Aer Lingus Fleet/Routes Discussion

L1011

If they're on power-by-the-hour it isn't a particular problem if it's for a shorter term lease really. I don't know if they are; some of them are quite new where it'd be more common

IE 222

http://www.independent.ie/business/relations-between-aer-lingus-and-daa-have-soured-immensely-over-differences-about-airport-infrastructure-development-36196781.html

This article reports Aer Lingus receiving 8 A321LR. Was it not meant to be 7 or is it bad reporting.

Also mentions EI looking at direct transatlantic routes from main land Europe again. Are these plans in the pipeline. Surely a fleet of larger aircraft would be needed to do this.

Tenger

L1011 wrote: »

321neo can only get so far and carry so many - growth will need 330s. Additionally, some of the existing ones are quite old.

That is true but I am of the opinion that the A321LR could be an EI accountants dream aircraft. Use the same flight deck on short & long haul networks, standardise config, multiple frequencies to "offer more choice to guests", operate into a variety of smaller airports to undercut hubs routes.




I didn't read anything in that Indo article posted about looking at Euro-USA routes?


Personally I think the quote from the EI COO is moronic. MoL can insult the DAA as FR have dozens of other bases,some larger than Dublin. EI really only have a single base, they are reliant on the DAA. It's not as if they can upsticks or reallocate some of their fleet elsewhere. A phrase such as 'we have diverging opinions on growth timeframe" would have gotten the point across without sounding like an ill educated man trying to sound competent.

And talking about EI expansions plans is a bit underwhelming, this is the airline who fluffed DUB-DXB and have just announced 'bumper 2018' expansion over a 4xweekly route (approx 750 seats per week each way) to an already served city and a upguage on IAD 4 times per week!
(This is the same guy who's LinkedIn profile sounds like he singlehandedly saved his last airline, FlyBE from collapse on two occasions)

Locker10a

Tenger wrote: »

L1011 wrote: »

321neo can only get so far and carry so many - growth will need 330s. Additionally, some of the existing ones are quite old.

That is true but I am of the opinion that the A321LR could be an EI accountants dream aircraft. Use the same flight deck on short & long haul networks, standardise config, multiple frequencies to "offer more choice to guests", operate into a variety of smaller airports to undercut hubs routes.




I didn't read anything in that Indo article posted about looking at Euro-USA routes?


Personally I think the quote from the EI COO is moronic. MoL can insult the DAA as FR have dozens of other bases,some larger than Dublin. EI really only have a single base, they are reliant on the DAA. It's not as if they can upsticks or reallocate some of their fleet elsewhere. A phrase such as 'we have diverging opinions on growth timeframe" would have gotten the point across without sounding like an ill educated man trying to sound competent.

And talking about EI expansions plans is a bit underwhelming, this is the airline who fluffed DUB-DXB and have just announced 'bumper 2018' expansion over a 4xweekly route (approx 750 seats per week each way) to an already served city and a upguage on IAD 4 times per week!
(This is the same guy who's LinkedIn profile sounds like he singlehandedly saved his last airline, FlyBE from collapse on two occasions)

Agreed, he's very much an underwhelming corporate manager. And the EI board would be stupid to get into a b!tch fight with the DAA.
I think the 321LR could bring huge change to EI. Who's to say in ten years somewhere like BOS wouldn't be 3x Daily with 321 and the A330s dedicated to longer further afield flights

basill

Use the same flight deck on short & long haul networks

Plan seems to change on a monthly basis but last time I heard it would be a dedicated group flying the NEOs. Not cross crewed from A330 to A321 and vice versa or A321/0. That would leave three dedicated fleets as such. If I was to guess I would say its being driven by the regulator more so than planning.

duskyjoe

In defence of EIN's COO, I think it's is pure frustration as an anchor tenant getting the heave ho for gates leading to inordinate delays on my TA flights.

Locker10a

basill wrote: »

Use the same flight deck on short & long haul networks

Plan seems to change on a monthly basis but last time I heard it would be a dedicated group flying the NEOs. Not cross crewed from A330 to A321 and vice versa or A321/0. That would leave three dedicated fleets as such. If I was to guess I would say its being driven by the regulator more so than planning.

Other airlines happily have their pilots fly a constant mix of NEO and CEO, it's not an issue. Operating 3 separate fleets for 2 aircraft types seems very inefficient to me.
The NEO was designed specifically not to complicate training and operations for crews

IrishYamm

What about the cabin crew? At the moment the crew operating the 757 doesnt operate the 330 and vice versa. Its either 320-75 or 320-330. With the 321LR, will the cabin crew be operating both 320 and 321LR/330 or will we see a long haul and short haul crew divided in two groups?

Locker10a

IrishYamm wrote: »

What about the cabin crew? At the moment the crew operating the 757 doesnt operate the 330 and vice versa. Its either 320-75 or 320-330. With the 321LR, will the cabin crew be operating both 320 and 321LR/330 or will we see a long haul and short haul crew divided in two groups?

No id imagine everyone will operate everything! With the only exception being A330 pilots. EI is a relatively small airline, anything else wouldn't make for efficient productivity. BA who once had two completely separated fleets, one long haul one short haul has in recent years amalgamated the two for new contract crew.

IrishYamm

Locker10a wrote: »

No id imagine everyone will operate everything! With the only exception being A330 pilots. EI is a relatively small airline, anything else wouldn't make for efficient productivity. BA who once had two completely separated fleets, one long haul one short haul has in recent years amalgamated the two for new contract crew.

Thats right but in BA u still have crew 320/380 and 320/777. They dont operate the WHOLE fleet like in the US because easa doesnt allow more than 2 ac families as part of the license

Locker10a

IrishYamm wrote: »

Locker10a wrote: »

No id imagine everyone will operate everything! With the only exception being A330 pilots. EI is a relatively small airline, anything else wouldn't make for efficient productivity. BA who once had two completely separated fleets, one long haul one short haul has in recent years amalgamated the two for new contract crew.

Thats right but in BA u still have crew 320/380 and 320/777. They dont operate the WHOLE fleet like in the US because easa doesnt allow more than 2 ac families as part of the license

You're correct except I think EASA Allowed three aircraft types unless this is changed. So for example BA cabin crew on mixed fleet all operate the A320series family, then the operate either the 777and A380 or the 777 and 747. Some may possibly have the 787 subbed in too instead of 777?!

Lapmo_Dancer

AFAIK, 320 family pilots operate a fixed 5 on 3 off roster. I’m not sure how efficient it would be to fit a transatlantic operation into this pattern.

IrishYamm

Locker10a wrote: »

You're correct except I think EASA Allowed three aircraft types unless this is changed. So for example BA cabin crew on mixed fleet all operate the A320series family, then the operate either the 777and A380 or the 777 and 747. Some may possibly have the 787 subbed in too instead of 777?!

I thought the 747/777 were same family in terms of license for the crew. 777/787 are definetly the same regarding the license for crew anyway.

Bussywussy

duskyjoe wrote: »

In defence of EIN's COO, I think it's is pure frustration as an anchor tenant getting the heave ho for gates leading to inordinate delays on my TA flights.

Absolutely a waste of staff resources moving aircraft around...and trying to actually get work done...

IE 222

Tenger wrote: »

That is true but I am of the opinion that the A321LR could be an EI accountants dream aircraft. Use the same flight deck on short & long haul networks, standardise config, multiple frequencies to "offer more choice to guests", operate into a variety of smaller airports to undercut hubs routes.




I didn't read anything in that Indo article posted about looking at Euro-USA routes?

This part of the article.

The airline is also planning to launch direct routes between the United States and mainland Europe, according to Mr Rutter.

He also confirmed that Aer Lingus will take delivery of eight A321LR aircraft between 2019 and 2020 that will be used to further bolster its transatlantic network.

Locker10a

IrishYamm wrote: »

Locker10a wrote: »

You're correct except I think EASA Allowed three aircraft types unless this is changed. So for example BA cabin crew on mixed fleet all operate the A320series family, then the operate either the 777and A380 or the 777 and 747. Some may possibly have the 787 subbed in too instead of 777?!

I thought the 747/777 were same family in terms of license for the crew. 777/787 are definetly the same regarding the license for crew anyway.

You may be correct on the 777/787 being the one license, but Definatly not the 747/777, they're very different aircraft, everything from Doors, equipment, aircraft layout, emergency drills and positions and areas of responsibility would be vastly different.
You'd be surprised how many technicalities there are involved for Cabin crew when it comes to aircraft. For example Norwegian have two separate fleets of 787 crew in the Gatwick base. One is a dedicated fleet of crew who can only operate on British registered aircraft for Norwegian UK. And the other operate on the Irish and Scandinavian registered airline. As the two fleets have separate regulatory bodies the crew cannot be mixed as the aircraft have different legally required equipment and standards of training and are regulated under differing authorities. In order to transfer crew from one fleet to the other crew must undergo a short training course, despite the aircraft being more or less identical.

alancostello

Locker10a wrote: »

You may be correct on the 777/787 being the one license, but Definatly not the 747/777, they're very different aircraft, everything from Doors, equipment, aircraft layout, emergency drills and positions and areas of responsibility would be vastly different.
You'd be surprised how many technicalities there are involved for Cabin crew when it comes to aircraft. For example Norwegian have two separate fleets of 787 crew in the Gatwick base. One is a dedicated fleet of crew who can only operate on British registered aircraft for Norwegian UK. And the other operate on the Irish and Scandinavian registered airline. As the two fleets have separate regulatory bodies the crew cannot be mixed as the aircraft have different legally required equipment and standards of training and are regulated under differing authorities. In order to transfer crew from one fleet to the other crew must undergo a short training course, despite the aircraft being more or less identical.

The 777/787 share a common type rating, as do the 757/767 and the A330/A340 and A330/A350, however typically someone would only be rated for A330/A340 or A330/A350 as very few airlines have all three(though Lufthansa is the exception operating on a triple type rating, with Iberia soon to join as they start getting their A350s).

Mebuntu

And talking about EI expansions plans is a bit underwhelming

I think the EI expansion plans are crazy. Total reliance on US routes -all eggs in one basket. Another 9/11 or similar and that's that gone out the window and the likelihood of something like that happening has dramatically increased given the petulance of Mr. T and Kimboy.

JCX BXC

Mebuntu wrote: »

I think the EI expansion plans are crazy. Total reliance on US routes -all eggs in one basket. Another 9/11 or similar and that's that gone out the window and the likelihood of something like that happening has dramatically increased given the petulance of Mr. T and Kimboy.

Maybe some expansion to Canada would be good?

The ME is really not smart, they've tried DXB before, there's a total dominance by the ME3 and Turkish airlines in that part of the world, very much doubt they'd be successful especially with no codeshare.

Locker10a

Lapmo_Dancer wrote: »

AFAIK, 320 family pilots operate a fixed 5 on 3 off roster. I’m not sure how efficient it would be to fit a transatlantic operation into this pattern.

You could do 2 days of Europes and a BOS or PHL followed by landing day and days off. Practically part time. Although they may well work it out with dedicated Europes / transatlantic crew pools. But doing both would mix things up for pilots a bit. Also EI pilots still have preference bidding ?

Noxegon

JCX BXC wrote: »

The ME is really not smart, they've tried DXB before, there's a total dominance by the ME3 and Turkish airlines in that part of the world, very much doubt they'd be successful especially with no codeshare.

Can't imagine why anyone would choose the EI product over EK/EY/QR. Only way they have a chance is with a direct service to a key destination in Asia.

IE 222

JCX BXC wrote: »

Maybe some expansion to Canada would be good?

The ME is really not smart, they've tried DXB before, there's a total dominance by the ME3 and Turkish airlines in that part of the world, very much doubt they'd be successful especially with no codeshare.

There is a sizable and growning Irish population in Saudi Arabia if ME was a option a bit far fected but some codeshares could make it very successful. Large Islam interest as well would boost numbers along with US connections.

Should look at European medium haul flights. St. Petersburg, Moscow, Israel, Cyprus. Belgrade plenty of Serbians living here as well.

A319er

Further summer new routes will be announced in due course, DAA and EI need to agree stand allocation and towing to avoid annother summer like this year, brutal delays on the operation and EI impacted way more than any other Longhaul carrier

Locker10a

A319er wrote: »

Further summer new routes will be announced in due course, DAA and EI need to agree stand allocation and towing to avoid annother summer like this year, brutal delays on the operation and EI impacted way more than any other Longhaul carrier

Yeah they'd need to get a serious plan into action for access to the gates in particular around T2. Some flights this summer have waited 15-20 mins after landing for stand access, often because of the congestion on the taxiway, blocking taxi access to free gates

alancostello

IE 222 wrote: »

There is a sizable and growning Irish population in Saudi Arabia if ME was a option a bit far fected but some codeshares could make it very successful. Large Islam interest as well would boost numbers along with US connections.

Should look at European medium haul flights. St. Petersburg, Moscow, Israel, Cyprus. Belgrade plenty of Serbians living here as well.

I’m amazed there isn’t a Tel Aviv/Israel flight already, not only for the obvious religious aspect but the massive technology industry. The a321lr configured with flat beds would be perfect here, BA flies mid-haul a321s with flat beds there and they’re a treat.

Mebuntu

Locker10a wrote: »

Yeah they'd need to get a serious plan into action for access to the gates in particular around T2. Some flights this summer have waited 15-20 mins after landing for stand access, often because of the congestion on the taxiway, blocking taxi access to free gates

The DAA ignored the pleas of the pilots and ATC to not build T2 where it is, explained the inevitable consequences....but the DAA being the DAA...

Van.Bosch

Mebuntu wrote: »

I think the EI expansion plans are crazy. Total reliance on US routes -all eggs in one basket. Another 9/11 or similar and that's that gone out the window and the likelihood of something like that happening has dramatically increased given the petulance of Mr. T and Kimboy.

It might be boring but it is there only real option, I would say if they were given 10 new LH aircraft tomorrow, 90% would be utilised to North America.

Irish Steve

Mebuntu wrote: »

The DAA ignored the pleas of the pilots and ATC to not build T2 where it is, explained the inevitable consequences....but the DAA being the DAA...

The DAA have a lot to answer for, but there is another issue, which is the Aer Lingus turnround times on the 330's is significantly longer than the turnround that some of the other carriers operate with, and that longer time is needed to allow some slack to recover when things go bad, or some line maintenance work is needed. The other carriers are not based in Dublin, and don't do significant work during turnrounds at Dublin, so their gate occupancy time is less.

A long time ago, long before T2, we used to have to tow an American Airlines 767 off gate to remote parking because the gate was needed for other flights, and then bring it back again later in the day after the first wave had gone, so this is by no means a new problem.

The problem with T2 is that the access to the gates is very badly designed, and the restrictions on American border control mean that only T2 can be used for those flights. Now add in a significant increase in wide body flights that want/need access to T2, and you have a huge problem that can only be overcome by towing aircraft off to remote parking, which is time consuming and expensive to do, and takes longer as a result of the loss of the parking that used to be close to the old C pier.

The lack of wide body stands is going to be a long term problem that won't be solved easily, or cheaply, and I am not sure that DAA has the capability to see the bigger picture clearly enough to come up with a real long term solution.

joeysoap

Mebuntu wrote: »

The DAA ignored the pleas of the pilots and ATC to not build T2 where it is, explained the inevitable consequences....but the DAA being the DAA...

Is there any way passengers could leave an aircraft by the rear doors at T2.? I accept it would be awkward loanding by the rear doors, though this doesn't stop RY do it from doing it everywhere. What's to stop AL saying they're moving their short haul flights to T1? Could still check in at T2 and walk over to T1.

I notice at Faro AL (and others, BA among them) are shunted to the end of the airport for parking, and bus transfer to the arrivals gate. EJ park in the centre of the airport and use the air bridge. RY almost always park in the same place as EJ but don't use the air bridge. In winter it seems silly AL parking at the very end of the airport when the whole middle is empty. Why do they allow that?

L1011

joeysoap wrote: »

Is there any way passengers could leave an aircraft by the rear doors at T2.?

Its done frequently, particularly on late inbound shorthaul craft. Front on the bridge, rear gets steps and you climb in to the head of the bridge.

If you mean in the old LHR bus-for-connecting-pax way, possibly but you'd rarely get the volume to a single flight and there's no dedicated access to the transfer desks anyway. You still get VS having buses from door 2 on EI to specific short connecting flights at LGW, particularly LAS so the idea has not died off.

joeysoap wrote: »

What's to stop AL saying they're moving their short haul flights to T1? Could still check in at T2 and walk over to T1.

Capacity in T1. They already have multiple shorthauls a day using T1 (the former B pier/300 gates) and the bus gates for Regional are basically in T1 too. There isn't capacity to move everything and they don't need to as in the evenings T2 is quiet.