Aer Lingus Fleet/ Routes Discussion Pt 2 (ALL possible routes included)

I haven't a had laugh this much off a post in ages. Inflation is near 9%.

FWIW I don't think EI staff need your take on what rates of increase they should get.

Yet the fleet/routes will come to a halt if the unions call a strike!

Aer Lingus fly to Orlando already. Have for years (pandemic aside).

Where have you seen that 3 A/C are required ? There won't be. If you are referring to the extra FAO flights in July, AMS is reduced to cater for this.

Did EI119 the other day & it just hammered home how awful that ACF configuration is for both the passengers and the crew. 3 lavs in the back, but also in their workspace. If you're seated beyond the exit rows & jump up to use a lav at the wrong time you're likely waiting down the back for a long time for a service to finish.

It is terrific to have the 2 options to DC and, personally, the BOS/JFK-SNN routes but its an uncomfortable 5-7.5hrs on board tbh.

I felt incredibly sorry for them while I was waiting - taking up the limited space the crew member had whilst her colleagues were being harrassed by people to stupid to understand there's no way past a cart in a single aisle plane. I only have to do these flights once in a while, they have to do them every day - the jumpseat built into the lav door is insane.

The above is why imo Boeing's NMA needs to be essentially a 767-200er replacement.

I really miss the 757s, they were a very reliable and beautiful looking aircraft.

Boeing should have re-engined the 757 to kill off the A321NEO/LR.

Also they never digitised the blueprints so they were gone too. Airlines stopped buying it post 9/11 in favour of...the A321ceo and 737-900. A re-engined 757 would still be too heavy to compete on all but the most niche routes, at least according to a Boeing engineer who worked on the 757/767 programme who posts on another forum.

This is said time and again, but EI had to do it, they had to ram as much in as they could to be the golden boy in the group at the expense of their customers and crew.

The usual line trotted out is ''It's IAG spec'' it's a nonsense that does not exist. It was a decision made with pure greed in mind, 6 additional eco seats to wreck everyones head and experience. Airlines like Delta even ditched ACF because it's so toxic.

Yes I know, just sad that they ended production with 1,050 757s (including the prototype) in October 2004.

Considering the 757 was a replacement for the 727, how come it sold poorly compared to its elderly sibling?

The 727 sold 1,831 units (all models- 100/200).

The 752 looked so sharp and radiant in the EI livery (1996 colours).

The A321LR doesn't have that character or looks.

The 757s OEW is also about 8,000kg (16%) heavier than the A321neoLR but has about the same seat capacity. New engines would still leave it with significantly higher CASM without adding completely new wings and major weight savings in the rest of the aircraft which would also need new systems and avionics, which would have almost the same costs as a clean sheet design.

Despite being larger, the 787-3 could have served a similar market on paper but I recall that it's quite high weight despite reduced performance was one reason that it didn't sell.

Very true!

Boeing did however, go a stretch too far with the 737 MAX 10..

Medium rare, with pepper sauce and a nice chianti!

I see the same argument about the A220 and extra frequancy. There is no evidence this would happen and the Aer Lingus SH load factor would need to impove a lot to warrant extra frequacnies on thinner European routes and that's before yeild would be squeesed by extra capacity. They also don't have sufficent T/A capacity or frequancy to drive extra SH frequancy.

Anyone remember the plans they had for A319 and frequancy that never happened. You could argue different times but a valid point.

The KL/AF/LH have a much wider selection of routes that can justify extra frequancy either based on demand or necessary for east/west connectivity.