Monarch - 3
they have never had large Boeing widebodies
Boeing 767-31KER, G-DIMB, Monarch Airlines (ZB / MON)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZeBedie
I agree with you, but you are assuming as everyone else is, that the order goes direct to the manufacturer.
Orders may go to leasing companies, as they may have slots available.
Orders may go to leasing companies, as they may have slots available.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason they have had a mixed fleet was not a concious decision of a split order of simultaneous new Boeings and Airbus, its purely been the remnants of an old fleet that Monarch have maintained and preserved well (ie the few remaining 757's). Otherwise its been majority Airbus. That's how I expect it continue for short haul fleet anyway. Given frequencies, less ties to package operators, there is no specific need to have 220 out of relative niche routes like HRG.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch exec chairman Iain Rawlinson was speaking at an industry function on Thursday. According to ATW Online (behind a paywall, so I'll quote sparingly), he said:
I attended the function in question and can confirm that he was (as you might expect at this point in negotiations 
) emphatic about the finely balanced nature of the race. My own recollection was that he referred to Airbus/Boeing availability as being from 2016 onward (because of their full order books).
“We are within weeks of finishing a fascinating three-horse race to re-equip our fleet. We are right at the end of the process now. We hope to make a final decision within the next two months. It is very finely balanced; all three are exciting products,” he said.
Airbus, Boeing and Bombardier are all in contention for the order, but Rawlinson added: “We do not mind being a pioneer of new aircraft either. The shareholders have done this before with the 757.”
Timelines for deliveries depend on aircraft availability. Rawlinson said the CSeries could enter the Monarch fleet in 2015, whereas Airbus and Boeing deliveries would only be possible from 2015 onward. “We don’t want to wait too long, but we also want to make the right decision,” he said.
Airbus, Boeing and Bombardier are all in contention for the order, but Rawlinson added: “We do not mind being a pioneer of new aircraft either. The shareholders have done this before with the 757.”
Timelines for deliveries depend on aircraft availability. Rawlinson said the CSeries could enter the Monarch fleet in 2015, whereas Airbus and Boeing deliveries would only be possible from 2015 onward. “We don’t want to wait too long, but we also want to make the right decision,” he said.
) emphatic about the finely balanced nature of the race. My own recollection was that he referred to Airbus/Boeing availability as being from 2016 onward (because of their full order books).
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well i guess they can get the C series ahead of the Airbus or Boeing, but the longer version of the C series is running 6 months or so behind the shorter version and even the 300 in high density seating (28' seat pitch) only seats 160 and a 150 for the (30' seat pitch) so along way behind both Boeing and Airbus. I can't see the shorter take off run performance of the C being any benefit for Monarch on its route net work either other than perhaps GIB
The Airbus Neo is around from 2015/16 & the 737 Max from 2017/18 but i understand some un sold slots on NG's in 2016/17
I think they should stick with the bus, so i guess they'll split the order….
The Airbus Neo is around from 2015/16 & the 737 Max from 2017/18 but i understand some un sold slots on NG's in 2016/17
I think they should stick with the bus, so i guess they'll split the order….
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel, I can assure you that I know the seat pitches that we have better than most! There's not a lot of 28" seats, but we do have them.
Try the new seats, you'll like the amount if soace you get on them.
Try the new seats, you'll like the amount if soace you get on them.
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 30th Oct 2013 at 23:13.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“We are within weeks of finishing a fascinating three-horse race to re-equip our fleet. We are right at the end of the process now. We hope to make a final decision within the next two months. It is very finely balanced; all three are exciting products,” he said.
Airbus, Boeing and Bombardier are all in contention for the order, but Rawlinson added: “We do not mind being a pioneer of new aircraft either. The shareholders have done this before with the 757.”
Timelines for deliveries depend on aircraft availability. Rawlinson said the CSeries could enter the Monarch fleet in 2015, whereas Airbus and Boeing deliveries would only be possible from 2015 onward. “We don’t want to wait too long, but we also want to make the right decision,” he said.
I attended the function in question and can confirm that he was (as you might expect at this point in negotiations ) emphatic about the finely balanced nature of the race. My own recollection was that he referred to Airbus/Boeing availability as being from 2016 onward (because of their full order books).
Airbus, Boeing and Bombardier are all in contention for the order, but Rawlinson added: “We do not mind being a pioneer of new aircraft either. The shareholders have done this before with the 757.”
Timelines for deliveries depend on aircraft availability. Rawlinson said the CSeries could enter the Monarch fleet in 2015, whereas Airbus and Boeing deliveries would only be possible from 2015 onward. “We don’t want to wait too long, but we also want to make the right decision,” he said.
I attended the function in question and can confirm that he was (as you might expect at this point in negotiations ) emphatic about the finely balanced nature of the race. My own recollection was that he referred to Airbus/Boeing availability as being from 2016 onward (because of their full order books).
A fleet overhaul schedule of C300, sharklet the existing A321s and run them on until deivery slots become available for A321neos would make alot of sense and one very competetive and versatile fleet.
On a personal level, I hope Boeing do not get to the winning post with a B737 proposal. It's an aircraft I dislike intensely, despite its undisputed commercial success. The Sky interior does little to belie the aircraft's shortcomings; the floor is too high which encroaches on shoulder space, the windows sre consequently too low that you crick your neck to view out, the fuselage width, whilst only a matter of cm different, is noticeably narrower than the A320. It's the last evolution of a 50 year old design before Boeing come up with a new narrow body, it's performsnce is constrained by its short gear which in turn leads to a compromised engine offerring compared to the Airbus neo. No matter how many winglets, chevrons or other aerodynamic tweaks they attach to the wingtips, the B737-900MAX is going to be runway hog and a performsnce dog in charter config. There are too many compromises with the -MAX, for Monarch's requirements that it will boil purely down to price if they get the order.
Airbus has the advantage of a longer gear, allowing an uncompromised new gen, engine to hang underneath. Whilst only cms different, the cabin is noticeably wider and more spacious. The neo will be able to fly every route currently flown by Monarch's A320 family and B757, and will be the only narrowbody on the market able to haul 220 pax from the Red Sea resorts, Banjul or Cape Verde - UK, guaranteed non-stop, year round; on a 35C day in HRG, the -900MAX will be leaving people and bags there.
The C300 will have a capacity of 160 passengers @ 28" pitch, though it will also have 19" wide seats, noticeably more than the average 17.4" economy offerring and range to cover almost the entire network, though those not attainable are already served by the larger A321 and B757.
Comparing directly with TOM, a C300/A321 fleet would give a more versatile short haul fleet over TOM's B737-800/ -800MAX which, when every commercial opportunity has to be explored, could give MON the edge, especially on routes where demand is seasonally different.
Exciting times ahead for Monarch.
Last edited by StoneyBridge Radar; 31st Oct 2013 at 07:29.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stoney
Thoughtful analysis and you are probably correct at the 220 seat level, but 220 seats puts you at 5 CC min and you have to fill them, an A321 is simply to big for much of what Monarch seem to want to become i.e. a LoCo schedules airline, conversely the C300 is to small the A320/737 it the sweet spot, the current NG with SFP can do Cape Verde or Banjul from the UK and the Sky interior really does make a big difference.
The 737Max is of course much later into service date than the Neo and yes its the last throw of the dice for a very old but ultra reliable design and probably cheaper to buy.
So i think incremental airbus additions until new build are available. I just don't get the C300 argument, who else in this sector apart from Air Baltic have ordered them? plus it will likely be a dead end type rating for crews, just like the CRJ/E145…..be careful what you wish for.
The 737Max is of course much later into service date than the Neo and yes its the last throw of the dice for a very old but ultra reliable design and probably cheaper to buy.
So i think incremental airbus additions until new build are available. I just don't get the C300 argument, who else in this sector apart from Air Baltic have ordered them? plus it will likely be a dead end type rating for crews, just like the CRJ/E145…..be careful what you wish for.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would Monarch be interested in the Sharklet retrofit for the A321 when they do not own the aircraft.
If Monarch go to Airbus or Boeing, both manufactures will be offering CEO & NG as a stop gap before NEO & MAX are available, as they are with other operators.
If Monarch go to Airbus or Boeing, both manufactures will be offering CEO & NG as a stop gap before NEO & MAX are available, as they are with other operators.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Al tube.
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say again slowly,
I flew on G-OJEG few yrs ago from BHX and the seat pitch was equal to about 26". For some reason it had different config that others I have flown on.
It had rigid wire pocket to put the newspapers on the back of the seats.The man next to me cut his knee quite badly on a bit of the wire .
Without doubt it was the most uncomfortable plane I have even been on
We flew back on another one and it was much better, with collapse able seat back pockets.
Still because of the 1st flt my wife states she will never fly MON again.
Pity as would like to give the new seats a try.
I flew on G-OJEG few yrs ago from BHX and the seat pitch was equal to about 26". For some reason it had different config that others I have flown on.
It had rigid wire pocket to put the newspapers on the back of the seats.The man next to me cut his knee quite badly on a bit of the wire .
Without doubt it was the most uncomfortable plane I have even been on
We flew back on another one and it was much better, with collapse able seat back pockets.
Still because of the 1st flt my wife states she will never fly MON again.
Pity as would like to give the new seats a try.