Ahhh, the 737s NGs and Airbuses are pretty much are one in the same in terms of fuel efficiency.

 

The CFM engine burns 3% more gas on the B737.

 

Is that from Airbus marketing material? I really haven't noticed any big difference.

This article shows from an independent source shows the consumption is actually higher in the Airbus...

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/s....html?page=all

 

I thought that with a low cost carrier, high fuel hurts worse.

The percentage of our operating cost that is fuel, is larger than the legacy airlines.

 

It's larger percentage because everything else is so cheap and because we operate the planes so much. There's only 100% of a pie. Our operating costs say make up 65% and fuel is 35%. The percentage just shifts some at other carriers making it look it they pay less in fuel. When in actuality it's a smaller percentage because other costs are so high. But I do understand what you're asking.

Our sweet spot seemed to be $80-$90 a barrel. Would could still offer low prices, make a good profit and others struggled to match us. Now that fuel has dropped, they can come closer in cost but also have things like bags included.

 

"In the last few months, Boeing’s re-engined 737 MAX has quietly run into a bit of trouble. For weeks, sources at the Melun-based engine manufacturer CFM have quietly noted that the LEAP-1B engine that will power the 737 MAX is facing a serious performance shortfall of close to 4-5% in specific fuel consumption (sfc), and the LEAP-1A–that will power some of rival Airbus’ A320neo aircraft–is facing a smaller 2% sfc deficit."

I should have been more clear that I was talking about the NEO and MAX CFM engine. Above is quoted from an article I found and prior articles talked about the smaller fan size on the B737 MAX because of the ground clearance. So the Airbus has a larger fan diameter with the same engine and will burn less fuel. I just took the 5% and 2% difference, in the above quote, to come up with the 3% more fuel burn.

 

You mean the meals they almost always offer to the jumpseater since they've had it 400 times.

 

It is but I have to disagree with you again. CASM Ex will drive the conversation for the foreseeable future. When an airlines is in growth mode CASM is mostly flat or negative, which is why LUV was so successful for the past 25 years. If we are going to be taking on planes for the next 10 years we will recognize the benefit of that growth thus our CASM will be in a better position that others.

Currently NK CASM is around .055 compared to .085- .09 for everyone else. Even NK pilots were to could get a delta paying contract tomorrow our CASM would jump to around .06, mainly due to the growth # of seats, efficiency of the newer airplanes, and we outsource everything.

 

If doing the same job in the same aircraft weren't enough for some to get on board with an industry LEADING contract, this guy just explained that they can absolutely afford it too.

 

Totally Agree. That is exactly why we should not accept anything less than what our peers make flying the same aircraft and doing the same job. Parity or industry standard from day one!