Aer Lingus Fleet/Routes Discussion

JCX BXC · 19-02-2015 9:46pm #1

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?

b757 · 19-02-2015 9:47pm

Carnacalla wrote: »

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?

3/4 Months now, white with EI titles.

Tenger · 19-02-2015 10:10pm

12 weeks is what was announced originally.

JCX BXC · 19-02-2015 10:17pm

Tenger wrote: »

12 weeks is what was announced originally.

You are correct, and Im very confused about this, but it appears that the B767 is being leased for 6 months rather than the 12 weeks that it will be utilised on the SNN-BOS route.

This Article says 12 weeks
http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/32736-aer-lingus-to-wet-lease-a-b767-in-summer-2015

And

This newer article says June-December
http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/34058-aer-lingus-settles-on-omni-air-for-b767-lease-requirements

Tenger · 19-02-2015 10:23pm

Carnacalla wrote: »

.....
This newer article says June-December
http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/34058-aer-lingus-settles-on-omni-air-for-b767-lease-requirements

The extension of the B767 lease is based on the cancellation of the A332.
This article is the only source for the 'cancellation' of the planned lease of A332 MSN 330. (ex EI-EWR)

The A332 isn't supposed to be around till late March so we may have to wait and see if it does appear.

And the published EI schedule requires 8 aircraft ex-DUB (not including the 12 week early DUB-JFK route) and 2 aircraft out of SNN. So am not sure how the B767 will 'replace' the A330 ex DUB.

JCX BXC · 19-02-2015 10:26pm

Tenger wrote: »

The extension of the B767 lease is based on the cancellation of the A332.
This article is the only source for the 'cancellation of the lease of A332 MSN 330. (ex EI-EWR)

The A332 isn't supposed to be around till late March so we may have to wait and see if it does appear.

So, EI-EWR, that used to be in the fleet, am I correct? Was it being brought into service the new IAD route from DUB?

I really dont understand all this

Tenger · 19-02-2015 10:34pm

EI need 4 A330 to cover the daily departures. (105,109,137,123)
They need another 2 (ish) to cover the SFO and MCO routes. (147,121)
The last 2 cover the 3/4 weekly ORD, BOS and DUB-IAD. (125,139,129)

Its not that simple (a/c don't stick to only one route) but I had it worked out on paper a few weeks back.
52 weekly departures, with 7 most days, 8 departures on Wednesday.

It was supposed to be EI-EWR returning to EI service. The article you posted seemed to nix that. However no other info has come to light.
And the CH-Aviation article references Jethros which has been incorrect in the past.

Operationally introducing a B767 into DUB is adding complexity. Not compatible with the way EI shuffle their aircraft across most routes.

Preset No.3 · 19-02-2015 11:18pm

What is the J class product on the 767 like?

JCX BXC · 20-02-2015 12:07am

Another Web Fourm wrote:

Some interesting fleet changes planned for this Summer and over the next 2-3 years; the planned A330-200 for this Summer (EI-EWR) is apparently not going ahead, because EI is trying to source an A333.

Also, the A319 fleet will be down by one unit next year (apparently to be replaced by a 321), and the A319s will be completely gone by 2017.

No word at all about A330NEos. Fourth 757 looks likely by next Summer (2016).

I have sourced these from another fourm website. Interesting insight into the fleet changed for the next few years.

JCX BXC · 20-02-2015 12:25am

Preset No.3 wrote: »

What is the J class product on the 767 like?

http://beaerospace.com/products/seating-products/business-class/millennium/

These will be the J class seats used by Aer Lingus for the 767

Razor44 · 20-02-2015 12:28am

I assume it would be a 2nd hand A321 coming into the fleet?

JCX BXC · 20-02-2015 12:30am

Razor44 wrote: »

I assume it would be a 2nd hand A321 coming into the fleet?

Almost definitely. No formal order for an A321 has been made with Airbus AFAIK so it would be practically impossible to get a new one within a year.

Tenger · 20-02-2015 12:46am

I would expect to see EI-EWR ferried to BOD for refit and maintenance before we see it in SNN or DUB pre-lease. EI don't actually need it until April.
The CH-Aviation article states a Jun-Dec lease on the B767....this is 2 months after the EI SUmmer schedule commences,another reason to distrust their info.
DUB-IAD however starts May 1st

Carnacalla wrote: »

I have sourced these from another fourm website. Interesting insight into the fleet changed for the next few years

The number mentioned line up with what was announced by EI in their Sept update. It showed fleet make-up from now until 2020 (with "further leasing options as required" added to cover any change)
http://corporate.aerlingus.com/investorrelations/regulatorynews/2014pressreleases/AerLingus_september_analyst_presentation.pdf

Look at page 20 for longhal fleet plan. 4xB757/narrow body in 2016, rising to 5 in 2019.
8x A330 for 2015-2017, 3/6 A350/A330 in 2018, 6/3 in 2019, 9x A350 in 2020.

Page 22 has shorthaul fleet, 320/321/319
2015 looks like 29/3/4, looks to drop an A319 and gain an A321 in 2016.

Preset No.3 · 20-02-2015 1:27am

Why would they get rid of the 319's? I thought they were rather successful on some of the thinner routes and some of the low loads on the LHR-DUB route.

That plan does not make a lot of sense at all.

Crumbs868 · 20-02-2015 7:07am

Preset No.3 wrote: »

Why would they get rid of the 319's? I thought they were rather successful on some of the thinner routes and some of the low loads on the LHR-DUB route.

That plan does not make a lot of sense at all.

Hopefully it's the ex Iberia ones, on some sections the legroom is worse than a bus. Always see people complaining on it and flight attendants moving people around.

Can't understand why they don't just take a row out and adjust

arubex · 20-02-2015 9:57am

The 767-200 will be a pretty rare bird in scheduled passenger service when Aer Lingus starts using it.

I think the Air Italy I-AIGI has been grounded for some time.

Air Zimbabwe's pair are both still flying, mainly to and from South Africa.

Transaero's EI-CXZ is busy out in Thailand but 'CZD doesn't seem to have flown in several months.

May be one of the last chances to fly on the stubby model.

L1011 · 20-02-2015 10:40am

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Hopefully it's the ex Iberia ones, on some sections the legroom is worse than a bus. Always see people complaining on it and flight attendants moving people around.

Can't understand why they don't just take a row out and adjust

I believe all 4 are ex-Iberia. They realigned the seats from a business/economy spacing to even on the first two over their first winter but never did the second two. Didn't even lose a row.

JCX BXC · 20-02-2015 12:16pm

arubex wrote: »

The 767-200 will be a pretty rare bird in scheduled passenger service when Aer Lingus starts using it.

I think the Air Italy I-AIGI has been grounded for some time.

Air Zimbabwe's pair are both still flying, mainly to and from South Africa.

Transaero's EI-CXZ is busy out in Thailand but 'CZD doesn't seem to have flown in several months.

May be one of the last chances to fly on the stubby model.

Us airways have a few. Its often used on bru-phl.

highlydebased · 20-02-2015 1:02pm

Carnacalla wrote: »

Us airways have a few. Its often used on bru-phl.

Actually, US Airways retired them all last week!

JCX BXC · 20-02-2015 1:07pm

highlydebased wrote: »

Actually, US Airways retired them all last week!

Oh! No harm, they had no PTV's and were quite old. There was a us airways 767-200 in Shannon quite a few times last year. Often used as a replacement when the 757's were out of service.

How old are the Omni's?

arubex · 20-02-2015 1:32pm

Carnacalla wrote: »

How old are the Omni's?

2001, ex-Continental.

Connie displaced them with 757s.

Van.Bosch · 20-02-2015 3:35pm

I appreciate that airlines that over extend themselves and grow too fast can go out of business but EI seems to me to be getting traction on its DUB hub so I think its expansion plans are a little conservative. There are years in that attachment where they anticipate no fleet growth at all.

On the LH side i would think a few more routes from Dublin would help develop the hub, even if to code share partner hubs like Houston or Miami. They obviously have a lot more exposure to the data than me and perhaps they have eleceted to go very slow and steady.

For the S/H its more competitive ex Dublin so will be interesting to see the decision taken on the 4 returning from Virgin.

FridaysWell · 20-02-2015 3:51pm

Van.Bosch wrote: »

I appreciate that airlines that over extend themselves and grow too fast can go out of business but EI seems to me to be getting traction on its DUB hub so I think its expansion plans are a little conservative. There are years in that attachment where they anticipate no fleet growth at all.

I suppose that conservative approach can be explained by Aer Lingus looking to improve their fleet utilisation perhaps, and definitely improve their load factors on their existing routes.

Additionally, not everything could go according to the plan/strategy laid out in those documents. They may (hopefully) require fleet additions when they thought they didn't.

Tenger · 20-02-2015 5:52pm

I would agree with the opinion that it is conservative expansion. However this blueprint is in place following on from the unsustainable expansion by EI in 2006-2008. In 2009/2010 they pulled out of SFO, LAX and IAD, as well as scaling back their LGW and BFS base's.
In 2014 they relaunched DUB-SFO, DUB-IAD returns this June. However at this point they have a better business model in place with better cost base and load factoers. They are less reliance on the island economy that we live in.

And while the longhaul fleet may not be growing in numbers the introduction of the A350 (planned for 2018) will increase capacity, improve efficiency and upgrade the inflight product. (The expected introduction of the A321neo-LR will be a similar upgrade to the B757's)

Snow Leopard · 20-02-2015 8:39pm

With the continued macroeconomic uncertainty across much Europe, I think EI would be prudent to stick with the rather conservative plan they have. As Tenger mentioned above, the A350s will boost seat capacity and the latest wave of expansion will take some time to "bed in". As thinner routes (such as IAD for example) are added, EI will need to closely the examine their effect on routes that would have previously fed traffic to these cities (typically JFK and ORD).

JCX BXC · 20-02-2015 9:52pm

Surely if EI want to develop Dublin into a hub, they will expand into more U.S destinations? The market is back and stronger than before thanks to passengers transferring and using USPC, so routes that weren't viable back in say 2005, wouldn't these be more viable now? EG. LAX.

Also, I think EI should have a more aggressive short-haul expansion. Ryanair is adding several new routes each year, its only so long before they run circles around EI. Aer Lingus should try Russia and maybe Isreal before Ryanair do.

River Song · 21-02-2015 3:00am

arubex wrote: »

May be one of the last chances to fly on the stubby model.

I've been mulling over the thought of doing SNN-BOS-JFK-DUB coming back on the daytime flight. This might be more of an incentive to do that!

Tenger · 21-02-2015 9:50pm

Carnacalla wrote: »

Surely if EI want to develop Dublin into a hub, they will expand into more U.S destinations? The market is back and stronger than before thanks to passengers transferring and using USPC, so routes that weren't viable back in say 2005, wouldn't these be more viable now? EG. LAX....

LAX was profitable for EI, In 2009 it was cut as it was more efficient and cost effective to serve the East coast(over and back in under 24 hours)
Looking at the current situation it isn't that LAX is/isnt viable, its that SFO is more profitable. (especially with the low level of onboard service on it,the EI bean counters are loving that route)

JCX BXC · 21-02-2015 10:40pm

Tenger wrote: »

LAX was profitable for EI, In 2009 it was cut as it was more efficient and cost effective to serve the East coast(over and back in under 24 hours)
Looking at the current situation it isn't that LAX is/isnt viable, its that SFO is more profitable. (especially with the low level of onboard service on it,the EI bean counters are loving that route)

I know LAX is profitable, and I know that SFO and east coast destinations are probably more so. My point is that they should expand more rapididy and get LAX and other destinations going. They have increasing numbers of UK pax under their belt now so they might as well increase their business.

Maybe LAX isn't the best idea with Ethopian going on the route, but they certainly should launch more US and even Canadian routes.

Would Mexico city or maybe Cancun be viable?

Tenger · 21-02-2015 10:51pm

Well the new CEO ia very US-centric.

I cant see Mexico ever being an option for EI. Cancun would be seasonal at best, an relatively low yield compared to their East Coast routes.

I would hope to see 2-3 more routes to US/Canada in the next 3-4 years

JCX BXC · 21-02-2015 10:56pm

Tenger wrote: »

Well the new CEO ia very US-centric.

I cant see Mexico ever being an option for EI. Cancun would be seasonal at best, an relatively low yield compared to their East Coast routes.

I would hope to see 2-3 more routes to US/Canada in the next 3-4 years

For these routes, will they all be A330 or could a 757 or two be thrown in to service these?

Locker10a · 22-02-2015 12:04am

My question RE: the EI fleet is when will they actually commit to the 321NEO ? It has been rumored for what feels like years at this stage!!

JCX BXC · 22-02-2015 12:17am

Locker10a wrote: »

My question RE: the EI fleet is when will they actually commit to the 321NEO ? It has been rumored for what feels like years at this stage!!

It will take me a long time to get used to the idea of T/A 757's being replaced with A321's. A long time. The A320 family is very much seen as an inter-continental jet, using it on T/A doesn't seem right.

Sure we have the A318's from LCY to JFK and the 737's from DUB to YYT, but that's on a small scale, and a truely widescale operation still seems very unusual.

I would also be concered with the A321 NEO, as it has a shorter range and less seats than a 757, so in effect its not a true replacement. Sure its the closest we have ever gotton, but I think Airbus need to go just a little further with the A321NEO, make it a little longer and have a little further range.

Van.Bosch · 22-02-2015 12:17am

Tenger wrote: »

Well the new CEO ia very US-centric.

I cant see Mexico ever being an option for EI. Cancun would be seasonal at best, an relatively low yield compared to their East Coast routes.

I would hope to see 2-3 more routes to US/Canada in the next 3-4 years

Is that what you expect or would like to see? I think that is realistic but I would wonder if it is a case of standing still is going backwards/ missing an opportunity.

I'm not talking about 15 new routes but I would think 6/7 routes in that timeframe. Thinking about it that's 5/6 extra aircraft which does seem out of character

Locker10a · 22-02-2015 1:14am

Carnacalla wrote: »

It will take me a long time to get used to the idea of T/A 757's being replaced with A321's. A long time. The A320 family is very much seen as an inter-continental jet, using it on T/A doesn't seem right.

Sure we have the A318's from LCY to JFK and the 737's from DUB to YYT, but that's on a small scale, and a truely widescale operation still seems very unusual.

I would also be concered with the A321 NEO, as it has a shorter range and less seats than a 757, so in effect its not a true replacement. Sure its the closest we have ever gotton, but I think Airbus need to go just a little further with the A321NEO, make it a little longer and have a little further range.

Well that's what the 757 was designed for originally ! Transcontinental US flights and high capacity inter European flights, it's now a key transatlantic aircraft and has opened up huge markets . The 321NEO is set to simply continue the work the 757 has done which it ironically was never designed to do !! I think the 321NEO could be great for thinner US routes ex SNN for example and for adding frequency on other key routes like DUB - JFK in the future . I was certainly under the impression EI were interested in it maybe I'm wrong !? Anyone know ?

man98 · 22-02-2015 1:59am

I hope this fabled 4th 757 goes for daily Montreal Trudeau flights.

sully2010 · 22-02-2015 4:13am

Carnacalla wrote: »

It will take me a long time to get used to the idea of T/A 757's being replaced with A321's. A long time. The A320 family is very much seen as an inter-continental jet, using it on T/A doesn't seem right.

Sure we have the A318's from LCY to JFK and the 737's from DUB to YYT, but that's on a small scale, and a truely widescale operation still seems very unusual.

I would also be concered with the A321 NEO, as it has a shorter range and less seats than a 757, so in effect its not a true replacement. Sure its the closest we have ever gotton, but I think Airbus need to go just a little further with the A321NEO, make it a little longer and have a little further range.

Airbus have gone further with the LR and that pretty much wraps it up, it will open up a lot of potential new routes for airlines. 757 is history and Boeing have lost "the replacement" battle, as much as they dont want to admit it.

homerjay2005 · 22-02-2015 11:33am

Is 201 seats not a very low number for a 767???

would have expected at least 250 for these planes and to make business sense, surely they need more than 200 passengers on these planes.

man98 · 22-02-2015 11:47am

homerjay2005 wrote:

would have expected at least 250 for these planes and to make business sense, surely they need more than 200 passengers on these planes.

As it (correct if I'm wrong) for these smaller 767s that is the norm. I think I saw somewhere that Omni 767-200s are 216 economy seats, 12 | 189 just takes two rows out and changes to 2 - 2 - 2. I'd say it's nor worth their while making it better, I'd be surprised if these was IFE at all.

FridaysWell · 22-02-2015 11:48am

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Is 201 seats not a very low number for a 767???

would have expected at least 250 for these planes and to make business sense, surely they need more than 200 passengers on these planes.

With the right revenue and yield management, to match appropriate demand profiles, 201 seats for a transatlantic route is fine.

JCX BXC · 22-02-2015 1:14pm

man98 wrote: »

As it (correct if I'm wrong) for these smaller 767s that is the norm. I think I saw somewhere that Omni 767-200s are 216 economy seats, 12 | 189 just takes two rows out and changes to 2 - 2 - 2. I'd say it's nor worth their while making it better, I'd be surprised if these was IFE at all.

To clarify, you are mostly correct. It is a 767-200 which is smaller than the usual 767-300 therefore has less seats.

Each economy seat has personal TV screens BTW.

Tenger · 22-02-2015 2:49pm

I think the 1-2 new T/A routes a year is a realistic expansion plan for EI. Looks at SFO, 4 weekly last year,up to daily today. This is reflected by the 2xdaily DUB-ORD being scaled back to 11 weekly. A new route will have an impact on existing ones. Launching a route is easy, making it viable and successful is another question. I can see some routes launching with the B757...then after 2 years being upgraded to the A330 if successful.

Locker10a wrote: »

My question RE: the EI fleet is when will they actually commit to the 321NEO ? It has been rumored for what feels like years at this stage!!

Well the end of the B757 has been in view for a few years now. There has been constant debate about its replacement for probably a decade now. (Production stopped in 2004)
Once the A320neo program launched it raised the question about a B757 replacement. At the same time the axing of the B787-3 and the spec on the B737-MAX showed that Boeing wasn't going for a direct replacement.
This debate has only been quietened 2 months ago with the official announcement of the A321neo-LR version.

While this doesn't truly replace the B757 it covers (along with the A321neo and the B737-9MAX) approx 90% of current B757 missions. You have many internet experts talking about this gap, but in reality you are talking about a market of approx 100-200 airframes. So would you alter your design just to gain 100 extra orders? This alteration would impact on the efficiency of your design.(of which you plan to get 1000+ orders)

man98 · 22-02-2015 11:05pm

The 321N-LR (congrats to me I found a name for it) does the 100 extra miles needed, and is licenced to take 240. It's the closest replacement anyone will churn out, as well as piggy backing on EI (along with most B752 carriers) using A320 the family, higher parts commonality I presume.

Tenger · 22-02-2015 11:12pm

man98 wrote: »

The 321N-LR (congrats to me I found a name for it) does the 100 extra miles needed, and is licenced to take 240. It's the closest replacement anyone will churn out, as well as piggy backing on EI (along with most B752 carriers) using A320 the family, higher parts commonality I presume.

But Airbus already have a name for it!
The A321neo-LR will be a altered version of the planned A321neo. It will have reduced cargo capacity due to the fitting of extra fuel tanks.

So pretty much 100% parts compatibility with A320neo/A321neo.
While it doesn't have the full range of the B757 Airbus historically improves range/payload as production ramps up..I would expect a similar weight loss/engine PiP for this aircraft.

L1011 · 22-02-2015 11:46pm

Tenger wrote: »

There has been constant debate about its replacement for probably a decade now. (Production stopped in 2004)

Unfortunately (as someone who'd prefer to be back in 2005...), while there has been debate since production ended,........

It would probably have been earlier except for the 757-300 sales push, at that.

EI really need to decide on their large narrowbody craft for the future, longhaul or not, as the 321s they have are old and have had a heavy enough life. If the economy continues on its current track and traffic figures match they're likely to need more for the existing shorthaul schedule; and under IAG they'll almost certainly be using them to LHR to allow elimination of the BA rotations.

JCX BXC · 22-02-2015 11:48pm

If only United started the transatlantic 757 revolution a few years earlier.

L1011 · 22-02-2015 11:56pm

2004 Tenger

Its odd to think that the A300 even managed to outlive it in production despite being nearly a decade older; but the reality is that the 757 was far too much plane for 95% of what it was ever used for; TATL is a tiny fraction of what it does even now.

Tenger · 22-02-2015 11:57pm

Carnacalla wrote: »

If only United started the transatlantic 757 revolution a few years earlier.

I thought it was Continental who started using B757-200's T/A. But this was after production ended.
The use of the B757 actually came about due to the post-9/11 downturn. New aircraft were not bought and airlines had to make existing routes more efficient. So the B757 started to replace B767's on some less profitable routes....

L1011 wrote: »

2004 Tenger ...

I really should check Wikipedia more often!!

Time for bed for me then....

JCX BXC · 23-02-2015 12:00am

L1011 wrote: »

TATL is a tiny fraction of what it does even now.

I doubt that, Alot of the american beasts are replacing their domestic 757's with A320/A321's and 737's. Soon Id say that TATL will be the main use of 757's

L1011 · 23-02-2015 12:00am

Tenger wrote: »

I thought it was Continental who started using B757-200's T/A. But this was after production ended.

First 757s TATL were charter airlines in the 80s, Continental started in the mid 1990s with a few routes, as did BA and AA.

It was the winglet retrofit which came out after production ended that really pushed the TATL routes though; brought the range up enough to change a lot of routes from marginal to possible most days.

JCX BXC · 23-02-2015 12:01am

Tenger wrote: »

I thought it was Continental who started using B757-200's T/A.

Sorry you are correct, with Continental merging into United I mixed the names.

Aer Lingus Fleet/Routes Discussion

Comments