WOW... I didn't expect this.

Madrid-New York is getting crowded: Iberia, Air Europa, Delta, United, American, Norwegian and Primera Air!

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... d-in-3q19/

Madrid – Boston eff 17AUG19 3 weekly
PF3317 MAD1900 – 2105BOS 7M9 246
PF3318 BOS2235 – 1120+1MAD 7M9 246

Madrid – Newark eff 16JUL19 1 daily
PF3305 MAD1930 – 2200EWR 7M9 D
PF3306 EWR2330 – 1235+1MAD 7M9 D

Madrid – Toronto eff 16AUG19 4 weekly
PF3329 MAD1825 – 2215YYZ 7M9 x246
PF3330 YYZ2245 – 1210+1MAD 7M9 x246

Toronto was always on my mind from Madrid..maybe IB has lost a chance to be there...

Starting in August is a little late, particularly for BOS, interestingly this is essentially a replacement for the defunct UX flight from 2017. IB has had this Route all to themselves along with Level from BCN, but another week, another PF flight
This is an absolutely insane level of capacity growth in 2019 with TXL, BRU, FRA and now MAD coming online to BOS along with the fact that with these timings, there is no room in Terminal E at the contact gates. While 2 of the frequencies (4,6) fill in against the TXL flight, still going to be a park and bus to the terminal I have to expect, which although not unusual in Europe is more so in the US.
That makes 4 in 4 weeks, anybody want to place a bet on where next week? Because at this rate they will be taking over BOS and few outside of a.net have heard of them over here. Crazy.

Kadish wrote:

Toronto was always on my mind from Madrid..maybe IB has lost a chance to be there...

Air Canada flies MAD-YYZ year-round. In fact it is the only AC destination in the Iberian Peninsula, with BCN, OPO and LIS relegated to Air Canada Rouge.

Excellent news. I love healthy competition & choice. Norwegian, LEVEL, Primera. Good for customers.

Btw I count this for next summer:

Iberia: 2 daily JFK
Air Europa: 1 daily JFK
American: 1 daily JFK
Delta: 1 daily JFK
Norwegian: 3 weekly (?) JFK
United: 1 daily EWR
Primera: 1 daily EWR

So there will be some days with 8 flights between MAD and NYC.

Given Primera's reputation for starting routes and then abandoning them within a few weeks, anyone like to bet on how long this lot last?

no feed from anybody? maybe EZ?

Kikko19 wrote:

no feed from anybody? maybe EZ?

Do you mean Easyjet (EZ is SunAir of Denmark whose planes go nowhere near Madrid)?
If so, they don't interline. They do have an arrangement of sorts with Norwegian at LGW, which isn't a true interline agreement but makes it even less likely they'd get involved with Primera.

It looks to me as if this airline has adopted a strategy that will lead it to the knacker's yard. If these markets become oversupplied with capacity it is Primera who will suffer in any price war.

Do they even have enough aircrft on order? Can the MAX even make it with a full payload?

Amazing news in MAD

VS4ever wrote:

Starting in August is a little late, particularly for BOS, interestingly this is essentially a replacement for the defunct UX flight from 2017. IB has had this Route all to themselves along with Level from BCN, but another week, another PF flight.

I am a bit sceptical about BOS. As you mentioned, UX flied the route last year and couldn't make it work despite the connections in MAD. Iberia's MAD-BOS outside peak summer and school holidays has the worst loads for Iberia in the US.

IMO MAD-YUL would be a better choice. YUL is only served by Air Transat on a seasonal basis. Having MAD-YYZ and MAD-YUL would allow Spanish tourists to do an open-jaw flight in Canada. I know very few Spaniards taking holidays in Canada (compared to pretty much anywhere in the US) and I think that this is partly due to the lack of flights (from MAD just AC to YYZ and TS to YUL). Primera Air could easily stimulate those markets. The US with all the existing connectivity from Spain (including Norwegian) needs little stimulation to be done!

OA940 wrote:

Do they even have enough aircrft on order? Can the MAX even make it with a full payload?

Each of these new bases will only require 2 aircraft (with the exception of STN and eventually FRA, with 3), and they have 16 MAX 9s on order with 4 purchase rights. They also still have 3 A321neos to receive this year (two of them LRs), though I personally haven't seen any announcements for frequency additions or new bases for the neos. Adding up BRU, TXL, FRA and MAD, that's still 7 to 11 MAX 9s still not called for, supposedly.

As for range...Boeing/PF say they plan to use the aux fuel tanks on the MAX, so probably not a "full" payload on that basis.

mooseofspruce wrote:

OA940 wrote:

Do they even have enough aircrft on order? Can the MAX even make it with a full payload?

Each of these new bases will only require 2 aircraft (with the exception of STN and eventually FRA, with 3), and they have 16 MAX 9s on order with 4 purchase rights. They also still have 3 A321neos to receive this year (two of them LRs), though I personally haven't seen any announcements for frequency additions or new bases for the neos. Adding up BRU, TXL, FRA and MAD, that's still 7 to 11 MAX 9s still not called for, supposedly.

As for range...Boeing/PF say they plan to use the aux fuel tanks on the MAX, so probably not a "full" payload on that basis.

How much do they bring the range up to on the MAX 9? Also according to wiki they have 18 firmed up MAX 9s, so I guess we still haven't seen the last of the expansion.

OA940 wrote:

mooseofspruce wrote:

OA940 wrote:

Do they even have enough aircrft on order? Can the MAX even make it with a full payload?

Each of these new bases will only require 2 aircraft (with the exception of STN and eventually FRA, with 3), and they have 16 MAX 9s on order with 4 purchase rights. They also still have 3 A321neos to receive this year (two of them LRs), though I personally haven't seen any announcements for frequency additions or new bases for the neos. Adding up BRU, TXL, FRA and MAD, that's still 7 to 11 MAX 9s still not called for, supposedly.

As for range...Boeing/PF say they plan to use the aux fuel tanks on the MAX, so probably not a "full" payload on that basis.

How much do they bring the range up to on the MAX 9? Also according to wiki they have 18 firmed up MAX 9s, so I guess we still haven't seen the last of the expansion.

Personally haven't seen specific numbers on the range increase by way of aux tanks but if the 3,550nm base range is to be believed (which is identical to the MAX 8s), they'll need to add at least 700-800nm or so (or even more for reserves and winds), given their longest route planned (TXL-YYZ) measures at over 4,000nm by great circle. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if this changes to the A321LR later on should it go ahead at all, but that's me.

The wiki said 18 but the sole citation attached to the figure led to the May 2017 source I read off of, which said 16 with 4; I have not found a source that states 18. Though meanwhile a video posted by PF states 20.

SCQ83 wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

Starting in August is a little late, particularly for BOS, interestingly this is essentially a replacement for the defunct UX flight from 2017. IB has had this Route all to themselves along with Level from BCN, but another week, another PF flight.

I am a bit sceptical about BOS. As you mentioned, UX flied the route last year and couldn't make it work despite the connections in MAD. Iberia's MAD-BOS outside peak summer and school holidays has the worst loads for Iberia in the US.

IMO MAD-YUL would be a better choice. YUL is only served by Air Transat on a seasonal basis. Having MAD-YYZ and MAD-YUL would allow Spanish tourists to do an open-jaw flight in Canada. I know very few Spaniards taking holidays in Canada (compared to pretty much anywhere in the US) and I think that this is partly due to the lack of flights (from MAD just AC to YYZ and TS to YUL). Primera Air could easily stimulate those markets. The US with all the existing connectivity from Spain (including Norwegian) needs little stimulation to be done!

To be fair, IB does not exactly have an extensive US network and all of the other cities in addition to BOS it does serve are larger TATL markets than BOS is - JFK, ORD, MIA and LAX are all larger markets.

Primera will also be flying a smaller plane than UX did, I believe they ran 788s on the seasonal MAD-BOS route. Who knows, maybe Primera will have some success? This is good for the consumers.

Perfect plane capacity for a hot try summer in MAD . MAD is now a low cost base with Primera Air , Norwegian , and Level .

Did anyone else notice that Toronto only has a 30 minute turn around time? Can't be right.

Primera seem to be launching routes all over the place, hope they have deep pockets like Norwegian. They have already dropped routes from BHX so I wonder how long this strategy will last.

Msep003 wrote:

Perfect plane capacity for a hot try summer in MAD . MAD is now a low cost base with Primera Air , Norwegian , and Level .

MAD is not a low-cost base for LEVEL.

B737-9's range is not a concern here?

Actually, after Primera started flying from STN, CDG and BHX, I was expecting the next step would be Spain, and I'm happy to see I was not so wrong.

Just I had hoped CQM would reopen soon, so Primera could fly from 'Madrid South', as some of its future owners said. But at the moment, my home airport's future is still a real mess.

At the moment, I'll be happy seeing PF is working well in my base airport. I'm considering them for a flight to Canada, maybe next year.

Ew no thanks, I’ll fly a real airline .

SCQ83 wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

Starting in August is a little late, particularly for BOS, interestingly this is essentially a replacement for the defunct UX flight from 2017. IB has had this Route all to themselves along with Level from BCN, but another week, another PF flight.

I am a bit sceptical about BOS. As you mentioned, UX flied the route last year and couldn't make it work despite the connections in MAD. Iberia's MAD-BOS outside peak summer and school holidays has the worst loads for Iberia in the US.

IMO MAD-YUL would be a better choice. YUL is only served by Air Transat on a seasonal basis. Having MAD-YYZ and MAD-YUL would allow Spanish tourists to do an open-jaw flight in Canada. I know very few Spaniards taking holidays in Canada (compared to pretty much anywhere in the US) and I think that this is partly due to the lack of flights (from MAD just AC to YYZ and TS to YUL). Primera Air could easily stimulate those markets. The US with all the existing connectivity from Spain (including Norwegian) needs little stimulation to be done!

What's the evidence that Spaniards want to take vacation in eastern Canada? Spain doesn't even make the top 13 countries of origin of international travelers to all of Canada, and after #10 the numbers are so small as to be irrelevant.

B752OS wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

Starting in August is a little late, particularly for BOS, interestingly this is essentially a replacement for the defunct UX flight from 2017. IB has had this Route all to themselves along with Level from BCN, but another week, another PF flight.

I am a bit sceptical about BOS. As you mentioned, UX flied the route last year and couldn't make it work despite the connections in MAD. Iberia's MAD-BOS outside peak summer and school holidays has the worst loads for Iberia in the US.

IMO MAD-YUL would be a better choice. YUL is only served by Air Transat on a seasonal basis. Having MAD-YYZ and MAD-YUL would allow Spanish tourists to do an open-jaw flight in Canada. I know very few Spaniards taking holidays in Canada (compared to pretty much anywhere in the US) and I think that this is partly due to the lack of flights (from MAD just AC to YYZ and TS to YUL). Primera Air could easily stimulate those markets. The US with all the existing connectivity from Spain (including Norwegian) needs little stimulation to be done!

To be fair, IB does not exactly have an extensive US network and all of the other cities in addition to BOS it does serve are larger TATL markets than BOS is - JFK, ORD, MIA and LAX are all larger markets.

Primera will also be flying a smaller plane than UX did, I believe they ran 788s on the seasonal MAD-BOS route. Who knows, maybe Primera will have some success? This is good for the consumers.

They also fly to SFO...not year round.

B752OS wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

Starting in August is a little late, particularly for BOS, interestingly this is essentially a replacement for the defunct UX flight from 2017. IB has had this Route all to themselves along with Level from BCN, but another week, another PF flight.

I am a bit sceptical about BOS. As you mentioned, UX flied the route last year and couldn't make it work despite the connections in MAD. Iberia's MAD-BOS outside peak summer and school holidays has the worst loads for Iberia in the US.

IMO MAD-YUL would be a better choice. YUL is only served by Air Transat on a seasonal basis. Having MAD-YYZ and MAD-YUL would allow Spanish tourists to do an open-jaw flight in Canada. I know very few Spaniards taking holidays in Canada (compared to pretty much anywhere in the US) and I think that this is partly due to the lack of flights (from MAD just AC to YYZ and TS to YUL). Primera Air could easily stimulate those markets. The US with all the existing connectivity from Spain (including Norwegian) needs little stimulation to be done!

To be fair, IB does not exactly have an extensive US network and all of the other cities in addition to BOS it does serve are larger TATL markets than BOS is - JFK, ORD, MIA and LAX are all larger markets.

Primera will also be flying a smaller plane than UX did, I believe they ran 788s on the seasonal MAD-BOS route. Who knows, maybe Primera will have some success? This is good for the consumers.

They also fly to SFO...not year round.

MIflyer12 wrote:

What's the evidence that Spaniards want to take vacation in eastern Canada? Spain doesn't even make the top 13 countries of origin of international travelers to all of Canada, and after #10 the numbers are so small as to be irrelevant.

Maybe because there are not many direct flights or rarely any advertisement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_i ... ted_States

More than 1 million Spaniards visited the US in 2016, making in the 13rd country with more international tourists to the US. Maybe with more flights there would be more tourism, specially considering that not many Spaniards are going to the US for sun & beach (like Canadians or British in Florida), and Canada could be an alternative to some US areas.

Sheridan125 wrote:

It looks to me as if this airline has adopted a strategy that will lead it to the knacker's yard. If these markets become oversupplied with capacity it is Primera who will suffer in any price war.

I 100% agree with you and feel that they are making the same mistake as Norwegian is doing by flying long haul from multiple EU airports rather than first focusing on one to have a proper hub and spoke model.

This is just me thinking out loud :

1. If Primera wanted to fly they should have hooked up with a US partner and based their B7M9s out of MIA.

2. Have MIA as a primary hub and operate high p2p routes in Central America/Latin America along with domestic USA which would provide good feed.

continental004 wrote:

Ew no thanks, I’ll fly a real airline .

Ok, I’m in a mood today as Mrs VS. is in surgery so I will bite. What by your standards constitutes a real airline?
Essentially all airlines are the same, they all take you from A to B 99% of the time (cue B6 OTP complaints) , you pick the flight time you want, show up at the airport and away you go.
The only main difference is the customer service and what you pay for with your ticket and ancillaries.
Sounds like you want everyone to be a BA J or F customer where you are pampered and not a PF customer who is looking to get simply from A to B.

Now I know PF have had their challenges, BHX was a disaster, but I have suspicions there were bigger issues there than not selling enough tickets. But let’s not forget the heady days of DY starting out and their issues (still have some if you read the threads)

So I ask again, what is the definition of a “real” airline, as either way they have to physically exist to fly and please just don’t say it’s BA, or UA or LH as examples, because they have interlines and IRROPS procedures, as most people outside of a.net and the industry won’t give 2 hoots (Europe is already protected for delays) because if you are authorized to fly from point a to b with a MAX, you have the crew and the passengers, what exactly is the difference? I am genuinely curious.

behramjee wrote:

Sheridan125 wrote:

It looks to me as if this airline has adopted a strategy that will lead it to the knacker's yard. If these markets become oversupplied with capacity it is Primera who will suffer in any price war.

I 100% agree with you and feel that they are making the same mistake as Norwegian is doing by flying long haul from multiple EU airports rather than first focusing on one to have a proper hub and spoke model.

This is just me thinking out loud :

1. If Primera wanted to fly they should have hooked up with a US partner and based their B7M9s out of MIA.

2. Have MIA as a primary hub and operate high p2p routes in Central America/Latin America along with domestic USA which would provide good feed.

Because jumping from European charter flights to Miami-Latin/Central American flights makes more sense than European Charter flights to European long haul flights.

MapleLeaf789 wrote:

Did anyone else notice that Toronto only has a 30 minute turn around time? Can't be right.

Either it's an error or Primera are using one of the other routes (e.g., STN) to turn the YYZ-MAD, with the MAD-YYZ then doing YYZ-STN for example.

behramjee wrote:

Sheridan125 wrote:

It looks to me as if this airline has adopted a strategy that will lead it to the knacker's yard. If these markets become oversupplied with capacity it is Primera who will suffer in any price war.

I 100% agree with you and feel that they are making the same mistake as Norwegian is doing by flying long haul from multiple EU airports rather than first focusing on one to have a proper hub and spoke model.

This is just me thinking out loud :

1. If Primera wanted to fly they should have hooked up with a US partner and based their B7M9s out of MIA.

2. Have MIA as a primary hub and operate high p2p routes in Central America/Latin America along with domestic USA which would provide good feed.

One of many glaring problems with that strategy is that they aren't a US carrier, they don't have a US AOC, that would be cabotage, which last time I checked is quite illegal.

This is beside the fact that your strategy would be to essentially wipe their strategic plan clean and restart on a different continent with a completely different model, with 0 brand recognition, consumer base or real reason to be there.

Man, I really respect what you bring to this forum, but come on, you can't possibly be serious? What's next, Air Asia starting a northern Finland base and catering to Lapland?

mooseofspruce wrote:

OA940 wrote:

mooseofspruce wrote:

Each of these new bases will only require 2 aircraft (with the exception of STN and eventually FRA, with 3), and they have 16 MAX 9s on order with 4 purchase rights. They also still have 3 A321neos to receive this year (two of them LRs), though I personally haven't seen any announcements for frequency additions or new bases for the neos. Adding up BRU, TXL, FRA and MAD, that's still 7 to 11 MAX 9s still not called for, supposedly.

As for range...Boeing/PF say they plan to use the aux fuel tanks on the MAX, so probably not a "full" payload on that basis.

How much do they bring the range up to on the MAX 9? Also according to wiki they have 18 firmed up MAX 9s, so I guess we still haven't seen the last of the expansion.

Personally haven't seen specific numbers on the range increase by way of aux tanks but if the 3,550nm base range is to be believed (which is identical to the MAX 8s), they'll need to add at least 700-800nm or so (or even more for reserves and winds), given their longest route planned (TXL-YYZ) measures at over 4,000nm by great circle. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if this changes to the A321LR later on should it go ahead at all, but that's me.

The wiki said 18 but the sole citation attached to the figure led to the May 2017 source I read off of, which said 16 with 4; I have not found a source that states 18. Though meanwhile a video posted by PF states 20.

mad-erw is 3200 nm
mad-yyz 3300 nm
mad-bos 3000 nm

I just check Boeing airport planing manual and a MAX9, with a load of 180/185 pax, max fuel (20000kg without any extra tank), will be able to fly 3300 NM with a take off weight off 84.5 tons. The max take off weight of the aircraft is 88.3. This mean you still have 3,8 tons available to play. An extra fuel tank built by PATS (the ones used on BBJ) weights aprox 710 kg instaled. And it has an extra 2900 kg of fuel. This mean installed with full fuel, it weights 3,6 tons. 2900 kg means at least 500 more nm of range and the aircraft is still 200 kg below the MTOW. This mean a range of 3800/3850 NM with 180/185 pax aprox and a full load of fuel of 23000 kg with the extra tank with MTOW.

In case of madrid the only issue is the take off field performance in summer

VS4ever wrote:

continental004 wrote:

Ew no thanks, I’ll fly a real airline .

Ok, I’m in a mood today as Mrs VS. is in surgery so I will bite. What by your standards constitutes a real airline?
Essentially all airlines are the same, they all take you from A to B 99% of the time (cue B6 OTP complaints) , you pick the flight time you want, show up at the airport and away you go.
The only main difference is the customer service and what you pay for with your ticket and ancillaries.
Sounds like you want everyone to be a BA J or F customer where you are pampered and not a PF customer who is looking to get simply from A to B.

Now I know PF have had their challenges, BHX was a disaster, but I have suspicions there were bigger issues there than not selling enough tickets. But let’s not forget the heady days of DY starting out and their issues (still have some if you read the threads)

So I ask again, what is the definition of a “real” airline, as either way they have to physically exist to fly and please just don’t say it’s BA, or UA or LH as examples, because they have interlines and IRROPS procedures, as most people outside of a.net and the industry won’t give 2 hoots (Europe is already protected for delays) because if you are authorized to fly from point a to b with a MAX, you have the crew and the passengers, what exactly is the difference? I am genuinely curious.

Among other things a real airline is the one that gives u more frequency...I mean if I travel from MÁD to BOS n there is a cancellation i dont wanna be waiting days for the next flight...and personally i prefer crosing the pond with a big plane...

Kadish wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

continental004 wrote:

Ew no thanks, I’ll fly a real airline .

Ok, I’m in a mood today as Mrs VS. is in surgery so I will bite. What by your standards constitutes a real airline?
Essentially all airlines are the same, they all take you from A to B 99% of the time (cue B6 OTP complaints) , you pick the flight time you want, show up at the airport and away you go.
The only main difference is the customer service and what you pay for with your ticket and ancillaries.
Sounds like you want everyone to be a BA J or F customer where you are pampered and not a PF customer who is looking to get simply from A to B.

Now I know PF have had their challenges, BHX was a disaster, but I have suspicions there were bigger issues there than not selling enough tickets. But let’s not forget the heady days of DY starting out and their issues (still have some if you read the threads)

So I ask again, what is the definition of a “real” airline, as either way they have to physically exist to fly and please just don’t say it’s BA, or UA or LH as examples, because they have interlines and IRROPS procedures, as most people outside of a.net and the industry won’t give 2 hoots (Europe is already protected for delays) because if you are authorized to fly from point a to b with a MAX, you have the crew and the passengers, what exactly is the difference? I am genuinely curious.

Among other things a real airline is the one that gives u more frequency...I mean if I travel from MÁD to BOS n there is a cancellation i dont wanna be waiting days for the next flight...and personally i prefer crosing the pond with a big plane...

They are flying it daily, so that's in line with everyone else. More importantly, though, if frequency is your primary concern, then you are not the target customer for Primera in the first place.

Kadish wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

continental004 wrote:

Ew no thanks, I’ll fly a real airline .

Ok, I’m in a mood today as Mrs VS. is in surgery so I will bite. What by your standards constitutes a real airline?
Essentially all airlines are the same, they all take you from A to B 99% of the time (cue B6 OTP complaints) , you pick the flight time you want, show up at the airport and away you go.
The only main difference is the customer service and what you pay for with your ticket and ancillaries.
Sounds like you want everyone to be a BA J or F customer where you are pampered and not a PF customer who is looking to get simply from A to B.

Now I know PF have had their challenges, BHX was a disaster, but I have suspicions there were bigger issues there than not selling enough tickets. But let’s not forget the heady days of DY starting out and their issues (still have some if you read the threads)

So I ask again, what is the definition of a “real” airline, as either way they have to physically exist to fly and please just don’t say it’s BA, or UA or LH as examples, because they have interlines and IRROPS procedures, as most people outside of a.net and the industry won’t give 2 hoots (Europe is already protected for delays) because if you are authorized to fly from point a to b with a MAX, you have the crew and the passengers, what exactly is the difference? I am genuinely curious.

Among other things a real airline is the one that gives u more frequency...I mean if I travel from MÁD to BOS n there is a cancellation i dont wanna be waiting days for the next flight...and personally i prefer crosing the pond with a big plane...

For which you pay more. Clearly not everyone will place the same emphasis on that as you. And clearly some will trade that off for a lower price, given it is that that Primera is competing on.

SCQ83 wrote:

I am a bit sceptical about BOS. As you mentioned, UX flied the route last year and couldn't make it work despite the connections in MAD. Iberia's MAD-BOS outside peak summer and school holidays has the worst loads for Iberia in the US.

Do you have a source for this? I’ve heard in off peak that BOS is stronger for IB than LAX, SFO & IAD in off season.

SCQ83 wrote:

I am a bit sceptical about BOS. As you mentioned, UX flied the route last year and couldn't make it work despite the connections in MAD. Iberia's MAD-BOS outside peak summer and school holidays has the worst loads for Iberia in the US.

Really??? Is there a source for this? That wouldn't really be explainable by the fact that they are increasing frequency and are choosing to go year-round instead of seasonal this year. I'm sure if BOS had the worst loads outside of summer and school holidays in the US then IB would find a better place to send the plane than the place with the worst loads in the US.

mig21uti wrote:

mooseofspruce wrote:

OA940 wrote:

How much do they bring the range up to on the MAX 9? Also according to wiki they have 18 firmed up MAX 9s, so I guess we still haven't seen the last of the expansion.

Personally haven't seen specific numbers on the range increase by way of aux tanks but if the 3,550nm base range is to be believed (which is identical to the MAX 8s), they'll need to add at least 700-800nm or so (or even more for reserves and winds), given their longest route planned (TXL-YYZ) measures at over 4,000nm by great circle. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if this changes to the A321LR later on should it go ahead at all, but that's me.

The wiki said 18 but the sole citation attached to the figure led to the May 2017 source I read off of, which said 16 with 4; I have not found a source that states 18. Though meanwhile a video posted by PF states 20.

mad-erw is 3200 nm
mad-yyz 3300 nm
mad-bos 3000 nm

I just check Boeing airport planing manual and a MAX9, with a load of 180/185 pax, max fuel (20000kg without any extra tank), will be able to fly 3300 NM with a take off weight off 84.5 tons. The max take off weight of the aircraft is 88.3. This mean you still have 3,8 tons available to play. An extra fuel tank built by PATS (the ones used on BBJ) weights aprox 710 kg instaled. And it has an extra 2900 kg of fuel. This mean installed with full fuel, it weights 3,6 tons. 2900 kg means at least 500 more nm of range and the aircraft is still 200 kg below the MTOW. This mean a range of 3800/3850 NM with 180/185 pax aprox and a full load of fuel of 23000 kg with the extra tank with MTOW.

In case of madrid the only issue is the take off field performance in summer

Ummmm no with a 4100 and 4350 meter runway at 2000ft elevation, the only issue is that there are headwinds on the westbound legs.

Waterbomber wrote:

mig21uti wrote:

mooseofspruce wrote:

Personally haven't seen specific numbers on the range increase by way of aux tanks but if the 3,550nm base range is to be believed (which is identical to the MAX 8s), they'll need to add at least 700-800nm or so (or even more for reserves and winds), given their longest route planned (TXL-YYZ) measures at over 4,000nm by great circle. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if this changes to the A321LR later on should it go ahead at all, but that's me.

The wiki said 18 but the sole citation attached to the figure led to the May 2017 source I read off of, which said 16 with 4; I have not found a source that states 18. Though meanwhile a video posted by PF states 20.

mad-erw is 3200 nm
mad-yyz 3300 nm
mad-bos 3000 nm

I just check Boeing airport planing manual and a MAX9, with a load of 180/185 pax, max fuel (20000kg without any extra tank), will be able to fly 3300 NM with a take off weight off 84.5 tons. The max take off weight of the aircraft is 88.3. This mean you still have 3,8 tons available to play. An extra fuel tank built by PATS (the ones used on BBJ) weights aprox 710 kg instaled. And it has an extra 2900 kg of fuel. This mean installed with full fuel, it weights 3,6 tons. 2900 kg means at least 500 more nm of range and the aircraft is still 200 kg below the MTOW. This mean a range of 3800/3850 NM with 180/185 pax aprox and a full load of fuel of 23000 kg with the extra tank with MTOW.

In case of madrid the only issue is the take off field performance in summer

Ummmm no with a 4100 and 4350 meter runway at 2000ft elevation, the only issue is that there are headwinds on the westbound legs.

That why I said in summer but I think they dont need to operate at MTOW because of the distance they want to fly.

JBLUA320 wrote:

Kadish wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

Ok, I’m in a mood today as Mrs VS. is in surgery so I will bite. What by your standards constitutes a real airline?
Essentially all airlines are the same, they all take you from A to B 99% of the time (cue B6 OTP complaints) , you pick the flight time you want, show up at the airport and away you go.
The only main difference is the customer service and what you pay for with your ticket and ancillaries.
Sounds like you want everyone to be a BA J or F customer where you are pampered and not a PF customer who is looking to get simply from A to B.

Now I know PF have had their challenges, BHX was a disaster, but I have suspicions there were bigger issues there than not selling enough tickets. But let’s not forget the heady days of DY starting out and their issues (still have some if you read the threads)

So I ask again, what is the definition of a “real” airline, as either way they have to physically exist to fly and please just don’t say it’s BA, or UA or LH as examples, because they have interlines and IRROPS procedures, as most people outside of a.net and the industry won’t give 2 hoots (Europe is already protected for delays) because if you are authorized to fly from point a to b with a MAX, you have the crew and the passengers, what exactly is the difference? I am genuinely curious.

Among other things a real airline is the one that gives u more frequency...I mean if I travel from MÁD to BOS n there is a cancellation i dont wanna be waiting days for the next flight...and personally i prefer crosing the pond with a big plane...

They are flying it daily, so that's in line with everyone else. More importantly, though, if frequency is your primary concern, then you are not the target customer for Primera in the first place.

It was an example...BOS, EWR...the thng is frequency

Pe@rson wrote:

Kadish wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

Ok, I’m in a mood today as Mrs VS. is in surgery so I will bite. What by your standards constitutes a real airline?
Essentially all airlines are the same, they all take you from A to B 99% of the time (cue B6 OTP complaints) , you pick the flight time you want, show up at the airport and away you go.
The only main difference is the customer service and what you pay for with your ticket and ancillaries.
Sounds like you want everyone to be a BA J or F customer where you are pampered and not a PF customer who is looking to get simply from A to B.

Now I know PF have had their challenges, BHX was a disaster, but I have suspicions there were bigger issues there than not selling enough tickets. But let’s not forget the heady days of DY starting out and their issues (still have some if you read the threads)

So I ask again, what is the definition of a “real” airline, as either way they have to physically exist to fly and please just don’t say it’s BA, or UA or LH as examples, because they have interlines and IRROPS procedures, as most people outside of a.net and the industry won’t give 2 hoots (Europe is already protected for delays) because if you are authorized to fly from point a to b with a MAX, you have the crew and the passengers, what exactly is the difference? I am genuinely curious.

Among other things a real airline is the one that gives u more frequency...I mean if I travel from MÁD to BOS n there is a cancellation i dont wanna be waiting days for the next flight...and personally i prefer crosing the pond with a big plane...

For which you pay more. Clearly not everyone will place the same emphasis on that as you. And clearly some will trade that off for a lower price, given it is that that Primera is competing on.

I agree, there must be a lot of people willing to fly them, not me.
N the thuth is that the price at the end is more or less the same..

Kadish wrote:

I agree, there must be a lot of people willing to fly them, not me.
N the thuth is that the price at the end is more or less the same..

Not true at all.

Quick sample booking MAD-BOS-MAD 20-24 August 2019.
Iberia cheapest return fare for 1 adult £1,161.
Primera cheapest return fare for 1 adult £336, or £1192 in Premium.

So a Premium return fare on PF cheaper than Iberia "Basic".

Sorry not true at all...I dd the same research in their webs n if u want meal and luggage IB is more expensive but only 120 euros more...n I dont think thier product is the same

Waiting more options to flight to ORD from MAD.......

Kadish wrote:

Sorry not true at all...I dd the same research in their webs n if u want meal and luggage IB is more expensive but only 120 euros more...n I dont think thier product is the same

Don't know quite what you were looking at, but Primera flight + bag + meal = €574 vs Iberia which is several hundred € more.
Same ticket, same extras included, same dates, same airports.

The above is right, PF is €575 and IB is €1,500. However, PF's potential customers are price sensitive, which means they won't mind connecting flights.

PF shouldn't worry too much about IB's €1,500 price tag, but focus on the fact that LH/AC offer 1-stop those dates for €430.

(Outbound MAD-FRA-BOS with LH via FRA, Return BOS-YYZ-MAD with AC - and btw, fly a nice B748 on the way out and a new B789 on the way back, for those who do care about aircraft or flying legacy airlines).

Many passengers will choose LH/AC for €430, some other will prefer non-stop and choose PF for €575.

NickolayAv wrote:

Really??? Is there a source for this? That wouldn't really be explainable by the fact that they are increasing frequency and are choosing to go year-round instead of seasonal this year. I'm sure if BOS had the worst loads outside of summer and school holidays in the US then IB would find a better place to send the plane than the place with the worst loads in the US.

I remember not long ago someone posted a document with international loads from all points in the US (so it was something related to the US DOT). I just recall loads for MAD-BOS in February or March were really bad, like 50-60%.

I guess Iberia extending MAD-BOS year-round from seasonal again (it used to be year-round until a few years ago) was also a move to avoid Norwegian starting the route.

mattyfitzg wrote:

Kadish wrote:

Sorry not true at all...I dd the same research in their webs n if u want meal and luggage IB is more expensive but only 120 euros more...n I dont think thier product is the same

Don't know quite what you were looking at, but Primera flight + bag + meal = €574 vs Iberia which is several hundred € more.
Same ticket, same extras included, same dates, same airports.

Maybe different price depending on the country?
I swear to god that I saw primera for around 1100€ and IB 1200...