Super cheap way to get to Europe

Page 6 of 9« First<3456789>
August 11th, 2016 at 8:10:18 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 636
Posts: 7249
Quote: Nareed
The narrow body market is pretty much limited to a type of A320 family or a type of 737 family. Perhaps the neo and MAX are different enough from the ceo and NG respectively that there are four types of planes, of varying sizes, but the pickings seem meager.


30 OCTOBER 2015
To match ongoing high demand for its bestselling A320 Family, Airbus has taken the decision to further increase the production rate of the Single Aisle Family to 60 aircraft a month in mid-2019.

28 January 2016
Boeing has disclosed plans to increase the production of the 737 to 57 aircraft per month by 2019.

Airbus delivered 491 A320 family aircraft in 2015.
Boeing delivered 495 B737 family aircraft in 2015.

So it seems like the duopoloy believes they can produce ~ 700 narrow body planes per year apiece. So perhaps there is some room for one of the new manufacturers.
September 10th, 2016 at 1:49:15 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 636
Posts: 7249
I wonder how many transatlantic routes will really be affected by the new longer range narrowbodies that can reach Europe. Certainly Iceland will be affected, but it is comparatively close especially to the northeast.

What about the 6th largest airport in Europe, Madrid. Will it be affected.


Nine Largest Airports in Europe
6. United Kingdom London Heathrow Airport Hillingdon, London United Kingdom LHR/EGLL 74,989,795
9. France Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport Roissy-en-France, Île-de-France France CDG/LFPG 65,766,986
11. Turkey Istanbul Atatürk Airport Yeşilköy, Istanbul Turkey IST/LTBA 61,836,781
12. Germany Frankfurt Airport Frankfurt, Hesse Germany FRA/EDDF 61,032,022
14. Netherlands Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Haarlemmermeer, North Holland The Netherlands AMS/EHAM 58,284,864
24. Spain Madrid Barajas Airport Madrid Spain MAD/LEMD 46,779,554
34. Germany Munich Airport Freising, Bavaria Germany MUC/EDDM 40,981,522
37. United Kingdom London Gatwick Airport Crawley, West Sussex United Kingdom LGW/EGKK 40,271,343
40. Spain Barcelona–El Prat Airport Barcelona Spain BCN/LEBL 39,674,095


MADRID TO CANCUN is 4,954 miles and to MEX it is 5,642 mi (longer than London to LAX 5,456 mi). So it is obvious that the Europe to Latin America route will be completely unaffected by the long range narrowbodies.

MADRID to BOSTON is 3,410 mi and to DFW it is 4,965 miles. It seems unlikely that any of these routes would be replaced with narrow bodies, as even Boston is within 600 miles of the maximum range of the B737-max.
I must conclude that possibly no narrowbodies will fly to Madrid (or Lisbon).



Dublin to St John's Airport in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada is just over 2000 miles, and is already being flown by a narrowbody. Boston to Newark is 3000-3200 miles, and I am sure that narrowbodies will take over that route. Glasgow and Edinburgh as well as Shannon and Cork will no doubt be served by narrowbodies. But I am not sure how really widespread the phenomena will be.
September 12th, 2016 at 7:02:50 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 9766
Quote: Pacomartin
I wonder how many transatlantic routes will really be affected by the new longer range narrowbodies that can reach Europe. Certainly Iceland will be affected, but it is comparatively close especially to the northeast.


Begin at looking where something similar already happened.

In the US, typically transcontinental flights were operated by wide bodies. This has been changing, and perhaps it began as early as the mid 80s when the 757 came into service. These days narrow bodies are more common than wide bodies ins such routes.

Likewise, MEX-JFK used to be the province of wide bodies. these days Interjet and Aeromexico use narrow bodies, though AM does still fly there with the 787 for some flights.

We may not see a busy route like NYC-London or NYC-Paris replaced by narrow bodies, but only because of the limited travel windows and high demand. it's not like you can have hourly flights during daytime hours for such routes. But for low-cost carriers using Iceland and Ireland as connecting hubs, narrow bodies make a great deal of sense.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
September 12th, 2016 at 8:19:30 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 636
Posts: 7249
Quote: Nareed
it's not like you can have hourly flights during daytime hours for such routes. But for low-cost carriers using Iceland and Ireland as connecting hubs, narrow bodies make a great deal of sense.


There are actually six airports of London. You might be able to set up hourly flights to Stansted
https://www.stanstedexpress.com/
The train Stansted Express is 47 minutes every 15 minutes. While that doesn't sound as good as the Heathrow Express which is 15 minutes every 15 minutes, the Heathrow Express puts you on the extreme end of central London, so it might actually take you another half an hour to get to the Bank of London. The Stansted Express takes you right to Liverpool Station which is 800 yards from the Bank.

Heathrow (LHR)
Gatwick (LGW)
Luton (LTN)
Stansted (STN)
Southend (SEN)
City (LCY)

Aer Lingus is now owned by the company that owns British Airways and Iberia. They still have a dozen widebodies, but they also fly to LAX, SFO and SEA. But with preclearance facilities at Dublin Airport, I could see them trying to have much more frequent narrowbody service to Chicago and the East Coast.

But will it make a difference in flying to the Continent? Right now Delta has a flight from JFK to Nice, but AFAIK it is the only flight from the USA to France to some airport other than the two in Paris. I doubt that things to Frankfurt will change much. As I said earlier, it looks like Spain and Portugal are a little too distant to be affected much.
September 12th, 2016 at 8:24:35 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 9766
Quote: Pacomartin
There are actually six airports of London. You might be able to set up hourly flights to Stansted


I don't know exactly how this works, but flights are limited by the need to minimize jet lag. My understanding is you can't fly at just any time of day, even though the technical capabilities are there.

Quote:
As I said earlier, it looks like Spain and Portugal are a little too distant to be affected much.


How far is it from Cancun to Madrid, as opposed from MEX to Madrid? From a look at the map, it ought o be about 60-70 minutes shorter, though perhaps not within the capability of a an A320/B737.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
September 12th, 2016 at 9:12:24 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 636
Posts: 7249
Quote: Nareed
How far is it from Cancun to Madrid, as opposed from MEX to Madrid? From a look at the map, it ought o be about 60-70 minutes shorter, though perhaps not within the capability of a an A320/B737.

Flat Maps are difficult to use to estimate distances over a few thousand miles.

Cancun is about the same distance as DFW, the furthest of the USA cities with nonstops to Madrid. MEX is about 700 miles further, about the same distance from LHR to LAX.

4,965 mi MAD DFW
4,954 mi MAD CUN
5,642 mi MAD MEX

5,456 mi LHR LAX

September 12th, 2016 at 6:50:17 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 46
Posts: 3795
Anyone want to go from the Hebrides to New York for FREE? Well cooked meals, a bit heavy on the fish. Lots of scenery enroute, some of it topless some of it topless/bottomless. One four hour topside watch per week. One four hour galley assistant watch per week. Absolutely no fees, but must have passport and sufficient money to show a customs officer that you are not a pauper.

Only one drawback: Its an all aluminum boat and in a lightning storm .... who knows?
September 13th, 2016 at 7:49:36 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 9766
Quote: Pacomartin
Flat Maps are difficult to use to estimate distances over a few thousand miles.


I still got pretty close.

The thing is Cancun is almost as far north as MEX, but farther east. Ergo it's closer to Europe than MEX.

Still too far for current narrow bodies (though perhaps not the 757). But maybe when the 737 Super Max LR or the A321 new neo ELR are developed...
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
September 13th, 2016 at 11:41:21 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 636
Posts: 7249
Usually an actual commercial route is 10%-15% shorter than the so called "design range" . The neo engines are more efficient, but some of the extra range is simply achieved by being able to carry extra fuel.

Specified Design Range current/new engine options
ceoA321: 3,200 nmi (7,930 US gal)
neoA321: 3,500 nmi (7,810 US gallons)
neoA321LR : 4,000 nmi (8,700 US gallons)

The Mexican airlines are naturally ordering the new planes to take advantage of fuel efficiency.
Volaris ordered 30 Airbus A320neo.
Interjet ordered 40-50 Airbus A320neo and 10 A321neo.
VivaAerobús ordered 40 Airbus A320neo

Nobody is ordering Long Range versions of the A321 in Mexico. It is 4000 nmi from MEX to Buenos Aires, and over 4300 nmi from Cancun to Madrid. Right now the LCC are going to let those markets go to the foreign carriers and Aeromexico. But as we pointed out earlier, WOW airlines in Iceland is purchasing widebody A330s and flying them in an all economy mode.

Quote: Nareed
But maybe when the 737 Super Max LR or the A321 new neo ELR are developed...

The manufacturers have pretty much said that this won't happen. In order to stay ahead of Bombardier and Embraer they are going to have to go to clean slate designs. As we said earlier the B737-7max and neoA319 will probably never go into production as the clean sheet designs from Bombardier and Embraer look a whole lot better. The B737-8/9max and neoA320/21 are the mainstays for the next few years.
September 13th, 2016 at 12:57:27 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 9766
Quote: Pacomartin
The manufacturers have pretty much said that this won't happen. In order to stay ahead of Bombardier and Embraer they are going to have to go to clean slate designs.


I believe they said it.

But Boeing has already passed on two (2) clean slate narrow body designs between the 90s and the present. Their last was the 757. Airbus's first, last and only narrow body design is older than that.

Maybe they no longer remember how ;)

But if they do go clean slate, that's one more thing to thank Bombardier for.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
Page 6 of 9« First<3456789>