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

From current guidance EI, only expect to operate 8 A330's in FY21, that will eventually see 7 parked, including all -200 series aircraft. All 3 A321ceo's will remain grounded in FY21 also, as well as 5 A320's (the latter subject to change).

The A321LR fleet grows from 4 to 8 in FY21. Net operational fleet reduces from 56 to 45 (Or - 20%).

Avoation1091 wrote: »

Would they be two of the 3 A330 in Shannon? DUO & DUZ had test flights from SNN last week.

No reg's in the system yet, seems one from SNN the other ex-DUB.

LRD is back flying.

I'd imagine all East coast destinations bar ORD and JFK will be LRx operated.

The operating efficiencies of the NEO will deliver a lower cost base vs flying just about anything else and EI's cost base is already relative low vs anyone else on long haul EU/US/CA. Unless Jetblue join the party no American airline can compete on cost.

EI's advantage is it has NEOLR's today, the MAX10 doesn't exist yet and there are relatively few NEOLR's flying.

The NEO's weakness in term of weight vs runway vs range isn't going to be a huge issue as you won't be running +90% LF. If things start to get busy you bring a A330 back.

thy XLR couldnt go from dublin to LA or Phoenix etc could it? if they were reconfigured to lower capacity from the below quoted, would it still be more profitable than flying an A330?

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a320-family-differences/

The A321XLR has a range of 8,700km (5,405mi) and a typical two-class capacity of 180-220.

Can't see EWR working 7 days, could easily cut out EWR by upscaling to A330 on both JFK's, can't see SEA working on a 7 day operation either 4-5 weekly might work. MSP and MIA are gone which isn't surprising.

EWR/IAD/PHL will probably get split to 3/4 weekly so you could cover all three and BDL with 3 aircraft

Given Airbus current state can they get 4 more LR's to EI by May?

Idbatterim wrote: »

thy XLR couldnt go from dublin to LA or Phoenix etc could it?

No. With Crew rest facilites required for routes that long, limited seating as a result it would outweigh any benefit.

goingnowhere wrote: »

Can't see EWR working 7 days, could easily cut out EWR by upscaling to A330 on both JFK's, can't see SEA working on a 7 day operation either 4-5 weekly might work. MSP and MIA are gone which isn't surprising.

EWR/IAD/PHL will probably get split to 3/4 weekly so you could cover all three and BDL with 3 aircraft

Given Airbus current state can they get 4 more LR's to EI by May?

There's planning here amongst the group airlines too - They are trying to maintain market share if possible within IAG - BA/IB and AA through the Atlantic venture will have capacity down on those routes.

The plan is 8 neo, 2 already out of the hanger without full c/s and engines yet, 2 more will follow.

This is the right schedule for recovery, the fleet will be down overall by 20%. This is simply having the right aircraft and operating costs for the best chance of regaining market share over others once travel resumption occurs across the NA.

Avoation1091 wrote: »

Are they still hoping to bring YYZ back? I assume they will resume the rest of the routes at the end of March? All dependent on restrictions.

Yep, but as you rightly said it’s all dependent on restrictions.

For EWR alone;

You have VS gone, Icelandair unbookable, United dropping SNN with capacity reductions across Europe for S21. The A321LR is a game changer aircraft - They are essentially a bean counters wet dream.

It's realistic in the sense a lot of these routes (EWR/IAD/YYZ) which were previously A333 operated and now planned as A321LR will actually alone have high capacity reductions - Previously these routes had 2,191 seats per week, they will now have 1,239. That's a reduction in weekly capacity of -43.4%.

This is not unrealistic on EI's behalf. For West Coast, you have big tech and other US based industry pressuring for access to Head Offices out there - This was highlighted in a report to Gov. That's J Business.

Qprmeath wrote: »

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aer-lingus-offered-government-a-plane-to-save-millions-on-military-jet-bhjbgkt0n
EI are supposedly bringing Irish troops to Lebanon in the near future.

Thats not what the article says

Aer Lingus suggested it could convert a A330-200 into a freighter and provide it under a wet lease arrangement. Aer Lingus would maintain and fly the jet.

Aer Lingus has a lot of idle A330-200's which it owns outright and is on the hunt for any way to generate cash flow out of them.

the matter had not proceeded. Other sources have said that the state had no intention of purchasing such an aircraft for the military, despite eagerness within the defence forces.

goingnowhere wrote: »

Thats not what the article says

Aer Lingus suggested it could convert a A330-200 into a freighter and provide it under a wet lease arrangement. Aer Lingus would maintain and fly the jet.

Aer Lingus has a lot of idle A330-200's which it owns outright and is on the hunt for any way to generate cash flow out of them.

There is no A330-200 freighter conversion option so such an aircraft could only really function as a belly cargo freighter.

HTCOne wrote: »

There is a P2F 330-300 programme, which ASL operate the first of (I believe it was in DUB in recent days?), so the grunt work of any conversion certification programme has been done.

I'm aware of that but there would need to be a programme of such conversions, not a one-off.

I believe there is actually an STC for the A332, just nobody has bothered yet

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/freighter/a330p2f.html#modern

The 200 is significantly shorter between d1 and d2, there would be cog considerations and even the structural work fitting the door would be much biggger given the short distances between the doors and the cargo door.
There is a number of coms antenna in that area too which would need to be relocated.
The location of the pitots and aoa are different on the 200s too. Its not really a copy and paste exercise.
The 330 family are also a bit bogey with regards to the landing gear, the nose requires serious mods to level the aircraft in a cargo config for loading.

In the context of aer lingus and a deal with the army Id imagine there would be seats removed and/or gear just stowed on seats like omni do for the US.

Any sort of heavy equipment would require a specialist oversize aircraft id imagine which a 330 in any shape wouldnt handle.

As a longer term plan to broaded their companies business, it could be a good idea, the 200 series are pretty worthless apart from the 2 cf6 engines and with amazon expanding etc it could provided some diversity.

L1011 wrote:

I believe there is actually an STC for the A332, just nobody has bothered yet

Egyptair cargo have 3 a330-200 p2fs

billy few mates wrote: »

The reason there are such long waiting lists for conversion slots are because there are so few companies doing them.
There's a lot of work in them alright but it's not beyond the scope of the highly trained and highly skilled staff they already have. Most companies wouldn't get involved in conversion because they're more labour intensive rather than difficult or complicated but if there's not a lot else going on in the industry they could at least consider it.

Its no doubt within the abilities of the staff, however its not within the current scope of the aer lingus 145 approval if the iaa website is accurate.
Absoloutley massive modifications involved which id say is why theres only a small amount of companies offering it, experience is everything with this type of work..
It would be a incredible descision if they did indeed decided to branch out into this work and as you say the rewards are there and the business certainly is.

I'd imagine we won't see any repaints for a long time. I know they usually do them in winter but They could have repainted any of the green ones while they were parked over the last few months and didn't so I can't see them starting again anytime soon.

kevinandrew wrote: »

Aer Lingus timed the rebrand to coincide with the closest timeframe that most of their aircraft were due scheduled repaints for maintenance purposes, this saved on costs as they weren't just repainting them for the sake of a new livery but as part of the natural cycle.

Paint is essentially a protective coating that erodes over time, usually around 8 years, so with that in mind some repaints may still go ahead for maintenance reasons rather than simply just for aesthetics.

On the other hand, Aegean seems to have completely suspended its entire rebrand. They announced a new brand and livery to much fanfare just before the pandemic took hold but never actually implemented any of it apart from a few new delivery A320neos, they didn't even bother changing their website or advertising to the new look yet. Either it was poor planning by Aegean or they slammed on the breaks to save immediate costs.

The protective element of the paint wears off in the timeframe you mention, but darker colours fade over about 4 years. Just look at some of the green EI jets. When the coat was new, they look fantastic, after a few years, less so. One of the reasons the " Euro white" schemes have become so popular is that white doesn't fade to the same extent. Sure it loses the shine, but it isn't as obvious. You don't need to repaint as frequently, or at most you repaint the vertical stab and leave the rest. So instead of repainting every 4 years, you do it ever 6 or 8 years. Repainting a 747 is a 7 figure sum, low 6 figures for a 320 or 737 sized frame. Imagine the savings across a 700 or 800 odd fleet like United or Delta.

HTCOne wrote: »

The protective element of the paint wears off in the timeframe you mention, but darker colours fade over about 4 years. Just look at some of the green EI jets. When the coat was new, they look fantastic, after a few years, less so. One of the reasons the " Euro white" schemes have become so popular is that white doesn't fade to the same extent. Sure it loses the shine, but it isn't as obvious. You don't need to repaint as frequently, or at most you repaint the vertical stab and leave the rest. So instead of repainting every 4 years, you do it ever 6 or 8 years. Repainting a 747 is a 7 figure sum, low 6 figures for a 320 or 737 sized frame. Imagine the savings across a 700 or 800 odd fleet like United or Delta.

Depends on the paint job, ive seen aircraft a week out of paint a week with paint lifting and riverash! Its the same as painting cars, you get what you pay for!

kona wrote: »

Theres 1000s of staff on half hours, a ****ing repaint is far far down the list.

That's pretty much what I was referring to.