No frills fleet
Thread Starter
No frills fleet
Most charter airlines and almost all no frill carriers use exclusively Boeing 737 for their short - medium hall fleets.
My question is which are the elements that make 73 so popular for that type of operation besides its availability and the numbers of crew available.
The usual disclamer applies I don't want to get into an A vs.B debate.
Tasso
My question is which are the elements that make 73 so popular for that type of operation besides its availability and the numbers of crew available.
The usual disclamer applies I don't want to get into an A vs.B debate.
Tasso
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Moscow, Russian Fed.
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A used 732 is considerably cheaper than a used A319/320.
Startups like Ryan use 732s initially for financial reasons (+its a good proven a/c - look at southwest business model).
In fact Ryan has followed the (old) Southwest business model slavishly with the pay-for-type-rating scheme!
Once you are making money, ditch the 732's and get some EFIS 737's in (733/5/8) - crews easy to train etc... just continue as before.
Startups like Ryan use 732s initially for financial reasons (+its a good proven a/c - look at southwest business model).
In fact Ryan has followed the (old) Southwest business model slavishly with the pay-for-type-rating scheme!
Once you are making money, ditch the 732's and get some EFIS 737's in (733/5/8) - crews easy to train etc... just continue as before.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheapness, for one thing - there are (or were, until Ryanair and EJ arrived) lots of old CFM B737's around (you used to need them to make money on charters - now, of course, you can't make money with them on charters - they don't have the range or the speed), and lease costs were low. Great for starting an airline. There simply aren't the number of MD's or airbuses around to compete price-wise.
A B737-300 in high density config has 150 pax seats, so needs three crew - but maximises the ratio of pax to crew (exactly 50:1). Ideal for that sort of service, and there is no Airbus that compares (319 is about 40-45:1). Also good field performance - a high power to weight ratio, especially with light fuel loads - although the wings aren't great, it doesn't matter on short sectors.
Having started getting B737's, you can then have derivative type ratings on the NG 737's. Having a single fleet of aircraft reduces training costs and allows optimum operational flexibility, even if they are different sizes.
A B737-300 in high density config has 150 pax seats, so needs three crew - but maximises the ratio of pax to crew (exactly 50:1). Ideal for that sort of service, and there is no Airbus that compares (319 is about 40-45:1). Also good field performance - a high power to weight ratio, especially with light fuel loads - although the wings aren't great, it doesn't matter on short sectors.
Having started getting B737's, you can then have derivative type ratings on the NG 737's. Having a single fleet of aircraft reduces training costs and allows optimum operational flexibility, even if they are different sizes.
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am somewhat talking through my todger here but it's a fascinating issue.
I don't think it's because they are cheap. After all things which are desirable (like diesel VW Golfs) usually sell at a premium. My theory is the 737 was optimised for reliable shortish sector turnarounds, maybe at the expense of a few other things like economy. The Southwest model rests more than anything on doing a series of sectors with one plane without a hitch. Or perhaps if there is a hitch, then ease of support is vital.
Possible the A320 could show itself to be as repeatable but it takes time to get a reputation.
As I say - just a theory.
I don't think it's because they are cheap. After all things which are desirable (like diesel VW Golfs) usually sell at a premium. My theory is the 737 was optimised for reliable shortish sector turnarounds, maybe at the expense of a few other things like economy. The Southwest model rests more than anything on doing a series of sectors with one plane without a hitch. Or perhaps if there is a hitch, then ease of support is vital.
Possible the A320 could show itself to be as repeatable but it takes time to get a reputation.
As I say - just a theory.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, you can probably turn an airbus with ULD's around faster than a B737 - since the aisle is slightly wider, which means that boarding is faster and ULD's can be on the aircraft within about 10 minutes of coming on stand. Both can be done as quickly as an airline might realistically want to do it, though - 1 min per 6 seats, if the cabin isn't completely trashed? Also, you don't have to put bags in containers on airbuses.
The B737 family and the A320 family are targeted at a pretty similar market. It's just that the A320 family is about 20 years younger than the B737. The Airbus is more economical, faster, more efficient, probably as well adapted to quick turnarounds and multiple sectors. But they are newer and more expensive; they are less abundant and more expensive.
I am pretty sure that it's fundamentally a cash-flow issue, rather than any operational one.
The B737 family and the A320 family are targeted at a pretty similar market. It's just that the A320 family is about 20 years younger than the B737. The Airbus is more economical, faster, more efficient, probably as well adapted to quick turnarounds and multiple sectors. But they are newer and more expensive; they are less abundant and more expensive.
I am pretty sure that it's fundamentally a cash-flow issue, rather than any operational one.
Despatch reliability?
The 733 is pretty good at being able to despatch with Inop stickers. The Airbus perhaps is more likely to need an engineer to tap the black boxes for an hour rather than lick an Inop sticker and place an MEL reference in the Tech Log.
This is important when you are operating high density sectors to destination where you have no Engineering cover.
WWW
The 733 is pretty good at being able to despatch with Inop stickers. The Airbus perhaps is more likely to need an engineer to tap the black boxes for an hour rather than lick an Inop sticker and place an MEL reference in the Tech Log.
This is important when you are operating high density sectors to destination where you have no Engineering cover.
WWW
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This idea that 737s are cheaper doesn't add up. To give you an analogy, in the UK the capital costs of BMW 530 are lower than a Vauxhaul/Opel Omega because of lower depreication Similarly it is cheaper to lease a new BMW 530 than an old one because of the structure of discounts. If you try to lease 150 seats from GE then there is no reason to suppose they will charge you less for an old aircraft versus a new one.
And to support this what do all the operators do as soon as they can? - order brand spanking new 737NGs
And to support this what do all the operators do as soon as they can? - order brand spanking new 737NGs
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Belgium-UK-US
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 737 NG is a newer aircraft than the A320 and benefits from a more advanced wing design, that’s why it is faster, and can fly at higher altitude than the Airbus.
Launched almost 10 years after the A320, the 737 NG was designed to have lower operating costs than the Airbus. On typical routes, the documented cash operating costs are almost 4% lower than the A320 and the documented maintenance costs are up to the 35% lower on the 737NG.
The cargo hold is bigger on the 737NG and is accessible without ground equipment, which enable the operators to add last minute bags without delaying the flight and enable them to unload/load the plane faster when belt loaders are either not available or quickly available, a common occurrence at peak times or on small airports.
The ability to be turned around more quickly on average than the A320 is due to its superior reliability, ease of maintenance (the plane is much simpler to service & maintain and its lower stance make it more accessible). The speed of boarding is the same on both aircrafts given that the aisles don’t enable 2 passengers to cross each other anyway and one passenger has the ability to block the aisle on both the A320 & the 737 (contrary to a wide body jet).
The slightly larger A320 fuselage has however a negative impact on aerodynamic drag and weight & the higher position of the floor makes the A320 window seats less comfortable at elbow & shoulders height due to the curvature of the fuselage
The 737NG is also sturdier than the A320: it is not as easily damaged by ground equipment or by rough runways.
Launched almost 10 years after the A320, the 737 NG was designed to have lower operating costs than the Airbus. On typical routes, the documented cash operating costs are almost 4% lower than the A320 and the documented maintenance costs are up to the 35% lower on the 737NG.
The cargo hold is bigger on the 737NG and is accessible without ground equipment, which enable the operators to add last minute bags without delaying the flight and enable them to unload/load the plane faster when belt loaders are either not available or quickly available, a common occurrence at peak times or on small airports.
The ability to be turned around more quickly on average than the A320 is due to its superior reliability, ease of maintenance (the plane is much simpler to service & maintain and its lower stance make it more accessible). The speed of boarding is the same on both aircrafts given that the aisles don’t enable 2 passengers to cross each other anyway and one passenger has the ability to block the aisle on both the A320 & the 737 (contrary to a wide body jet).
The slightly larger A320 fuselage has however a negative impact on aerodynamic drag and weight & the higher position of the floor makes the A320 window seats less comfortable at elbow & shoulders height due to the curvature of the fuselage
The 737NG is also sturdier than the A320: it is not as easily damaged by ground equipment or by rough runways.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Belgium-UK-US
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can argue Jet Blue would be even more successful had it acquired the 737NG at the A320 s offered price.
Acquisition costs are often determinant in fleet decisions & ultimately, it often comes down to which manufacturer offers the steepest discount.
EasyJet is facing a similar choice: they’ve publicly acknowledged that the 737NG is more efficient but Airbus is offering a deal which more than offset the higher A320 operating costs.
Boeing has announced yesterday they would not lower their price.
It follows that EsayJet could purchase the A319 even though the 737NG is more efficient.
Acquisition costs are often determinant in fleet decisions & ultimately, it often comes down to which manufacturer offers the steepest discount.
EasyJet is facing a similar choice: they’ve publicly acknowledged that the 737NG is more efficient but Airbus is offering a deal which more than offset the higher A320 operating costs.
Boeing has announced yesterday they would not lower their price.
It follows that EsayJet could purchase the A319 even though the 737NG is more efficient.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone from Airbus design / projects come by here...
Just wondering if / when Airbus will launch the A320-300.
Problem is its 80s technology,and was designed to compete with the "new generation" -300,-400 and -500.The NGs out now are 90s technology,naturally have a bigger advantage.
I personally think the fact its (A320) still competitive and winning orders over the new 737 NGs is a testomony to its design.
Think the A318 vs 737-600 will be interesting,however the "babbybus" might be the better plane there.
Just wondering if / when Airbus will launch the A320-300.
Problem is its 80s technology,and was designed to compete with the "new generation" -300,-400 and -500.The NGs out now are 90s technology,naturally have a bigger advantage.
I personally think the fact its (A320) still competitive and winning orders over the new 737 NGs is a testomony to its design.
Think the A318 vs 737-600 will be interesting,however the "babbybus" might be the better plane there.
