For a no-frills start-up airline ... ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: LHR/BRU
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a no-frills start-up airline ... ?
Hello Guys.
I'm gonna post this in a few areas to get general opinion, but, from a engineering point of view, what would you say is a favourable aircraft for a no-frills start-up?
buzz used the 146
easyJet used the 737-200
GO/bmibaby used the 737-300
jetBlue used the A320
From your point of view, what is a favourable type and why?
I'm gonna post this in a few areas to get general opinion, but, from a engineering point of view, what would you say is a favourable aircraft for a no-frills start-up?
buzz used the 146
easyJet used the 737-200
GO/bmibaby used the 737-300
jetBlue used the A320
From your point of view, what is a favourable type and why?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to disapoint you but Easy jet started with 737-300s, like most other lows cost set ups, I think the only real option is a 737 as they are reliable, have a set of airstairs which is a lot quicker than an airbridge, you can load and unload by hand, and are quicker to refuel than a 320, which is one of the main reasons all the low cost airlines use them. I think airbus would have to have pretty good price package on the table before the enter the low cost seen.
sump oil
sump oil
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: LHR/BRU
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BSCU that's what i thought.
When easyJet first started ops between LTN and GLA/EDI/ABZ the airline leased 2 Boeing 737-200s and their crews from GB Airways.
The airline only started to use the 737-300s a year later when it got its own AOC.
When easyJet first started ops between LTN and GLA/EDI/ABZ the airline leased 2 Boeing 737-200s and their crews from GB Airways.
The airline only started to use the 737-300s a year later when it got its own AOC.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: england
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record: easyjet started in nov '95 with 1 200 series on wet lease from GB, operated under Air Foyle's AOC. Within a week or 2 they had doubled the fleet to 2 200's. Around about 1 year later they bought their first 300 second hand from Monarch. They continued under Air Foyle for a while until going it alone, if memory serves me correctly, once they had returned the 200's.
The 300 or any other higher series (4,5,6,7,8) has to be the machine of choice for a start up. No noise problems as associated with the 200. The 737 in my book wins hands down over the A320 or 146. The 737 is self sufficient at any airport, it has it's own stairs and an APU. It's a fairly compact reliable machine that can be quickly turned around with a minimum of fuss.
The 300 or any other higher series (4,5,6,7,8) has to be the machine of choice for a start up. No noise problems as associated with the 200. The 737 in my book wins hands down over the A320 or 146. The 737 is self sufficient at any airport, it has it's own stairs and an APU. It's a fairly compact reliable machine that can be quickly turned around with a minimum of fuss.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't compare the 737 to the 146. it depends on your requirements.
146: around 100 seats, short runway operation that the 737 can only dream of, only needs gpu if no apu, a little faster than turbo props and uses around 4 tons of fuel in 1 hour
737: 150+ seats, lot faster in cruise, needs gpu and air supply when no apu..uses around 6 tons an hour (I think?)
new european fuel tax's on the horizon???
if you need airframes and now, it is easier to get hold of 737's as they are more readily available.
Don't forget that 737 is in the jet category but the 146 is between turboprops and jets, cheaper crews......
146: around 100 seats, short runway operation that the 737 can only dream of, only needs gpu if no apu, a little faster than turbo props and uses around 4 tons of fuel in 1 hour
737: 150+ seats, lot faster in cruise, needs gpu and air supply when no apu..uses around 6 tons an hour (I think?)
new european fuel tax's on the horizon???
if you need airframes and now, it is easier to get hold of 737's as they are more readily available.
Don't forget that 737 is in the jet category but the 146 is between turboprops and jets, cheaper crews......
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: near an airport, uk
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
146/RJ is probably going to be the easiest to get hold of as most operators are upgrading their fleets to CRJ or Embraier (crossair, lufthansa, B.E. for example) so there will be alot of them going cheap soon.
does really depend on where you will be operating to and what loads you want to carry though.
does really depend on where you will be operating to and what loads you want to carry though.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
146's are great from a pax point of view...they're quiet, fly nice, and land very smoothly thanks to a trailing main gear. As opposed to a '37 which is LOUD, and lands like a free-falling brick. From an operational point of view...well lets just say , one might consider having a spare 146 kicking around just in case. Dispatch reliability is good, but there is no such thing as a quick fix on a 146 when something goes wrong. ( seems like even the cabin lighting is over-engineered. Personal opinion, of course :-) )
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fokker 70 or 100 would be a great plane for a start up, only problem is perhaps getting some parts. they are good on gas, self suficient with the apu, have an airstair, large cargo capasity, and are good on short strips. also they are very quiet.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: on land
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A320 works well, this is from 3 months of experience
the only drawback is the requirement for steps, but if you get the handleing agent to do their job on time and correctly, then you see a very good product.
the only drawback is the requirement for steps, but if you get the handleing agent to do their job on time and correctly, then you see a very good product.
