Aer Lingus Fleet/Routes Discussion

Nibs05

Jack1985 wrote: »

All European citizens will be denied entry to US ports for the duration of the proclamation.

US citizens will be permitted to return home at any time. However it will not be operationally feasible to cater to flying somewhat 1/3 busy inbounds and empty outbounds. Demand has dried up and travel bans exacerbate any remaining demand.

It may be more feasible to stop all costs and ground the airline.

Thanks

kona

Jack1985 wrote: »

All European citizens will be denied entry to US ports for the duration of the proclamation.

US citizens will be permitted to return home at any time. However it will not be operationally feasible to cater to flying somewhat 1/3 busy inbounds and empty outbounds. Demand has dried up and travel bans exacerbate any remaining demand.

It may be more feasible to stop all costs and ground the airline.

Cargo ops makes up a large chuck of business.

Jack1985

kona wrote: »

Cargo ops makes up a large chuck of business.

At a time where every country in the network is under pressure (and the situation is changing by the hour) with demand floored I'm not sure cargo will keep aircraft flying like it did post 2008.

There has to be a willingness here to accept harsh measures to ensure future viability.

kona

Jack1985 wrote: »

At a time where every country in the network is under pressure (and the situation is changing by the hour) with demand floored I'm not sure cargo will keep aircraft flying like it did post 2008.

There has to be a willingness here to accept harsh measures to ensure future viability.

Absolutely, alot of staff are going to get bad news either way.

Cargo will keep flying as long as there is demand, the cost will go up.

Nijmegen

Jack1985 wrote: »

It cannot be ruled out now that a complete grounding of operations may be required here.

Wowsa

kevinandrew

kona wrote: »

Cargo ops makes up a large chuck of business.

Didn't the original ban extend to cargo?

Nijmegen

kevinandrew wrote: »

Didn't the original ban extend to cargo?

Nah that was quickly clarified.

But if demand is falling off in the economy with everyone stuck at home, perhaps cargo volumes are gonna drop too and will be consolidated into airlines flying freighters.

kona

kevinandrew wrote: »

Didn't the original ban extend to cargo?

I assumed it was just people. Alot of medical supplies get transported by aer lingus, even body parts.

LXFlyer

kevinandrew wrote: »

Didn't the original ban extend to cargo?

No it did not.

That was another Trump mistake.

It was clarified by the Dept of Homeland Security afterwards.

jucylucy

All that belly freight still needs to go each way also so we may see pax aircraft going empty!

kevinandrew

Thanks for the clarification re cargo, should have remembered everything that Trump said in that speech was incorrect to some degree!

As for grounding the fleet, that would be devastating for the airline initially but could preserve it in the long term. It's obviously a decision management won't take lightly. As the situation stands now, I think a more likely approach is them rapidly reviewing the network on a route by route basis, addressing costs that can be stripped out of the business in the immediate and mid term and retiring aircraft that have leases coming to an end, this would likely result in a short term financial penalty but may provide a long term saving. I genuinely think this crisis and its aftermath will be felt for at least two years.

Aer Lingus is not unique in this situation, its peers in IAG will be suffering massively as well with British Airways losing its two biggest long haul markets and Iberia trapped in Spain. Even Ryanair are going to struggle with Spain closing down, Poland shutting itself off and various other European nations closing their doors with demand plummeting in the process.

There will be no quick "bounce back" for surviving airlines, if it means reducing themselves to a fraction of their current size to survive, then so be it.

donkey balls

jucylucy wrote: »

All that belly freight still needs to go each way also so we may see pax aircraft going empty!

Nah be just moved to the 3 intergraters

Tenger

joeysoap wrote: »

I fully accept Tengers word that the staff are provided with gloves.......

In fairness I'm going on my other half's constant supply of them in her handbag.




Good point above about EI being able to keep using the 4x NEOs for vastly reduced demand.
Certainly gives them a more cost effe rive option than empty wide bodies.

billy few mates

Tenger wrote: »

Good point above about EI being able to keep using the 4x NEOs for vastly reduced demand.
Certainly gives them a more cost effe rive option than empty wide bodies.

Not as cost effective as the four B757s would have been.

Tenger

billy few mates wrote: »

Not as cost effective as the four B757s would have been.

Isn't the A321LR 25% lower fuel burn than B757? (but obviously higher repayments)

Or was the ASL operation overall cheaper?

OU812

Lads, Have friends with parents (late 60s) in Gran Canaria at the moment, supposed to be staying there until end of the month, do you think they should come home? are they likely to be stuck there?

vicwatson

OU812 wrote: »

Lads, Have friends with parents (late 60s) in Gran Canaria at the moment, supposed to be staying there until end of the month, do you think they should come home? are they likely to be stuck there?

You might get more info here

https://www.dfa.ie/travelwise/

billy few mates

Tenger wrote: »

Isn't the A321LR 25% lower fuel burn than B757? (but obviously higher repayments)

Or was the ASL operation overall cheaper?

The fuel burn is only part of the overall operating costs, the savings on the fuel burn would be more than wiped out by the increased expenditure on the lease rates for a brand new A321 LR NEO which at a guess could be anything between $300k to $360k per month.

kona

billy few mates wrote: »

The fuel burn is only part of the overall operating costs, the savings on the fuel burn would be more than wiped out by the increased expenditure on the lease rates for a brand new A321 LR NEO which at a guess could be anything between $300k to $360k per month.

I wonder if ei have a clause to hand back aircraft with a massive chunk of cash.

MJohnston

I would wonder whether it might be in the interests of Airbus and Boeing to work out reduced leasing costs for airlines whilst this crisis is ongoing. Because without the airlines, the manufacturers have no business, so they need the industry to survive.

EchoIndia

OU812 wrote: »

Lads, Have friends with parents (late 60s) in Gran Canaria at the moment, supposed to be staying there until end of the month, do you think they should come home? are they likely to be stuck there?

Under current advice they will need to undergo 14 days’ self-isolation on return. That assumes that air services continue, which is probably not a safe assumption at this point.

IE 222

OU812 wrote: »

Lads, Have friends with parents (late 60s) in Gran Canaria at the moment, supposed to be staying there until end of the month, do you think they should come home? are they likely to be stuck there?

Personally I can see the UK's infected numbers spiralling out of control next week and along with further travel bans imposed from other EU states we'll move to close are ports in an effort to stop more coming in. I hope I'm wrong but I think the UK is are biggest risk now.

jesus_thats_gre

Anyone hear rumours that Dublin Airport will be shut for 2 weeks?

billy few mates

MJohnston wrote: »

I would wonder whether it might be in the interests of Airbus and Boeing to work out reduced leasing costs for airlines whilst this crisis is ongoing. Because without the airlines, the manufacturers have no business, so they need the industry to survive.

Not just Airbus and Boeing, the EI NEOs are leased from Air Lease Corporation which is just one of many leasing companies, the last thing any of them want right now is a glut of early handbacks which they would then be responsible for and unable to place back out on the market.
These aircraft still need a degree of maintenance even when they're not flying, it would be far better to come to an arrangement that would leave them with the current operators until the market picks up again. That way the operator would continue to be responsible for the storage and parking costs until they're ready to start operations again.
This is new territory for all parties, they'll have to work together on this.

Tenger

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Anyone hear rumours that Dublin Airport will be shut for 2 weeks?

Ive seen rumours online, "closing on Monday", "closing on Tuesday" and "closing next week"
Each has been intertwined to the "the army will lockdown the country" rumour.


So Im not believing that gossip

IE 222

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Anyone hear rumours that Dublin Airport will be shut for 2 weeks?

It's a rumour but I'm sure it's a viable option. It would be wise to lockdown the state at this point for a short period rather than prolonging the uncertainty and downturn while we still have some sort of grip on things. It would require the north to follow suit otherwise that just leaves a backdoor wide open.

Apart from UK flights will there be any worthwhile routes available by Tuesday. Many countries have banned entries while our government continues to expand its list of no go areas.

billy few mates

Tenger wrote: »

Ive seen rumours online, "closing on Monday", "closing on Tuesday" and "closing next week"
Each has been intertwined to the "the army will lockdown the country" rumour.


So Im not believing that gossip

We still need cargo flights to bring in urgently needed goods and supplies and it's likely those carriers are going to be busier than ever if normal passenger flights are disrupted. We're an island nation, the only way in or out is by boat and plane..

MJohnston

IE 222 wrote: »

It's a rumour but I'm sure it's a viable option. It would be wise to lockdown the state at this point for a short period rather than prolonging the uncertainty and downturn while we still have some sort of grip on things. It would require the north to follow suit otherwise that just leaves a backdoor wide open.

Apart from UK flights will there be any worthwhile routes available by Tuesday. Many countries have banned entries while our government continues to expand its list of no go areas.

Could potentially still run Stobart flights, but whether that would be worth the expense of keeping the terminals running, who knows?

Cargo will still continue running though.

Locker10a

MJohnston wrote: »

Could potentially still run Stobart flights, but whether that would be worth the expense of keeping the terminals running, who knows?

Cargo will still continue running though.

Yes, and ATC are putting a contingency plan in place to keep the airspace open

IE 222

MJohnston wrote: »

Could potentially still run Stobart flights, but whether that would be worth the expense of keeping the terminals running, who knows?

Cargo will still continue running though.

I'm talking full on lockdown of the country. Keep people at home and only keep essential staff working. Cargo would have to be the exception of the rule but ideally we should probably ship as much air freight by sea were possible for the period.

It would be more economical to try curb this thing with a full lockdown for a 2 or 3 week period than fighting a losing battle for the next 6 - 10 weeks with essentially half of the country locked down either way.