has Ryanair got the sizing of their planes wrong

Mailman

They went with a 737-800.
Shouldn't they have gone with a 150 seat plane. An A319 perhaps. Easyjet went with A319s.
They seem to have to bust their guts to fill the planes every flight and a large proportion of the passengers are paying small fares adding next to nothing to the bottom line.

Fuel is getting ever more expensive. Airbus are supposed to be more economical and the routes they are choosing for expansion aren't ones you'd expect to be able to get 189 paying customers for every flight.

I know they are heavily committed to Boeing and that's all most of their Pilots are certified to fly but what does it take for them to re-think their strategy.

Nforce

Ryanair bought the 737's from Boeing just after 9/11 when it seemed that Boeing were about to go under. They basically wound up buying them for virtually nothing;). Afaik, they've sold a few onto other carriers for much,much more than what they'd originally paid for them.
Say what you will about MOL, but he's one hell of a shrewd businessman;):cool:

PS....Easyjet did the exactly the same sort of deal with Airbus....hence getting almost as good a deal as Ryanair did.

cp251

Until now they were a good buy, although the Airbuses might be more economical. However fuel prices won't remain this high forever. In a couple of years it will probably be back below the $100 a barrell price.

Mailman

Yes, but the once-off gains on sale and acquisition doesn't compensate for the long term running costs of a larger plane that spends most of it's time in the air.

I think I've seen reported elsewhere that the A320 has near enough the same range as a 737-800 but has a smaller fuel capacity and the A320 is supposed to be cheaper to maintain too.

Mailman

cp251 wrote: »

Until now they were a good buy, although the Airbuses might be more economical. However fuel prices won't remain this high forever. In a couple of years it will probably be back below the $100 a barrell price.

you're a glass half full type of guy!

Mythago

Ryanair stuck with the 737 purely to maintain a 1 type fleet. Mixing up type adds to the day to day running expense & complexity of the airline, i.e Pilots, Engineers, Hosties, baggage handlers all need to be trained (Well, not quite all, but a large enough proportion for it to be quite expensive).

durandal01

FR 703, Stansted to Kerry, 6.45AM, Tuesday 20/05/2008 = 20 Pax.

*Kol*

Mailman wrote: »

They went with a 737-800.
Shouldn't they have gone with a 150 seat plane. An A319 perhaps. Easyjet went with A319s.
They seem to have to bust their guts to fill the planes every flight and a large proportion of the passengers are paying small fares adding next to nothing to the bottom line.

Fuel is getting ever more expensive. Airbus are supposed to be more economical and the routes they are choosing for expansion aren't ones you'd expect to be able to get 189 paying customers for every flight.

I know they are heavily committed to Boeing and that's all most of their Pilots are certified to fly but what does it take for them to re-think their strategy.

It would be a huge undertaking to change aircraft type. It could take years to off load that many aircraft. Plus currently they are making substantial profit the way they are at the moment. I can't see them changing anytime soon.

Mailman

OK, but it is fair to say if they were where they are today and had to base their fleet on a specific aircraft type it would probably be A319 with some A320s and A321s which pilots can interchange between due to similiar flight controls.
Baggage Handling isn't as much as much of an issue because Ryanair don't "do" luggage!

FlutterinBantam

Mailman wrote: »

OK, but it is fair to say if they were where they are today and had to base their fleet on a specific aircraft type it would probably be A319 with some A320s and A321s which pilots can interchange between due to similiar flight controls.
Baggage Handling isn't as much as much of an issue because Ryanair don't "do" luggage!

baggage handling might be a bigger issue than you think.

Note the big difference between the B738 and the Airbus family is that on the Airbuses the baggage is containerised,which itself,though excellent in delivery and loading speeds,brings on logistic /equipment/training/and ground handling issues which quite clearly do not fit Fr's
operational envelope.

lets say 10 cans per a/c ...100 a/c= 1000 of those puppies needing to be stored/looked after/repaired/ etc etc etc....

FR wouldn't touch modular loading with the proverbial barge pole using their current business model.

Mailman

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

baggage handling might be a bigger issue than you think.

Note the big difference between the B738 and the Airbus family is that on the Airbuses the baggage is containerised,which itself,though excellent in delivery and loading speeds,brings on logistic /equipment/training/and ground handling issues which quite clearly do not fit Fr's
operational envelope.

lets say 10 cans per a/c ...100 a/c= 1000 of those puppies needing to be stored/looked after/repaired/ etc etc etc....

FR wouldn't touch modular loading with the proverbial barge pole using their current business model.

I dobut they'd be using maybe more than one or two of those containers with the high baggage charges they've got.

Biro

They're right to maintain the one aircraft type. The difference in operating costs are probably minimal. The cost to change your fleet is massive. They'd be foolish to do it. Most Ryanair flights I've been on were full.

funkycat83

Nforce wrote: »

Say what you will about MOL, but he's one hell of a shrewd businessman;):cool:

+1

Tenger

Biro wrote: »

They're right to maintain the one aircraft type. The difference in operating costs are probably minimal. The cost to change your fleet is massive. They'd be foolish to do it. Most Ryanair flights I've been on were full.

FR did very well wjen they hot those B737-800 from Boeing for less than 50% of the list price. As already states they are now selling their older (less efficient) ones to other airlines and essentially making a profit. Currently FR have all winglet B738s. They still have another 100+ on order so based on 2-3deliveries per month,they will not think to change fleet type for at least 4-5 years. by which time the high fuel may have dropped due less disruption in Iraq and Nigeria.

For the FR system the B737 was a better choice at the time(2002). It is a more common a/c type worlwide (I would think the A320 family is gaining) so more pilots are type rated on it. Fr only takes type rated pilots.

It does not have modular baggage system so quicker to unload baggage.less chance of mechanical failure.

They have built in 'airstairs at forward door so quicker to disembark and board. No waiting on ground staff to bring steps to aircraft.

Mailman

OK, did some searching and found Boeing's PR stuff about why low cost carriers choose the 737 and that tallies with what was said above.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/feature/profit.html

Is there a 140 or 150 seater version of the 737 which would be suited to RyanAir's quieter routes?

robinph

If they use a smaller plane on the quieter flights to Kerry say, then what do they do with that plane once it's back in Stanstead and needed for another busy route before it's next trip back to Kerry again later that day?

Biro

There are different versions. The 300 was short, the 400 was longer, the 500 was short again, like a newer 300 really. I think the 600 was also fairly short, the 700 was a bit longer, then 800, then 900 the longest. But you could buy the shorter ones. I'd say the difference between operating an 800 and 500 is fairly negligable in the grand scheme of things.

ImDave

If a Ryanair route is not profitable it is shutdown. Case in point, the DUB-SNN route. I travelled on it back in January, and there was ~50 pax on board. On such a short trip there is little ancillary revenue which can be generated, and the majority are travelling with no check in baggage. Not too long afterwards, the route was closed.

The 738 is ideal for FR as it is a very dense config, 189 pax. This allows the fuel consumption per pax to be extremly low, excellent on high traffic routes such as Dublin to London etc. With oil prices continuing to climb, this figure will become more and more important to airlines. The difference in operating a smaller aircraft as well as the 738 will be masked by the operational problems it will represent. As previous posters have said, crew would need seperate type ratings, and certain aircraft will only then be suited to certain routes. This goes against Ryanairs model, which allows any crew to be used on any aircraft on any route. Also as previously mentioned, the price they are getting for the 738 means its net realisable value is very high. If they were to start buying up other aircaft i.e. airbus, it will lead to a drop in discount on future orders from boeing as they will be buying less. This, combined with the increased costs of operating a multi-aircraft type fleet, would make it uneconomical for Ryanair.

Tenger

Biro wrote: »

There are different versions.............. I'd say the difference between operating an 800 and 500 is fairly negligable in the grand scheme of things.

The 6,7,8 and 900 are Modern Next Gen B737s compared to the older 3,4 and 500. I believe they have a different cockpit (dials versus glass) From my own experience I can tell you a B737-500 is very different to an Airbus A320 in terms of modernity. Also the B737NG are a lot more fuel efficient so are cheaper to operate. So an 800 and 500 are very different beasts.

Ryanair now have all their B738s with winglets. If you look closely at the engines you may see than they are not all round. Some have a flaten lower portion. Sort of like putting weight on a tire. These are the older aircraft. They realises that this doesn't make the engine anymore streamlined/efficient. The current engines (not sure of the FR manufacturer) have a round cross section.

EI-DAV wrote: »

I
The 738 is ideal for FR as it is a very dense config, 189 pax. This allows the fuel consumption per pax to be extremly low, excellent on high traffic routes such as Dublin to London etc. .................As previous posters have said, crew would need seperate type ratings, and certain aircraft will only then be suited to certain routes. This goes against Ryanairs model, which allows any crew to be used on any aircraft on any route.

Having a single aircraft type and size gives FR great fleet efficiency benefits. Look at EI: In 200 they had 30 shorthaul a/c. B735,B734,A320,A321,Bae146. This caused lots of problem as a smaller a/c cannot easily replace a 'sick' larger one.They are now moving to an all A320 fleet,once the lease on the A321s is over,these are now approaching 10 years old.

While FR may have some routes with less than desired load factor their single fleet means all a/c and all crews can do all routes at the blink of an eye. Easyjet are still in the process of changing from B735s to A320. Essentially at the moment they have 2 seperate operations.

Preset No.3

Bramble wrote: »

Ryanair now have all their B738s with winglets. If you look closely at the engines you may see than they are not all round. Some have a flaten lower portion. Sort of like putting weight on a tire. These are the older aircraft. They realises that this doesn't make the engine anymore streamlined/efficient. The current engines (not sure of the FR manufacturer) have a round cross section.

Now where did you come up with this story? The 'weight on a tyre' engine you are talking about is the CFM56, the standard that is on all 737s, with the exception of the 737-200s which had pratt and whitney engines.

The CFM56-7 is ideally suited for low-cost operators such as Ryanair, providing low operating costs, high performance, high reliability, low noise and emissions and excellent operability. The 1,500th CFM56-7-powered Boeing 737 was delivered earlier this month.

By the way, Easyjet use the 737-700, not the 5 series as well as the airbus.

Even if you could change the engines, thats not something Ryanair would do as it then makes the fleet different in terms of performance and maintenance costs. Its CFM all the way.

*Kol*

I think you will find that all of the inlet cowls on the B737 have the flattened profile on the lower edge. AFAIK it's for ground clearance reasons and not for aerodynamics.

FlutterinBantam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56



called "hamstering" well,because head on it looks like yes, a hamster shape

Run_to_da_hills

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56



called "hamstering" well,because head on it looks like yes, a hamster shape

I think it looks more like a Gerbil.

*Kol*

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56



called "hamstering" well,because head on it looks like yes, a hamster shape

hamstering?? Where did you get that from?

FlutterinBantam

Sorry ,should have been "hamsterization"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

Scroll down to "design description"


My apologies.

Tenger

Preset No.3 wrote: »

Now where did you come up with this story? The 'weight on a tyre' engine you are talking about is the CFM56, the standard that is on all 737s, with the exception of the 737-200s which had pratt and whitney engines.

Even if you could change the engines, thats not something Ryanair would do as it then makes the fleet different in terms of performance and maintenance costs. Its CFM all the way..

I was told this by an ex FR steward who is working on his CPL at the moment. I do recognise this engine and I am familiar with its shape. I have not actually seen a CFM with a fully round cross ssection. I was merely repeating something I was told,sorry for not making that clear.

And of course having two types of engines even by the same manufacturer would greatly increase maintenace issues and lower fleet commanality. But having just changed their fleet to all winglets perhaps changing to a more efficient engine would be worth it?

Preset No.3 wrote: »

By the way, Easyjet use the 737-700, not the 5 series as well as the airbus.

Knew they had B737s. Just didn't realise they were -700s.

*Kol*

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Sorry ,should have been "hamsterization"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

Scroll down to "design description"


My apologies.

Accepted!! Though that is a new one to me. I have never heard that before.
"hamsterisation" ...I'm not convinced.

Biro

Bramble wrote: »

I was told this by an ex FR steward who is working on his CPL at the moment. I do recognise this engine and I am familiar with its shape. I have not actually seen a CFM with a fully round cross ssection. I was merely repeating something I was told,sorry for not making that clear.

And of course having two types of engines even by the same manufacturer would greatly increase maintenace issues and lower fleet commanality. But having just changed their fleet to all winglets perhaps changing to a more efficient engine would be worth it?
Knew they had B737s. Just didn't realise they were -700s.

The lads are right, it's a nonsense story. It's for ground clearance. All of the 737's have it, (bar the 100 and 200 series), new ones included. Also, the 737-300 had a glass cockpit, and was the first fly-by-wire 737.

*Kol*

Biro wrote: »

Also, the 737-300 had a glass cockpit, and was the first fly-by-wire 737.

B737-300 can have a glass cockpit but is not fly by wire.

peter1892

*Kol* wrote: »

B737-300 can have a glass cockpit but is not fly by wire.

AFAIK the only* Boeing airliner that is fly by wire is the 777, right?

*not including the 787!

Biro

*Kol* wrote: »

B737-300 can have a glass cockpit but is not fly by wire.

That's contrary to an article I have from Aer Lingus when they were buying the 300 sereis back in the early 90's. You could be right, but from what I've read, they are fly-by-wire. I won't dispute the fact though! Articles have been known to be wrong before!

*Kol*

Biro wrote: »

That's contrary to an article I have from Aer Lingus when they were buying the 300 sereis back in the early 90's. You could be right, but from what I've read, they are fly-by-wire. I won't dispute the fact though! Articles have been known to be wrong before!

I am right, trust me. There are no "fly by wire" systems on the -300/400/500. All flight controls/engine controls/landing gear controls are firmly linked to the cockpit via steel control cables not electrical wires.

Biro

*Kol* wrote: »

I am right, trust me. There are no "fly by wire" systems on the -300/400/500. All flight controls/engine controls/landing gear controls are firmly linked to the cockpit via steel control cables not electrical wires.

Cool!

FlutterinBantam

EI only had two 300s... not fly by wire.

135 seaters.

Biro

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

EI only had two 300s... not fly by wire.

135 seaters.

EI-BUD and EI-BUE. Didn't have them for too long either. They did have glass cockpit though.
They had a small number of 400's also, not long afterwards. Don't remember when the 500's came. T'was airbus after that.

Preset No.3

Bramble wrote: »

I was told this by an ex FR steward who is working on his CPL at the moment. QUOTE]

Ah will ya stop, even plane spotters know what an engine on a 737 looks like, its been the same since the 733 was launched in 1981. If he doesnt know what engines are on a 737 then he should stick to selling scratch cards!

Bramble wrote: »

But having just changed their fleet to all winglets perhaps changing to a more efficient engine would be worth it?
QUOTE]

Again, why would Ryanair be the ONLY airline in the world to change from an engine that has been on the 737 for over 25 years for something totally different and unproven. Winglets are one thing, but a new engine, the total change over of over 150 aircraft, the testing, the costs etc etc all to save maybe a few percent on fuel is not going to happen. The 7 series CFM engines are the just right for the 737 and its the industry standard for it. Sorry bramble, no disrespect but stick to stuff down the back.

yaeger

I have been only on this board for a while, but really guys there is some funny armchair pilots on here, its funny but dont speak out in public :-)))))
3/4/5 generation were the first EFIS generation!

Henry Ford III

I had a long chat with a very senior engineer (fancy title - only 9 of them working for the airline) with Flybe recently.

He said some scary things about airlines skimping on servicing.

He also spoke about new much more fuel efficient aircraft such as the Embraer 195 and Bombardier Q400. The latter (turboprop) only sips fuel and he sees it as the future on shorter flights of maybe 2 hours or less.

Biro

yaeger wrote: »

I have been only on this board for a while, but really guys there is some funny armchair pilots on here, its funny but dont speak out in public :-)))))
3/4/5 generation were the first EFIS generation!

Sure we do our best!!

Mailman

I still can't see Ryanair expanding with just the 737s though.
They've had to abandon routes that are un-economic as mentioned earlier in the thread.
These routes would be viable with a smaller aircraft which has a lower break-even point. So perhaps when they have taken delivery of all the 737s they have commited to they can start looking at the smaller routes again with view to using a smaller plane on those routes.
All the 737s don't have to be kept as has been mentioned previously, some can be sold on to other operators in different regions who need to upgrade to a more economical 737 from an earlier design.

Does everyone agree that they really are busting their guts trying to keep the load factor up on some of their routes. On other routes it is hard to get a cheap fare because the seats are always sold out early.

Perhaps they have grown beyond the South Western model and seeing as Europe is a different market with many smaller cities near each other they really do need smaller planes on some routes.

Tenger

Preset No.3 wrote: »

Bramble wrote: »

I was told this by an ex FR steward who is working on his CPL at the moment. QUOTE]

Bramble wrote: »

But having just changed their fleet to all winglets perhaps changing to a more efficient engine would be worth it?
QUOTE]

Sorry bramble, no disrespect but stick to stuff down the back.

You may have noticed that I had repeated something i was told but didn't do so in an authorative and overbearing manner like some posters here. My 2nd point was a question rather than a statement. Since when is asking a hypothethical question worthy of the 'superior' answer I got from you,a simple no would have sufficed.

So your "no disrespect" was disrespectful and rude. Thats coming from a dolly from down the back who knows how to be rude by being overly polite. I don't claim to be a technical expert on these threads. I just throw my 2 cent in like most others.

FlutterinBantam

+1

Well said Bramble.

*Kol*

yaeger wrote: »

I have been only on this board for a while, but really guys there is some funny armchair pilots on here, its funny but dont speak out in public :-)))))
3/4/5 generation were the first EFIS generation!

What's your point? That's two unecessary comments in this thread..

yaeger

3/4/5 series were efis comment was my point !, the other was an observation.
Simple really.....whats the goal of YOUR post kol, public forum so i can say what i like within reason and i dont believe i caused any offense so how about you go lighten up you miserable..............................:cool:

pclancy

Lol amazing how much this place gets like pprune at times Lets agree Ryanair have got their aircraft types right...but i never thought id see the day when MOL threatens to ground 10% of the fleet!

Yahoo news-Ryanair to ground 10% of fleet

I find this a bit hard to believe, surely Ryanair of all airlines would want their entire fleet in the air as much as possible making money even with high fuel and landing charges...

Mailman

Yes, but wouldn't those routes be profitable to run through the winter if they had a smaller aircraft on those routes.
I know they have a flexible workforce but aren't there still wages to pay and the capital cost of the plane isn't being serviced.

*Kol*

yaeger wrote: »

3/4/5 series were efis comment was my point !, the other was an observation.
Simple really.....whats the goal of YOUR post kol, public forum so i can say what i like within reason and i dont believe i caused any offense so how about you go lighten up you miserable..............................:cool:

Yes it is a public forum...for armchair pilots too who like to speak out in public. You didn't cause any offense until you called me miserable!!:cool:

Tenger

pclancy wrote: »

Lol amazing how much this place gets like pprune at times Lets agree Ryanair have got their aircraft types right...but i never thought id see the day when MOL threatens to ground 10% of the fleet!

I find this a bit hard to believe, surely Ryanair of all airlines would want their entire fleet in the air as much as possible making money even with high fuel and landing charges...

Daer lord1 Please don't let us go the pprune route!!!

I am of a similar opinion as yourself. At least an a/c flying with enough pax to cover costs (fuel/staff/airport fees/maintainance) should be better than not flying at all.

An option for EI suggested elsewhere could be an early return to leaser of the A330 slated to go next summer(EI-CRK). That combined with the normal winter maintainance schedule and planned cabin refit of the A330s should create the reduction in capacity on longhaul.

There was an senior EI meeting at the weekend relating to the current fuel price situation. Must have been serious to get EI mangagers in on a bank hoilday(Unfortunately for a 24/7/364 airline this is true)We should see a press release as a result over the next week or so.

WexCan

Should be noted that easyJet's in an interesting position at the moment.

116 x A319
9 x A320
7 x A321
30 x B737-700

A321s and half of the 737s to be removed from the fleet by the end of the year. A320/A321 have IAE engines while A319s have CFM.

As the SOPs for the A320/1s from GB Airways have not yet been fully aligned with easyJet's A319 fleet the aircraft are operated as a subfleet with dedicated flight and cabin crew.

So, a low cost airline with three seperate "fleets". Definitely not the traditional low cost model but easyJet still seem to be doing well.

Tenger

WexCan wrote: »

Should be noted that easyJet's in an interesting position at the moment.

116 x A319
9 x A320
7 x A321
30 x B737-700

As the SOPs for the A320/1s from GB Airways have not yet been fully aligned with easyJet's A319 fleet the aircraft are operated as a subfleet with dedicated flight and cabin crew.

So, a low cost airline with three seperate "fleets". Definitely not the traditional low cost model but easyJet still seem to be doing well.

I assume that Easy cabin crew are trained on both B737 and A320 series thus allowing them to fly on both fleets. However as you say the different SOPs on the A320/321 would prevent them operating on these a/c. So it is not as complicated as you may think. Most ailrines have several subfleets although this is unusual for LCCs.

WexCan

There are a number of groups of cabin crew:

1) 737
2) 737/319
3) 319
4) 320/321

737 and 319 share the same manual, while 320/321 uses an amended version of the old GB one.

As you say, very odd set up for a LCC. The CEO has mentioned that by switching to 319 only the airline would save roughly £40m. This process is starting soon, with all 737s and ex-GB 320/1 aircraft leaving the fleet over coming years. easyJet is, however, investigating the possibility of converting 319 orders to 320 in order to have a dual-gauge fleet. (easy would prefer to use new easy-configured 320s rather than the GB aircraft)