Aer Lingus Fleet/Routes Discussion

trellheim

SSJ will never be certified for LCY

source ?

Deatr

trellheim wrote: »

source ?

Can’t reveal that I’m afraid.

Marcusm

Locker10a wrote: »

Same reason they choose EI vs BA to LHR, price, connecting traffic, frequent flyer status, corporate contracts etc each airline have a market they make work on their own, obviously they share a fair bit of the market but theyll both make it work, I’m sure EI haven’t signed up to this deal on a whim, they’ll have calculated if it’s worth it

I think that there’s a marked difference via a vis hard product on the LCY route. Unlike LHR where there is limited difference between the economy products (all that can be compared), there is a world of difference betweennBA’s e-jets andvgge RJs which will be branded EI. I agree that freq flyer status makes a difference (and look forward to earning tier points on EI flights) but I have to say I think the hard product would be worth a premium even on such a short flight. It’s an interesting move from an IAG group perspective. There would not likely have been any serious competitor who would have taken the route so I guess it must be significantly profitable. It might add some connectivity for EI transatlantic but this could have been achieved with BA too.

flange888

I find it quite interesting in that Aer Lingus has pretty much developed an operation pretty similar to what they had via Aer Lingus Commuter back in the 90's albeit now through ACMI agreements

trellheim

It’s an interesting move from an IAG group perspective. There would not likely have been any serious competitor who would have taken the route so I guess it must be significantly profitable. It might add some connectivity for EI transatlantic but this could have been achieved with BA too.

Controlling both business air bridges means having control of that customer segment

California Dreamer

Deatr wrote: »

Can’t reveal that I’m afraid.

Code for talking out my arse!!!

LeakRate

The Sukhoi's will be gone by early next year at the end of the Brussels Airlines contract. They've been a disaster reliability wise, and from a technical support point.
The A/C is not steep approach capable, and from what I believe, its not a simple software issue etc, its actually the wing structure, and a whole redesign is required. Cityjet have it over 2 years now, if it could land in City, it would have been certified by now. It was well worth the punt at taking them, practically free from whats been heard. But looks like the RJ will be around for at least 4 years yet:o

Deatr

California Dreamer wrote: »

Code for talking out my arse!!!

I wish I was. I believe one of the individuals that thanked you for your comment about my arse are closer to the truth in relation to the SSJ. Either way this is a thread about the EI fleet and not the WX one.

California Dreamer

California Dreamer wrote: »

Code for talking out my arse!!!

Why ? Frankly that’s quite rude. Considering many on here share information that is possibly confidential and certainly sensitive to them and their job or indeed their sources job. Not everyone is going to lay out everything just for your satisfaction. If people want to continually question people about their sources the information is going to dry up and boards and us will be worse off as a result.

I speak from personal experience.

vectorvictor

California Dreamer wrote: »

Code for talking out my arse!!!

He's right on this SSJs will never grace the docks. WX want rid.

Tenger

LeakRate wrote: »

......... Cityjet have it over 2 years now, if it could land in City, it would have been certified by now. It was well worth the punt at taking them, practically free from whats been heard. But looks like the RJ will be around for at least 4 years yet:o

This would be my point of view. No way that Cityjet wouldnt have conducted some trials at this point if it was going to happen.





As for querying a source, well we have a few ppl here who do hear things from inside the industry before it becomes public. If you're going to insult posters with credible info then you dont really belong here. The members will often question info that seems unlikely or implausible, but downright rudeness will not be welcome.

California Dreamer

Deleted User wrote: »

Why ? Frankly that’s quite rude. Considering many on here share information that is possibly confidential and certainly sensitive to them and their job or indeed their sources job. Not everyone is going to lay out everything just for your satisfaction. If people want to continually question people about their sources the information is going to dry up and boards and us will be worse off as a result.

I speak from personal experience.

Yet it is ok for just anyone to lay out a story and carry it off as fact and not back it up. Too many times I have seen this and it just taken as 'oh i can't say' like they hold the tickets to the chocolate factory.

john boye

Tbf even though it may have been a bit smart-arsed there does seem to be a general acceptance now (much like the EI A350s mystery) that the WX SSJs will never operate to LCY.

California Dreamer

john boye wrote: »

Tbf even though it may have been a bit smart-arsed there does seem to be a general acceptance now (much like the EI A350s mystery) that the WX SSJs will never operate to LCY.

That is certainly worth an acknowledgement.

Deatr

California Dreamer wrote: »

Yet it is ok for just anyone to lay out a story and carry it off as fact and not back it up. Too many times I have seen this and it just taken as 'oh i can't say' like they hold the tickets to the chocolate factory.

I very very rarely post anything here but I do work in the industry and I’m close to this. It’s got nothing to do with holding the tickets to the chocolate factory but a lot to do with protecting myself and my career. While I appreciate where you’re coming from I don’t appreciate being told that I’m speaking out of my arse from someone that doesn’t know me nor I them. I’ll refrain from commenting on anything in the future I think and just remain a lurker. Apologies to the mods for the off topic post.

jesus_thats_gre

goingnowhere wrote: »

EI's product to LHR offers a much better customer experience, jet bridge boarding at both ends, better terminals, typically the nearest gates to the terminal and an on time record way better than BA. So there is a real selling point that.

Largely agree on all fronts. I dislike the trek to the Heathrow Express but I suspect it isn't much of difference when you factor in the typical arrival gate in T5 with BA.

If only the Aer Club **** was sorted.

Chris_5339762

Five minutes from plane door to DLR, thats the benefit to LCY. (Included a pee break).

Whilst I'll miss the free snack which was nice, I'm happy with this as it makes my search for London flights one webpage instead of back & forth between Cityjet and AL.

Tenger

California Dreamer wrote: »

Yet it is ok for just anyone to lay out a story and carry it off as fact and not back it up. Too many times I have seen this and it just taken as 'oh i can't say' like they hold the tickets to the chocolate factory.

The issue wasnt questioning the veracity of the source but your childish response.
You could have been mature about it and stated that you disagree and wont believe the info until you get an official source. Nothing wrong with that response. Posters have given incorrect info before on this forum, its not a banning offence. In the same vein we have had posters in the past having opposing info from 'insider sources', obviously someone in those cases ended up posting the wrong info with good intentions.
You can disagree with someone without being disagreeable....to quote John McCain

Tenger

Lapmo_Dancer wrote: »

In all seriousness, I was talking to a pal in EI and Montreal and Minneapolis have been added as online destinations on their staff travel portal.

Rumour is 2 more 330s for next summer. If true, the expectation is that YUL will get PHL’s 757 with PHL becoming an A330 destination. And MSP (non daily) getting the second along with increased frequency to an existing destination.
......

My own mates in EI have mentioned all the cities mentioned about (except Vegas or Portland OR)
Montreal seems a front runner. However my memory of EI is that rumours are rampant and often wrong.

They do tell me that Seattle is doing very well so expect daily flights next Summer. That would require another A330. If DUB PHL is upgauged then there's another needed. That frees a B757 for Montreal (or anywhere else!). Still short an airframe to start a 2nd new route. (Im sure the EI fleet staff have figured that out though!)

And it seems that the A321LRs are not going to be in time for Summer.
Can EI refuse to accept delivery of them if they are due to arrive in Winter? Or would delay clauses cover any compensation or required delivery?

Tenger

Tenger wrote: »

My own mates in EI have mentioned all the cities mentioned about (except Vegas or Portland OR)
Montreal seems a front runner. However my memory of EI is that rumours are rampant and often wrong.

They do tell me that Seattle is doing very well so expect daily flights next Summer. That would require another A330. If DUB PHL is upgauged then there's another needed. That frees a B757 for Montreal (or anywhere else!). Still short an airframe to start a 2nd new route. (Im sure the EI fleet staff have figured that out though!)

And it seems that the A321LRs are not going to be in time for Summer.
Can EI refuse to accept delivery of them if they are due to arrive in Winter? Or would delay clauses cover any compensation or required delivery?

The rumour mill has Montreal being a 757 route. The rumour mill also mentioned that Seattle is pretty much stuffed on every flight as well so I’d expect daily too.

California Dreamer

Deleted User wrote: »

The rumour mill has Montreal being a 757 route. The rumour mill also mentioned that Seattle is pretty much stuffed on every flight as well so I’d expect daily too.

A quick scan through random dates on expert flyer will back that up.

L1011

Portland OR would be easier served by daily SEA and the Alaska Airlines tieup than going direct probably. Alaska have something like 27 flights a day on that route so you should be able to risk an extremely tight connection and just take the next if you miss it. They already offer it over LAX and SFO with Alaska on the SEA off days - actually, the variety of routings available is baffling almost with United and Jetblue on multiple hubs also!

Only thing about Portland is that for decades it’s struggled with European International flights. That could be a bonus for Aer Lingus but also a negative if the market can’t sustain it.

goingnowhere

SEA is doing very well, lots of cruise business and lots of Microsoft and Amazon folks (and they travel even more off season than peak) it looked like a gamble at the start but its a winner. BA are upping service from LHR also next year. Possibly an A330-300 route in the future 
PDX is just too near to Seattle and hasn't got the constant business demand that SEA offers

Cravens

Stobart is opening an E190 (presumably E195) base in Dublin - this will be interesting. 

http://www.stobartair.com/jobs/rated-and-non-rated-ejet-captain-dublin-base/

Shamrockj

New routes will be announced next Wednesday the 12th. Any ideas?

Qprmeath

Shamrockj wrote: »

New routes will be announced next Wednesday the 12th. Any ideas?

Stockholm

Locker10a

Qprmeath wrote: »

Shamrockj wrote: »

New routes will be announced next Wednesday the 12th. Any ideas?

Stockholm

I think they’re all transatlantic routes

goingnowhere

I'd love to see Stockholm back again...

Where they are going to find another A330 CF6 bird from god only knows if IAG has cut a deal with Qatar but A330-200's aren't really want EI wants

Cravens

There's a couple of 2007 vintage A330-203's ex-Shaheen (ex-KLM) stored since May at Istanbul. Seeing as in the KLM days they reached SFO frequently, I'd assume they have crew rest areas - which I believe the ex-Qatar frames lack. With Shaheen in dire straits, maybe they'd be ripe for the picking to expand the Seattle service and maybe launch Denver as alluded to earlier in the year.

Tenger

Locker10a wrote: »

I think they’re all transatlantic routes

Well the big ticket announcement is always the long haul, more investment and more prestige. That was the geist of the IT article I linked above. But a couple of new Euro routes would be good.
EI under IAG are hammering the mini hub strategy pretty hard, almost at the expense of the A320 routes.

Lustrum

Cravens wrote: »

Stobart is opening an E190 (presumably E195) base in Dublin - this will be interesting. 

http://www.stobartair.com/jobs/rated-and-non-rated-ejet-captain-dublin-base/

Stobart will apparently be operating for BA Cityflyer to LCY, hence the 190. Not confirmed but that's the rumour I've been hearing

The Veteran

I’m mixing this thread and the new routes one a little. Whilst I understand a lot of things about airport operations, I admit to not knowing a lot about the technicalities of the aircraft themselves. So a couple of questions.

If Aer Lingus were to get more A330s, why would they not put them on LHR which seems to be a real cash cow, from the point of view of maximizing the available slots (which they own).

On the routes thread there is a lot of talk tonight of crews being moved around 320/321/321LR and 757s; whilst I understand type rating and flight crew needing adjusting or training on different variants - for cabin crew, why would they need much more than some familiarization briefing?

I like the Embrears, the BA and KLM ones are obviously the routine ones we see multiple times day and of course Finnair and others use them. Stobart using them I think will seriously improve the feel of their product. Presumably though the ATRs will still have a role to play.

Qprmeath

goingnowhere wrote: »

I'd love to see Stockholm back again...

Where they are going to find another A330 CF6 bird from god only knows if IAG has cut a deal with Qatar but A330-200's aren't really want EI wants

Stockholm has showed up on the staff travel portal so presume it’s going to be announced

Kcormahs

Qprmeath wrote: »

Stockholm has showed up on the staff travel portal so presume it’s going to be announced

It never dissapeared from it. Same as WAW even before the Xmas extra flights offer

Nijmegen

The Veteran wrote: »

If Aer Lingus were to get more A330s, why would they not put them on LHR which seems to be a real cash cow, from the point of view of maximizing the available slots (which they own).

Yield combined with schedules (for maintenance as well as flights) and a little bit of gates at the far end (I think the gates EI uses, which keeps them within the border arrangement with Ireland, can't take a 330, but I'm sure with a will that could be fixed).

EI runs 330s down to Spain during the summer because they can get the yield and fit them into their TAL schedule. While you could fit LHR into your TAL schedule, you wouldn't get the prices people pay in July to fly down to Malaga; all the ancillary revenue from the bags etc. You can do LHR for 100 return. Thin margins for putting a 330 in the air for 2 cycles vs 420+ for JFK and 250++ for Malaga. If they had more heavies hanging around you'd see them do it, but one of the oft made comments about EI is that they're sweating the assets already.

Jack1985

The stands EI use at LHR can take an A330 for clarification, stand 221 specifically. This has happened on an ad-hoc basis for example two A332's (DAA/LAX) were sent in Nov' 15 when Heathrow schedules were disrupted for nearly three days due to fog.

So there is no infrastructural reason why an A330 cannot be used on the DUB-LHR route. There have been consistent rumors (none materialized) the last few years that an A330 would be used on either the EI152 or 154 during the early wave, primarily for cargo demand. I'm sure it will happen eventually.

Jamie2k9

Would expect crewing is one reason why LHR hasn't and probably wont see regular A330.

A321LR will do the job while costing them less and making more!

Captain_Crash

Jack1985 wrote: »

The stands EI use at LHR can take an A330 for clarification, stand 221 specifically. This has happened on an ad-hoc basis for example two A332's (DAA/LAX) were sent in Nov' 15 when Heathrow schedules were disrupted for nearly three days due to fog.

So there is no infrastructural reason why an A330 cannot be used on the DUB-LHR route. There have been consistent rumors (none materialized) the last few years that an A330 would be used on either the EI152 or 154 during the early wave, primarily for cargo demand. I'm sure it will happen eventually.

There is an infrastructural impact to this tho, if you have an A330 at 221 then 221L & 221R cant be used. So its either have 2 A321's on stand, or 1 A330... EI more often than not have 2 aircraft on stand at any given time in LHR, so for the time an A330 would be most beneficial (morning) it would mean losing one flight in the morning to make space to the A330.. which results in no increase in capacity.

Aer Lingus don’t have to just use those stands though. Operational flexibility at Heathrow would allow them use another stand if required.

Captain_Crash

Deleted User wrote: »

Aer Lingus don’t have to just use those stands though. Operational flexibility at Heathrow would allow them use another stand if required.

This is very true, any of the stands on the south of T2 (223,224 ect...) can be used as they are set up for "domestic" arrivals. But again, morning is the busiest time and LH and SK use these stands also (in a non domestic config). Its definitely possible yes, and when needed has been done, such as the example kindly provided above.



But it would create a headache should a 330 be put on the route on a regular basis as either LH or SK would have to move a morning flight to another gate as for obvious reasons EI can only use the stands on the south side of T2.

goingnowhere

They do actually, they need to route passengers to through the Irish channel on arrival and have to treat Belfast differently again (no customs)

So only a handful of gates can do this.

Certainly its possible to handle a A330 but it requires planning to ensure it doesn't block other ops.

goingnowhere

goingnowhere wrote: »

They do actually, they need to route passengers to through the Irish channel on arrival and have to treat Belfast differently again (no customs)

So only a handful of gates can do this.

Certainly its possible to handle a A330 but it requires planning to ensure it doesn't block other ops.

And come end of March next year..............

Captain_Crash

Deleted User wrote: »

And come end of March next year..............

Things will get a lot more flexible haha

Stovepipe

Nijmegen wrote: »

Yield combined with schedules (for maintenance as well as flights) and a little bit of gates at the far end (I think the gates EI uses, which keeps them within the border arrangement with Ireland, can't take a 330, but I'm sure with a will that could be fixed).

EI runs 330s down to Spain during the summer because they can get the yield and fit them into their TAL schedule. While you could fit LHR into your TAL schedule, you wouldn't get the prices people pay in July to fly down to Malaga; all the ancillary revenue from the bags etc. You can do LHR for 100 return. Thin margins for putting a 330 in the air for 2 cycles vs 420+ for JFK and 250++ for Malaga. If they had more heavies hanging around you'd see them do it, but one of the oft made comments about EI is that they're sweating the assets already.

you are absolutely correct in all respects.

Jack1985

Aware of the announcement next week pertaining to Transatlantic growth, It'll be interesting to see European growth plans however. Is it wishful thinking to believe we might see overnighting aircraft in Europe returning for the first time since the early 2000's, Amsterdam and Paris spring to mind. Cork base is interesting too, could there possibly be a 5th aircraft to allow increased capacity on Summer sun routes from Cork and Shannon, I'm hesitant in thinking that - EI got stick from MEPs with regards to reduced Summer capacity on ORK-AMS but I could see them reducing to once daily in peak summer to allow for the recently added Lisbon. Some European route growth ex-DUB would be welcome too, I have yet to hear plans to acquire more Short-Haul frames. ASL are to continue with a B733 in BHD operating to/from FAO&AGP this has been confirmed.

Have we heard any European route rumors? The comments relating to Stockholm as already pointed out it was never removed from the Staff Travel portal.

Jack1985

I'm surprised they haven't in 5 years of this HUB strategy, given in to early wave arrivals from Europe especially from key well established routes. It's well known when the Jeppesen rostering system was brought in it created the most efficient duty couplings with overnighting European aircraft - That was canned and instead FTL maximum's were used for duty couplings and as a result creating the sporadic delays and cancellations this Summer (and previous) on the short-haul network.

Kcormahs

Jack1985 wrote: »

Aware of the announcement next week pertaining to Transatlantic growth, It'll be interesting to see European growth plans however. Is it wishful thinking to believe we might see overnighting aircraft in Europe returning for the first time since the early 2000's, Amsterdam and Paris spring to mind. Cork base is interesting too, could there possibly be a 5th aircraft to allow increased capacity on Summer sun routes from Cork and Shannon, I'm hesitant in thinking that - EI got stick from MEPs with regards to reduced Summer capacity on ORK-AMS but I could see them reducing to once daily in peak summer to allow for the recently added Lisbon. Some European route growth ex-DUB would be welcome too, I have yet to hear plans to acquire more Short-Haul frames. ASL are to continue with a B733 in BHD operating to/from FAO&AGP this has been confirmed.

Have we heard any European route rumors? The comments relating to Stockholm as already pointed out it was never removed from the Staff Travel portal.

In relation to the overnights in europe (ex. ei601 AMS and ei519 CDG) I also thought they'd be back but the plan has been dropped due to crew + aircraft costs + third parties (for example, LHR still have an EI engineer based plus EI brand lounge opens from 5am etc) so the overnights (ei149/159) still profitable. Unfortunately I would not be surprised if these last 2 are dropped by 2022 when the 7 years contract that IAG made on the EI Sale expires. Till there as far as I know IAG can't touch the EI schedules on the LHR route neither reduce frequencies, although they can add extra.
None of the european flights leaving europe at 6amISh local are for sale at the minute (ofc apart from LHR) up to August 2019 so even if it did happen, it wouldn't be next summer.

Furthermore DAA just announced more improving and expansion on infrastructure at DUB airport which will open new stands and parkings for aircrafts, by other words no need for Aer Lingus to overnight any aircraft abroad as there will be enough room at DUB airport.

basill

It's well known when the Jeppesen rostering system was brought in it created the most efficient duty couplings with overnighting European aircraft - That was canned and instead FTL maximum's were used for duty couplings and as a result creating the sporadic delays and cancellations this Summer (and previous) on the short-haul network.

My understanding was that AL never brought the pairings generator which was a fundamental part of the rostering software package you mentioned. They do this with every IT project. Take something off the shelf, then want it tweaked and bits removed in order to cut down the perceived cost. In the end they eventually pay over the odds when all the addons are factored in. Another thing to be borne in mind is that there are many empires at work within the various departments that are involved in planning. They have largely come out unscathed in the Lean business model. To have a pesky bit of software which could do the job of an entire department in a few clicks of a mouse is unthinkable.

Tenger

basill wrote: »

Another thing to be borne in mind is that there are many empires at work within the various departments that are involved in planning. They have largely come out unscathed in the Lean business model. To have a pesky bit of software which could do the job of an entire department in a few clicks of a mouse is unthinkable.

I surprised that the IAG oversight hasn’t approved software purchase to reduce headcount.