cson wrote: » LBR is falling apart interior wise, flew to IAD at Xmas on it. Those A321LRs can't come quick enough.
A319er wrote: » I believe it's more accurate to say inflight free drink is paid for by your employers customers, ! Anyway EY is in BOD and ER is in AUH both maintainance, with ASL 737 in daily use EI are a bit tight for frames, is first A321lr still due in July? EIS on MSP? A long summer ahead !
A319er wrote: » ................. EI are a bit tight for frames, is first A321lr still due in July? EIS on MSP?
Bussywussy wrote: » Surely rest converted to A330 options with 2 new ones coming
A319er wrote: » BR is AOG in BDL , ah well thank god for spare frames !! The grounding of the MAX will make it very difficult to sub in the usual frames e.g. Titan HiFly etc .
L1011 wrote: » Most of us probably assumed all 9 would be!
donkey balls wrote: » Quick question does EI still use the stands on the 300s or are they just using the 400s these days?
Tenger wrote: » when the info about IAG signing a contract for WiFi across the group it mentioned a number for Iberia A350s, (think it was 25) which was 9 over what wiki had for their orders. I think it’s a no-brained that EI will get the A339neo at some point. That could be 6-10 years away though. The oldest -300 is 12 years old. LAX and DAA are currently 20 and 18 years old . Updated fleet plan says 2 more A330 in 2020 with 2 more before 2023. So perhaps replace the oldest -200s with new in 5-6 years?
jesus_thats_gre wrote: » As a frequent traveller, I am glad to see this happening:https://travelupdate.boardingarea.com/aer-lingus-mood-lighting/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook I would never have believed that such a minute detail could make a difference.
Jack1985 wrote: » Where did you work out LBR was AOG in Bradley? LBR is in Shannon at the moment in maintenance. If you are referring to the cancellation of EI130 on 03/04 this was due to crew illness and the operating airframe LBT positioned home empty the same evening as EI990.
billy few mates wrote: » As a fellow frequent traveller I don't get your enthusiasm, it doesn't make any difference to my personal enjoyment of a flight so I just don't get how airlines think it's going to be some sort of a deal breaker when choosing them ahead of another carrier who possibly doesn't have mood lighting, it wouldn't even feature on the list of things I like to see but if others like it, so be it. What does annoy me though are the carriers that insist we leave the window blinds closed for the entire flight because "it interferes with the mood lighting".
NH2013 wrote: » Well I think if the effect is as advertised and it makes the boarding less stressful and the cruise more relaxing etc, then you'll leave with a better taste in you mouth than had that not been the case, and in turn be more likely to rebook/recommend to others about a relaxing stress free flight you had etc. So while the mood lights themselves may not be a reason for choosing to fly with an airline, if they make for a more pleasant flying experience it's worth a shot as it may lead to further rebookings/being able to increase the premium charged over competitors due to perceived relaxation.
billy few mates wrote: » Would you pay a premium for mood lighting..?
L1011 wrote: » The LED lighting power consumption and weight vs the flourescent tubes and ballasts will probably pay for itself in fuel consumption over the lifetime of the frames getting it.