fireman0174

Actually, they have more than just five.

There are two versions of the 737 - the 737-300 and the 737-500.

The A320 fleet has three versions - regular 320, 320-TED and A319

The 757 and the 767 have four or five versions - domestic only and ETOPS versions. UAL used to have an all coach 767-300 for HNL flights, but I don't know if that's still the case.

B777 has at least three versions - an A model and a B model - in addition there are some all coach 777s, don't know if they are the A or B model.

B747 has only one version to my knowledge.

So there's really more than just five. About 14 or so.

All of these versions add cost.

What I'm saying is that SWA has a domestic short haul and transon capability within one fleet, the 737, although I don't know how many seats their different models have actually have. I think they have four models of the 737? Huge training advantage for SWA.

UAL, on the other hand, for their domestic structure uses the B737, A320, B757, B767, B777 and even the B747 (one or two domestic routes).

SWA has a significant advantage with their one one fleet. In addition, they learned a long time ago that you don't make money with an airplane at the gate, hence their quick turns.

By the way, a "wing tip" operation is a very expensive operation. It's an admission that the traffic is there, but the right sized airplane is not.

fireman0174

Actually, we used to use DC10s from ORD to CLE and short routes like that quite a bit. It was actually more efficient to run the DC-10 those short distances and use the 727s from ORD to BOS (as an example). That's assuming that the DC-10 would not make $$$ on that route.

I used to be a member of SSC and I was always amazed at the process.

Better run right over to SWA's HQ and tell them that!

captjns

Commonality in fleets is much more economical than multiple fleets… Look at SWA for example. Training from both operations and maintenance sides of the house would be cheaper and efficient time wise. Airbus provides a wide variety to suit J/Bs original game plan. The could piggy back the higher density A-320 routes with lets say the smaller A-318. While Airbus parts are expensive, you don’t have to duplicate the parts stores.

I am curious... did Airbus shut the door to JB for favorable lease/purchases arrangements which forced them to turn to the 190?

hair-on-fire

First the 318 is not a 100 seat aircraft. In a single class configuration it's a 117 seat aircraft, so it didn't meet the mission that JB wanted. In addition, there is a significant amount of parts difference between the 318 and the 320-- different engines, different tires, wheels, brakes and other things. Also, the 318 has the same problem that all shortened versions of aircraft types do: it's very heavy and less fuel efficient on a per seat basis. They ran the numbers and the 190 was a better deal even with the extra costs of a different aircraft type. Not rocket science.

Andy

LOL! As soon as SWA adds NRT and DSM to their route structure.
They've structured their airline so that they only fly to domestic cities; those cities have to meet a minimum guage (population) or larger.

captjns

Your right... it does not take rocket scientry to realize that those are either rotable or timed, or cycled parts. That why we have cost accountants. Mx support from one vender is cheaper than two. Avionics from one manufacturer is cheaper from one than two, training on one type of aircraft is cheaper than two. Look at SWA. Additional fares for 17 additional passengers will cover the addtional fuel burn on a 240 mile leg. On the shoter legs, the A-318 would never be near its MTOGW on shorter legs as compared to the 190 which may not be either but it would be closer to it's MTOGW if the 190 is not the AR model.

I hear the usual "Well they ran the numbers and the 190 was a better deal even with the extra costs of a different aircraft type." I am still curious to know if Airbus shut the door to JB for favorable lease/purchases arrangements which forced them to turn to the 190?

hair-on-fire

If we followed your first argument then one one would not fly anything besides 747s and 380. They wanted a 100 seat aircraft for the markets they were looking at and the frequency they wanted to provide. You can't just throw more seats at a market and think it doesn't impact the price you can sell the ticket at. Plus the 318 was still more expensive on a per seat basis than the 190.

As for your second comment, I'm not sure that any of us line pukes will ever know the answer to it. I guess we just have to hope they made the best deal they could.

Good luck

captjns

Good luck to all in the wacky world of aviation

FlyByWire

There is one flaw that could happen to a single aircraft type fleet. That is the killer A.D. that grounds an airplane which essentially would shut down the carrier till the FAA clears the A.D.. It has not happened, and I am sure politics would be invovled, but it could. Other than that Same fleet makes it cheap and easy.

ryane946

As someone who non-rev's on United 30/40 times a year, I am aware of these differences, but I was referring to major differences in costs.
For instance, yes there are 2 versions of the 767-200. One holds 10/32/126 and one holds 10/33/125. What's the difference? Laboratory or galley moved. They fly the same (pilot training), the are the same size, the use the exact same parts. There is almost NO increase in cost.
Same with the 777, one holds 10/45/198, one holds 12/49/197, one holds 36/312. No difference in airplane, just seat arragements. Come to think of it, this seems like a cost advantage. I am sure you have flown non-rev to Hawaii. That's where everyone uses their miles to upgrade to first. First is always FULL. And it is better to fit 312 people in coach instead of 197, the international configuration. Another example, TED. It is better to fit 156 leisure travelers going to Orlando than to use the 12/126 layout used for normal flights.

So I believe that the different configurations of A320, 757, 767, and 777 are not a cost disadvantage, but a big revenue ADVANTAGE. Same pilot/crew/ground crew handling training. Same maintenance, same everything.

Now there is the question of the A319/A320 and 737-300/737-500. Think about it, technically Southwest has 3 fleet types then. Pilots are trained the same, slight change in size, maintenance is extremely similar.

I counted, and I believe there are 17 variations of the United fleet, but I consider changes in seat maps irrelevant. I also think the difference between an A319 and an A320 is real insignificant. So I believe you can consider United having 5 fleet types (A320, 737, 757/767, 777, and 747).