Fleet commonality vs introducing "more efficient" type
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: By the fridge
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fleet commonality vs introducing "more efficient" type
With fuel costs reaching new heights and the market becoming more and more volatile, I was wondering what would be the best choice for an airline (let's say LCC) in terms of fleet choice.
I take for example the A318 versus Emraber's 190-195. In an airline that needs the A320-321 for dense markets but has also niche markets that require smaller aircraft, can Emrbaer's fuel efficiency -along with 19min turnarounds- outweigh Airbus' advantage in terms of fleet commonality and therefore savings on training, maintnenace...?
I take for example the A318 versus Emraber's 190-195. In an airline that needs the A320-321 for dense markets but has also niche markets that require smaller aircraft, can Emrbaer's fuel efficiency -along with 19min turnarounds- outweigh Airbus' advantage in terms of fleet commonality and therefore savings on training, maintnenace...?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rural Virginia
Age: 70
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The market for a given region/sector will be the determining factor in a/c choice. General things to consider also:
- will the market grow? and, are we trying to make it grow?
- how much infeed to the route structure can be expected?
- how many spares will be needed to meet possible MEL requirements? and where will they be kept?
- how many a/c do we need in our entire system? (nbr of a/c vs. nbr of seats)
- would commonality have an impact on a/c selection, for instance the A318 to A321 range?
- what happens when/if we expand?
Training and maintenance are high dollar items, with maintenance continuing to mount up over the a/c's life. jetBlue, for example, decided that yes, it is more advantageous to split between a/c types to feed one into another. Mind you, they went for some years with only the one a/c type before determining they desired some fleet diversity. Time and market share will usually drive any decision on fleet type. For niche markets, where smaller may be better, start small and work up. My 2 cents worth, backed by 26 years in this biz.
Cheers, y'all.
- will the market grow? and, are we trying to make it grow?
- how much infeed to the route structure can be expected?
- how many spares will be needed to meet possible MEL requirements? and where will they be kept?
- how many a/c do we need in our entire system? (nbr of a/c vs. nbr of seats)
- would commonality have an impact on a/c selection, for instance the A318 to A321 range?
- what happens when/if we expand?
Training and maintenance are high dollar items, with maintenance continuing to mount up over the a/c's life. jetBlue, for example, decided that yes, it is more advantageous to split between a/c types to feed one into another. Mind you, they went for some years with only the one a/c type before determining they desired some fleet diversity. Time and market share will usually drive any decision on fleet type. For niche markets, where smaller may be better, start small and work up. My 2 cents worth, backed by 26 years in this biz.
Cheers, y'all.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A318?...you must be jocking..I think the Embraer will outweigh the 318 by far...by the way,how many 318 were sold,and who bought it,for pure commercial reasons?
...
...
Bear Behind
This is not very straightforward, really. I have to make some assumptions. if they're wrong tell me.
1) You are an LCC. That means your Embraer would have 115 seats or so if an E195; a shade over 100 if you use the E190. The A318 would have 132. That would mean that the higher seat count of the A318 would start to outweigh any trip-cost advantage on a per seat basis. So, question 1 - can you fill the additional seats?
2) Do you train in house? If the answer is yes, and you already have A320s, you already have an A320 sim. Your A320 sim works for the A318. If you already have an A320 sim and take Embraers, you will have to buy an Embraer sim. You will also need an Embraer chief captain and Embraer flight and maintenance crew structure spearate from that of your A320 fleet structure. That will cost you quite a lot of bucks.
3) The Embraer will likely burn less fuel per trip than the A318. When you factor in the amount of seats, it's probably close to parity. The airframe maintenance costs of the Embraer will likely be better than the A318. The line maintenance costs will be pretty similar (they both have a fault detection system though the A318s is a nose better). The A318s engines will be cheaper to maintain - they are bigger engines but massively derated, so won't tend to come off wing for a very very long time. The Embraers' are operating at the upper threshold of their tolerances so will tend to get pulled for EGT margin problems more quickly - expensive! Believe it or not, line maintenance about equal, engines A318 better, airframe Embraer better: net result, all square per trip. Factor in the seats. A318 advantage.
4) Price. Embraer undoubtedly cheaper to buy. Will the A318 have an advantage, overall, per seat because of the fuel and maintenance advantages? Depends how good a negotiator you are.
All is not so straightforward as it might first appear.
There are other bits and pieces that sway one way or the other - product support network, current dispatch reliability, ability to finance or lease, etc etc etc...
What would I buy?
Simple. I'd have an A319. Similar trip costs to the A318 but with 24 more seats.
1) You are an LCC. That means your Embraer would have 115 seats or so if an E195; a shade over 100 if you use the E190. The A318 would have 132. That would mean that the higher seat count of the A318 would start to outweigh any trip-cost advantage on a per seat basis. So, question 1 - can you fill the additional seats?
2) Do you train in house? If the answer is yes, and you already have A320s, you already have an A320 sim. Your A320 sim works for the A318. If you already have an A320 sim and take Embraers, you will have to buy an Embraer sim. You will also need an Embraer chief captain and Embraer flight and maintenance crew structure spearate from that of your A320 fleet structure. That will cost you quite a lot of bucks.
3) The Embraer will likely burn less fuel per trip than the A318. When you factor in the amount of seats, it's probably close to parity. The airframe maintenance costs of the Embraer will likely be better than the A318. The line maintenance costs will be pretty similar (they both have a fault detection system though the A318s is a nose better). The A318s engines will be cheaper to maintain - they are bigger engines but massively derated, so won't tend to come off wing for a very very long time. The Embraers' are operating at the upper threshold of their tolerances so will tend to get pulled for EGT margin problems more quickly - expensive! Believe it or not, line maintenance about equal, engines A318 better, airframe Embraer better: net result, all square per trip. Factor in the seats. A318 advantage.
4) Price. Embraer undoubtedly cheaper to buy. Will the A318 have an advantage, overall, per seat because of the fuel and maintenance advantages? Depends how good a negotiator you are.
All is not so straightforward as it might first appear.
There are other bits and pieces that sway one way or the other - product support network, current dispatch reliability, ability to finance or lease, etc etc etc...
What would I buy?
Simple. I'd have an A319. Similar trip costs to the A318 but with 24 more seats.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rural Virginia
Age: 70
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air France - 18
Frontier - 11
Lan Chile - 10
Mexicana - 10
Romanian - 3
Comlux (Zurich) - 1
But only one step away from its bigger siblings. Trade up as capacity increases, no additional training required!
Cheers, y'all.
Bear Behind
Mudfoot's about right but there are a few versions of what Airbus call the Elite - a sort of corporate version - going to a few other operators. It's more than just 1 at Comlux, I think, and NAS in Saudi have some sort of commitment as well. Airbus was showing 90 sales for the A318 last month which ain't that hot, all the same.
It will be interesting to see if the London City thing will change the A318's fortunes... if you look at who is flying into LCY today with Avro RJs (Lufthansa, Air France, BA, swiss) plus some of the other guys going in there (SAS, Air One) they're all A319, A320 or A321 customers. I would have though that Airbus has a good shot at this lot. Embraer have mentioned the E190 to go into LCY but it has some performance shortfalls (my quick sums show not better than about 300 nautical miles out of there on the worst runway and given a small credit for headwind). That's not really enough - the E190 and E195 both have a major problem in field performance. A bit odd, I think, for a regional aircraft to have problems at regional airports. Good for the U.S. market, though. Oh, unless you want to go to Phoenix or Las Vegas, that is!
It will be interesting to see if the London City thing will change the A318's fortunes... if you look at who is flying into LCY today with Avro RJs (Lufthansa, Air France, BA, swiss) plus some of the other guys going in there (SAS, Air One) they're all A319, A320 or A321 customers. I would have though that Airbus has a good shot at this lot. Embraer have mentioned the E190 to go into LCY but it has some performance shortfalls (my quick sums show not better than about 300 nautical miles out of there on the worst runway and given a small credit for headwind). That's not really enough - the E190 and E195 both have a major problem in field performance. A bit odd, I think, for a regional aircraft to have problems at regional airports. Good for the U.S. market, though. Oh, unless you want to go to Phoenix or Las Vegas, that is!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Makes you wonder why Flybe are so keen on them?
The new BACON spin off is the thing that most interests..they will carry on using RJ100s and no doubt keep scraping the tails on a weekly basis when all the merry-go-round with deserting crews happens...and of course the leases are up soon and the chance of BACC letting them fly the A318 is negligible.
Spares backup for companies that operate the A319/20/21 must also weigh massively in favour of the A318 too. E195 look nice though....
The new BACON spin off is the thing that most interests..they will carry on using RJ100s and no doubt keep scraping the tails on a weekly basis when all the merry-go-round with deserting crews happens...and of course the leases are up soon and the chance of BACC letting them fly the A318 is negligible.
Spares backup for companies that operate the A319/20/21 must also weigh massively in favour of the A318 too. E195 look nice though....
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are other "what ifs" to consider as well:
If you are flying a quite new type, or a type with a quite new engine, there is a real risk that a single AD will ground your entire fleet. There is some safety in having at least two types of aircraft.
If you anticipate a growing market, it may make sense to lease a smaller a/c until the market grows into your "A-fleet".
But make no mistake about it - there is a definite economy in standardization. Ask Southwest!
If you are flying a quite new type, or a type with a quite new engine, there is a real risk that a single AD will ground your entire fleet. There is some safety in having at least two types of aircraft.
If you anticipate a growing market, it may make sense to lease a smaller a/c until the market grows into your "A-fleet".
But make no mistake about it - there is a definite economy in standardization. Ask Southwest!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: By the fridge
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exactly, it seems like no matter how efficient or convenient another type may be...savings made with fleet commonality will always overcome fuel issues
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your route is so diverse as to seriously limit the productivity of a plane on certain routes (Hot, high, short airfields with obstacles,....) then a second type is worth a serious look.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess there are different schools of thought in this respect. Taking airlines as examples can be misleading;
for instance, SAS use A319/321/340s but then also 737-600/800s. Odd when one advantage of the Airbus FBW family is cross-qualification (one gets signed off for A318/319/320/321, then with differences training, A330/340 as well). Another example, Turkish Airlines: 737-800, A321/A340. In this case the reason might be the lack of available capacity in the 200-odd seat range at Boeing (until the arrival of the 737-900ER), but surprising all the same in terms of overall fleet efficiency. On the other hand, as has been mentioned, Southwest Airlines only have 737s, Ryanair only use 737-800s, easyjet has decided to revert to a single fleet and replace its 737-700s, Air Berlin will replace its (new) 737-800s with an all A320 fleet apparently.
Training costs (flight crew, cabin crew and engineers) are obviously higher with a dual fleet, but there are other, hidden, costs in terms of personnel/rostering (having the properly type-rated crews rostered or on SBY at the right time/in the right place), maintenance (having engineers qualified on one, or both types - with the possibility of having to place separate line maintenance contracts, having a dual inventory of spares), commercial (with the possible overbooking of a type replacing another due to the original aircraft being "tech"), etc.
Then again, at the negotiating stage, a dual fleet might allow an airline to have more leverage on each manufacturer...
Cheers
for instance, SAS use A319/321/340s but then also 737-600/800s. Odd when one advantage of the Airbus FBW family is cross-qualification (one gets signed off for A318/319/320/321, then with differences training, A330/340 as well). Another example, Turkish Airlines: 737-800, A321/A340. In this case the reason might be the lack of available capacity in the 200-odd seat range at Boeing (until the arrival of the 737-900ER), but surprising all the same in terms of overall fleet efficiency. On the other hand, as has been mentioned, Southwest Airlines only have 737s, Ryanair only use 737-800s, easyjet has decided to revert to a single fleet and replace its 737-700s, Air Berlin will replace its (new) 737-800s with an all A320 fleet apparently.
Training costs (flight crew, cabin crew and engineers) are obviously higher with a dual fleet, but there are other, hidden, costs in terms of personnel/rostering (having the properly type-rated crews rostered or on SBY at the right time/in the right place), maintenance (having engineers qualified on one, or both types - with the possibility of having to place separate line maintenance contracts, having a dual inventory of spares), commercial (with the possible overbooking of a type replacing another due to the original aircraft being "tech"), etc.
Then again, at the negotiating stage, a dual fleet might allow an airline to have more leverage on each manufacturer...
Cheers
Last edited by FougaMagister; 4th Dec 2006 at 23:38.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 74
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take for example the A318 versus Emraber's 190-195. In an airline that needs the A320-321 for dense markets but has also niche markets that require smaller aircraft, can Emrbaer's fuel efficiency -along with 19min turnarounds- outweigh Airbus' advantage in terms of fleet commonality and therefore savings on training, maintnenace...?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The choice was between 318, because most of the fleet at the moment consists of 319/320/321, or Embraer 170/190.
As it happens, Finnair chose the Embraer because it weighs less (smaller landing fees) and apparently is more fuel efficient than the bus. And Enbraers are used mainly on shorter routes with less people traveling, so all in all the managers decided it was a much more economical choice.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commonality has some good arguments but so does aircraft capability and price.
AB is the best example of this. The B737NG and A320 family have so very little in it when it comes to operating costs that is all to do with ownership costs and financing that dictates how most races are run.
Long term 737 operator, AB were playing the game with Seattle and wanted the price lower than Boeing were prepared to go. In the matter of a few weeks AB did a deal for the first 60 320 series aircraft.
After being in service for over a year now AB has gone back to Boeing for replacement of the older 738’s and additional growth…… why?
It is a well known fact that the best bit of the NG is the Wing (and the extra row of seats) and the best bit of the Bus is the cabin. In the real world of bums on seats AB could not operate the Bus from some of the network destinations at the same pax load of the NG due to airfield limitations that the NG wing gives better performance.
The other reason is delivery slots, the Baby Bus has been selling like hot cakes and AB’s options have been limited due to production capacity. Boeing has the capacity.
Then there is the DBA factor….. AB has A319/A320 & B73G/B738….. DBA has 733 & F100 which have already been slated for replacement by 73G. However AB & DBA have found the lower cost and capacity F100 very very useful in route development and as a replacement when capacity is not required.
So for a growing organisation AB have used the F100 fleet effectively being able to match demand, capacity and cost where larger types may not have been viable.
In a similar manner AF use Cityjet with the “four oil leaks connected by and electrical problem” and a lower cost base for many routes where they could use the 318 to places such as LCY (when approved) given that they have every type of baby bus and you would expect the commonality argument to prevail.
AB is the best example of this. The B737NG and A320 family have so very little in it when it comes to operating costs that is all to do with ownership costs and financing that dictates how most races are run.
Long term 737 operator, AB were playing the game with Seattle and wanted the price lower than Boeing were prepared to go. In the matter of a few weeks AB did a deal for the first 60 320 series aircraft.
After being in service for over a year now AB has gone back to Boeing for replacement of the older 738’s and additional growth…… why?
It is a well known fact that the best bit of the NG is the Wing (and the extra row of seats) and the best bit of the Bus is the cabin. In the real world of bums on seats AB could not operate the Bus from some of the network destinations at the same pax load of the NG due to airfield limitations that the NG wing gives better performance.
The other reason is delivery slots, the Baby Bus has been selling like hot cakes and AB’s options have been limited due to production capacity. Boeing has the capacity.
Then there is the DBA factor….. AB has A319/A320 & B73G/B738….. DBA has 733 & F100 which have already been slated for replacement by 73G. However AB & DBA have found the lower cost and capacity F100 very very useful in route development and as a replacement when capacity is not required.
So for a growing organisation AB have used the F100 fleet effectively being able to match demand, capacity and cost where larger types may not have been viable.
In a similar manner AF use Cityjet with the “four oil leaks connected by and electrical problem” and a lower cost base for many routes where they could use the 318 to places such as LCY (when approved) given that they have every type of baby bus and you would expect the commonality argument to prevail.
