During the 2018 WTTC World Travel & Tourism Council, being held this week in Buenos Aires, Mario Dell'Acqua. AR's President, did a presentation that, revealed, among other things, where the airline is going with its long haul network.

* Specifically he said the next long haul type (due to be announced late this year/early next one) has to be capable to fly nonstop efficiently to Australia/NZ from Argentina signaling the airline may consider a return to the South Seas route, which it inaugurated back in 1980. It also pretty much leaves the 787 and the A350 in the run.

* Subsidiary Austral should have the first frames of the larger capacity aircraft to augment and eventually replace the E190 fleet should be in house for the next southern summer season 2019.

* After cancelling BCN last the February, the airline has no further reduction planned on its long haul network.

https://aviacionline.com/2018/04/aeroli ... -cabotaje/

dcajet wrote:

* Specifically he said the next long haul type (due to be announced late this year/early next one) has to be capable to fly nonstop efficiently to Australia/NZ from Argentina signaling the airline may consider a return to the South Seas route, which it inaugurated back in 1980. It also pretty much leaves the 787 and the A350 in the run.

Why not the A330NEO?

DocLightning wrote:

dcajet wrote:

* Specifically he said the next long haul type (due to be announced late this year/early next one) has to be capable to fly nonstop efficiently to Australia/NZ from Argentina signaling the airline may consider a return to the South Seas route, which it inaugurated back in 1980. It also pretty much leaves the 787 and the A350 in the run.

Why not the A330NEO?

The A330-800 could do a SYD-EZE nonstop (not sure about the 900). That said, AR is pretty conservative with its fleet; can't imagine them going for a plane whose future, for the time being, is not a guaranteed success.

dcajet wrote:

The A330-800 could do a SYD-EZE nonstop (not sure about the 900). That said, AR is pretty conservative with its fleet; can't imagine them going for a plane whose future, for the time being, is not a guaranteed success.

6,366nmi? Airbus advertises 6,550 for the A339. I have to think that's within specs

dcajet wrote:

* Subsidiary Austral should have the first frames of the larger capacity aircraft to augment and eventually replace the E190 fleet should be in house for the next southern summer season 2019.

Has the E190 replacement been selected?

dcajet wrote:

* After cancelling BCN last the February, the airline has no further reduction planned on its long haul network.

The article also states that: "La compañía no tiene pensado dejar de volar a destinos internacionales de largo alcance como Miami, Nueva York, Madrid y Barcelona."

So, is AR considering returning to BCN???

DocLightning wrote:

dcajet wrote:

The A330-800 could do a SYD-EZE nonstop (not sure about the 900). That said, AR is pretty conservative with its fleet; can't imagine them going for a plane whose future, for the time being, is not a guaranteed success.

6,366nmi? Airbus advertises 6,550 for the A339. I have to think that's within specs

I think you'll find EZE-SYD is quite a bit further. Are you talking AKL ?

Having flown SYD to EZE or SCL on 8 occasions there can be some ferocious headwinds coming off the Antarctic which need factoring in as well.

EddieDude wrote:

dcajet wrote:

* Subsidiary Austral should have the first frames of the larger capacity aircraft to augment and eventually replace the E190 fleet should be in house for the next southern summer season 2019.

Has the E190 replacement been selected?

dcajet wrote:

* After cancelling BCN last the February, the airline has no further reduction planned on its long haul network.

The article also states that: "La compañía no tiene pensado dejar de volar a destinos internacionales de largo alcance como Miami, Nueva York, Madrid y Barcelona."

So, is AR considering returning to BCN???

Officially no, but no prizes for guessing... more MAXs for AR, and the transferring of part of the 737NG fleet to AU. I may be wrong though. AR is married to Boeing and the 737. Almost 50 years of non stop 737 ops - 48 1/2 to be exact.

I think the mention of BCN is an honest oversight from the website! There are no plans, AFAIK, to return to BCN, in light of LEVEL and, perhaps, Norwegian over the next year or so.

The 350-900 may be a tad too big for AR. I understand from sources at AR that the 787-9 and A332 CEO 242T combo is something that would meet AR's needs for the next decade or so. Besides saying goodbye to the A340-300 in 2020, AR is looking to retire the older PW powered A332 as the new type joins the airline in the next couple of years.

What about waiting for the 251t A339? This would likely require a J-W-Y+-Y layout to work.

I'm sorry, not following here...
Don't AR already flies nonstop EZE-AKL nowadays?

ojjunior wrote:

I'm sorry, not following here...
Don't AR already flies nonstop EZE-AKL nowadays?

AKL was suspended in August 2013 and SYD in April 2014

ojjunior wrote:

I'm sorry, not following here...
Don't AR already flies nonstop EZE-AKL nowadays?

Have not done so for a long time ( at least 6 years I'd guess). Dropped AKL for non stop Sydney.

I believe they codeshare on the NZ AKL-EZE.

winGl3t wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

I'm sorry, not following here...
Don't AR already flies nonstop EZE-AKL nowadays?

AKL was suspended in August 2013 and SYD in April 2014

Just a nit pick: AKL was dropped on July 2012 in favor of a nonstop to SYD.

NTLDaz wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

I'm sorry, not following here...
Don't AR already flies nonstop EZE-AKL nowadays?

Have not done so for a long time ( at least 6 years I'd guess). Dropped AKL for non stop Sydney.

I believe they codeshare on the NZ AKL-EZE.

Correct - AR codeshares on NZ's AKL-EZE-AKL flights and NZ codeshares on selected AR flights to/from Brazil.

dcajet wrote:

The 350-900 may be a tad too big for AR. I understand from sources at AR that the 787-9 and A332 CEO 242T combo is something that would meet AR's needs for the next decade or so. Besides saying goodbye to the A340-300 in 2020, AR is looking to retire the older PW powered A332 as the new type joins the airline in the next couple of years.

I agree with you. 787-9 is most likely to win. It's probably gonna be a small order anyway, 6 to 8 frames, no? plus another 8 or so A330s to cover the Americas, that's enough for AR's network. For new routes, the planes should be flying for a while first.

I would like the A350 to be the next widebody, but like you said, it's probably overkill.

dcajet wrote:

winGl3t wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

I'm sorry, not following here...
Don't AR already flies nonstop EZE-AKL nowadays?

AKL was suspended in August 2013 and SYD in April 2014

Just a nit pick: AKL was dropped on July 2012 in favor of a nonstop to SYD.

NTLDaz wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

I'm sorry, not following here...
Don't AR already flies nonstop EZE-AKL nowadays?

Have not done so for a long time ( at least 6 years I'd guess). Dropped AKL for non stop Sydney.

I believe they codeshare on the NZ AKL-EZE.

Correct - AR codeshares on NZ's AKL-EZE-AKL flights and NZ codeshares on selected AR flights to/from Brazil.

Yes I knew it was before 2013 as I flew SYD-EZE-GIG in September 2012. EZE -SYD was a long flight on the clapped out A340-200. Left EZE about 8am and landed in SYD around noon. Daylight the whole way.

Posters here appear to be discounting the a330neo as a viable option for AR. The 330-800 251t variant available 2020 has a whopping 8,150nm, or circa 15,000km, range easily capable of doing EZE-AKL, or even EZE-SYD. All here should remember AR already operates an all-Airbus wide body fleet, making the 330neo the model to beat in this race!

The 350-900 is likely too large for AR, and the B787-9 does not share any commonality with AR’s current 330-200 wide body fleet, let alone its 340’s. The 251t variant for the 330-900 will do 7,200 nm, or circa 13,300 km, also enough for even EZE-SYD. Of course, all missions have their unique characteristics, so AR may go with some 330-800 orders, along with any 330-900 order, to cover ULH routes like EZE-SYD, or even EZE-LAX, or EZE-FCO.

Imagine what AR could do with the A330neo, the possibilities are quite amazing, allowing then to re-open routes shut down long ago, like LAX, or SYD. The A330neo is the right aircraft for AR, and will arrive with several financial incentives and ‘extras’ should the carrier play its cards right and start a price war between A & B!

Posters have mentioned commercial and financial risk associated with ordering ‘orphan’ models like the 330-800 without launch customers, or even orders for that matter. Do not believe this will be an issue if Airbus makes the right offer. Posters certainly remember UX placing B787 orders to replace its A330 fleet. However that was executed before the A330neo was available. The real competition is NOW!

AR is holding the cards and should make the right decision for its shareholders (the Argentine State), and its customers.

One reason AR is looking at the 787-9 very closely is cargo capacity: the airline has been left rather handicapped in this dept. with the switch to the A332 CEO.

PDPsol wrote:

Posters here appear to be discounting the a330neo as a viable option for AR. The 330-800 251t variant available 2020 has a whopping 8,150nm, or circa 15,000km, range easily capable of doing EZE-AKL, or even EZE-SYD. All here should remember AR already operates an all-Airbus wide body fleet, making the 330neo the model to beat in this race!

The 350-900 is likely too large for AR, a(...).

A330-800 sounds like a good plane for AR except it does not have any customers. That is a big problem for a an airline like AR that only needs a few frames. They will be seeking a long-term low risk option, and the A330-800 is not that.

As for the A350, envelope way too close to the A330-800 and just slightly bigger.

PDPsol wrote:

Posters here appear to be discounting the a330neo as a viable option for AR. The 330-800 251t variant available 2020 has a whopping 8,150nm, or circa 15,000km, range easily capable of doing EZE-AKL, or even EZE-SYD. All here should remember AR already operates an all-Airbus wide body fleet, making the 330neo the model to beat in this race!

The 350-900 is likely too large for AR, and the B787-9 does not share any commonality with AR’s current 330-200 wide body fleet, let alone its 340’s. The 251t variant for the 330-900 will do 7,200 nm, or circa 13,300 km, also enough for even EZE-SYD. Of course, all missions have their unique characteristics, so AR may go with some 330-800 orders, along with any 330-900 order, to cover ULH routes like EZE-SYD, or even EZE-LAX, or EZE-FCO.

Imagine what AR could do with the A330neo, the possibilities are quite amazing, allowing then to re-open routes shut down long ago, like LAX, or SYD. The A330neo is the right aircraft for AR, and will arrive with several financial incentives and ‘extras’ should the carrier play its cards right and start a price war between A & B!

Posters have mentioned commercial and financial risk associated with ordering ‘orphan’ models like the 330-800 without launch customers, or even orders for that matter. Do not believe this will be an issue if Airbus makes the right offer. Posters certainly remember UX placing B787 orders to replace its A330 fleet. However that was executed before the A330neo was available. The real competition is NOW!

AR is holding the cards and should make the right decision for its shareholders (the Argentine State), and its customers.

There's a pretty damn good reason why AR may decide away from the A330neo: Engines.

The Trent 7000 is basically a slightly redone Trent 1000, the same engine that just got its ETOPS rating cut from 330 to 140. Good luck convincing regulators that the A330neo would be proven enough for ETOPS 330 anytime soon.

And AKL-EZE, SYD-EZE both need ETOPS 330 to fly at the GC route. A more circuitous route to even comply with ETOPS 240 will add way too much sector length to especially SYD-EZE. GE-engined 787s don't have such a problem with ETOPS.

Why does AR need to fly to Australia when they have so many other issues. Worry about Miami and Madrid, the two most important international destinations for AR. For AR flying to Sydney is "pie in the sky" ego. AR;s mission should be to fix the airline for sale.

jfk777 wrote:

Why does AR need to fly to Australia when they have so many other issues. Worry about Miami and Madrid, the two most important international destinations for AR. For AR flying to Sydney is "pie in the sky" ego. AR;s mission should be to fix the airline for sale.

Maybe you are right but AR had a long history of flying to Australia. QF and LA seem to make it work, with LA flying 12 Australian cities. Also NZ seem to be making it work from AKL.

There is currently no non-stop option between Australia and Argentina so there is a gap. There is also quite a sizeable South American community in Australia as well as one of the wealthiest and most travelled populations on Earth. 15 hours on a plane is nothing for us - just a short hop.

NTLDaz wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Why does AR need to fly to Australia when they have so many other issues. Worry about Miami and Madrid, the two most important international destinations for AR. For AR flying to Sydney is "pie in the sky" ego. AR;s mission should be to fix the airline for sale.

Maybe you are right but AR had a long history of flying to Australia. QF and LA seem to make it work, with LA flying 12 Australian cities. Also NZ seem to be making it work from AKL.

There is currently no non-stop option between Australia and Argentina so there is a gap. There is also quite a sizeable South American community in Australia as well as one of the wealthiest and most travelled populations on Earth. 15 hours on a plane is nothing for us - just a short hop.

LA only flies to 2 Australian cities, SYD and MEL.

I'm thinking that not only AR is looking at SYD, but could add MEL also, theres sizeable demand at both cities. They should just leave AKL flying to NZ.

jfk777 wrote:

Why does AR need to fly to Australia when they have so many other issues. Worry about Miami and Madrid, the two most important international destinations for AR. For AR flying to Sydney is "pie in the sky" ego. AR;s mission should be to fix the airline for sale.

Could you elaborate on the issues you are referring to? While AR has still ways to go, it has come a long way from what I think is the impression you seem to have. There are no plans to sell the airline; there is zero appetite for that both with voters and the government. Operationally, the airline is running like never in the past. In fact it was the third most punctual global airline, during Q.1.2018 as per Flightstats. Domestic travel in Argentina is at an all time high (and the airline's main source of revenue) and AR/AU are blowing LATAM out of the water. Who'd have said 5 years ago?

https://www.clarin.com/viajes/aerolinea ... 3dCjz.html

And no one said the airline is resuming flights to Australia. But rather, if the airline is going to acquire a new fleet it makes sense that one of the requirements is the ability to fly to Oceania non stop so that if and when that becomes a reality the airline has the legs to do so.

Will A338/39 have ETOPS to fly nonstop EZE-AKL/SYD? Range is not all tha counts here, and I'm not sure if AR has now ETOPS270 - at least - for any of its twinjet.

My opinion of its order is they should go with the 788. It has more than enough capacity for its flights to EUR, US & AUS/NZ, it fits the gap left by A343 easily, carrying +/- 250pax in 2 class and in 10 years, it could replace all A332, keeping 1 WB type in its fleet.

NTLDaz wrote:

I think you'll find EZE-SYD is quite a bit further. Are you talking AKL ?

Having flown SYD to EZE or SCL on 8 occasions there can be some ferocious headwinds coming off the Antarctic which need factoring in as well.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SYD-EZE,+E ... 84&SU=mach

Nope, I am talking SYD.

DocLightning wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

I think you'll find EZE-SYD is quite a bit further. Are you talking AKL ?

Having flown SYD to EZE or SCL on 8 occasions there can be some ferocious headwinds coming off the Antarctic which need factoring in as well.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SYD-EZE,+E ... 84&SU=mach

Nope, I am talking SYD.

Yes thank you for that ( I live in a km world so miles and nautical miles mess with my head lol).

Given the very far south latitude of the GC route my guess is the actual route flown would be further. I was on a QF SCL- SYD flight which from memory went 76 degrees south which is a long way from anywhere - on a 747-400ER.

B787-9 is the logical option.......

The paper range of a plane isn't what's used, detailed route planning is used. In the real world things like heavier than baseline interiors, cargo, airport performance issues, and more all combine to reduce it. Worse as planes get more fuel efficient, the heavier the hit to range from removing a ton of fuel to stick in a ton of cargo.

incitatus wrote:

A330-800 sounds like a good plane for AR except it does not have any customers. That is a big problem for a an airline like AR that only needs a few frames. They will be seeking a long-term low risk option, and the A330-800 is not that.

dcajet wrote:

The A330-800 could do a SYD-EZE nonstop (not sure about the 900). That said, AR is pretty conservative with its fleet; can't imagine them going for a plane whose future, for the time being, is not a guaranteed success.

Not sure why some here think that the -800 NEO would not be a viable option because it has not been ordered yet.

As long as the -900 NEO flies and is supported by Airbus, there will be no problem in getting support for the -800. They are essentially identical airplanes save for a few structural differences and minor software changes. They also retain wide commonality with the A330 'classic'.

Even if an operator only ordered a couple of them and no one else ever did, they would still get support throughout their careers without a problem. I'm sure Airbus could easily contractually guarantee this.

I'm sure there are many reasons why the a330-800 NEO might not be a good fit for AR, but lack of tech support or having a so-called 'orphan' fleet is not one of them.

kriskim wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Why does AR need to fly to Australia when they have so many other issues. Worry about Miami and Madrid, the two most important international destinations for AR. For AR flying to Sydney is "pie in the sky" ego. AR;s mission should be to fix the airline for sale.

Maybe you are right but AR had a long history of flying to Australia. QF and LA seem to make it work, with LA flying 12 Australian cities. Also NZ seem to be making it work from AKL.

There is currently no non-stop option between Australia and Argentina so there is a gap. There is also quite a sizeable South American community in Australia as well as one of the wealthiest and most travelled populations on Earth. 15 hours on a plane is nothing for us - just a short hop.

LA only flies to 2 Australian cities, SYD and MEL.

I'm thinking that not only AR is looking at SYD, but could add MEL also, theres sizeable demand at both cities. They should just leave AKL flying to NZ.

LA only flies to MEL 3 x weekly currently, so not sure there is a big enough market for more competition at this stage.

When you also factor in QF’s SYD-SCL, LA’s SYD-AKL-SCL and NZ’s AKL-EZE services, it is fairly well covered for options at this point.

One would think AR have far more pressing issues than another attempt at Australia/NZ in the medium term at least.

dcajet wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Why does AR need to fly to Australia when they have so many other issues. Worry about Miami and Madrid, the two most important international destinations for AR. For AR flying to Sydney is "pie in the sky" ego. AR;s mission should be to fix the airline for sale.

Could you elaborate on the issues you are referring to? While AR has still ways to go, it has come a long way from what I think is the impression you seem to have. There are no plans to sell the airline; there is zero appetite for that both with voters and the government. Operationally, the airline is running like never in the past. In fact it was the third most punctual global airline, during Q.1.2018 as per Flightstats. Domestic travel in Argentina is at an all time high (and the airline's main source of revenue) and AR/AU are blowing LATAM out of the water. Who'd have said 5 years ago?

https://www.clarin.com/viajes/aerolinea ... 3dCjz.html

And no one said the airline is resuming flights to Australia. But rather, if the airline is going to acquire a new fleet it makes sense that one of the requirements is the ability to fly to Oceania non stop so that if and when that becomes a reality the airline has the legs to do so.

IS AR profitable ? That is the most important thing, being punctual is great but doesn't pay the bills. The Government of Argentina was supporting AR o the tune of Two Million Dollars daily. Does Argentina need an expense that big for a national airline ? Not in this day and age. The time has come for the Government to sell AR even if it means giving it away with la billion dollars just to end the problem that has been AR. Merge it into Avianca or LATAM.

I love the idea of an AR merger with Avianca. Could infuse a raft of enhancements but don't see it coming in the immediate term. Be nice to see AR back in NZ in the near future. I guess the quoted comments from AR suggest that they want to keep their options open about a return to this region rather than this being in the top drawer in terms of priorities. Re equipment, AR actually need quite considerable range as do LA to connect EZE (or SCL in LA's case) with their key markets in Central Europe not to mention AKL or SYD or North America. You will note that according to Great Circle Mapper, EZE-FRA is 11479 km while AKL is 10334 km and SYD is 11789 km. LAX is 9840 km. I wouldn't put it past them for this to go 789 and agree previous comments that 359 seems too large for AR so who knows. Will be an interesting contest to watch.

jfk777 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Why does AR need to fly to Australia when they have so many other issues. Worry about Miami and Madrid, the two most important international destinations for AR. For AR flying to Sydney is "pie in the sky" ego. AR;s mission should be to fix the airline for sale.

Could you elaborate on the issues you are referring to? While AR has still ways to go, it has come a long way from what I think is the impression you seem to have. There are no plans to sell the airline; there is zero appetite for that both with voters and the government. Operationally, the airline is running like never in the past. In fact it was the third most punctual global airline, during Q.1.2018 as per Flightstats. Domestic travel in Argentina is at an all time high (and the airline's main source of revenue) and AR/AU are blowing LATAM out of the water. Who'd have said 5 years ago?

https://www.clarin.com/viajes/aerolinea ... 3dCjz.html

And no one said the airline is resuming flights to Australia. But rather, if the airline is going to acquire a new fleet it makes sense that one of the requirements is the ability to fly to Oceania non stop so that if and when that becomes a reality the airline has the legs to do so.

IS AR profitable ? That is the most important thing, being punctual is great but doesn't pay the bills. The Government of Argentina was supporting AR o the tune of Two Million Dollars daily. Does Argentina need an expense that big for a national airline ? Not in this day and age. The time has come for the Government to sell AR even if it means giving it away with la billion dollars just to end the problem that has been AR. Merge it into Avianca or LATAM.

Suggest you get up to date with your AR trivia, especially regarding state subsidies to the airline - you are two years behind.

You sound like you are the one writing the check to fund AR - and I don't mean to be pedantic, but why don't you let Argentina decide what is best for AR? Merging it with Avianca or LATAM, now that is an idea. Why would they do that? Zero desire (or chance) for that on both sides of the aisle. You clearly don't have much understanding of the brand equity that AR has in Argentina or local politics. Hell would freeze over before locals would let Avianca or LATAM take over the national airline's identity. Like it or not, but that is the way things are over there.

Aerolineas Argentinas has made Argentina 10-20 years behind the rest of Latin America in the aviation sector (just see airport numbers in Latin America...), extremely unprofitable, inneficient and badly managed by politics. IS there really anyone in a.net that believes it is beneficial for Argentina to have that? People here criticize Alitalia and the likes , but AR is waay worse. Mediocre airline airline that only exists due to highly protected market and the whole market has to pay for that.

Francoflier wrote:

Not sure why some here think that the -800 NEO would not be a viable option because it has not been ordered yet.

As long as the -900 NEO flies and is supported by Airbus, there will be no problem in getting support for the -800. They are essentially identical airplanes save for a few structural differences and minor software changes. They also retain wide commonality with the A330 'classic'.

Even if an operator only ordered a couple of them and no one else ever did, they would still get support throughout their careers without a problem. I'm sure Airbus could easily contractually guarantee this.

I'm sure there are many reasons why the a330-800 NEO might not be a good fit for AR, but lack of tech support or having a so-called 'orphan' fleet is not one of them.

There is more to it than the ability to get support. If AR is the only airline with A330-800s, their value in the second hand market will be much lower than A330-900s. Practically no airline with an A330-900 fleet looking at expanding it with second hand units will consider a handful of -800s. This will have an impact on the finance terms AR is offered for -800s, making them in effect too expensive. Look at what happened to A340-200s. There were a handful of them and they ended up mostly in "odd jobs", like government.

NTLDaz wrote:

Yes I knew it was before 2013 as I flew SYD-EZE-GIG in September 2012. EZE -SYD was a long flight on the clapped out A340-200. Left EZE about 8am and landed in SYD around noon. Daylight the whole way.

Been there... flew AKL-EZE in the A342 but in fact it wasn't that bad. Flight wasn't fully full, no turbulence, kindly crew (surprisingly) and back then (2004) the bird I flew was brand new apparently... even smelling new sometimes.

ojjunior wrote:

Been there... flew AKL-EZE in the A342 but in fact it wasn't that bad. Flight wasn't fully full, no turbulence, kindly crew (surprisingly) and back then (2004) the bird I flew was brand new apparently... even smelling new sometimes.

Indeed, these South Pole-ish flights tend to be remarkably turbulence-free. None of the wx disturbances one can bump into when flying over the tropics.

bsbisland wrote:

Aerolineas Argentinas has made Argentina 10-20 years behind the rest of Latin America in the aviation sector (just see airport numbers in Latin America...), extremely unprofitable, inneficient and badly managed by politics. IS there really anyone in a.net that believes it is beneficial for Argentina to have that? People here criticize Alitalia and the likes , but AR is waay worse. Mediocre airline airline that only exists due to highly protected market and the whole market has to pay for that.

BSB, just as the prior poster mentioned, AR (and Argentina) have radically changed over the past 2+ years. The nation is undergoing a multi-year, comprehensive, methodical economic liberalization reform strategy, which also affects the aviation sector. AR has been mandated with implementing objective commercial targets, managed by experienced private sector executives. The entire commercial aviation sector is in the process of deregulation and liberalization, with new operations (and investment) from the likes of Avianca Argentina (owned directly by Synergy Group), Norwegian Argentina (both cabotage and international), and FlyBONDI, an ambitious cabotage and regional carrier founded by Julian Cook, the founder of Swiss FlyBaboo.

Domestic fares remain under government regulation. HOWEVER, it is believed the sector will be granted flexibility to compete openly and freely in the near future. For now, the issue remains Argentina's very stubborn and elevated inflation rate, which will end up well over 20% in 2018. All the new market participants know the market will be deregulated and AR will need to compete with everyone on price + service. The days of politically-motivated commercial policies and management are (hopefully) over forever!

They shouldn't have gotten rid of their A340s.

AtomicGarden wrote:

I agree with you. 787-9 is most likely to win. It's probably gonna be a small order anyway, 6 to 8 frames, no? plus another 8 or so A330s to cover the Americas, that's enough for AR's network. For new routes, the planes should be flying for a while first.

In this case, they could (should) go with a mix of 787-8 and 787-9 or 787-9 and 787-10, the latter for the high-density flights to North American destinations. This would keep crew commonality and streamline the fleet to two types, the 737 for short/medium routes and the 787 for long-haul sectors.

ojjunior wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Yes I knew it was before 2013 as I flew SYD-EZE-GIG in September 2012. EZE -SYD was a long flight on the clapped out A340-200. Left EZE about 8am and landed in SYD around noon. Daylight the whole way.

Been there... flew AKL-EZE in the A342 but in fact it wasn't that bad. Flight wasn't fully full, no turbulence, kindly crew (surprisingly) and back then (2004) the bird I flew was brand new apparently... even smelling new sometimes.

My first of my 8 trips to South America was on AR - AN to AKL and then AR to EZE on the 747 and then a 727 across to SCL. To get to SCL in those days was a long trip. Especially on the return with the Rio Gallegos stop. I too took a ( what seemed a new ) A340 in 2004.

By 2012 whatever A340 was clapped out and seemingly falling apart inside. I did always enjoy flying AR. The grab your own alfajores from the galley kind of made up for everything.

DocLightning wrote:

dcajet wrote:

The A330-800 could do a SYD-EZE nonstop (not sure about the 900). That said, AR is pretty conservative with its fleet; can't imagine them going for a plane whose future, for the time being, is not a guaranteed success.

6,366nmi? Airbus advertises 6,550 for the A339. I have to think that's within specs

Barely so. And the 787's economics would beat it on that kind of route. I think Boeing will take this one, seeing as they fly the 737 and it also gives them the option of a smaller plane and a medium-sized one. Maybe they'll surprise us all and go mixed. But I doubt only the A350 will be ordered. Also if they're replacing the E190's with larger aircraft I could see the CSeries finding its way onto Austral's fleet. Unless they have already decided the type and I missed it.

JustSomeDood wrote:

PDPsol wrote:

Posters here appear to be discounting the a330neo as a viable option for AR. The 330-800 251t variant available 2020 has a whopping 8,150nm, or circa 15,000km, range easily capable of doing EZE-AKL, or even EZE-SYD. All here should remember AR already operates an all-Airbus wide body fleet, making the 330neo the model to beat in this race!

The 350-900 is likely too large for AR, and the B787-9 does not share any commonality with AR’s current 330-200 wide body fleet, let alone its 340’s. The 251t variant for the 330-900 will do 7,200 nm, or circa 13,300 km, also enough for even EZE-SYD. Of course, all missions have their unique characteristics, so AR may go with some 330-800 orders, along with any 330-900 order, to cover ULH routes like EZE-SYD, or even EZE-LAX, or EZE-FCO.

Imagine what AR could do with the A330neo, the possibilities are quite amazing, allowing then to re-open routes shut down long ago, like LAX, or SYD. The A330neo is the right aircraft for AR, and will arrive with several financial incentives and ‘extras’ should the carrier play its cards right and start a price war between A & B!

Posters have mentioned commercial and financial risk associated with ordering ‘orphan’ models like the 330-800 without launch customers, or even orders for that matter. Do not believe this will be an issue if Airbus makes the right offer. Posters certainly remember UX placing B787 orders to replace its A330 fleet. However that was executed before the A330neo was available. The real competition is NOW!

AR is holding the cards and should make the right decision for its shareholders (the Argentine State), and its customers.

There's a pretty damn good reason why AR may decide away from the A330neo: Engines.

The Trent 7000 is basically a slightly redone Trent 1000, the same engine that just got its ETOPS rating cut from 330 to 140. Good luck convincing regulators that the A330neo would be proven enough for ETOPS 330 anytime soon.

And AKL-EZE, SYD-EZE both need ETOPS 330 to fly at the GC route. A more circuitous route to even comply with ETOPS 240 will add way too much sector length to especially SYD-EZE. GE-engined 787s don't have such a problem with ETOPS.

The 7000 is a version of the T1000ten. Both, the T7000 and the T1000ten do not have the parts that give the trouble in the T1000. Even with the T1000 it is a subset of the engines, not all of them.

PDPsol wrote:

bsbisland wrote:

Aerolineas Argentinas has made Argentina 10-20 years behind the rest of Latin America in the aviation sector (just see airport numbers in Latin America...), extremely unprofitable, inneficient and badly managed by politics. IS there really anyone in a.net that believes it is beneficial for Argentina to have that? People here criticize Alitalia and the likes , but AR is waay worse. Mediocre airline airline that only exists due to highly protected market and the whole market has to pay for that.

BSB, just as the prior poster mentioned, AR (and Argentina) have radically changed over the past 2+ years. The nation is undergoing a multi-year, comprehensive, methodical economic liberalization reform strategy, which also affects the aviation sector. AR has been mandated with implementing objective commercial targets, managed by experienced private sector executives. The entire commercial aviation sector is in the process of deregulation and liberalization, with new operations (and investment) from the likes of Avianca Argentina (owned directly by Synergy Group), Norwegian Argentina (both cabotage and international), and FlyBONDI, an ambitious cabotage and regional carrier founded by Julian Cook, the founder of Swiss FlyBaboo.

Domestic fares remain under government regulation. HOWEVER, it is believed the sector will be granted flexibility to compete openly and freely in the near future. For now, the issue remains Argentina's very stubborn and elevated inflation rate, which will end up well over 20% in 2018. All the new market participants know the market will be deregulated and AR will need to compete with everyone on price + service. The days of politically-motivated commercial policies and management are (hopefully) over forever!

Just a comment - the only domestic fare that is regulated by the government is the "piso tarifario" or the lowest fare airlines can charge. That being said, these "floors" have not been updated in over 2 years, so when adjusted for inflation they already are ridiculously low. On top of that, Flybondi got around these floors by not adding certain taxes to their fares (they chip them in) so one can literally fly on F0 for US$50 across Argentina if one can grab their lowest fares on their website. In 2 mos of operations and with only 3 738s they have managed to capture almost 8% of the market. Not bad. Four more 738s are on the way and two more before year's end.

International fares are not regulated in Argentina.

I don't see the A330neo in AR because both of them seem to lack flexibility to me. One has the range but doesn't allow so much grow in pax terms. While the other one has greater capacity but not so much in the legs department. 787-9 covers both. We should order a plane thinking about future growth too. Also, I still think that having RR engines (for the first time?) is not ideal. I could be convinced however about a split 338/339 order.

BTW folks, try to keep up with AR and the country's current state of affairs. This isn't an airline run by a politician anymore, it's gotten much more serious. By 2020 AR should be receiving no more subsidies. Besides, most people in Argentina prefer to have many things nationalized rather than selling them to private foreign investors (which is anyway not allowed by law to have more than 49% of an airline, IINM). This isn't the USA. Comparisons to Alitalia are fair, we are descendants of them after all.

Just to put things in perspective, during Cristina Kirchner's second presidency, which is when thing got really out of whack (the "vamos por todo" in her own words - "we are going after everything") is when AR was receiving subsidies of all sorts to the tune of US$2 million/day. Besides putting all possible sorts of roadblocks to any airline, foreign or national that dared think about casting a shadow on AR.

That figure had been reduced by 90% since 2016 and no more subsidies by 2020 is the goal. Swim or sink is what the airline has been told by Macri's administration.

jfk777 wrote:

Why does AR need to fly to Australia when they have so many other issues. Worry about Miami and Madrid, the two most important international destinations for AR. For AR flying to Sydney is "pie in the sky" ego. AR;s mission should be to fix the airline for sale.

From Argentina to the US AR is competing with LATAM, Copa, Avianca, Aeromexico, Air Canada, Boliviana and the US carriers. To Europe there are many more competitors, including new entrant Norwegian, and even airlines that offer big detours like American and Turkish.

Australia and New Zealand are attractive markets because of limited competition. There is LATAM, Qantas and ANZ. There is logic to planning the fleet so that these markets can be served.

And when Norwegian opens Perth, AR wants to be able to offer the same product....(!!!!).

DocLightning wrote:

Airbus advertises 6,550 for the A339. I have to think that's within specs

That is Design Range, which would be just passengers and bags and favorable mission rules. If they want to take any cargo, that would likely limit it to the A330-800.

Six months ago I'd be favorable to the A330-800 winning the RFP due to them operating the A330-200, but today? I'd put my money on the 787-8 or 787-9 with a smaller bet on the A350-900 (nothing against the type, it might just be larger than what AR is looking for).

Here's the video clip of the presentation by the Grupo Aerolineas President 2 days ago @ WTTC, where he made the announcements discussed on this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z2A14fRPsE

dcajet wrote:

PDPsol wrote:

bsbisland wrote:

Aerolineas Argentinas has made Argentina 10-20 years behind the rest of Latin America in the aviation sector (just see airport numbers in Latin America...), extremely unprofitable, inneficient and badly managed by politics. IS there really anyone in a.net that believes it is beneficial for Argentina to have that? People here criticize Alitalia and the likes , but AR is waay worse. Mediocre airline airline that only exists due to highly protected market and the whole market has to pay for that.

BSB, just as the prior poster mentioned, AR (and Argentina) have radically changed over the past 2+ years. The nation is undergoing a multi-year, comprehensive, methodical economic liberalization reform strategy, which also affects the aviation sector. AR has been mandated with implementing objective commercial targets, managed by experienced private sector executives. The entire commercial aviation sector is in the process of deregulation and liberalization, with new operations (and investment) from the likes of Avianca Argentina (owned directly by Synergy Group), Norwegian Argentina (both cabotage and international), and FlyBONDI, an ambitious cabotage and regional carrier founded by Julian Cook, the founder of Swiss FlyBaboo.

Domestic fares remain under government regulation. HOWEVER, it is believed the sector will be granted flexibility to compete openly and freely in the near future. For now, the issue remains Argentina's very stubborn and elevated inflation rate, which will end up well over 20% in 2018. All the new market participants know the market will be deregulated and AR will need to compete with everyone on price + service. The days of politically-motivated commercial policies and management are (hopefully) over forever!

Just a comment - the only domestic fare that is regulated by the government is the "piso tarifario" or the lowest fare airlines can charge. That being said, these "floors" have not been updated in over 2 years, so when adjusted for inflation they already are ridiculously low. On top of that, Flybondi got around these floors by not adding certain taxes to their fares (they chip them in) so one can literally fly on F0 for US$50 across Argentina if one can grab their lowest fares on their website. In 2 mos of operations and with only 3 738s they have managed to capture almost 8% of the market. Not bad. Four more 738s are on the way and two more before year's end.

International fares are not regulated in Argentina.

4 percent market share with 66 percent of seats filled.