Airlinercafe Home Page

Stop being a lurker - join our community and get involved. Sign up and start a conversation!
 

      Author Message

      aro757


      Administrators

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 1864
      Location: San Ramon, CA
      Occupation: Software Engineer
      Age:

      Post #1152, posted on 05-06-2004 GMT-5 hours    
      I just read one of the articles in the news section about EasyJet struggling to make a profit. In the article it said that competion, Ryanair, was advertising some rates for 79 pence. Yes, US $ 2.80!!! How can they afford those kinds of prices?

      Now, have you noticed how every airline starts going downhill after they switch from 737s to Airbus Narrowbodies. I can name a few: Ansett, US Airways, United, Sabena, EasyJet, etc. Is there really anything to it, or just coincidence? I think there is something to it.

      Regards,

      ahmed

      Author Message

      Hugh Thomson


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 79
      Location: London
      Occupation: Lawyer
      Age:

      Post #1153, posted on 05-07-2004 GMT-5 hours    
      You have to be careful with Ryanair quotes. Yes the 'fare' is cheap but once they start throwing in all their various 'service charges' it is not quite so cheap as it appeared initially. Furthermore, you have to allow for the fact that you must spend more money getting to the out of town airport they use (where landing charges are low) and finally fares bounce up and down depending on the season. A fare to one destination one week is ridiculously low - but come school holidays the fare to the same destination increases substantially.

      Although I would defer to others who have more knowledge of the industry than myself (a mere amateur) I don't think you can suggest a causal link between the adoption of the A320 and financial collapse. But the adoption of the A320 may be symptomatic of other problems. From what I have heard the airlines concerned found themselves in circumstances where it was necessary to seek greater cost efficiency and for that reason adopted the A320. I read the book on the Rise and Fall of Ansett published by 'Australian Aviation' (go to www.ausaviation.com.au). This suggested that Ansett's position may have been improved substantially if the airline had standardised on one type (instead of running a rag tag collection of aircraft of varying cost effectiveness) and this type should have been a mixture of A320s and A321s. Instead Ansett ran a number of types simultaneously which must have been an organisational nightmare - while the problems they had with the B767s did their reputation a lot of harm.

      The sale figures for the A320 speak volumes for that aircraft.

      Author Message

      aro757


      Administrators

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 1864
      Location: San Ramon, CA
      Occupation: Software Engineer
      Age:

      Post #1156, posted on 05-07-2004 GMT-5 hours    
      Hi Hugh,
      Of course I was being sarcastic but I still think that there is some kind of bad luck associated with purchasing the Airbus Narrowbody line.

      Regards,

      ahmed

      Author Message

      Ahmad


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 11
      Location: Florida
      Occupation: LAME
      Age:

      Post #1158, posted on 05-07-2004 GMT-5 hours    
      Hi Ahmed,

      I do disagree with your statement about Airbus narrowbody planes, i.e. A320 family aircraft.
      They proved to be very reliable planes as far as safety, economics and dispatch punctuality are concerned.
      I don't think that there is some kinda bad luck associated with A320 purchase.
      I think, EasyJet got themselfs into the trouble.Avertising prices of 2.80 USD is unthinkable!!How ever can any airline in the world cover their expenses if the price for a ticket is 3 usd??? This is ridiculous

      regards

      regards,
      Ahmad

      Author Message

      200scale


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 63
      Location: Scarborough
      Occupation: Always in Uniform
      Age: 52

      Post #1159, posted on 05-07-2004 GMT-5 hours    
      Well, here's my 2 cents...Isn't one of the things these low cost airlines go for is, for starters, high turnaround? Wouldn't this be a lot easier with a 737(or MD-80 or F100) due to it being lower to the ground? This is something I see, but of course I'm not in the industry, just an observer...

      Author Message

      Graeme


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 315
      Location: Townsville TSV YBTL
      Occupation: Retired
      Age: 72

      Post #1224, posted on 05-20-2004 GMT-5 hours    
      now stritly toungue in cheek, but Ansett had A320's for a very long time, and in fact were the launch customer for the 200 series, then were taken over by an all Boeing airline (Air New Zealand), who cut off Ansett and let them sink, and are now virtually a Goverment owned airline, who are switching to A320's.
      Also starting next week with B717's but shortly switching to A320's will be the Qantas owned budget airline Jestar
      hmmmmmmmm......

      Graeme

      Author Message

      logojet


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 182
      Location: Manchester
      Occupation: Consultant Aerospace Engineer
      Age:

      Post #1286, posted on 05-26-2004 GMT-5 hours    
      So, following the theory through, all Boeing has to do would be to wait a little longer until all the A320 customers have gone to the wall and then they will have regained monopoly control of the short/medium range airliner market. Bit of a long shot in my opinion.

      Arthur


      Author Message

      Bas


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 402
      Location: Rotterdam
      Occupation: Student
      Age: 29

      Post #1289, posted on 05-26-2004 GMT-5 hours    
      So in a few years Europe's largest ailine will be LOT. Because British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, Iberia, Swiss, Alitalia, TAP, Aer Lingus, Austrian, SN Brussels and Finnair will be bankrupt. And KLM is gone too because of that stupid merge.

      So that's a missed chance for KLM

      In progress:
      An-124 Volga-Dnepr
      Daco 737-300 VARIG
      Challenger CL-604

      Author Message

      Andy White


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 135
      Location: Bristol UK
      Occupation: Bit of everything.
      Age:

      Post #1321, posted on 05-30-2004 GMT-5 hours    
      Hasn't Frontier switched from 737s to Airbuses? Are they doing bad too?

      Andy

      Author Message

      Andy White


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 135
      Location: Bristol UK
      Occupation: Bit of everything.
      Age:

      Post #2175, posted on 10-19-2004 GMT-5 hours    

      Although not converting from 737s, Spirit are replacing their MD-80s with Airbuuses. Seen the new silver & black colour? Prefer the blue squares personally. Now to see how their fortunes hold up.

      Andy

      Author Message

      Kiwi727


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 10
      Location: Wellington
      Occupation: Airport Caterer
      Age:

      Post #5275, posted on 05-09-2005 GMT-5 hours    
      Ansett australia had a lot of inbuilt union problems, like overmanning and excessive pay scales. Their 767-200s were the only ones ever built with a three man cockpit to satisfy the unions.

      Ansett Australia became a subsidiary of Air New Zealand before it's collapse. I worked for Air NZ at the time of it's demise. Ansett's experience with the A320 was encouraging. It persuaded Air NZ to abandon the 733. I was a loader at that time. Yes the hieght of the baggage hold door sill does make a practical difference. The 737-200 was almost waist hieght. The 737-300 baggage sill was chest height and the 737-700/800 required the incredible hulk to get into.

      The A320 benefits however from modular containers in the hold which reduces manpower from about five loaders and one driver (733) to one hi-lift operator and one dolly driver for an A320. Yes the A320's sill is higher than all the Boeings, but it does not matter with containerised cargo.

      Because I have been investigating setting up my own airline venture recently I wanted to know the economics of all the aircraft I would have to compete with in my local market, so I ran the numbers for 721, 722, 733, 738 and A320. The 160 seat A320 has better economics than the 180 seat 738 with winglets.

      What is unnerving for any airline which moves up from 733 to A320 is the cost of leasing or purchase.
      The Boeing 737-300 is relatively cheap and pleantiful. A cheap freehold plane makes more money thatn one where you're still paying off the mortgage ... Bottom line

      Author Message

      Kiwi727


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 10
      Location: Wellington
      Occupation: Airport Caterer
      Age:

      Post #5295, posted on 05-10-2005 GMT-5 hours    
      PS It is worth a moment to reflect on Jet Blue using the A320. It has 17-18 A320s being delivered each year for the next five years. these are all funded from revenues and not loans so they must be doing something right. I still like the Boeings better, but the A320 is a very tidy airplane if you ever get to go on one.