AA's upgauging of the 320 family

[WorldTraveler]

yes, we understand the stated purpose to use the 319 as an upgrade to RJs.... but the 319 is not only the heaviest and most costly of the small mainline aircraft (717/319/73G) but it also is considerably larger than the 717.

A 319 burns 11% more fuel than a 717 based on actual usage data provided to the DOT.

The 319 burns 15% more fuel per seat than the 320. The difference between the 321 and 320 is just as dramatic because the fuel burn goes up very little as the fuselage is stretched a lot further.

Because the M90 is a stretch of the DC9 and the 717, the per seat economics of the M90 are about 25% better than the 319.

The 319 thus requires much higher yielding passengers to justify the smaller size compared to other mainline aircraft. It is hard to believe that AA or any airline is capable of generating those kind of revenue premiums.

The 319 and 73G are both not terribly viable aircraft compared to lower CASM aircraft including the Ejets and 717 which have not been shrunk in order to get a smaller aircraft.

Replacing the high CASM CRJ with the highest CASM small narrowbody is not a terribly great plan for profitability against carriers that are using other aircraft, including Ejets operated by regional carriers.

The whole reason for the article is because Airbus and the airlines recognize that the stretched versions are far more economical and the "shrunk" versions are falling out of favor.

 

[737823]

yes, we understand the stated purpose to use the 319 as an upgrade to RJs.... but the 319 is not only the heaviest and most costly of the small mainline aircraft (717/319/73G) but it also is considerably larger than the 717.

A 319 burns 11% more fuel than a 717 based on actual usage data provided to the DOT.

The 319 burns 15% more fuel per seat than the 320. The difference between the 321 and 320 is just as dramatic because the fuel burn goes up very little as the fuselage is stretched a lot further.

It thus requires much higher yielding passengers.

The 319 and 73G are both not terribly viable aircraft compared to lower CASM aircraft including the Ejets and 717 which have not been shrunk in order to get a smaller aircraft.

 
Interesting, I would assume the capital costs of the 717 are lower but fuel costs are higher, while the 319 has lower fuel burn the capital costs are considerably higher as it is a modern, in demand aircraft.  
 
But the trend is definitely upsizing-no denying that.  NK is going for the 320 now, CM is replacing their 73Gs with 738s.
 
Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

actually, trip costs for the 717 are lower than the 319 while the 319 carries about 20 more passengers but still burns more fuel.

and yes the 717 and M90 are costing DL a fraction of what new aircraft are costing AA and other carriers that are buying small, new narrowbodies.

The fact that there are few other carriers buying 319s in any quantity should say something.

 

[robbedagain]

josh nk already flies the 320   some of their 320s have new winglets and led lights on the wingtips    the new winglets probably gives them a better fuel advantage than say a 73g

 

[737823]

josh nk already flies the 320   some of their 320s have new winglets and led lights on the wingtips    the new winglets probably gives them a better fuel advantage than say a 73g

 
Thanks Robbed, I believe they have been getting them for several years now.  The Sharklets are nice, flew on them with the AA 32B and LH 32A, plane looks a lot like a 737NG from a distance.
 
Josh

 

[USFlyer]

FWIW, the combined AA and US fleet will have more A321s than A319s at the end of the day.  PMUS has only taken delivery of A321s for quite a while now, and the A321s have in effect been replacing smaller 734s.  PMAA has orders for both A319s and A321s, with 48 A319s on order and 178 A321s (current model + NEO).  (I'm basing this off Wikipedia, so I apologize in advance if Wikipedia is inaccurate.)

 

[eolesen]

Allegiant made their decision to operate the A319 *after* having made a decision to get the 757.

Given their extreme focus on costs (far more than any other airline in North America), they obviously see something that WT doesn't.

 

[FWAAA]

FWIW, the combined AA and US fleet will have more A321s than A319s at the end of the day.  PMUS has only taken delivery of A321s for quite a while now, and the A321s have in effect been replacing smaller 734s.  PMAA has orders for both A319s and A321s, with 48 A319s on order and 178 A321s (current model + NEO).  (I'm basing this off Wikipedia, so I apologize in advance if Wikipedia is inaccurate.)

No doubt that new AA will have more A321s;   WT's point (with which I tend to agree) is that every new A319 being delivered right now is a high-CASM millstone compared to 738s or A321s.    
 
In April, 2014,   new AA converted 30 of its firm orders for A320-family neo models to options, so there are only 100 neo firm orders, not the 130 originally ordered in 2011.
  
AA has not disclosed how many of the neos will be A319s or A320s or A321s.   The first batch of 130 current model Airbus single-aisle were to be split in half, so 65 total A319s and 65 total A321s for pmAA, plus the pmUS A321 orders.    I think pmAA currently has about 16 A321Ts (32Bs) so the rest will likely be regular 191-seat A321s (16F/175Y or so).   

 

[AirLUVer]

There are 17 A321T's in the Fleet, the next A321S delivery will be next month.  Given that it takes about 10 days from Delivery to finish the acceptance check, the A321S will probably not begin revenue flying until July. 
 
There are enough routes for the A319 in MIA/ORD/DFW for the existing order to still be pretty evenly split between A321's and A319's. 
 
The current fleet plan is for the A321's to replace the 757's, the A319's will replace some S80's and CR7's routes, the 738's will be S80 replacements.  This will free up the CR7's to upgauge the EMB145's and retire the EMB144's.
 
There may be some changes in the NEO split, but there is likely to be little change to the CEO plan.

 

[dfw gen]

Allegiant made their decision to operate the A319 *after* having made a decision to get the 757.

Given their extreme focus on costs (far more than any other airline in North America), they obviously see something that WT doesn't.

its clear that allegiant has no idea what they are doing since delta is not buyig the a319, it absolutely is the wrong strategy!

 

[WorldTraveler]

unless you would like to compare AA's service and seating configuration to Allegiant, what they do has no bearing on AA.

Many carriers operate the 319 with close to 150 seats so they are getting the economics of the 319 with the seating capacity of the 320.

The 320 for those carriers seats 175 or more passengers - close to what US legacy carriers would put on a 321.

 

[eolesen]

Again, missing the forest thru the trees because it doesn't fit your view of the world?...

 

[dfw gen]

again what a dweeb.

 

[MetalMover]

Many carriers operate the 319 with close to 150 seats so they are getting the economics of the 319 with the seating capacity of the 320.
 

And their passengers are also getting the pains associated with flying with their knees up to their chests.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Again, missing the forest thru the trees because it doesn't fit your view of the world?...

no, Ms. Tree, you have cut down the forest and then replanted it with only what you want in order to make your point.

Allegiant doesn't operate in the same type of configuration as AA. bringing what they do into the conversation has nothing to do with the costs that AA will incur for operating the most expensive small narrowbody in the US.

remember, I didn't make the statement that the 318 is dead and the 319 is dying.

Everyone except the AA rah-rah club can see that ordering the 319 as a domestic small narrowbody is contrary to what everyone else is doing... but we wouldn't expect the AA fan club to recognize that AA's fleet plan has been out of touch with the rest of the industry for quite some time.tryi

instead of trying to defend AA's order for the 319 is the saving grace for AA's RJ fleet plan that was out of touch with the industry for decades and instead just admit that the 319 might no longer be as necessary as it once was because of the US merger since AA brings a number of 319s to the table.

And given that no network airline needs hundreds of small narrowbody aircraft, it should be obvious that a number of the 319 order just might be substituted for other A320 family aircraft.

Some people have figured that out on this thread. Not sure why it is so hard for others to admit it.