Aer Lingus Fleet/Routes Discussion

tnegun

L1011 wrote: »

The 350s aren't coming.

Yikes I was going on info from cabin crew a few months back what's the plan now?

mx5ire

tnegun wrote: »

Edit. Also was missing seats on at least 2 of the flights and they're currently using a remote stand in IAD requiring those mobile lounges be used so slows up boarding and disembarking

This is kind of where my question earlier was coming from. I am lucky enough to be going at the front, but it still looks like EI planes of 10+ years ago. Also very concerned about that remote stand and those damn mobile lounges - i have a tightish connection there, so between that and EI's current inability to actually fly on time its making me nervous !

tnegun

You should be OK up the front if I remember properly the first lounge pulls up to door 3 I think the one in business but not at the very front if you know what I mean and the second to the rear doors, cabin crew let business board the lounge first. I was last there 2 weeks ago and we landed just about on time after leaving about 30 mins late and having to fly around weather on approach to IAD, the bags were off quick enough I went to the Starbucks got a coffee and my bag was on the belt when I got back.

Locker10a

tnegun wrote: »

Flown on GEY 6 times in the last 3 months economy only though and while its an upgrade on the 757 that was on the route previously its not much, no hot water or tepid hot water and soap dispensers that barely work, PA system suffers from serious feedback randomly, the IFE sucks, is unresponsive, takes up space for your feet and uses those twin headphone jacks, the worst is the lack of individual air in the overhead panel. Is it a permanent addition to the fleet or just until the 350's are delivered?
Edit. Also was missing seats on at least 2 of the flights and they're currently using a remote stand in IAD requiring those mobile lounges be used so slows up boarding and disembarking

Do you mean you can’t have hot tea or coffee? Or the bathroom taps are only tepid ? Is it the old Qatar IFE?

L1011

tnegun wrote: »

Yikes I was going on info from cabin crew a few months back what's the plan now?

330s and A321LRs.

mx5ire

tnegun wrote: »

You should be OK up the front if I remember properly the first lounge pulls up to door 3 I think the one in business but not at the very front if you know what I mean and the second to the rear doors, cabin crew let business board the lounge first. I was last there 2 weeks ago and we landed just about on time after leaving about 30 mins late and having to fly around weather on approach to IAD, the bags were off quick enough I went to the Starbucks got a coffee and my bag was on the belt when I got back.

Thanks for that - i get you on the doors ! As you say - will prob be first off, but where does the mobile lounge actually bring you ? Terminal B or the main terminal building ? I had understood that EI typically went to a terminal B gate (71-79 normally), then i could walk through the terminal for a few mins to the Airtrain, get it via the main terminal building to terminal C, where my United connection is. At least that was the plan !

tnegun

Locker10a wrote: »

Do you mean you can’t have hot tea or coffee? Or the bathroom taps are only tepid ? Is it the old Qatar IFE?

Sorry I meant in the toilets, I like to try wash my face to freshen up before landing but it doesn't work without soap of hot water! I think it's the same make/brand of IFE as was in the 757 that was on this route in January and possibly Boston last October that's when I started taking note of which plane I was on as it was pretty poor.

tnegun

mx5ire wrote: »

Thanks for that - i get you on the doors ! As you say - will prob be first off, but where does the mobile lounge actually bring you ? Terminal B or the main terminal building ? I had understood that EI typically went to a terminal B gate (71-79 normally), then i could walk through the terminal for a few mins to the Airtrain, get it via the main terminal building to terminal C, where my United connection is. At least that was the plan !

I think it was gate B81 right beside the usual gate

Shn99

tnegun wrote: »

Sorry I meant in the toilets, I like to try wash my face to freshen up before landing but it doesn't work without soap of hot water! I think it's the same make/brand of IFE as was in the 757 that was on this route in January and possibly Boston last October that's when I started taking note of which plane I was on as it was pretty poor.

LBR is in a poor state, flew on it from SNN ago JFK last July, won’t be sad to see them go

PaulKK

I see privilege is in again for 138, and 137 seriously delayed today. What's the odds of 137 going on time tomorrow?

California Dreamer

L1011 wrote: »

The 350s aren't coming.

And people STILL don't believe that!!!! :mad::mad:

Tenger

California Dreamer wrote: »

And people STILL don't believe that!!!! :mad::mad:

Well in fairness IAG have given no clarity on this point. Officially the EI order for 9 A350 is still on the books even though EI themselves haven’t referred to that type in 2 years. (Maybe more?). 10 months ago the IAG investor presentation showed that their overall B787/A350 delivery split was still ‘TBD’.
I haven’t looked at their presentation last month so not sure if it’s any clearer.

trellheim

Airbus themselves say 9

As of July https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/backgrounders/Backgrounder-Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-A350-XWB-Customers-list-EN.pdf

L1011

Airbus won't delete/rename that order until IAG decide what to do with them but they are not allocated delivery slots. They aren't coming.

john boye

Airbus still listed the VS A380 order for years even though it was common knowledge they were never going to take them.

Karl8415

California Dreamer wrote: »

And people STILL don't believe that!!!! :mad::mad:

Wasn’t it Willie Walsh himself said within the last 12 months that he felt that the A350 was a step too far for EI,in other words the capabilities of it were more than Ei required and I think more so now that the A330-300’s particularly gaj and gcf can reach lax and sfo which gives them 313 seats which is more than they ever had,,my own personal view is should they buy new TA aircraft I think the A330 neo would be more suitable

Karl8415

Karl8415 wrote: »

Wasn’t it Willie Walsh himself said within the last 12 months that he felt that the A350 was a step too far for EI,in other words the capabilities of it were more than Ei required and I think more so now that the A330-300’s particularly gaj and gcf can reach lax and sfo which gives them 313 seats which is more than they ever had,,my own personal view is should they buy new TA aircraft I think the A330 neo would be more suitable

WW clearly knows more on this subject than us, I imagine he has every figure available in front of him. But there is elements that I don’t understand. Iberia are using them to fly to JFK from Madrid off long runways. Yet our intention was to use them to fly likely to LAX and SFO off a shorter runway than Madrid where the 359’s capability would have come in to its own. Plus it would have saved nearly 10% on the fuel bill for every flight.

Aer Lingus I doubt would have bought an aircraft without doing their research fully on it and known the 350-900 was the plane for them especially with rising fuel prices.

At some stage EI is going to need new modern aircraft to combat rising fuel prices. At the moment IAG are only providing EI with cast offs from other airlines within the group and share owners castoffs. There is a need for a short haul order and a long haul order. There is an argument for an order for regional jets for Stobart to replace the ATR’s which struggle under full loads of pax and bags on the AM flights. EI had delivery slots originally for the 350’s for this year onwards now we will be years further down the queue for slots when eventually they realise they need them.

My fear is that EI is being run deliberately on a shoe string to maximise the profits and returns for EI hq bods to show proudly to their IAG overlords. We’ve seen it for the last few years how tight the Atlantic operation is being run, yet here we are another summer later with mass cancellations in Shannon and some in Dublin and hire ins. The operation is being run too tight aircraft wise and ground staff wise.

EI love pointing their finger at the DAA for the delays but rarely admit that they can’t meet their own schedules because they are running it too tight causing their own delays. I don’t know what overlap the DAA allow on stands but I can’t imagine the regular running late of an hour on the TA operation is helping their stand allocation plan.

Bussywussy

billie1b wrote: »

trellheim wrote: »

which part of it is untrue

Maybe the part about the airbridge is wrong but it was dispatched when it was ‘out of service hours’, I never once said the engineer signed it off ‘willy nilly’, I was just saying that it had it’s line maintenance check before departure. Someone somewhere along the line over looked something, thats all. We are only human, we can all make mistakes

Not true

duskyjoe

GVHOT, you have it summed up 100% re EIN. Great post

Mebuntu

The hired-in Privilege 763 returned to Madrid yesterday afternoon. It arrived back in DUB at 14.08 this afternoon - per flightradar24.

goingnowhere

EI-LAX back flying, EI125 to ORD, seems to be on time

EC-LZO flew in as EI991 but no record of departing, possibly as insurance if EI-LAX wasn't ready?

GCF, DUZ, LAX and ELA are all flying

vectorvictor

Mebuntu wrote: »

The hired-in Privilege 763 returned to Madrid yesterday afternoon. It arrived back in DUB at 14.08 this afternoon - per flightradar24.

Looking at how the likes of Privilege operate it's hard to see how they could be anything other than extorniate prices for EI.

To start op's last week they positioned in from Vilnius. Hopped down to Mad yesterday and back up today with nothing in between. Understand crew changes but surely be cheaper to position their crews on sched flights unless EI are giving them no guidance and chartering at T minus 180 everytime

goingnowhere

Flight cancellation,

300pax
600 euro EC261
=180,000
+ cost of reaccommodation on a another carrier as EI will have little or no spare capacity on other flights
+ hotel and board for those delayed

*2 as the return will be cancelled as well

Only saving EI makes
1. Not having to fill the tanks up, 40 tons for a long sector

So hiring in, isn't really that expensive

JCX BXC

goingnowhere wrote: »

Flight cancellation,

300pax
600 euro EC261
=180,000

Realistically, how many of those 300 pax will actually claim compo? I'd say it's only a fraction of the pax on board.

Trampas

Idiot question but why do they go to charter companies. Surely ba have a spare plane hanging around and crew on stand by

vectorvictor

Trampas wrote: »

Idiot question but why do they go to charter companies. Surely ba have a spare plane hanging around and crew on stand by

Don't think it's an idiot question. You would think that IAG would have one or two standby units for cover on a group level.

Or maybe just buy Privilege - might work out cheaper at this rate!

Stephen Strange

BA have had to wet lease aircraft this summer due to Dreamliner issues and to cover the Monarch slots at LGW that they purchased, so they seem fairly tight on aircraft too.

Jamie2k9

JCX BXC wrote: »

Realistically, how many of those 300 pax will actually claim compo? I'd say it's only a fraction of the pax on board.

Perhaps not all but all passenger will get EI vouchers for 300-500 quid regardless and it will cost them future revenue.

Looking at how the likes of Privilege operate it's hard to see how they could be anything other than extorniate prices for EI.

To start op's last week they positioned in from Vilnius. Hopped down to Mad yesterday and back up today with nothing in between. Understand crew changes but surely be cheaper to position their crews on sched flights unless EI are giving them no guidance and chartering at T minus 180 everytime

Would expect the flight to/from MAD today was a case of the lease ending and EI felt they needed them again last minute rather than a crew change. If it was a simple crew change the the fee EI agreed from day one would have covered the costs unless it was a operational decision for the lessor which they may have to bear the cost (out of the profit).

billy few mates

goingnowhere wrote: »

Flight cancellation,

300pax
600 euro EC261
=180,000
+ cost of reaccommodation on a another carrier as EI will have little or no spare capacity on other flights
+ hotel and board for those delayed

*2 as the return will be cancelled as well

Only saving EI makes
1. Not having to fill the tanks up, 40 tons for a long sector

So hiring in, isn't really that expensive

They'll be paying for the fuel as well and also the costs of the positioning flights will be factored into the price.
Short notice ACMI charters can be costly, particularly for long haul operations but the alternative can be even more costly in the long term. Along with the hassle of having to position an aircraft and crew to operate a flight at short notice, they may also have to dead-head a crew to the destination airport to operate the return sector and then possibly dead-head the original crew back to their home base.

sherology

It is odd IAG don't have a few older ex-BA 767/757s kept aside and 'available' for cover. One would have thought this is what a 'group' of airlines could effectively achieve as a benefit to the airlines inside that group.

Good to hear the EI fleet is back. It's odd how annual this multi-craft-down has become. Luck of the Irish... Not.

EI need to go back to the 10-15yr old frame replacement cycles of the past if they want to maintain their 4* rating, and with 330s slow selling right now and at very favourable costs... Odd they haven't ordered a full multi-annual neo replacement of the current a330 fleet starting with the older 200's. They have proven their ability to make large ROIs on their fleet. A350s likely too much airplane for EIs needs.

sherology

sherology wrote: »

It is odd IAG don't have a few older ex-BA 767/757s kept aside and 'available' for cover. One would have thought this is what a 'group' of airlines could effectively achieve as a benefit to the airlines inside that group.

Good to hear the EI fleet is back. It's odd how annual this multi-craft-down has become. Luck of the Irish... Not.

EI need to go back to the 10-15yr old frame replacement cycles of the past if they want to maintain their 4* rating, and with 330s slow selling right now and at very favourable costs... Odd they haven't ordered a full multi-annual neo replacement of the current a330 fleet starting with the older 200's. They have proven their ability to make large ROIs on their fleet. A350s likely too much airplane for EIs needs.

Biggest issues I imagine are justifying the cost to shareholders of having a small inefficient mini fleet sitting around costing large amounts of money with fully trained up and qualified crew and cabin crew waiting to go. Technically for the airlines I imagine that they are happy for he ACMIs to take that risk plus they are likely to be happy to pay the ACMIs to do it.

The problem is while the 330’s are still returning great ROI they airlines won’t be keen to be investing in newer aircraft until their hands start being forced either through higher fuel costs or increased maintenance costs and operating costs. Unfortunately we are living in an age where companies only care about profits, they’ll dress certain improvements up as for their customers which some are but the idea will be to drive greater profits at the end of the day.

goingnowhere

With the exception of ELA at its engine problem, all the issues last week appear to have been to down to ramp damage, which on a A350 would probably be a bigger problem as its a carbon fibre body and not good old aluminum.

LAX and EWR will need to be replaced, that said LAX historically has been a very reliable frame but it keeps getting whacked by ground equipment, its still 2 years younger than a good part of BA's 777 fleet. EWR is leased.

In fact most of the downtime in the fleet has been due to matters outside EI's control, remember the MCO cargo loader fire? The ground handlers in SFO whacking the terminal building. I'd call bad luck (and someone else was paying). The engine failure on LAX in 2017, no. 2 Engine air duct failure.

Talk of 2 more A330's next year, new or from Qatar? who knows but only new A330-300 will do otherwise its A330-200 second hand. It goes without saying its a lot cheaper buy a A330 than a A350 and its a known quantity

IAG needs to sort out a pool of both short haul (A320) and long haul (Iberia and its A340? you can be dual certified for A330/A340) for cover. The current Dreamliner situation and BA and Monarch slots means everything is tied up

Razor44

I can't help but think at this point EI have to be damaging their brand with all the messing with TA ops. There was a full page article in the Irish Times on Sunday (the business section?) about complaints etc "flying in". I know the market for EI is bigger than Ireland, but still, this cant be doing them any good.

The staffing issues that we keep hearing of certainly don't help them at all, I wonder when this will start to have a bigger effect on ops. Its pretty clear that even joe public is aware of this now, with the issues with customer service both in airports and on the helpline, i.e never being able to get anyone, and staffing levels on flights and also the cleaning of aircraft, not to mention the Aer CLub debacle. I've always found that this stuff is fine for a period of time, with people/customers overlooking it, but there always comes a time when the little things add up to do serious brand damage.

On the covering aircraft thing, it is odd that with EI part of IAG they can't access, or make a case for spare frames to cover their summer ops, it's not like the evidence to justify such a plan is lacking. It would seem to suggest some issues at management level regards customer service/ brand protection Vs cost vs profits.

Karl8415

Razor44 wrote: »

I can't help but think at this point EI have to be damaging their brand with all the messing with TA ops. There was a full page article in the Irish Times on Sunday (the business section?) about complaints etc "flying in". I know the market for EI is bigger than Ireland, but still, this cant be doing them any good.

The staffing issues that we keep hearing of certainly don't help them at all, I wonder when this will start to have a bigger effect on ops. Its pretty clear that even joe public is aware of this now, with the issues with customer service both in airports and on the helpline, i.e never being able to get anyone, and staffing levels on flights and also the cleaning of aircraft, not to mention the Aer CLub debacle. I've always found that this stuff is fine for a period of time, with people/customers overlooking it, but there always comes a time when the little things add up to do serious brand damage.

On the covering aircraft thing, it is odd that with EI part of IAG they can't access, or make a case for spare frames to cover their summer ops, it's not like the evidence to justify such a plan is lacking. It would seem to suggest some issues at management level regards customer service/ brand protection Vs cost vs profits.

Just wondering on the talk of stand by frames within the iag group,if you look at BA just now they are coming to the end of retiring the last 5 x 767’s which is not to far away,all 5 are configured 259 economy,which is not bad capacity so having said that if there was a case to use 1 or 2 of these on a stand by basis could iag approach their partners in the group and say if ye want these aircraft as back up everyone must contribute to cost of it or is that a dumb comment because they would have cost of not only parking them but maintaining them and keeping crew up to speed on this aircraft type,if you look over the last 4 weeks for example how much have EI forked out for hire-ins while sum of the 330’s were out of service,I read before that iag allow airlines within the group to have a certain level of independence so this is why I’m asking to see if someone has better insight on this issue

Would the cost of keeping frames maintained and crews available offset the cost of hire ins used though. I would doubt it personally.

Van.Bosch

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would the cost of keeping frames maintained and crews available offset the cost of hire ins used though. I would doubt it personally.

I agree, if it was worth it IAG etc. Would do it, it’s not as if they haven’t thought of it.

Karl8415

The reason why I mentioned it was based on the figures mentioned yesterday that EI were paying out approximately €180,000 per TA hire-in,how many of those payouts have been made in 2018,never mind the last few weeks and with the exception of that 777 that covers there’s a 763 makes a lot of coverage,so with BA having 5 left in the fleet wud iag say to all the airlines in the group that if they want x amount of as coverage then all airlines must contribute towards it and then the aircraft is there for everyone,because I think BA have a few 777’s due,so is it as a 777 arrives to BA they’ll offload a 763 however I do agree with previous comment that iag have explored it

EchoIndia

BA are retiring the last of their 767s completely from their fleet after the best part of 30 years. This will allow (and I am sure this is already thoroughly planned) the relevant crews, maintenance resources and other support activities for them to be reassigned elsewhere in the company as replacement equipment arrives. The idea that they would retain a reserve fleet of such elderly machines (with all of the costs that would entail) on top of whatever limited contingency is already built-in to their operations is not credible to me.

As others have said, BA is already using hired-in capacity from Qatar Airways and others, as a quick perusal of the BA Source blog will attest. http://thebasource.com/

Aer Lingus's long-haul fleet has never been so tightly-tasked and to some extent they have been the victim of bad luck. However the fleet is probably at or approaching the size where some explicit slack should be built-in to facilitate recovering from accumulated delays and even on occasion an aircraft being out of service for a short period. This is probably a lot easier to achieve for carriers of the size of AF/BA/LH who can do some reorganising across a much larger fleet, when compared to a carrier with a total long-haul fleet of only 17 machines, of three different types/variants.

NewApproach

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would the cost of keeping frames maintained and crews available offset the cost of hire ins used though. I would doubt it personally.

Why would they need spare crews, assuming the spare aircraft is the same type as the wider fleet?

Don’t forget to factor in insurance and other liable parties paying for the hire in when they’re responsible for damage causing a hire in. It’s not always EI coughing up.

NewApproach

Somewhat surprising that IAG don’t have spare aircraft centrally to deploy as necessary. The scale is surely there.

NewApproach

NewApproach wrote: »

Why would they need spare crews, assuming the spare aircraft is the same type as the wider fleet?

767 as suggested by others isn’t same type rating. EI crew aren’t rated for 340. BA doesn’t fly 330’s. Only the EI and IB 330’s are the same aircraft type.

Where are the spare planes based, Madrid/London/Dublin ? It may take time to get them ready to fly, they may also be in the wrong station to where they are required. The crews may be out of hours by the time the plane is ready to fly and then complete the trip. Even the ones on standby at the airport may have timed out by the time the call to go comes in.

NewApproach

NewApproach wrote: »

Somewhat surprising that IAG don’t have spare aircraft centrally to deploy as necessary. The scale is surely there.

I’d say BA do. Certainly they rarely are shown using hire ins to my knowledge for long haul outside of current 787 issues. The amount of day stoppers sitting at the maintenance base at Heathrow is unreal. I’d say they can quite easily juggle around their aircraft when issues arise within their operation. I’d say in time we will possibly see them loaning an aircraft for a trip or two.

vectorvictor

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’d say BA do. Certainly they rarely are shown using hire ins to my knowledge for long haul outside of current 787 issues. The amount of day stoppers sitting at the maintenance base at Heathrow is unreal. I’d say they can quite easily juggle around their aircraft when issues arise within their operation. I’d say in time we will possibly see them loaning an aircraft for a trip or two.

Most likely. The "A very British airline" tv show, whilst broadly tabloid TV, gave a quick insight into fleet planning and how they juggle irops

john boye

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’d say BA do. Certainly they rarely are shown using hire ins to my knowledge for long haul outside of current 787 issues. The amount of day stoppers sitting at the maintenance base at Heathrow is unreal. I’d say they can quite easily juggle around their aircraft when issues arise within their operation. I’d say in time we will possibly see them loaning an aircraft for a trip or two.

Would there be any objections from EI staff to having BA crewing EI routes at short notice? I know EI operated some BA sh this year but that was arranged in advance

vectorvictor

john boye wrote: »

Would there be any objections from EI staff to having BA crewing EI routes at short notice? I know EI operated some BA sh this year but that was arranged in advance

No more or less so than Omni, Privilege or Titan rocking up.

Now if a BA jet landed to take over LAX on a constant basis I would say the airport roundabout would be occupied once again.

Karl8415

john boye wrote: »

Would there be any objections from EI staff to having BA crewing EI routes at short notice? I know EI operated some BA sh this year but that was arranged in advance

Your spot on,DVE done the bulk of the BA covering that time,here to London and out to Germany then,what ever individuals feelings are on that I personally think at the end of the day they are owned by the same parent company now so the better each individual airline do then the better iag do which in turn will give that same airline the support it needs to grow just like EI has grown since joining iag,4 x brand new A330-300’s plus a secondhand A330-200,rumoured 2 more joining next year,that is if these new TA routes for 2019 ever get announced

billy few mates

How many of us when we buy a new car buy another car in case the first one breaks down..?
Not too many of us I’d imagine. I’d also imagine many of us already have a second (or third) car in the house which with a bit of flexibility among the other drivers in the family we could probably use in the event the first car broke down. On the odd day when the other cars can’t be used we could always get a taxi or maybe even hire a car...
The airline business is the same, it’s all about managing the risk and taking the hit and while something like a couple of unscheduled ACMI hire ins might seem horrendously expensive they’re actually not when you weigh it up against the cost of having a spare aircraft lying around “in case” you might need it. Most airlines could probably cover an AOG by a bit of creative rescheduling but you can’t (and shouldn’t) really plan for multiple AOGs at the same time, it makes no financial sense. And in the event an airline happens to have a couple of spare aircraft lying about then they’re probably not ‘sweating the assets’ sufficiently enough to maximise their revenue generating abilities. Operating aircraft is an expensive business when you factor in lease costs, maintenance, parking, crewing, depreciation, operating and crewing costs and it isn’t really that much cheaper to have them parked up as they still need maintenance. From a financial standpoint it makes far more sense to take the hit for a hire in than keep a spare in most cases.
There are some operators who do have spare aircraft on standby (some large cargo ops for example) but these are often due to penalty clauses in their contracts or for reputational reasons, BA also had a hot spare aircraft to cover Concorde flights because Concorde passengers didn’t take too well to having a three hour delay on what should have been a three and a half hour flight for which they’d paid a massive premium, they were even less happy if they found they’d been bumped to a normal subsonic aircraft.
The idea that the parent group could manage the economy of scale by having a standby aircraft the airlines within the group could share is not as straightforward as you might think and mostly for regulatory reasons. Quite often the airlines within the group are based in different countries governed by different NAAs with differing rules and requirements. Also for operational and insurance purposes even a fully qualified pilot on type with one operator can’t operate the exact same aircraft for another group airline without completing that operators own specific type course training and assessment or Operator Conversion Course (OCC) and even if they could do it they would have to keep it current which would make it even more expensive. It makes no sense to spend a lot of money training for something that might not happen or might not happen often enough to justify the cost.

Mebuntu

billy few mates wrote: »

How many of us when we buy a new car buy another car in case the first one breaks down..?

A laughable analogy, really - comparing individuals, many on a shoestring budget, to a company with contractual obligations to transport 300+ people a throw (600+ if you count the cancelled return flight) over a distance of from 3,000-5,000 miles.

Van.Bosch

Mebuntu wrote: »

A laughable analogy, really - comparing individuals, many on a shoestring budget, to a company with contractual obligations to transport 300+ people a throw (600+ if you count the cancelled return flight) over a distance of from 3,000-5,000 miles.

And buying a spare car is a ratio of 1:1, people are suggesting IAG buy 1 to cover a fleet of about 500.