New Airbus
#22
Weekend Warrior
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: B737 FO
Posts: 63
UA Aircraft Spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...xXAo/htmlview#
p.s. Nice feature of spreadsheet is that you can track exact location of each tail in our inventory by simply clicking on registration number...enjoy!
#23
Covfefe
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
There have been only 55 orders for A319NEO compared to over 6,000 for the 320/321NEO variants. The initial and operating costs just don’t make sense, which is why so many more A220s have been ordered than a319NEOs. Wouldn’t be surprised to see 319NEOs abandoned by AB in the next couple years.
#24
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
There have been only 55 orders for A319NEO compared to over 6,000 for the 320/321NEO variants. The initial and operating costs just don’t make sense, which is why so many more A220s have been ordered than a319NEOs. Wouldn’t be surprised to see 319NEOs abandoned by AB in the next couple years.
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,190
Same for the max7. Southwest placed most of the orders and then postponed delivery. The bigger max and neo seem to be selling well though. Who knows? The a220 would count as a new fleet type, provide 100-130 seat lift, and allow Kirby more 76 seat rj’s at the regionals. My guess is that we’ll wait until there is a huge waiting list and then place an order.
I think Kirby is smart enough to know the right play, but trying to steer the buerocracy of United is like trying to avoid an iceberg on the titanic.
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 854
When you shrink an airplane, the number of seats drops faster than does cost. The shrunk A319neo/737-7 MAX can't compete on cost with the stretched A220-300 even though they have almost an identical seat count.
When you stretch an airplane the numbers of seats grows faster than costs. Look how popular the A320neo, A321neo, 737-800, 737-8 MAX, 737-900, 737-9 MAX and 737-10 MAX are. It is because of their per-unit (per seat) costs.
A shrunk larger design can't compete with a modern plane designed for the 100-130 seat market.
Which 747 did the best? The shrunk 747SP or the stretched 747-400?
Of course, as you stretch a design you run into other problems. Poor performance, higher approach and landing speeds, shorter range, etc. These problems, eventually, establish the limit to which you can stretch a design. As with most things in engineering, everything is a compromise.
#27
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
That's exactly right.
When you shrink an airplane, the number of seats drops faster than does cost. The shrunk A319neo/737-7 MAX can't compete on cost with the stretched A220-300 even though they have almost an identical seat count.
When you stretch an airplane the numbers of seats grows faster than costs. Look how popular the A320neo, A321neo, 737-800, 737-8 MAX, 737-900, 737-9 MAX and 737-10 MAX are. It is because of their per-unit (per seat) costs.
A shrunk larger design can't compete with a modern plane designed for the 100-130 seat market.
Which 747 did the best? The shrunk 747SP or the stretched 747-400?
Of course, as you stretch a design you run into other problems. Poor performance, higher approach and landing speeds, shorter range, etc. These problems, eventually, establish the limit to which you can stretch a design. As with most things in engineering, everything is a compromise.
When you shrink an airplane, the number of seats drops faster than does cost. The shrunk A319neo/737-7 MAX can't compete on cost with the stretched A220-300 even though they have almost an identical seat count.
When you stretch an airplane the numbers of seats grows faster than costs. Look how popular the A320neo, A321neo, 737-800, 737-8 MAX, 737-900, 737-9 MAX and 737-10 MAX are. It is because of their per-unit (per seat) costs.
A shrunk larger design can't compete with a modern plane designed for the 100-130 seat market.
Which 747 did the best? The shrunk 747SP or the stretched 747-400?
Of course, as you stretch a design you run into other problems. Poor performance, higher approach and landing speeds, shorter range, etc. These problems, eventually, establish the limit to which you can stretch a design. As with most things in engineering, everything is a compromise.
The pie chart of airline costs changes dramatically with the cost of fuel. When fuel is high, everything else gets kicked to the sideline. Then, the stretched airplanes are king.
SW didn't fly long airplanes because they couldn't turn them in 20 minutes. When gas is cheap, other factors costs become a larger percentage of the pie, chiefly labor. Running short turn times and high aircraft/crew utilization can be more important when gas is cheap.
Gas stayed high so long SW couldn't take it anymore and ordered 800's.
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 559
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 105
That's exactly right.
When you shrink an airplane, the number of seats drops faster than does cost. The shrunk A319neo/737-7 MAX can't compete on cost with the stretched A220-300 even though they have almost an identical seat count.
When you stretch an airplane the numbers of seats grows faster than costs. Look how popular the A320neo, A321neo, 737-800, 737-8 MAX, 737-900, 737-9 MAX and 737-10 MAX are. It is because of their per-unit (per seat) costs.
A shrunk larger design can't compete with a modern plane designed for the 100-130 seat market.
Which 747 did the best? The shrunk 747SP or the stretched 747-400?
Of course, as you stretch a design you run into other problems. Poor performance, higher approach and landing speeds, shorter range, etc. These problems, eventually, establish the limit to which you can stretch a design. As with most things in engineering, everything is a compromise.
When you shrink an airplane, the number of seats drops faster than does cost. The shrunk A319neo/737-7 MAX can't compete on cost with the stretched A220-300 even though they have almost an identical seat count.
When you stretch an airplane the numbers of seats grows faster than costs. Look how popular the A320neo, A321neo, 737-800, 737-8 MAX, 737-900, 737-9 MAX and 737-10 MAX are. It is because of their per-unit (per seat) costs.
A shrunk larger design can't compete with a modern plane designed for the 100-130 seat market.
Which 747 did the best? The shrunk 747SP or the stretched 747-400?
Of course, as you stretch a design you run into other problems. Poor performance, higher approach and landing speeds, shorter range, etc. These problems, eventually, establish the limit to which you can stretch a design. As with most things in engineering, everything is a compromise.
#30
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post