By: N5552.0W00425.9
- 27th March 2005 at 23:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
indeed.
But the crazy thing is. 737-400s have more seats than A320s and are cheaper to lease/run in the short run.
The a320s must have been plenty cheap
Not quite -
Charter config 734 - 170 seats.
Charter config 320 - 180 seats.
With the new EU regs it might be easier to use the higher capacity A320 - with FR's load factors the extra 10 seats between a 734 and 320 might be the difference between paying out compensation or not for overselling flights.
By: Bmused55
- 28th March 2005 at 11:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just got word from "bob"
apparently 737s are not so available for lease as I thought. No 400s available and the only 300s available are due for D checks.
Plenty used A320's available mind you.
Update: No 737-300's available for lease. Not due to D checks as originaly thought. All snapped up.
By: andrewm
- 28th March 2005 at 11:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe Ryanair have lost their enthusiasm for lowest possible op costs as now they are using A320s and we recently had a picture posted of them using an airbridge at malaga!! :eek: :diablo: :eek: :diablo:
By: Bmused55
- 28th March 2005 at 12:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe Ryanair have lost their enthusiasm for lowest possible op costs as now they are using A320s and we recently had a picture posted of them using an airbridge at malaga!! :eek: :diablo: :eek: :diablo:
or maybe they went for the only aircraft available for lease?
By: Silver Snapper
- 28th March 2005 at 12:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe Ryanair have lost their enthusiasm for lowest possible op costs as now they are using A320s and we recently had a picture posted of them using an airbridge at malaga!! :eek: :diablo: :eek: :diablo:
According to EDI ops, airbridges do not cost extra, isn't this the case with all airports?
By: Silver Snapper
- 28th March 2005 at 12:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just read that Ryanair have wet leased 2 A320's, one from Monarch and the other from Eirjet.
Anyone know where they're gonna be based or what they're operating? Forgive me for sounding crude, but aren't A320's out of the normal Ryanair culture?
This is Eijet's
New
Posts: 2,253
By: Bhoy
- 28th March 2005 at 12:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to EDI ops, airbridges do not cost extra, isn't this the case with all airports?
I think the issue is more the extra turnaround time, rather than just using the built in airstairs. (eg waiting for airbridge to back away and needing a pushback rather than just taxi-ing away from a remote stand etc...)
By: Bmused55
- 28th March 2005 at 13:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to EDI ops, airbridges do not cost extra, isn't this the case with all airports?
Its not the cost per se.
Its the time.
An airbridge can add an extra 10 minutes onto a turnaround easy.
Not good when you want your 737 back in the air in 20-30 minutes. 10 minutes added is a huge percentage.
By: seahawk
- 28th March 2005 at 13:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AFAIk the simple reason shoould be that it is very hard tp pick up a 733 or 734 in Europe at the moment. While you can get plenty of A320 for wetlease.
Seems like the old Boeings are more popular then the Airbus with operators in Europe.
New
Posts: 4,333
By: Hand87_5
- 28th March 2005 at 13:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hard to believe that FR's CEO who never miss an opportunity to pi$$ on Airbus is gonna lease a couple of A320's...!!!! Fool's day joke I'm affraid.
By: Bmused55
- 28th March 2005 at 13:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AFAIk the simple reason shoould be that it is very hard tp pick up a 733 or 734 in Europe at the moment. While you can get plenty of A320 for wetlease.
Seems like the old Boeings are more popular then the Airbus with operators in Europe.
Indeed so.
"Bob" concurs. For a number of reasons a 10 year old 734 is cheaper to run than a 10 year old A320, all in all.
By: seahawk
- 28th March 2005 at 13:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, interestingly many airlines are looking for used 737-300 or 400. Air Berlin (although they get new A320) and dba are both ready to tkae on more of those.
I heard that the maintenance costs on the old A320 are much higher then on the old Boeings, which are rock solid.
By: Bmused55
- 28th March 2005 at 14:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, interestingly many airlines are looking for used 737-300 or 400. Air Berlin (although they get new A320) and dba are both ready to tkae on more of those.
I heard that the maintenance costs on the old A320 are much higher then on the old Boeings, which are rock solid.
I'm not gonna go into it any further ;)
Best to avoid opening a can of worms. although you are correct.
By: wysiwyg
- 29th March 2005 at 20:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The reason that there aren't any 737's available is because the leasing costs at the moment are generally cheaper than an A320. Similarly a 767 can be had at the moment for around 200,000 dollars a month whereas an A330 will set you back around 900,000.
By: Airline owner
- 29th March 2005 at 20:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:eek: surprising to me as all I ever hear is FR ordered such and such amount of B738's. Could this mean a long term change from Boeing to Airbus. :confused:
By: LBARULES
- 29th March 2005 at 21:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh come on AO, wet leasing 2 A320s for a short time means they are going to change from Boeing to Airbus, when they already have god knows how many 738s and have over 100 on order ?
Posts: 10,160
By: Grey Area - 27th March 2005 at 23:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No - you're not getting me started!
Think of the little ones! :D:D:D
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 27th March 2005 at 23:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:p
Posts: 325
By: N5552.0W00425.9 - 27th March 2005 at 23:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not quite -
Charter config 734 - 170 seats.
Charter config 320 - 180 seats.
With the new EU regs it might be easier to use the higher capacity A320 - with FR's load factors the extra 10 seats between a 734 and 320 might be the difference between paying out compensation or not for overselling flights.
Posts: 11,159
By: Ren Frew - 28th March 2005 at 10:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So finally Ryanair have come out of the closet as AB curious? :D :D :D
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 28th March 2005 at 11:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just got word from "bob"
apparently 737s are not so available for lease as I thought. No 400s available and the only 300s available are due for D checks.
Plenty used A320's available mind you.
Update: No 737-300's available for lease. Not due to D checks as originaly thought. All snapped up.
Posts: 4,213
By: andrewm - 28th March 2005 at 11:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe Ryanair have lost their enthusiasm for lowest possible op costs as now they are using A320s and we recently had a picture posted of them using an airbridge at malaga!! :eek: :diablo: :eek: :diablo:
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 28th March 2005 at 12:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
or maybe they went for the only aircraft available for lease?
Posts: 1,338
By: Silver Snapper - 28th March 2005 at 12:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to EDI ops, airbridges do not cost extra, isn't this the case with all airports?
Posts: 1,338
By: Silver Snapper - 28th March 2005 at 12:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is Eijet's
Posts: 2,253
By: Bhoy - 28th March 2005 at 12:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the issue is more the extra turnaround time, rather than just using the built in airstairs. (eg waiting for airbridge to back away and needing a pushback rather than just taxi-ing away from a remote stand etc...)
Posts: 9,401
By: LBARULES - 28th March 2005 at 12:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You would think that with the Scheduled season just starting, Monarch would need all the A320s they could get to operate the ZB and charter flights?
Ah well, they know better than us!
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 28th March 2005 at 13:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its not the cost per se.
Its the time.
An airbridge can add an extra 10 minutes onto a turnaround easy.
Not good when you want your 737 back in the air in 20-30 minutes. 10 minutes added is a huge percentage.
EDIT: Didn't see Bhoy's post.
Posts: 4,202
By: seahawk - 28th March 2005 at 13:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AFAIk the simple reason shoould be that it is very hard tp pick up a 733 or 734 in Europe at the moment. While you can get plenty of A320 for wetlease.
Seems like the old Boeings are more popular then the Airbus with operators in Europe.
Posts: 4,333
By: Hand87_5 - 28th March 2005 at 13:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hard to believe that FR's CEO who never miss an opportunity to pi$$ on Airbus is gonna lease a couple of A320's...!!!! Fool's day joke I'm affraid.
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 28th March 2005 at 13:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed so.
"Bob" concurs. For a number of reasons a 10 year old 734 is cheaper to run than a 10 year old A320, all in all.
Posts: 4,202
By: seahawk - 28th March 2005 at 13:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, interestingly many airlines are looking for used 737-300 or 400. Air Berlin (although they get new A320) and dba are both ready to tkae on more of those.
I heard that the maintenance costs on the old A320 are much higher then on the old Boeings, which are rock solid.
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 28th March 2005 at 14:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm not gonna go into it any further ;)
Best to avoid opening a can of worms. although you are correct.
Posts: 3,538
By: wysiwyg - 29th March 2005 at 20:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The reason that there aren't any 737's available is because the leasing costs at the moment are generally cheaper than an A320. Similarly a 767 can be had at the moment for around 200,000 dollars a month whereas an A330 will set you back around 900,000.
Posts: 5,019
By: Airline owner - 29th March 2005 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:eek: surprising to me as all I ever hear is FR ordered such and such amount of B738's. Could this mean a long term change from Boeing to Airbus. :confused:
Posts: 9,401
By: LBARULES - 29th March 2005 at 21:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh come on AO, wet leasing 2 A320s for a short time means they are going to change from Boeing to Airbus, when they already have god knows how many 738s and have over 100 on order ?