Hello everyone,

I was looking on planespotters and noticed that almost every charter operator in The United States uses 737's (Ex Miami Air, Swift Air, Xtra Airways, and Sierra Pacific) rather than A320's while ULCC's almost always choose Airbus. I was wondering why that is and what makes the 737 better for charter ops?

(This is my first post on the forum so take it easy on the stupid question

Cheaper cost of acquisition, most likely, as well as availability both of frames and qualified pilots and mechanics.

No (some people try) stupid questions.

What I guess.. The a320 serie is kind-off newer in the US, charter airlines usually/often use older or second hand planes. When they started the A320 was to expensive to buy, while the 737-300-400 was readilly available. When you start with 737 and you want to keep cost down as a charter, it's easier to switch to a 737NG from a classic then to switch to a airbus.

That's just what I think, not fact based, but I could see this as a logical explenation.

Maybe the few extra seats possible, no equipment nessacary for loading/unloading the bags due to lower fuselage, lower fuel burn on longer flights AFAIK as most charter routes tend to be longer than the usual 1,5-2 hour shorthaul flights.

FlyRow wrote:

No (some people try) stupid questions.

What I guess.. The a320 serie is kind-off newer in the US, charter airlines usually/often use older or second hand planes. When they started the A320 was to expensive to buy, while the 737-300-400 was readilly available. When you start with 737 and you want to keep cost down as a charter, it's easier to switch to a 737NG from a classic then to switch to a airbus.

That's just what I think, not fact based, but I could see this as a logical explenation.

That is what I was thinking, It is super interesting how Airbus has such a huge chunk of the market when it comes to scheduled ops but then looking at the non sked market there is absolutely none.

SierraPacific wrote:

FlyRow wrote:

No (some people try) stupid questions.

What I guess.. The a320 serie is kind-off newer in the US, charter airlines usually/often use older or second hand planes. When they started the A320 was to expensive to buy, while the 737-300-400 was readilly available. When you start with 737 and you want to keep cost down as a charter, it's easier to switch to a 737NG from a classic then to switch to a airbus.

That's just what I think, not fact based, but I could see this as a logical explenation.

That is what I was thinking, It is super interesting how Airbus has such a huge chunk of the market when it comes to scheduled ops but then looking at the non sked market there is absolutely none.

Which is interesting because in Europe, the charter market for narrow body mainline planes is about split...Travel Service uses the 737 NG and soon MAX, while Small Planet and SmartLynx use the A320 series. That said, the need for more A320 lift for the Lufthansa Group has likely raised prices on those frames as some remain in service that are almost 30 years old.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Looking at lease rates the 737 holds its value with age compared to the 320. That points to higher maintenance cost to keep a high cycle 320 going compared to the 737. Also, B had a larger market share in the US 20+ years ago, worldwide it was more balanced. So it is likely more available 727's in the US, and a balanced availability elsewhere.

This compares metal 20+ years ago, the market will be clearly different when today's planes are 20+ years old.

With the start of the B738 freighter now, might the A320 look more attractive to charter outfits since the freighter conversion will drive up prices for frames?

Looking at lease rates the 737 holds its value with age compared to the 320. That points to higher maintenance cost to keep a high cycle 320 going compared to the 737. Also, B had a larger market share in the US 20+ years ago, worldwide it was more balanced. So it is likely more available 727's in the US, and a balanced availability elsewhere.

This compares metal 20+ years ago, the market will be clearly different when today's planes are 20+ years old.

In Europe, A320s are the charter aircraft

aemoreira1981 wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

FlyRow wrote:

No (some people try) stupid questions.

What I guess.. The a320 serie is kind-off newer in the US, charter airlines usually/often use older or second hand planes. When they started the A320 was to expensive to buy, while the 737-300-400 was readilly available. When you start with 737 and you want to keep cost down as a charter, it's easier to switch to a 737NG from a classic then to switch to a airbus.

That's just what I think, not fact based, but I could see this as a logical explenation.

That is what I was thinking, It is super interesting how Airbus has such a huge chunk of the market when it comes to scheduled ops but then looking at the non sked market there is absolutely none.

Which is interesting because in Europe, the charter market for narrow body mainline planes is about split...Travel Service uses the 737 NG and soon MAX, while Small Planet and SmartLynx use the A320 series. That said, the need for more A320 lift for the Lufthansa Group has likely raised prices on those frames as some remain in service that are almost 30 years old.

But the A320 entered earlier as a mainstream plane in the EU. The A320 is a late bloomer in the USA.

Also , again not 100% fact based, but airlines go belly up way easier in the EU, so shuffeling of planes will happen more often.

dcajet wrote:

Cheaper cost of acquisition, most likely, as well as availability both of frames and qualified pilots and mechanics.

A 737-800 will be more costly to acquire (lease or buy) than a comparatively aged and spec'd A320, and tend to move faster on the used market.

I think FlyRow has it right. Miami Air International, Xtra, and Swift Air all had 737 Classics prior to getting NGs.

FlyRow wrote:

No (some people try) stupid questions.

What I guess.. The a320 serie is kind-off newer in the US, charter airlines usually/often use older or second hand planes. When they started the A320 was to expensive to buy, while the 737-300-400 was readilly available. When you start with 737 and you want to keep cost down as a charter, it's easier to switch to a 737NG from a classic then to switch to a airbus.

That's just what I think, not fact based, but I could see this as a logical explenation.

1. Lower acquisiton costs
2. More seats
3. Better economic performance on longer routes (typically charters)
4. Lower gear improving performance on smaller and less-equipped airports (typical desintations for charter airlines, but also for Ryanair, for example)
5. Better spare parts availability (many spares usable across generations)
6. Longevity (there are hundreds 30+years old and still reliable 737s in active service, while old A320 is a nightmare)

Miami Air had 727's before they took on 737's

wrongwayup wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Cheaper cost of acquisition, most likely, as well as availability both of frames and qualified pilots and mechanics.

A 737-800 will be more costly to acquire (lease or buy) than a comparatively aged and spec'd A320, and tend to move faster on the used market.

Yeah but not a 300/400/500 - those can be had cheaper.

USA 3000 operated 320's. Aside from them I can't think of any US charter carrier that did.

Is it because 737 have built in stairs which help at out stations

Xtra (then Casino) and Sierra Pacific both started out with 732 and they are still flying one ex-Air Florida bird that is 37.5 years old. At stated before both of these airlines started with 732 before Airbus was established in the US.

I think support chain is also part of it, Boeing probably has better parts support in North America then Airbus and with more frames produced parts are likely cheaper.

EvanWSFO wrote:

USA 3000 operated 320's. Aside from them I can't think of any US charter carrier that did.

Ryan International had a few A320's for awhile. It was what the operated as a wet least for AirTran for about a year before they got their 737-700's.

metroline2006 wrote:

Is it because 737 have built in stairs which help at out stations

Not all 737s have built-in stairs.

Mnich wrote:

6. Longevity (there are hundreds 30+years old and still reliable 737s in active service, while old A320 is a nightmare)

False, ask Air Canada, Lufthansa, and Delta how their 30 year old A320s are in comparison to the 20 year old 738s AA apparently needs rid of.

metroline2006 wrote:

Is it because 737 have built in stairs which help at out stations

They can have built in stairs, but very few do. Ryanair is one of the notable ones, but very few carriers take up that option due to the added weight. The availability of air stairs even at smaller airports isn't typically much of an issue. There are very few 737s in the US that have them — the only few that I can think of operate for DOJ JPATS ("Justice" and "Repatriate"). They often fly to remote airfields in Central America, so sometimes it's a necessity. They traditionally used DC9s and MD80 with rear airstairs, but they've added more 737s to their contract in recent years.

The 737 is so prolific among charter carriers in the US because they've historically operated the aircraft. Miami and Xtra operated the classic, and Swiftair still operates classics. Most people forget that the history of the A320 in the US doesn't go back very far — Airbus aircraft in general were a bit of a rarity before about 20 years ago. Yes, there were some early operators like America West, but Airbus didn't start to make significant gains in the US until the early to mid 2000s. Many of those A320s hadn't had enough time to depreciate in value, whereas the 737 classics (and the jurassics before them) have been affordable to charter operators for many years. As they've updated their fleets with NGs, it's obviously cheaper to make the transition to the same type. They've just stayed with what they know.

I know the question was about US, but it seems it happens in Europe, too:

When I think about Air Berlin in the past 20 years, I recall them having a sole B737-fleet (Classic and NG) in the early 2000s when they have been mostly a charter airline. Later, when they took over dba and LTU they started to shift to scheduled operations and also ordered some Airbus aircraft (I remember flying on a brand new A319 one day after it was delivered in 2008). In the end, when they have been a (half-assed) full service carrier and did only operate Airbus (not counting the Dash-8 from LGW).

That is actually an interesting example, how the requirements for the fleet could change, when an airline transits from charter to scheduled flight.

Didn't Air Berlin fly 737NGs until the end?

Regarding charter A32x, there are plenty in Europe. Titan, SmartLynx, Small Planet all have A32x. Titan still have some 737s, and have flown them for a very long time now. Of course if we're expanding 'charter' to cover all non-sheduled operations, then operators like Thomas Cook have flown A32x for years, and Monarch had larger numbers of A320s and A321s too. That is a dying market now however, with the decline of the traditional package holiday, and most of the holiday 'charters' are bookable as regular scheduled flights but with some seats sold with the package holidays.

Cargo is not of importance to the majority of charter airlines and there tends to be more cushioning in the schedules, which helps chose the 737 over the A320.

fjhc wrote:

Didn't Air Berlin fly 737NGs until the end?

Kind of. They were operated by TUI and leased out to AB. Many people suggests that this deal was one of the nails in the coffin for AB as the rates were very high.

It is my understanding that the A32X are more efficient at longer ranges due to higher bypass engines and the 737s more efficient at shorter ranges due to the lighter airframe.

metroline2006 wrote:

Is it because 737 have built in stairs which help at out stations

Optional but not standard. Might that be something that makes ex-Ryanair 737s so attractive to lessors and lessees? (FR specs its aircraft with built-in air stairs.) When CIT bought secondhand 737s from Ryanair, new lessees were quickly found for all of them.

As for the USA, Braniff II (later transferred to America West), Canadian Airlines International, and Air Canada were very early operators, but Air Canada and HP’s successors held or are holding onto those A320s until end of life...all of the AC A320s have only operated for Air Canada or Canadian Airlines International from delivery and some are almost 30 years old. They and European A320 operators hold onto them for a long time, as well as Air India, and even the newer A320 operators like B6 and NK are or have moved toward long term ownership, meaning that their lease rates remain high. What will be interesting in a small way will be if the SU A320/A321ceos sell...those are older frames. The ones usually available for lease come from easyJet, Turkey or Asia-Pacific.

GianiDC wrote:

fjhc wrote:

Didn't Air Berlin fly 737NGs until the end?

Kind of. They were operated by TUI and leased out to AB. Many people suggests that this deal was one of the nails in the coffin for AB as the rates were very high.

Thanks! I knew they had some flown by TUI, but I didn't know about the high rates. Seems odd for a company who was flying a lot for other airlines to then also be contracting some of their own flying out to 3rd parties! But then again... there's a reason why they aren't around any more.

EvanWSFO wrote:

USA 3000 operated 320's. Aside from them I can't think of any US charter carrier that did.

TransMeridian & Ryan International

910A wrote:

Xtra (then Casino) and Sierra Pacific both started out with 732 and they are still flying one ex-Air Florida bird that is 37.5 years old. At stated before both of these airlines started with 732 before Airbus was established in the US.

I'm really shocked that Sierra Pacific is still flying

The 320 being widespread in the US was a JetBlue/post 9/11 thing.

Until that point UA US NW had 320s. Most US Airlines had 737s 727s 757s and 767s.

9/11 flushed the older planes.

But it wasnt until the seismic shift in the narrowbody market that 320 family aircraft became widespread in the US.

Today, there are basically 2 kinds of narrowbody, mainline aircraft: 320 family, 737 family.

fjhc wrote:

GianiDC wrote:

fjhc wrote:

Didn't Air Berlin fly 737NGs until the end?

Kind of. They were operated by TUI and leased out to AB. Many people suggests that this deal was one of the nails in the coffin for AB as the rates were very high.

Thanks! I knew they had some flown by TUI, but I didn't know about the high rates. Seems odd for a company who was flying a lot for other airlines to then also be contracting some of their own flying out to 3rd parties! But then again... there's a reason why they aren't around any more.

It was a deal made when AB wanted to take over the low cost airline Hapag Lloyd Express (HLX) from the TUI group. They got the whole low costs operation, but had to lease some TUI planes, that were bought for use in the operation, in return.

In the UK, Titan Airways
In France there was Air mediteranée, and XL airways used to have A320.
In Swithzerland, Edelweiss (more scheduled now as part of Lufthansa Group)
In Germany: Condor, Germania,

The reason is the same as why does Low Cost started with 737. When Easyjet and other started there was a lot of 737 on the market for lease. Also the economics of the aircraft was well known as used by a more larger variety of airlines hence it was easier to setup a business plan.
In the US charter there is an other factor. It's a small microcosm of the airline industry. There is not more that 100 737 sized airliners available for charter. It's more less than 50.
When one close staff and management can often be found in an other company or competitor. Same people, same thinking and a lot of 737 experience. That matter a lot in the choice of an airliner type.

SierraPacific wrote:

(.......Swift Air......)

They have some very used up 737s. The 737s they acquired have several thousand cycles before the lapjoint mod has to be done so most are at the end of their life. I'm sure they are dirt cheap to lease.