Virgin America orders A321 NEOs

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Unfortunately, there's not much of a choice when leasing -- you're going to pay a premium, and given the limited A320/A321 availability (both ceo and neo), I doubt GECAS is letting VX off the hook. In the past VX has been able to restructure leases and defer airplanes, but only because they've been through pseudo-bankruptcy -- negotiating privately with creditors to save the ship.

We don't know. Maybe someone cancelled or deferred an order. VX was suppose to get 320NEOs and was the launch customer for America, but once that was deferred someone else took it and will fill those shoes. 10 isn't a big number to find.

Given the mostly-TCON network VX has, I'm not surprised that the A321ceo hadn't really been kicked around to date -- at the proposed VX A321neo configuration (185 seats), the long TCONS (LAX/SFO - JFK/BOS, etc.) would likely require weight restrictions, which defeats the purpose of the extra seats in the first place. The beauty of the A321 is it costs ~15% more to operate than the A320, but offers up to ~20% more seats -- but at the expense of range. The A321neo should now have the legs to do TCON and West Coast-Hawaii.

What is this being based on? 321NEOs most likely will not be weight restricted. You are making comments and assumptions for a plane that hasn't even flown yet at any airline.

 

[Ecl!pse]

We don't know. Maybe someone cancelled or deferred an order. VX was suppose to get 320NEOs and was the launch customer for America, but once that was deferred someone else took it and will fill those shoes. 10 isn't a big number to find.



What is this being based on? 321NEOs most likely will not be weight restricted. You are making comments and assumptions for a plane that hasn't even flown yet at any airline.

I think there was a misinterpretation - I agree with you - in the bolded text I was referring to the A321ceo, not the A321neo. The A321neo will do this with no problem -- but the A321ceo would struggle with a mostly TCON network, as you noted above.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I think there was a misinterpretation - I agree with you - in the bolded text I was referring to the A321ceo, not the A321neo. The A321neo will do this with no problem -- but the A321ceo would struggle with a mostly TCON network, as you noted above.

I know US Airways runs them PHL/CLT to California. I hear they're pigs but get the job done more or less.

 

[AAPalmTree]

but the A321ceo would struggle with a mostly TCON network, as you noted above.

Never seen an issue with this with the ACT tanks.

 

[Ecl!pse]

Never seen an issue with this with the ACT tanks.

Yep, with ACTs the A321 gets the job done - I was referring to the base A321 (sans ACT). With the ACT you just start eating into the available payload, which isn't a huge issue for most carriers anyway (I.e. Spirit couldn't fly JFK-LAX at 220 pax - they'd have to trade pax for the ACT + fuel). This is why you really don't see the B6 high-density A321's go past JFK-LAS. Do the AA 321's have any issues going westbound in the winter with 1 ACT?

This payload issue is also why the A321LR will likely have to be configured with less than 170 seats to hit TATL -- need the weight for the ACTs + fuel.

 

[AAPalmTree]

Yep, with ACTs the A321 gets the job done - I was referring to the base A321 (sans ACT). With the ACT you just start eating into the available payload, which isn't a huge issue for most carriers anyway (I.e. Spirit couldn't fly JFK-LAX at 220 pax - they'd have to trade pax for the ACT + fuel). This is why you really don't see the B6 high-density A321's go past JFK-LAS. Do the AA 321's have any issues going westbound in the winter with 1 ACT?

This payload issue is also why the A321LR will likely have to be configured with less than 170 seats to hit TATL -- need the weight for the ACTs + fuel.

As far as I know all the AA 321's have 2 ACT's.

 

[derg]

Yep, with ACTs the A321 gets the job done - I was referring to the base A321 (sans ACT). With the ACT you just start eating into the available payload, which isn't a huge issue for most carriers anyway (I.e. Spirit couldn't fly JFK-LAX at 220 pax - they'd have to trade pax for the ACT + fuel). This is why you really don't see the B6 high-density A321's go past JFK-LAS. Do the AA 321's have any issues going westbound in the winter with 1 ACT?

This payload issue is also why the A321LR will likely have to be configured with less than 170 seats to hit TATL -- need the weight for the ACTs + fuel.

 

[Roger Roger]

Yep, with ACTs the A321 gets the job done - I was referring to the base A321 (sans ACT). With the ACT you just start eating into the available payload, which isn't a huge issue for most carriers anyway (I.e. Spirit couldn't fly JFK-LAX at 220 pax - they'd have to trade pax for the ACT + fuel). This is why you really don't see the B6 high-density A321's go past JFK-LAS. Do the AA 321's have any issues going westbound in the winter with 1 ACT?

This payload issue is also why the A321LR will likely have to be configured with less than 170 seats to hit TATL -- need the weight for the ACTs + fuel.

There are almost enough abbreviations and acronyms for this to be a post from the military subforum.

 

[Ecl!pse]

View attachment 33778

 

[j4seymor]

What is happening

 

[Ecl!pse]

What is happening

Thread drifted a bit as I tried to rationalize why it's taken VX so long to bring A321's on board.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Thread drifted a bit as I tried to rationalize why it's taken VX so long to bring A321's on board.

Only been flying 8.5 years. Started Aug 2007, 6 months later recession from 2008-2011, tons of growth then, lots of losses, 2012 planes deferred in order to stop the growth, mature the current flying, get into the black, finally profit, then IPO, then more money, and then A321neo order.

 

[Ecl!pse]

Only been flying 8.5 years. Started Aug 2007, 6 months later recession from 2008-2011, tons of growth then, lots of losses, 2012 planes deferred in order to stop the growth, mature the current flying, get into the black, finally profit, then IPO, then more money, and then A321neo order.

I was being disingenuous above with the "what took so long" - VX has had a similar start as JetBlue, albeit on a more condensed timeline (B6 went through the same explosive growth - massive losses - slowed growth -- restore profitability phases). Picking up these A321neo's is a good move for VX.

Will be curious to see if you guys will pick up other NEO's in 2018 - 2020, before the next wave of NEO's start coming. Also nice to see you guys starting to own aircraft as opposed to leasing only - having access to the capital markets is a nice maturity milestone.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Don't these 321 NEO's sacrifice cargo space for range? Don't airlines make a ton of profit off cargo, sometimes moreso than self loading cargo?

 

[CFIscare]

Don't these 321 NEO's sacrifice cargo space for range? Don't airlines make a ton of profit off cargo, sometimes moreso than self loading cargo?

If I remember correctly, that is just with the A321LR, which will use extra ACT's (Additional Center Tanks.)

 

[Ecl!pse]

Don't these 321 NEO's sacrifice cargo space for range? Don't airlines make a ton of profit off cargo, sometimes moreso than self loading cargo?

Depends on the range you are going for -- but for sub-3000 nm flying (i.e. West Coast - Hawaii and Transcon USA), the A321neo should be fine. Anything more, like Transatlantic, probably requires a payload restriction and extra fuel tanks in the belly. It's predecessor, the A321ceo, needed extra fuel tanks in the belly to accommodate the range.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Depends on the range you are going for -- but for sub-3000 nm flying (i.e. West Coast - Hawaii and Transcon USA), the A321neo should be fine. Anything more, like Transatlantic, probably requires a payload restriction and extra fuel tanks in the belly. It's predecessor, the A321ceo, needed extra fuel tanks in the belly to accommodate the range.

Stupid... instead of adding tanks, just redesign the damn wing!

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

If I remember correctly, that is just with the A321LR, which will use extra ACT's (Additional Center Tanks.)

I *think* that the NEO, will have two ACT's, at the sacrifice of cargo.

 

[Ecl!pse]

Stupid... instead of adding tanks, just redesign the damn wing!

I *think* that the NEO, will have two ACT's, at the sacrifice of cargo.

Likely too costly for Airbus to redesign/replace the wing -- especially when it would really only be needed to cater to the (relatively) small TATL market.

The A321LR will require a 2nd ACT, along with the MTOW upgrade from 93.5T to 97T. I tend to think the tradeoff for cargo in these types of markets is generally an easy one for airlines -- cargo is an afterthought, or "icing on the cake" - not really a driving factor.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Likely too costly for Airbus to redesign/replace the wing -- especially when it would really only be needed to cater to the (relatively) small TATL market.

The A321LR will require a 2nd ACT, along with the MTOW upgrade from 93.5T to 97T. I tend to think the tradeoff for cargo in these types of markets is generally an easy one for airlines -- cargo is an afterthought, or "icing on the cake" - not really a driving factor.

I guess... but still not a true 757 replacement. As the 757 can go the range, and then some more, that the shiny new 321 NEO or 321LR can go from small strips. While still carrying cargo.