nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Aer Lingus Fleet/Routes Discussion

JCX BXC

The seat map for the B767-200 being leased by EI next year are available on the Aer Lingus website, the seating is 2,3,2 in economy (As was suspected) and 2,2,2 in business

There are 189 economy seats and 12 Business seats making a total of the reported 201 seats.

Anyone know whether the B767 will be repainted, partially or entirely, in the EI colours for the 6 months that its leased for?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

john boye

alancostello wrote: »

They’d actually be a significant decrease in capacity, current A321s are 212 seats, the LRs are 186(174Y + 12J).

There are much older and much higher cycle A321s in service, so while I’m sure EI/IAG are looking at long term replacement options, it’s still a while away yet.

Sorry, I meant increase on A320 capacity.

A319er

See that UA have cancelled 2nd DUBEWR flight next summer, seems UA are really cutting IRL capscoty , SNN BFS etc

Is this EI upping capacity with ex AIR BERLIN jets plus DB ? Impacting UA ?

Jamie2k9

A319er wrote: »

See that UA have cancelled 2nd DUBEWR flight next summer, seems UA are really cutting IRL capscoty , SNN BFS etc

Is this EI upping capacity with ex AIR BERLIN jets plus DB ? Impacting UA ?

Upping to high density B772 (267 to 364) in place of second B752. Lots of B752 no longer flying T/A next year.

Now EI can't moan about USPC and stand issues at lunchtime :P

Tenger

john boye wrote: »

I'm still very curious as to how the 3 existing A321s will be replaced on the SH sun routes etc. You'd assume they'd miss the extra lift on those routes if they were to just revert to A320s.

EI/IAG have yet to make an announcement about plans to revamp/replace the current S/H fleet. The A321LRs are very much for the T/A operation.

The current A321s must be outright owned by EI and they make good use of them when extra capacity are required. I don’t see the LRs impacting their usefulness.

Aircraft mad 1

I hear two a330 from airberlin in Shnn will go to aerlingus ?

alancostello

Aircraft mad 1 wrote: »

I hear two a330 from airberlin in Shnn will go to aerlingus ?

I’d be amazed, they’re PW engined planes not CF6.

Aircraft mad 1

I’d be amazed, they’re PW engined planes not CFM.[/quote]

I don't know if it true but I just hear it

Third_Echelon

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

I've been at 2 huge (fcuking huge) manufacturing plants in the US and they have a similar policy regarding photography.

Far too many various processes on show to allow people in with phones/cameras

once I even had to turn over my wrist watch & car key.

I was working at the Embraer plant in Brazil, about an hour away from Sao Paulo for a few weeks. They had a sign at the security checkpost saying that no cameras, harddrives etc were allowed. They never checked, just asked. Security was quite relaxed.... I didn't take any pictures as I could probably lose my job and my employer would get into trouble, so not worth it... but it was cool walking through the plant floor as they made military and commercial jets, helicopters etc... Being a plane nut, I loved it!

goingnowhere

alancostello wrote: »

I’d be amazed, they’re PW engined planes not CFM.

CFM don't make a A330 engine...

Captain_Crash

goingnowhere wrote: »

CFM don't make a A330 engine...

Fairly sure he means CF6 which are made by GE, who also make or are at least involved with CFM.

alancostello

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Fairly sure he means CF6 which are made by GE, who also make or are at least involved with CFM.

Exactly what I meant, thanks. I shouldn't post late at night clearly.

Jamie2k9

alancostello wrote: »

I’d be amazed, they’re PW engined planes not CF6.

If the price was right I think they would be prepared to make an exception.

Locker10a

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

alancostello wrote: »

I’d be amazed, they’re PW engined planes not CF6.

If the price was right I think they would be prepared to make an exception.

Out of interest, why would airlines not want mixed engine types?
Would the cost be that great? I’m assuming the problem is having spares and specifically certified mechanics. Could they just outsource engine maintenance as an temp measure for a few years to avoid having to deal with spares and training?

goingnowhere

Also crew training, different engines, different performance and numbers, EPR vs N1/N2 etc

Beyond the engine its the same

L1011

Power by the hour contracts have massively reduced the effort and complexity (but not the cost, for an airline with an established in house maintenance op at least) of using multiple suppliers. Whether older s/hand birds are going to have engines on PBTH is questionable.

alancostello

An A320 had to return to Cork today after smoke appeared in the cockpit:

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2017/1102/917034-cork-flight/

Assuming it's a relatively small issue, how long would it take to get the plane back in the air after the emergency exits had been used like that?

Locker10a

alancostello wrote: »

An A320 had to return to Cork today after smoke appeared in the cockpit:

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2017/1102/917034-cork-flight/

Assuming it's a relatively small issue, how long would it take to get the plane back in the air after the emergency exits had been used like that?

Couple of hours normally to fit a slide, they make take it out of service for a day

kona

Locker10a wrote: »

Couple of hours normally to fit a slide, they make take it out of service for a day

Id say there would be damage done to the hatches lying on the ground too.
Whats the story with passengers taking it upon themselves to open the hatches without a commanded evacuation?

goingnowhere

Interesting that only the overwing slides are deployed, the front/rear are still in place from what I can see.

kona

goingnowhere wrote: »

Interesting that only the overwing slides are deployed, the front/rear are still in place from what I can see.

Looks like some passengers got excited.

L1011

goingnowhere wrote: »

Interesting that only the overwing slides are deployed, the front/rear are still in place from what I can see.

Presumably because, as the post above suggested, passengers pulled them without instruction. One does it and they'll probably all do it.

Locker10a

goingnowhere wrote: »

Interesting that only the overwing slides are deployed, the front/rear are still in place from what I can see.

Yeah because no evacuation order was given, apparently the pax sitting over the wings took it upon themselves to initiate an evacuation

[Deleted User]

kona wrote: »

Id say there would be damage done to the hatches lying on the ground too.
Whats the story with passengers taking it upon themselves to open the hatches without a commanded evacuation?

And possibly damage done to the airframe depending on how the hatches were discarded

kona

Deleted User wrote: »

And possibly damage done to the airframe depending on how the hatches were discarded

Well at least the system worked! Theres a photo floating around of the passengers on the wing but returning into the aircraft to get off by the steps.
Id say those hatches were dropped straight onto the wing so could be some damage alright!

JCX BXC

The AVG herald post reads like the crew elected against an evacuation and returned to stand, however, while on stand, some passengers got excited and pulled the shoots!

kevinandrew

Pure stupidity, I understand fear and panic being a factor for passengers but if it was safe enough for the aircraft to taxi to a stand and there was no evacuation order given, there really is no excuse for someone to open the over wing exits and initiate their own evacuation! That one person may have caused damage to the aircraft and risked passenger safety.

EI-GAL is the former Aeroflot bird, delivered new in 2009 but I wonder what state they received it in? I seem to remember it's entry into service was delayed slightly due to work bringing it up to Aer Lingus' standard overrunning.

The aircraft involved in the Cardiff diversion a few weeks ago was EI-DEM, so unrelated.

[Deleted User]

I’m told there is significant damage to the exit doors and that it is a significant six figure sum for repair plus cost of the two slides.

Passengers would have been ordered back in because it would be far safer in this case to have them disembark via the stairs than slide down on to the concrete and possible either friction burn themselves or break something landing hard.

I personally hope they send said passengers a bill.

duskyjoe

There will be NO ex Berlin 330s joining the AL fleet.

Cravens

duskyjoe wrote: »

There will be NO ex Berlin 330s joining the AL fleet.

Indeed.

Probably a greater chance of them buying some ancient A330-301’s back before another engine type joins the fleet. As far as I’m aware, EI isn’t the market for A330-200’s anyway, and if they were, there are some more suitable candidates knocking about.

Noxegon

kevinandrew wrote: »

Pure stupidity, I understand fear and panic being a factor for passengers but if it was safe enough for the aircraft to taxi to a stand and there was no evacuation order given, there really is no excuse for someone to open the over wing exits and initiate their own evacuation!

I think you're being a bit hard on the passengers here.

If the smoke in the cockpit was also present in the cabin then I think it's perfectly reasonable for passengers to initiate an evacuation when the plane stops moving regardless of instruction.

I was involved in an emergency landing back in 2009. On that occasion, the captain made a PA explaining the problem (unsafe gear) and possible outcomes, then said that chances are we would have a normal landing and that no evacuation would be necessary. He was also careful to say that those in the exit rows should take no action unless otherwise instructed by crew. I wonder if the Shamrock captain did the same thing.