Aer Lingus Fleet/Routes Discussion

A319er

A319er wrote: »

FNG was hit hard by JetBlue ramp equipment, baggage belt Loader
Impact was hard enough to cause severe internal structural damage to strut inside bulk cargo door, result aircraft routed JFK DUB nil pax limit 18000 ft
Then onwards to France, repairs will involve strip down and re build fuselage from L2 R2 to rear doors, major work involved and Only Airbus certified to carry this work out .

It crossed from JFK at 39,000ft.

TheFitz13

Any ideas when it will return?

TheFitz13

TheFitz13 wrote: »

Any ideas when it will return?

Maybe today.

TheFitz13

TheFitz13 wrote: »

Any ideas when it will return?

She's back. Can't have been that big a problem and certainly didn't need a rebuild by Airbus.

marno21

Any reason why EI-CBK, the ATR 42, has been out of service all week? EI are using the 72 at the minute on the KIR route.

billy few mates

Deleted User wrote: »

She's back. Can't have been that big a problem and certainly didn't need a rebuild by Airbus.

Why does something like this have to go all the way to BOD to be done...?
It can't have been that drastic if it's back flying already, surely EI have some inhouse SMW capability...?

Tenger

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She's back. Can't have been that big a problem and certainly didn't need a rebuild by Airbus.

Im going to assume that it might have had the potential to have been worse?
Perhaps for certification it had to be an Airbus repair rather than fully qualified EI teams?
Hence the ferry to BOD.

billy few mates

If BOD can do it anybody should be able to do it.
If it's not in the SRM then AI will issue the repair instructions, it doesn't matter who does the actual work. Surely they have some SMW capability in house, they have the hangar they must have the people...?

colbarr

Even if they don't have the people, would it not be cheaper to fly an Airbus engineer over instead of ferrying the plane there an back?

Tenger

Tenger wrote: »

Im going to assume that it might have had the potential to have been worse?
Perhaps for certification it had to be an Airbus repair rather than fully qualified EI teams?
Hence the ferry to BOD.

I agree, preemptive more than anything. Damage that was borderline and probably needed to be certified by AI rather than the rebuild that was suggested by another poster on the last page.

Impact was hard enough to cause severe internal structural damage to strut inside bulk cargo door, result aircraft routed JFK DUB nil pax limit 18000 ft
Then onwards to France, repairs will involve strip down and re build fuselage from L2 R2 to rear doors, major work involved and Only Airbus certified to carry this work out .

It can't have been that severe if it was only down there 3 days and back in operation the day after.

billy few mates

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree, preemptive more than anything. Damage that was borderline and probably needed to be certified by AI rather than the rebuild that was suggested by another poster on the last page.



It can't have been that severe if it was only down there 3 days and back in operation the day after.

That's not the way it works, if the repair is in the SRM you don't need to consult AI. If the repair is not in the SRM you submit the data to AI, they design the repair and issue the repair instructions. Any maintenance organisation can do that repair and once they confirm they've followed the repair instructions without deviation AI will issue the certification for the repair but they don't actually need to do it or even see the aircraft. The work can be signed off by Any appropriately type rated engineer, AI just provide the repair scheme.
Airbus do have an AOG team who will do the repair for you if requested, but it would cost a fortune and you wouldn't normally call them out for three or four day job like this.

L1011

Its quite a new airframe - is it possible it was sent to Airbus to ensure the repair didn't prevent any claims for manufacturing issues in future?

billy few mates

L1011 wrote: »

Its quite a new airframe - is it possible it was sent to Airbus to ensure the repair didn't prevent any claims for manufacturing issues in future?

Unlikely, any repair will be fully documented and distinct from manufacture or production work so would have no effect on manufacturing issues or warranties.
Besides, no ones actually said it was Airbus who did the repair, as far as I'm aware AI only have a space and defence facility at BOD so it's more likely an MRO like Sabena Technics who have a large facility there did the repair.
I'm just surprised an operator as large as EI doesn't have SMW capability to do the job in DUB.

kevinandrew

I think Aer Lingus used to do it all in house, it then became an independent subsidiary known as TEAM Aer Lingus and eventually SR Technics. It was around 2009 when SR Technics lost its contracts with Aer Lingus that the closure of the facility was announced with over 1000 jobs lost. I remember Aer Lingus was seen as the bad guy for "outsourcing" to Sabena in Bordeaux despite the fact they'd technically outsourced the work decades before. 


It's pretty certain the aircraft in question wasn't repaired by Airbus, firstly it's almost unheard of to send a damaged aircraft back to the manufacturer for repairs and secondly Airbus don't even have the facilities in Bordeaux to handle that, it would have be Toulouse and I think Airbus are too busy building new aircraft down there!


Aer Lingus still actually carry out a large portion of day to day maintenance on the fleet in house, Hanger 6 is full of aircraft each night but the major stuff is done in Bordeaux and that usually waits for the winter when you'll often see an A330 disappear for a few weeks at a time.

TheFitz13

Anyone know when EI-GAM is due?

billy few mates

kevinandrew wrote: »

I think Aer Lingus used to do it all in house, it then became an independent subsidiary known as TEAM Aer Lingus and eventually SR Technics. It was around 2009 when SR Technics lost its contracts with Aer Lingus that the closure of the facility was announced with over 1000 jobs lost. I remember Aer Lingus was seen as the bad guy for "outsourcing" to Sabena in Bordeaux despite the fact they'd technically outsourced the work decades before. 


It's pretty certain the aircraft in question wasn't repaired by Airbus, firstly it's almost unheard of to send a damaged aircraft back to the manufacturer for repairs and secondly Airbus don't even have the facilities in Bordeaux to handle that, it would have be Toulouse and I think Airbus are too busy building new aircraft down there!


Aer Lingus still actually carry out a large portion of day to day maintenance on the fleet in house, Hanger 6 is full of aircraft each night but the major stuff is done in Bordeaux and that usually waits for the winter when you'll often see an A330 disappear for a few weeks at a time.

Airbus have an AOG team who travel worldwide to carry out major repairs that would be beyond the capabilities of most operators, this A/C was sufficiently undamaged as to be able to ferry trans Atlantic and be back in service in a few days. That suggests the damage was relatively minor and not sufficient to require their services. Surely EI have the resources and capability to carry out repairs at their main base or do they have to go to BOD every time one of their A/C picks up a knock?

duskyjoe

The aircraft is more or less brand new......maybe the lessor demanded it get the once over in a heavy maint shop?

Captain_Crash

billy few mates wrote: »

Surely EI have the resources and capability to carry out repairs at their main base or do they have to go to BOD every time one of their A/C picks up a knock?

Simple economics, they get heavy maintenance done in BOD and have done for years, & H6 is full of aircraft every night that are required the next morning. It makes more sense to have one aircraft go to BOD instead of uprooting several aircraft out of H6 for a few days.

Despite being the biggest hanger in DUB, H6 on the grand scheme of things isn't huge and the space is better served with nightly maintenance as opposed to one heavy repair

L1011

Tenger wrote: »

Its on the production list.....MSN 197, estimate based on planned production schedule is Q2 2018.

197 is now showing as assigned to Vietnam Airlines and there are none showing as allocated to EI.

~25 300s to be delivered before the next, should start seeing pics in a month or so I'd guess.

Tenger

L1011 wrote: »

197 is now showing as assigned to Vietnam Airlines and there are none showing as allocated to EI.

~25 300s to be delivered before the next, should start seeing pics in a month or so I'd guess.

Oh that horse has bolted. MSN 197 was showing as "1st Delivery Aer Lingus" on the Airbus production list last year, then at the end of last Summer it went blank, and Vietnam Airlines appeared opposit 197 around Oct-Nov 2016.
So while IAG have yet to publically make an announcement on the 9 A350's that EI had on order (and indeed the other A350 from BA and IB) I am firmly of the belief that they are not happening.
I think that IAG have decided to postpone capital investment in new build while fuel is staying low.

HTCOne

I'm not surprised. I saw a report last year outlining the finance costs of a leased B77W vs a B744, selling the same number of tickets at the same price on both. Despite burning more fuel the 744 made more profit after financing was factored in. This applies to financing/leasing new build legacy airframes like the A330ceo, 737 NG etc vs 787, A350, MAX, NEO etc.

Locker10a

I see Titan are operating tonight for EI, doing the late ACE.
Is there an aircraft out of service at the moment

Zonda999

AzcuzCoz wrote: »

What a/c type is Titan operating for EI tonight?

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ei779

Looks like a Titan 757 has been operating this and other routes for EI for the last few days now

LXFlyer

G-POWH is currently en route on EI776/7 to/from Lanzarote today and then is scheduled to do EI348/9 to/from Zurich later before returning to Stansted (per FR24 - that of course is subject to change) .

It's been flying to Lanzarote, Lisbon, Berlin since 1 June, so I would assume that EI must be down an A320.

L1011

The Titan 737s are too small to cover an even close to fully booked 320 - this time of year I doubt there's many flights quiet enough to swap to it.

john boye

From everything I've heard/seen, EI-GAM should have been in the fleet by now so that might explain the subs

NH2013

john boye wrote: »

From everything I've heard/seen, EI-GAM should have been in the fleet by now so that might explain the subs

From what I've heard on the grapevine the last weeks hire in's have been due to a shortage of Flight Deck crew in Aer Lingus and the summer schedule is not even in full swing yet, looks like a repeat of 3 years ago where they were desperately short of crews with a high number of delays, cancellations and hire ins. The arrival of EI-GAM will help alleviate delays and cancellations caused by unscheduled down time in the fleet but is not needed to run the schedule for another couple weeks.

Locker10a

Anyone know what happens to tonight's TFS? Showing as canx, the outbound DUB-TFS operated on time

Locker10a

This mornings Gatwick flights were operated by the 757 EI-LBT

goingnowhere

Locker10a wrote: »

This mornings Gatwick flights were operated by the 757 EI-LBT

And yesterday. Good use of the hull between arriving DUB and going back to BDL.

Also matches the A320 seating capacity

Mebuntu

Locker10a wrote: »

Anyone know what happens to tonight's TFS? Showing as canx, the outbound DUB-TFS operated on time

Your query re this flight on 7th June:

Aer Lingus A321 EI-CPG operated EI764 Dublin – Tenerife South this afternoon, however the return EI765 has been delayed overnight due to a technical issue.

From http://www.thelingussource.com/

Locker10a

Mebuntu wrote: »

Locker10a wrote: »

Anyone know what happens to tonight's TFS? Showing as canx, the outbound DUB-TFS operated on time

Your query re this flight on 7th June:

Aer Lingus A321 EI-CPG operated EI764 Dublin – Tenerife South this afternoon, however the return EI765 has been delayed overnight due to a technical issue.

From http://www.thelingussource.com/

I discovered at the time it was indeed due to a crew welfare issue. Not sure which source is correct but long since been dealt with

AndyBoBandy

Locker10a wrote: »

This mornings Gatwick flights were operated by the 757 EI-LBT

I was contemplating a site visit in the U.K. yesterday which would have meant an early morning flight to LGW, pity as had I known it was a 757, I'd have probably gone for it!

Hotblack Desiato

It's really just a 321 with bigger engines and larger tanks. More cargo capacity but passenger capacity is pretty much the same.

Flew on one to the Canaries 10 or 12 years ago (First Choice Airlines, as it was then) and it was the same as the usual 737 or 320 flight except for one thing. We were right at the back and the visible vertical flexing of the fuselage was quite noticeable. All normal and that but the less knowledgeable flyer might be a little put out by it, it was kind of funny watching the front toilet sign visibly move up and down by quite a way.

321s are also a long thin somewhat flexible tube, but I've never been seated right at the back when flying on one.

AndyBoBandy

Yeah but the EI (Air Contractir) 757's have a business cabin, which I'd have happily paid the extra for a seat in, even on a short hop to Gatwick.

Tenger

I would call the B757 "a stretched B737" myself.
I have only been inside one but I immediately got flashbacks to the B737s I spend time on back 15-16 yrs ago.
The big engines give it better thrust than other airliners.

Most importantly is thst fact that the B757 is an endangered species. Its rarely nowadays outside of long thin routes. So DUB-LGW is a rare opportunity.

A321s have the effect you described in relation to the flex. Ive seen it myself when seated in tbe last row or two.

Micky 32

I had a nice return trip in one of Aerlingus new A330 that was delivered last May ( can't remember the name but began with a C) It seems smoother down the runway and doesn't give the same initial pull in the seat when accelerating like the older A330's.

ozzy jr

Of the short haul fleet, do all the planes return back to Ireland at the end of the day?

LXFlyer

ozzy jr wrote: »

Of the short haul fleet, do all the planes return back to Ireland at the end of the day?

No - two overnight in Heathrow.

JCX BXC

Tenger wrote: »

Most importantly is thst fact that the B757 is an endangered species. Its rarely nowadays outside of long thin routes. So DUB-LGW is a rare opportunity.
.

I wouldn't agree, although DUB-LGW is a rare opportunity, that's mainly to do with Aer Lingus not having 757's spare to operate the routes. Putting on the 757 filter shows quite a few 757's on the radar, especially in the US.

Sadly I doubt I'll.be saying the same in 5 years.

Locker10a

lxflyer wrote: »

ozzy jr wrote: »

Of the short haul fleet, do all the planes return back to Ireland at the end of the day?

No - two overnight in Heathrow.

Why two ? In my airline experience I've always know short haul nightstops to be one aircraft, but two crews, one for an early departure, one for a late afternoon etc

LXFlyer

Locker10a wrote: »

Why two ? In my airline experience I've always know short haul nightstops to be one aircraft, but two crews, one for an early departure, one for a late afternoon etc

Locker10a wrote: »

Thanks for that, I'm surprised that over the years EI haven't acquired an earlier arrival slot at LHR

It's not that surprising given that it's their busiest route, surely, and one of the busier international corridors?

Bear in mind that, allowing for the longer turnaround times that Heathrow flights require, that would mean an arrival time of about 06:50, which would mean a departure time of about 05:20 from Dublin which Aer Lingus may feel is too early.

Looking at the scheduled Heathrow arrivals for tomorrow morning, there are no short haul arrivals prior to 07:20, and only 16 short haul flights arrive earlier than the first Aer Lingus arrival, most of which are from the continent and which have the benefit of the one hour time difference.

Add to that, I suspect that the cost of acquiring one of the long haul arrival slots would be pretty expensive.

Cloudio9

Locker10a wrote: »

Thanks for that, I'm surprised that over the years EI haven't acquired an earlier arrival slot at LHR

Don't think there'd be much demand for an earlier flight from business travellers. With the 6.40 departure, passengers can get something approaching a nights sleep and be functional that day.

Hector Savage

Hi I posted this over on the general thread :

Hi,
A bit of an unusual historical question here, the 1st time I flew it was in May 1984 Dublin to Menorca
My grandad at the time told me it was a BAC1-11 (Aer Lingus)

But my brother rememebers it a little differently, he thinks it was a 737-200.
Anyway, the plane was definetely Aer Lingus, I was just wondering did anyone know if the BAC1-11 flew that route
back then ?

...And received this interesting reply ...

I may be wrong here but I'm sure the BAC111 had certain payload restrictions and didn't have great range, this might mean it wouldn't have been capable of efficienctly operating a flight between Dublin and Menorca, fully booked and with each passenger having hold luggage. But again I'm not sure on this, the folks on the Aer Lingus fleet discussion thread may know better

Is this correct ? was the BAC-1-11 short range ?
Would DUB-Menorca be too long for it ?

Captain_Crash

Hector Savage wrote: »

Is this correct ? was the BAC-1-11 short range ? Would DUB-Menorca be too long for it ?

I believe EI had the earlier variants of the 1-11 which didn't have the legs for DUB-MAH no. Although the 300 had the range, it was tight and with the fuel requirements regarding holding and diversions, would not have been able to operate such a route without restriction.

L1011

Hector Savage wrote: »

Hi I posted this over on the general thread :



...And received this interesting reply ...



Is this correct ? was the BAC-1-11 short range ?
Would DUB-Menorca be too long for it ?

The Series 200s that Aer Lingus had wouldn't make it with any acceptable load (if at all). Normal range 720nm; DUB-MAH is 920nm

Locker10a

I recall Pay Kenny and late Jerry Ryan once telling the story of Italia 90, there were obviously going out there to work but got seats on one of the many charters organised at the time.
They flew with Ryanair, who at the time had the 1-11. It couldn't do DUB-FCO non-stop and had to refuel in Nice on the way, interesting story and gives a example of the restrictions on the 1-11

Hector Savage

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I believe EI had the earlier variants of the 1-11 which didn't have the legs for DUB-MAH no. Although the 300 had the range, it was tight and with the fuel requirements regarding holding and diversions, would not have been able to operate such a route without restriction.

L1011 wrote: »

The Series 200s that Aer Lingus had wouldn't make it with any acceptable load (if at all). Normal range 720nm; DUB-MAH is 920nm

Locker10a wrote: »

I recall Pay Kenny and late Jerry Ryan once telling the story of Italia 90, there were obviously going out there to work but got seats on one of the many charters organised at the time.
They flew with Ryanair, who at the time had the 1-11. It couldn't do DUB-FCO non-stop and had to refuel in Nice on the way, interesting story and gives a example of the restrictions on the 1-11

Thanks all!!
that is brilliant information cheers!!

Hector Savage

Heres a 1-11 in Mallorca,

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Aer-Lingus/BAC-111-208AL-One-Eleven/152770?qsp=eJwlTUsKwjAQvctbZxMqWrqzF9CFFxgmowZiGyYjWErvbtLu3v%2Bt4Hky%2BdljyYIBRUj5DYdMSp%2BCYQVFZaWnjVQiHzHfny6uGSlOrdV7Xys8fyfTBUPXe4cyq42VIJDJlVmyScCh3zSINksK71%2BvNlqB6H3H6M5VD7HkRPuGGMWEbfsDNGQ5SQ%3D%3D

So it would stop for fuel ?

Captain_Crash

Hector Savage wrote: »

Heres a 1-11 in Mallorca,

So it would stop for fuel ?

Its a 200 series so yes, a fuel stop would have been required.