN-SSH.

Pack the 332 with 303 seats (comfortable single class), with reserves, you'd get a landing weight of about 140 tons... that would give you a trip fuel burn of 22.3 tons to 24 tons depending on your speed... each seat would cost you between 73.8kgs to 78.25kgs of fuel!

Pack the thing with 360 seats (you can go 380 seats if you're mad enough), you'd get a landing weight about 145 tons, and a trip burn of about 23tons, each seat would cost you about... the same in fuel... 63-67kgs per seat one way.

Let's go to the navigation costs... based on MTOW... on the 320, each seat is responsible for about 430kgs of MTOW... on the 332... each seat is responsible for about 650-780kgs of MTOW... this means, the navigation charges per seat would be higher... (on top of that fuel burn per seat).

To go to SSH or TLV, would take about 5hrs... so a return trip, takes 10hrs...
So, on the 320, the aircraft flies there and back taking 10-12hrs... and you can throw an extra short haul leg if you want on top and bring the utility to 14hrs... (charter ops in summer goes 14-18hrs daily utility... 18 being the record)
If you're on the A332... where are you going to throw the jet in it's spare hours???? You'd be limited in your choice.

Then say you only need it to SSH and TLV... you need 2 aircraft... then one goes AOG... what to you do?
If you fly that route on the 320... you can always 'absorb' that AOG using spare aircraft that's just finished maintenance but have not been scheduled into the normal ops, or re-sched a few aircraft and generate a gap wide enough to do the flight...

Need I go further?

Mandala499

To be fair though Easyjet aircraft can operate 4 X 4hour+ sectors a day in the Summer. I don't think 330's will happen, not in the short/medium term anyway. I do think however that some of the rationale, cited here, against the 330 at Easyjet are as tenuous as some of those arguments for them.

I'm confident that Easyjet could make the 330 work on some of the longer routes where, as some one else stated, turns aren't quite as critical. The airline is an incredibly savvy business. The fact is that Easyjet doesn't need them on its current network. The 321, in my opinion, would be the ideal aircraft and a 321neo would open up some new destinations, particularly around the Middle East and Africa, potentially high yielding routes. This would see Easyjet edge into long haul but with essentially the same product.

Quoting GT4EZY (Reply 39): The 321, in my opinion, would be the ideal aircraft and a 321neo would open up some new destinations, particularly around the Middle East and Africa, potentially high yielding routes. This would see Easyjet edge into long haul but with essentially the same product.

Didn't they struggle with the ex GB A321's though? I thought I can remember reading somewhere on here that they were too big... I might be wrong, but worth an ask.

I'm wondering if anyone can answer me this - why are narrow body aircraft so much more efficient than widebodies? It seems that part of the reason low cost airlines do so well is that they stick to narrowbody aircraft and those that have tried with widebodies have either ended up going bankrupt or phased them out (for example, Oasis Hong Kong with its 744s and Air Asia with its services to London). And why is the 737 still around after 50 years whereas the long-haul aircraft have developed from 757/767>777>787?

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 41): I'm wondering if anyone can answer me this - why are narrow body aircraft so much more efficient than widebodies?

Because they are much much lighter (and all the benefits that entails, such as needing less fuel). They were designed from the onset to operate short to medium haul routes, while most widebodies were designed to operate medium to long haul segments, and have the structure (re: weight) to support those missions and their fuel requirements. Airplane engines are most efficient during cruise. For short haul flights the plane is spending less time in cruise than in long haul operations, thus weight matters a lot (not that it doesn't matter for widebodies).

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 41): It seems that part of the reason low cost airlines do so well is that they stick to narrowbody aircraft and those that have tried with widebodies have either ended up going bankrupt or phased them out (for example, Oasis Hong Kong with its 744s and Air Asia with its services to London).

Those didn't fail just because they were widebody aircraft. Long haul, international, low cost operations are tough to make money on because they require a lot of fuel (more $$$), have fees and other taxes that the airline must pay be governments (more $$$), and involve longer turn around times due not just to the larger aircraft but properly timing flights so you will actually have passengers on your plane, as crossing many time zones can screw rapid turnarounds up real quick.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 41): And why is the 737 still around after 50 years whereas the long-haul aircraft have developed from 757/767>777>787?

The 737 has completely new engines and a largely new wing than 50 years ago. In addition the 767/777/787 are all different sizes. While the 737 has grown over time, the 736, 73G, and 738 are all roughly the same size as the 735, 733, and 734 respectively, which were developed 30 years ago.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 41): And why is the 737 still around after 50 years whereas the long-haul aircraft have developed from 757/767>777>787?

The 747 is still around after 50 years and hasn't changed that much over the years. The 737 and 747 are very efficient well designed aircraft, why change or replace what is not needed...

Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 43): The 747 is still around after 50 years and hasn't changed that much over the years. The 737 and 747 are very efficient well designed aircraft, why change or replace what is not needed...

Thank you, fair point!

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 38): It's simple economics! Those widebodies ain't cheap to run! (Unless you're carrying cargo). Doing LTNSSH is about 2200NM via air routes, assuming with no wind... the air distance is the same... Pack the 320 with 180 seats, with reserves, you'd get a landing weight about 55 tons... that would give you a trip fuel burn of 12 tons.. each seat, if filled, will cost you 66.67kgs in fuel to go LTN-SSH. Pack the 332 with 303 seats (comfortable single class), with reserves, you'd get a landing weight of about 140 tons... that would give you a trip fuel burn of 22.3 tons to 24 tons depending on your speed... each seat would cost you between 73.8kgs to 78.25kgs of fuel! Pack the thing with 360 seats (you can go 380 seats if you're mad enough), you'd get a landing weight about 145 tons, and a trip burn of about 23tons, each seat would cost you about... the same in fuel... 63-67kgs per seat one way. Let's go to the navigation costs... based on MTOW... on the 320, each seat is responsible for about 430kgs of MTOW... on the 332... each seat is responsible for about 650-780kgs of MTOW... this means, the navigation charges per seat would be higher... (on top of that fuel burn per seat). To go to SSH or TLV, would take about 5hrs... so a return trip, takes 10hrs... So, on the 320, the aircraft flies there and back taking 10-12hrs... and you can throw an extra short haul leg if you want on top and bring the utility to 14hrs... (charter ops in summer goes 14-18hrs daily utility... 18 being the record) If you're on the A332... where are you going to throw the jet in it's spare hours???? You'd be limited in your choice. Then say you only need it to SSH and TLV... you need 2 aircraft... then one goes AOG... what to you do? If you fly that route on the 320... you can always 'absorb' that AOG using spare aircraft that's just finished maintenance but have not been scheduled into the normal ops, or re-sched a few aircraft and generate a gap wide enough to do the flight...

        

     

Thank you Mandala, exactly the kind of answer I was looking for!

I was very curious at how the costs of running 2x A320's over the same route v a single A330!

Much Appreicated
Giles

Quoting Polot (Reply 42): those that have tried with widebodies have either ended up going bankrupt or phased them out (for example, Oasis Hong Kong with its 744s

Oasis Hong Kong had a bad business strategy with something like 75 J class seats on each of their 744s. Their competitors matched or even undercut their fares and basically drove them out of business. If they had offered a true LCC no-frills, high density Y class product they may have survived slightly longer, but probably not much longer.