Aer Lingus Fleet/Routes Discussion

billy few mates

adam88 wrote: »

Still not a fan crossing the Atlantic in a narrow body. Some psychological that makes a single aisle plane so cramped

The last few Trans Atlantic flights I've done have been on 757s all on different carriers and I must admit I'm a fan of them now. I think the smaller size cabin means the service is more personal and in general I think the fewer the people sharing the same cramped space the more enjoyable the experience.
Boarding and de-planing are also a quicker and less crowded so I'm guessing the A320 LR experience will be similar.

liiga

What time is EI-LRB due at ?

tomister

Landed just before 10pm this evening

GM228

Side question, have always wondered who delivers new aircraft, for example was EI-LRB flown over by Aer Lingus or Airbus pilots or perhaps hire in pilots? I'm guessing Aer Lingus pilots and that Airbus pilots don't fly once the customer handover flight is finished?

goingnowhere

Once the money is paid, you might get a tank of gas for free from Airbus but it's Aer Lingus pilots who fly

Lapmo_Dancer

It’s stated on an another forum that the 321 has been taken off IAD completely for the winter due performance issues. The schedule from the end of October was to have 330 x4 weekly and 321 x3 weekly to IAD. The website is still showing the original schedule. Can anyone confirm?

kevinandrew

During the booking process, once you get through to the seat maps you’ll see that all flights, even those listed as A321LR, show as an A330.

Nibs05

So the LR is only good for JFK, BOS and BDL ?

x567

Nibs05 wrote: »

So the LR is only good for JFK, BOS and BDL ?

Montreal would be a similar distance, wasn't that going to be launched?

sherology

Nibs05 wrote: »

So the LR is only good for JFK, BOS and BDL ?

If true, and not just a passenger number increase on IAD, I guess EI will have to add that extra ACT to LRA/B/C as well as D to ensure reach/range. Perhaps those extra rows of economy seats vs. TAP are beyond the capability. Needleman (Formerly JetBlue) did comment that the LR is not 'as' efficient/capable as expected. JetBlue are using the LR from NY\BOS to London, so would assume IAD-DUB should be capable... Perhaps fully tanked (ACT'd) though.

Would be good to get official data though... As one would assume calculations and predictions would have been done beforehand... And Airbus may be inline for some payback if they're poorly aligned.

Lapmo_Dancer

Nibs05 wrote: »

So the LR is only good for JFK, BOS and BDL ?

It’s still on PHL? EWR too I guess (although hasn’t been scheduled for it). So will one of BOS, JFK or EWR get a 321 from DUB on Tues, Thurs and Sat to free up a 330 or is there a spare 330?

smurfjed

And Airbus may be inline for some payback if they're poorly aligned.

it depends on how the aircraft performance guarantee was written, if they used 85% probably annual winds then they will have issues in the winter and it won’t be Airbus’s problem, but If they used 85% for November and it can’t do it, then there will be written penalties against Airbus.

kevinandrew

How much is runway performance at Dublin a factor? The A321LR can match and exceed the 757 in range but not in runway performance, it needs plenty of tarmac to get the most of out the aircraft but that was never a secret but to hear the aircraft is struggling to make Bradley in certain conditions is concerning. 

What's the reasoning behind having the first few frames delivered with only two auxiliary tanks? Seems they purposely limited the early frames.

Bsal

A321LR with only 2 ACT's installed has a usable fuel capacity of 23911kg. If you take 3000kg away from that for 1hr reserves leaves you with 20911kg. In cruise it burns ~40kg/min so that gives a capable flight time of ~8.5hrs. A 3rd ACT would increase fuel capacity by an extra 2465kg.

Takeoff performance

Worst case ISA+15 at sea level at Dublin MTOW 93500kg requires ~2400m of runway. If 97000kg variant ~2700m

Bsal

Philippine Airlines are operating a standard A321neo with 168 seats non LR variant on Manila-Brisbane and back which is averaging 7.5hrs. Strange if EIN are struggling with a 6.5hr ish flight to Bradley with an LR.

Lapmo_Dancer

Bsal wrote: »

Philippine Airlines are operating a standard A321neo with 168 seats non LR variant on Manila-Brisbane and back which is averaging 7.5hrs. Strange if EIN are struggling with a 6.5hr ish flight to Bradley with an LR.

Runway length seems to be an issue.

DUB ATC insist on using 28 with up to a 10 knot tailwind. It is regularly WET.

MNL is 3400 meters and BNE is 3500 meters.

Idbatterim

dont aer lingus usually announce new routes around now?

NH2013

The issue seems to be Dublin’s runway, particularly in wet conditions with a tailwind that seems to mean it can only just get enough fuel on for BDL, and could struggle with IAD, as opposed to a fuel capacity issue or fuel burn issue. From what I’ve heard fuel burn is slightly (0.5%) better than anticipated but Dublin’s runway is causing headaches, particularly over the last couple weeks with prevailing easterly winds and wet runway conditions it seems the aircraft is occasionally quite tight in the maximum weight it can lift off the runway even only going to BDL. In other words, the aircraft has the space for more fuel and isn’t burning more fuel than expected and were the runway longer it could take the fuel and fly to the published range.

While the aircraft is certified to takeoff at 97,000 on a 2,700m runway, that’s only in still wind on a dry runway, not with a tail wind on a wet runway, also keep in mind Dublin’s runway is also not at sea level, and it’s only 2,600m long. The new runway can’t come soon enough. The 757 on the other hand while it burns much more fuel and technically doesn’t have the range of the 321LR on paper has much much more powerful engines (hence the extra fuel burn) that can lift the aircraft off the runway in Dublin even in wet tailwind conditions.

Van.Bosch

NH2013 wrote: »

The issue seems to be Dublin’s runway, particularly in wet conditions with a tailwind that seems to mean it can only just get enough fuel on for BDL, and could struggle with IAD, as opposed to a fuel capacity issue or fuel burn issue. From what I’ve heard fuel burn is slightly (0.5%) better than anticipated but Dublin’s runway is causing headaches, particularly over the last couple weeks with prevailing easterly winds and wet runway conditions it seems the aircraft is occasionally quite tight in the maximum weight it can lift off the runway even only going to BDL. In other words, the aircraft has the space for more fuel and isn’t burning more fuel than expected and were the runway longer it could take the fuel and fly to the published range.

While the aircraft is certified to takeoff at 97,000 on a 2,700m runway, that’s only in still wind on a dry runway, not with a tail wind on a wet runway, also keep in mind Dublin’s runway is also not at sea level, and it’s only 2,600m long. The new runway can’t come soon enough. The 757 on the other hand while it burns much more fuel and technically doesn’t have the range of the 321LR on paper has much much more powerful engines (hence the extra fuel burn) that can lift the aircraft off the runway in Dublin even in wet tailwind conditions.

Would this be news to EI or would they have known pre delivery?

adam88

So whose problem is it??? It’s a bit embarrassing for EI that they bought an aircraft and now it can’t do what it’s meant to do because the runway is too wet. Surely be to god someone should have that copped

alancostello

adam88 wrote: »

So whose problem is it??? It’s a bit embarrassing for EI that they bought an aircraft and now it can’t do what it’s meant to do because the runway is too wet. Surely be to god someone should have that copped

If indeed this is all true it’s nobody’s fault, and was likely known at the time of purchase that it may be an issue to begin with. Aer Lingus don’t buy new planes just for two years, they buy them for ~20 years and plan accordingly. They knew the new runway was coming, and the first few planes that come online are able to do their jobs. Worst case when the final ones arrive it’ll be a few months before they can do IAD/PHL ex-DUB. There’s a multitude of things they can do, including using the two meant for those destinations to serve JFK or BOS and free up an A330.

Jack1985

I covered these issues in a previous post a few days ago, the LR if operational reasons so require can do IAD but with load restrictions which may become necessary in Jan etc when the 330’s are down for maintenance.

The rush to jam pack the aircraft with maximum seats etc is bean counters in an attempt to drive maximum ROI and revenue generation but for the live operation we all know these decisions lead to operational impacts.

Dardania

goingnowhere wrote: »

Folks forget the first successful jet across the Atlantic was the 707 which has exactly the same fuselage dimensions as the 737 (and 727, 757), A32x is wider

The Comet?
https://www.wired.com/2010/10/1004first-transatlantic-jet-service-boac/

(Although you did say successful...)

Hotblack Desiato

They've packed it with seats but don't have to sell all the seats on every route it flies.

Hotblack Desiato

Dardania wrote: »

The Comet?
https://www.wired.com/2010/10/1004first-transatlantic-jet-service-boac/

(Although you did say successful...)

Concorde of course was narrower than any of those

Noxegon

NH2013 wrote: »

The issue seems to be Dublin’s runway, particularly in wet conditions with a tailwind that seems to mean it can only just get enough fuel on for BDL, and could struggle with IAD, as opposed to a fuel capacity issue or fuel burn issue.

If that's correct, would it make sense to send the new planes to operate the SNN routes in the short term?

Lapmo_Dancer

Noxegon wrote: »

If that's correct, would it make sense to send the new planes to operate the SNN routes in the short term?

They are planning to operate one of the two TA routes from SNN from November on 321. Maybe they’ll put second 321 in SNN and move 75 to DUB.

321 also planned to operate DUB to PHL, BDL and IAD.

kevinandrew

The seat count clearly isn’t the big issue, a lower configuration may alleviate the current problems but in the long term it’s not a concern.

The A321LR is marketed as having 4000nm range with a 206 passenger load, even when factoring in real world situations Aer Lingus should be well within spec. Worth noting that Air Transat are operating longer routes with a higher seat count (199) than Aer Lingus so it’s fair to say the aircraft nor the chosen seat numbers are the main issue.

While Aer Lingus could have opted for a lower seat count on the early frames to ensure the best runway performance, this would have been a costly long term fix for what will hopefully be a short term issue. If Aer Lingus had opted to do this they would not only be losing out on revenue potential but they’d have the costly job of reconfiguring the frames a mere two or three years later once the A321LR’s full potential could be realised via Dublin’s new longer runway.

It’s always easy to blame the beancounters but in this instance they appear to have made the best decision in the long term.

Jack1985

kevinandrew wrote: »

It’s always easy to blame the beancounters but in this instance they appear to have made the best decision in the long term.

Not with the current few orders with cabin configuration versus aircraft spec, it’s very much been a problematic decision.

Jack1985

Update with LR for Winter schedule from early November;

DUB-BDL - Mon, Wed, Fri, Sun
DUB-EWR - Tu, Thu, Sat
DUB-PHL - Daily Service
SNN-BOS - Daily service

sherology

kevinandrew wrote: »

The seat count clearly isn’t the big issue, a lower configuration may alleviate the current problems but in the long term it’s not a concern.

The A321LR is marketed as having 4000nm range with a 206 passenger load, even when factoring in real world situations Aer Lingus should be well within spec. Worth noting that Air Transat are operating longer routes with a higher seat count (199) than Aer Lingus so it’s fair to say the aircraft nor the chosen seat numbers are the main issue.

While Aer Lingus could have opted for a lower seat count on the early frames to ensure the best runway performance, this would have been a costly long term fix for what will hopefully be a short term issue. If Aer Lingus had opted to do this they would not only be losing out on revenue potential but they’d have the costly job of reconfiguring the frames a mere two or three years later once the A321LR’s full potential could be realised via Dublin’s new longer runway.

It’s always easy to blame the beancounters but in this instance they appear to have made the best decision in the long term.

I certainly don't blame bean-counters... Without them there would be no profits/routes, and I agree with your analysis of short-term frustration vs. longer-term gain. Another poster also suggested not selling/filling all the seats... Which could be a solution during known bad-weather months (autumn/winter), when loads would be lower anyway (usually).

Anywho... Interesting story. Would the addition of a third ACT solve the issue (previous poster mentioned the first 3 LRs only have 2)? Or is it not possible to get that extra weight up and off the short Dublin runway?

Amazed the runway at Dublin is so restrictive though.

kevinandrew

Jack1985 wrote: »

kevinandrew wrote: »

It’s always easy to blame the beancounters but in this instance they appear to have made the best decision in the long term.

Not with the current few orders with cabin configuration versus aircraft spec, it’s very much been a problematic decision.

So what's your solution, a lower seat configuration for the first few frames for what is a temporary problem? A lower seat count may help alleviate the current issues surrounding runway performance but with a new runway due in 24-36 months it would be short sighted. 

Aer Lingus have by no means rushed to jam pack the aircraft with maximum seats, not even close. It's a very capable aircraft with the right infrastructure and that infrastructure is right around the corner.

ohigg84

On a slightly different topic.. Given the demise of the Thomas Cook Group , of which, I am sad for all employees, and I hope they find jobs with another airline, do you think that IAG would be interested in acquiring some A321s for EI?

Some of these A321s (G-TCD^ regs) are only a few years old, and they could be ideal replacements for the existing A321ceos in the EI fleet. (CPE, CPG, CPH).

Van.Bosch

ohigg84 wrote: »

On a slightly different topic.. Given the demise of the Thomas Cook Group , of which, I am sad for all employees, and I hope they find jobs with another airline, do you think that IAG would be interested in acquiring some A321s for EI?

Some of these A321s (G-TCD^ regs) are only a few years old, and they could be ideal replacements for the existing A321ceos in the EI fleet. (CPE, CPG, CPH).

They are all leased bar 3/4 I think? I’d say if they were to take any, it might be for Level.

Jack1985

kevinandrew wrote: »

So what's your solution, a lower seat configuration for the first few frames for what is a temporary problem? A lower seat count may help alleviate the current issues surrounding runway performance but with a new runway due in 24-36 months it would be short sighted. 

Aer Lingus have by no means rushed to jam pack the aircraft with maximum seats, not even close. It's a very capable aircraft with the right infrastructure and that infrastructure is right around the corner.

Your not looking at the LR with a wide open lense. I’ve covered the issues LRA to LRC with two additional tanks are causing that compounded by high TOW with limited field capabilities is also causing a headache.

EI most certainly have jam packed the aircraft, with their cabin configuration (all designed for 4 CC - and look how that’s worked out) simply there are too much seats for routes further than BDL most days that have been filled.

The solution isn’t in my remit, the XLR is a much better fit and as so ordered is known.

Van.Bosch

Has there been any days were the issue caused a cancellation or pax to be offloaded to get the weight down?

Jack1985

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Has there been any days were the issue caused a cancellation or pax to be offloaded to get the weight down?

Not that I'm aware of, but days where certainly it's been near its MTOW on the 131.

Hotblack Desiato

In the slightly longer term, the existing A321s will need replacing. Take the extra tanks out of an LR and you have a 321neo. Maybe that's the plan when the XLRs come onstream??

sherology wrote: »

Amazed the runway at Dublin is so restrictive though.

The land was there to make it longer but the Shannon lobby prevented it.

Jack1985

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In the slightly longer term, the existing A321s will need replacing. Take the extra tanks out of an LR and you have a 321neo. Maybe that's the plan when the XLRs come onstream??

Would imagine this is the plan also as Doors 3 can be added at a later time too.

OU812

I wonder if EI would be interested in the now empty Thomas Cook Las Vegas slots. They could do a connection from the UK & have all passengers do immigration & customs in Dublin. They already fly to all the other US locations, so I doubt they'd be interested in increasing frequency.

Idbatterim

I wonder if EI would be interested in the now empty Thomas Cook Las Vegas slots. They could do a connection from the UK & have all passengers do immigration & customs in Dublin. They already fly to all the other US locations, so I doubt they'd be interested in increasing frequency.

Interesting! Ill leave my input at that though

Tenger

Jack1985 wrote: »

.......
DUB-BDL - Mon, Wed, Fri, Sun
DUB-EWR - Tu, Thu, Sat
DUB-PHL - Daily Service
SNN-BOS - Daily service

So the 3rd A321LR will be delivered within 5 weeks.

I had looked at the website about a month ago and it was showing DUB-IAD 3 times a week. Just looking there I see BDL is dropping to 4x weekly and that EWR is showing daily. So will be interesting to hear how the alternate aircraft works out on that route over the winter.


As for the gap left by Thomas Cook. This will certainly change the EI plans if they see a opportunity to make a profit on a niche route that they previously operate. So perhaps LAS is now looking like a better route, or even a Caribbean destination that TCX previously served.

basill

The problem has always been that when destinations go above a flight time of approximately 9.5-10hrs then it necessitates 2 airframes to operate a route. If it isn't daily then you can end up with aircraft sitting around not earning. Throw into the mix seasonality (more of an issue on the leisure routes) and they don't look as attractive from an overall yield perspective over a year. The single airframe proposition with a European tag on is the ideal earner as the assets are "sweated".

alancostello

basill wrote: »

The problem has always been that when destinations go above a flight time of approximately 9.5-10hrs then it necessitates 2 airframes to operate a route. If it isn't daily then you can end up with aircraft sitting around not earning. Throw into the mix seasonality (more of an issue on the leisure routes) and they don't look as attractive from an overall yield perspective over a year. The single airframe proposition with a European tag on is the ideal earner as the assets are "sweated".

To be fair only one or two aircraft actually do the flights to Malaga/Faro out of 13 A330s (and soon to be 17). With a fleet that large you don't actually have to dedicate two (or any) aircraft to the route, an A330 that comes in pre 6am from ORD/BOS/JFK takes off for LAS at 10am or 11am, arrives back shortly after noon the following day and then does one of the late departures to ORD/BOS/JFK, rinse and repeat. This is exactly how they operate LAX, SFO, and SEA and it's incredibly effective scheduling.

cson

OU812 wrote: »

I wonder if EI would be interested in the now empty Thomas Cook Las Vegas slots. They could do a connection from the UK & have all passengers do immigration & customs in Dublin. They already fly to all the other US locations, so I doubt they'd be interested in increasing frequency.

LAS isn't LHR, it doesn't have capacity issues that would make slot pairings worth anything.

Captain_Crash

So word on the street is LRB is covered in dents and EI are not happy with it! Can anyone confirm?

Source who told me said he was told by an engineer who’s been with it, but admittedly it’s second hand information!

kevinandrew

Where are these supposed dents located, fuselage, engine or cabin? 

Would have thought anything major would have picked up during the delivery process, must be some sort of inspection before hand over.

Lapmo_Dancer

Tenger wrote: »

I had looked at the website about a month ago and it was showing DUB-IAD 3 times a week. Just looking there I see BDL is dropping to 4x weekly and that EWR is showing daily. So will be interesting to hear how the alternate aircraft works out on that route over the winter.

The original Nov/Dec schedule had a daily IAD and a daily EWR.

IAD was to be x4 weekly 330 and x3 weekly 321.
EWR was to be daily 330.

Schedule has been modified to still a daily fight to both with a daily 330 to IAD and EWR getting x4 weekly 330 and x3 weekly 321.

Captain_Crash

kevinandrew wrote: »

Where are these supposed dents located, fuselage, engine or cabin? 

Would have thought anything major would have picked up during the delivery process, must be some sort of inspection before hand over.

That was my thought! I asked and the answer I got was supposedly it looks like it was sat in a hail storm! I know nothing more and just posting here what I was told (source is fairly reliable, but again full disclosure, he hasn’t seen it and was only told about it)

Qprmeath

The new bus