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

goingnowhere

Based on frame number very late 2019 if lucky

liiga

goingnowhere wrote: »

Based on frame number very late 2019 if lucky

Ok thank you for let me know

Locker10a

sherology wrote: »

One of the main 'underfloor' benefits of the a330 are their large (and containerised) bellies... Similar for a320 series (excluding the LR, but including the XLR). Couple that with a lot of modern travelers taking only carry-on (encouraged by expensive bag fees), and you get a lot of belly space for no additional 'dedicated/single-fucntion' outlay.

A lot of expensive cargo airframes with Qatar/ethiad etc. were parked during recent recession's, and freighter sales are generally pretty low, likely for the reasons given. A lot of upfront money for a very uncertain/unpredictable market.

Sweating (or maximizing) assets and being risk adverse isn't a bad thing

So are the 321neoLR don’t take the standard containers ?

sdanseo

Strumms wrote: »

Could the same or similar seat pitch but when coupled with it being a narrow body, single aisle aircraft with a lower ceiling there is more of a cramped feeling to the whole experience...I’ve always liked the A321 as an aircraft but I have to say I wouldn’t enjoy being on one for six hours...it would feel very cramped very quickly...I can imagine too lots of people getting up, stretching their legs, going to talk to friends who are sat elsewhere as happens on ALL transatlantic flights...this on a narrow body single aisle aircraft is no good and will add to the cramped feeling..

This is the crux of it. A barn with a kitchenette and a bed in it can have the same floor space as a high end mansion and can house you just as well, but no one in their right mind would move from a mansion to a barn.

The dual aisle setup feels more like a long-haul space, the second aisle generates the illusion of a huge amount more space than there actually is (for example if it was 4-4 vs 2-4-2 it would feel a hell of a lot smaller).

321LR are a fantastic aircraft and very capable for shorter TA routes. That doesn't mean I'd rather them to an A330, much the opposite. But most people don't care and three main things will continue to drive people to EI: price, service level and preclearance.

Locker10a wrote: »

So are the 321neoLR don’t take the standard containers ?

It takes LD3-45 whereas an A330 takes LD3. They are the standard for the A320 series but have a significantly smaller volume (and therefore cargo volume is less than a quarter of the A330)

Hotblack Desiato

The LR can take fewer of them too compared to a standard 321, due to the space taken up by the fuel tanks.

sherology

Locker10a wrote: »

So are the 321neoLR don’t take the standard containers ?

The LR uses cargo space (up to 4 containers) for add-in/removal able fuel tanks (heavy and take up a lot of space... But you get extra range).

The XLR has an integrated larger fuel tank (built in), that takes up the space of only 1-addition tank, so will allow more belly space. It is the true trucker, with the LR being a abit of a design-patch-job... Bit it does the job

Hotblack Desiato

When EI get XLRs they'll then have the option of removing the tanks from LRs, turning them into standard 321neos, and using them exclusively on Euro routes. The existing 321ceos are getting old and will have to be replaced within a few years.

Van.Bosch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

When EI get XLRs they'll then have the option of removing the tanks from LRs, turning them into standard 321neos, and using them exclusively on Euro routes. The existing 321ceos are getting old and will have to be replaced within a few years.

Yeah but the cabin would have to be refitted to take out the business class seats.

goingnowhere

And they would need to activate the currently hidden full size exit door behind the wing for evac requirements if they densify. If AerSpace does well (and it could be winner on LHR/CDG/FRA) there may be a case to keep full J seating.

EI is leasing here so assume as a break clause in the future so could swap out to XLR for all. XLR is the better hull, you get more fuel and more hold volume

adam88

goingnowhere wrote: »

And they would need to activate the currently hidden full size exit door behind the wing for evac requirements if they densify. If AerSpace does well (and it could be winner on LHR/CDG/FRA) there may be a case to keep full J seating.

EI is leasing here so assume as a break clause in the future so could swap out to XLR for all. XLR is the better hull, you get more fuel and more hold volume

Why didn’t they just get the xlr then in that case or was it a case the the LR are a stop gap until the xlr are available.

What have they done to the XLR that it has the extra range,,,, is it the same engine and same plane in terms of length and size ???

L1011

The XLR wasn't on offer at the time and still hasn't flown yet

Locker10a

adam88 wrote: »

Why didn’t they just get the xlr then in that case or was it a case the the LR are a stop gap until the xlr are available.

What have they done to the XLR that it has the extra range,,,, is it the same engine and same plane in terms of length and size ???

I think this was best answerd by Sherology 3 posts up
: - “The XLR has an integrated larger fuel tank (built in), that takes up the space of only 1-addition tank, so will allow more belly space. It is the true trucker, with the LR being a abit of a design-patch-job... Bit it does the job”

goingnowhere

XLR is what the LR really should have been.

But time to market is a concern, the A32x ceo already had ACT tanks as an option so they have proven in service solution to make the 321neo kill the Boeing 757/MAX and grab orders before the long promised 797 (half way between the 737 and 767) appeared.

The XLR will deliver the impossible, more range, more hold space, less weight. So accountants will love it as its cost per seat/km will be lower than the LR and lower again vs the 757

Will Airbus do something to the wing on the XLR? the A321 was always a bit undersized, the current idea of single slotted flaps and some FMS A350 voodoo will help. But the plan is to keep to the code C 36m wingspan, 777X folding wings......?

Only thing wrong with the XLR is no bogie landing gear, would do wonders to runway length requirements as thats where the 757 is still a winner it has too much power, great stopping power and can climb rapidly.

sherology

adam88 wrote: »

Why didn’t they just get the xlr then in that case or was it a case the the LR are a stop gap until the xlr are available.

What have they done to the XLR that it has the extra range,,,, is it the same engine and same plane in terms of length and size ???

A few years back Airbus was having a hissy fit as the neo engines were causing issues, historic management was being investigated and were leaving, sales were sluggish (of a350/330neo) etc. etc. so airbusz with no other competition (from Boeing), did a minimal 'versioning' of the a321neo, adding up to 4-ACTs, increasing MTOW to 97t (with no change of gear etc.)... And you get the LR.

With an NMA in the minds of many, and with calmer heads and new management, Airbus this year finally launched their original 'thought/desigb'... the XLR. This model has a very large and VERY space-saving design, built-in. It weights only the same as 1 ACT (400kg each I think), and has a higher MTOW of 101t with strengthening of gear and wings/box no doubt, and a single slat of the wing as opposed to a split-slat... But that, only just released, is not available until 2023.

Same engine/thrust.. but I believe lessor think/request it may need a bit of a bump. Based on EI's experience on the wet runway... Perhaps that kick in thrust is warranted (and no doubt possible.

Hope this helps.

liiga

Photo of Ei-EIM New Aerlingus A330-300

https://aibfamily.flights/A330/1950

Cloudio9

liiga wrote: »

Photo of Ei-EIM New Aerlingus A330-300

https://aibfamily.flights/A330/1950

Don't think that livery will ever grow on me.

Comhrá

Cloudio9 wrote: »

Don't think that livery will ever grow on me.

Apart from the tail, the long A333 looks like an aircraft with just an undercoat

of white, being prepared for storage in the desert or similar. A very 'unfinished'

appearance.

john boye

Comhra wrote: »

Apart from the tail, the long A333 looks like an aircraft with just an undercoat

of white, being prepared for storage in the desert or similar. A very 'unfinished'

appearance.

To the me it looks like a hire in frame in a generic 'meh' livery with a shamrock and titles quickly slapped on it.

Kev11491

Shame they didnt do something similar to aeroflot with the belly

kevinandrew

I really like it now, my local airport is Heathrow and ‘eurowhite’ is pretty common here so when I look at the new Aer Lingus livery I don’t see an unfinished design or an aircraft getting ready for storage, I see an Irish version of Lufthansa, Qantas etc which isn’t exactly unique but is perfectly acceptable and looks quite sharp.

The new livery is simple but more coherent, the previous one had a few design flaws like the window stripe starting so abruptly and the titles on the fuselage missing the shamrock when the guidelines insisted that they should never be used as a stand alone logo.

One thing I have noticed is how much better Airbus have been at painting the new livery, the obvious difference being the lime green stripe being thicker and swooping further forward just like the official renders show. The repaints of current aircraft have all had thinner stripes and appear awkwardly placed.

alancostello

kevinandrew wrote: »

One thing I have noticed is how much better Airbus have been at painting the new livery, the obvious difference being the lime green stripe being thicker and swooping further forward just like the official renders show. The repaints of current aircraft have all had thinner stripes and appear awkwardly placed.

You know I never noticed that before, in all the repaints the swoop is still a foot or two away from the last window, but on the A321LRs and the new A330 it actually clips the bottom of the last window.

kevinandrew

alancostello wrote: »

You know I never noticed that before, in all the repaints the swoop is still a foot or two away from the last window, but on the A321LRs and the new A330 it actually clips the bottom of the last window.

Yep. The easiest comparison would be between EI-EDY and EI-EIM when it's delivered but you can even compare the likes of EI-CVA and EI-LRA and spot the obvious difference.

If we base the paint jobs on the official renders, Airbus have done the better job by a mile.

[Deleted User]

I think it looks good on the 320, 321 but not the 330. Too much white and the Aer Lingus titles are way too small on the 330. Easy switching of aircraft between IAG airlines when needed though and that's what makes most sense in the long term.

kevinandrew

sully2010 wrote: »

I think it looks good on the 320, 321 but not the 330. Too much white and the Aer Lingus titles are way too small on the 330. Easy switching of aircraft between IAG airlines when needed though and that's what makes most sense in the long term.

The ease of switching aircraft between IAG airlines really isn't the motive. How often do aircraft change hands between the IAG airlines? Hardly ever.

There's this myth that IAG is some kind of mega airline when really it's just a glorified holding company. The cooperation between most of the IAG brands is very limited bar a few exceptions, Aer Lingus and Iberia don't even codeshare let alone share aircraft.

[Deleted User]

kevinandrew wrote: »

The ease of switching aircraft between IAG airlines really isn't the motive. How often do aircraft change hands between the IAG airlines? Hardly ever.

There's this myth that IAG is some kind of mega airline when really it's just a glorified holding company. The cooperation between most of the IAG brands is very limited bar a few exceptions, Aer Lingus and Iberia don't even codeshare let alone share aircraft.

They are and were never meant to be one mega airline. It was a merger that has progressed to a consortium. If they were not one group, in all likelihood Iberia, EI and Veuling would be all but gone and bust. As a group they have massive economies of scale and bargaining power.

Iberia took EI's A350's because it worked best. If EI needed an extra 330 and Level wasnt hitting targets on a route it would be very efficient and cost effective to shift one to the other in a short space of time. Its good long term business strategy in an industry where every cent counts.

kevinandrew

sully2010 wrote: »

They are and were never meant to be one mega airline. It was a merger that has progressed to a consortium. If they were not one group, in all likelihood Iberia, EI and Veuling would be all but gone and bust. As a group they have massive economies of scale and bargaining power.

Iberia took EI's A350's because it worked best. If EI needed an extra 330 and Level wasnt hitting targets on a route it would be very efficient and cost effective to shift one to the other in a short space of time. Its good long term business strategy in an industry where every cent counts.

I don't disagree. I'm aware of what IAG is and stands for thanks to my own time spent there but to say the new Aer Lingus livery was motivated by ease of transfer within the group is, at best, a stretch.

Examples of currently operational aircraft transferring between IAG fleets is few and far between, certainly not in the numbers now or in the future to be a deciding factor in livery design.

Cloudio9

kevinandrew wrote: »

The ease of switching aircraft between IAG airlines really isn't the motive. How often do aircraft change hands between the IAG airlines? Hardly ever.

There's this myth that IAG is some kind of mega airline when really it's just a glorified holding company. The cooperation between most of the IAG brands is very limited bar a few exceptions, Aer Lingus and Iberia don't even codeshare let alone share aircraft.

True Also as a passenger. I flew an itinerary recently on a BA ticket that included BA,EI and AA. It felt like AA and BA were part of the same company with EI being independent. Most of that was down to one world. With Ei leg couldn’t use lounge and couldn’t do seat selection.

ohigg84

kevinandrew wrote: »

Yep. The easiest comparison would be between EI-EDY and EI-EIM when it's delivered but you can even compare the likes of EI-CVA and EI-LRA and spot the obvious difference.

If we base the paint jobs on the official renders, Airbus have done the better job by a mile.

If you compare EI-EDY and EI-EIM, you'll notice the difference with the font titles of A330-300 just at the forward of the fueslage.
EDY has the old Airbus font titles and has the airbus logo right beside A330-300.

EIM has the new A330-300 font titles but lacks the Airbus logo.

bikeman1

A couple of questions:

What is stopping EI becoming a member of One World like BA, IB & AA? It would be really helpful if they did. I would consider flying with them more if they did. EI to me are just a connector to the US and a bucket and spade airline. There is very limited flights to anywhere in Central and Eastern Europe.

When is the free booze on TA starting with EI? This was mooted ages ago, but I have not heard anything recently.

Cheers.

HTCOne

AA are by far the worst of thr large US airlines. I sincerely hope EI don't join OW for the sake of the JetBlue JV