Hi everyone, we see more and more airlines annoucing they will put on TATL flights Narrow bodies such as B737 Max or A320 NEO/LR

I was wondering, what are the benefits for the airline to have a Narrow body on a Amsterdam New York for instance instead of a wide body?
In terms of Operation Cost obviously the narrow body is more interesting, but competing with a Wide Body, which one gonna have the best CASM and which one will provide the best results in terms of benefits for the airline?

Thanks for your feedbacks.

Not every route can support a narrow body Even if the CASM is less if you have 100 empty seats you'll still lose money. It alao depends where it's going from. AA for example may run a 767 on JFKAMS while running a 757 on PHLAMS right down the road. This is just due to the different demand levels.

I don't expect to ever see an airline flying JFK-AMS on a narrowbody unless it is a new entrant trying to gain market share.

Narrowbodies are good for routes to smaller destinations. Smaller cities in the UK have historically struggled to maintain year round transatlantic service. Same with Ireland other than to JFK/BOS. Narowbodies let smaller markets get nonstop service even if the cost per seat mile is a little higher. Many people pay more for nonstop service.

I believe that airlines will stick to widebodies on larger markets like JFK-AMS because of the lower costos. But for flights like BDL-AMS, you might see a Max8

Its a capacity management and trip cost package. Whilr the various ASM metrics are important they are mainly used as a standarization metric to make comparisons. On reality whether or not a flight is operationally profitable is based on the revenue attributed to that flight minus the operating cost of the flight. Flying new narrowbody aircraft either p2p for lcc types or hub-secondary city for legacy carriers makes a lot of sense because its cheaper and doesnt push too much, sometimes unfillable, capacity.

ibhalla wrote:

I believe that airlines will stick to widebodies on larger markets like JFK-AMS because of the lower costos.

Are we sure that wide bodies have the lower costs? After all an A321neo LR only has to lift only a 50t plane to take 150 or so pax across the Atlantic, while an A339 needs to lift what, 125t, for twice that?

Best regards
Thomas

Narrowbody can easily be integrated in a short haul domestic network. Reduced crew/mx/etc costs as well. Lower risk than a widebody as well.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I don't expect to ever see an airline flying JFK-AMS on a narrowbody unless it is a new entrant trying to gain market share.

However, we sometimes see that narrow bodies are also used to increase frequency alongside widebodies.

We have seen this at LHR where UA have in the past flown 777's and 757's on EWR-LHR.

so it is not impossible to see JFK-AMS

Richard28 wrote:

so it is not impossible to see JFK-AMS

Not impossible, but unlikely. Amsterdam is getting very crowded and the availability of slots is a problem. You don't want to waste a valuable slot on a small aircraft if it can be used for a bigger one. At a place like Amsterdam there's plenty of demand to fill a wide-body TATL flight.

Like others have said, narrow-body TATL flights are mostly to serve smaller destinations that don't have enough demand to fill a wide-body. The benefit of smaller airports is that mostly they're cheaper than the big ones, therefor these flights can operate cheaper. Look at the airports Norwegian picked in America to serve with their narrow-bodies. Those airports could never support a wide-body, but are doing good on narrow-body.

A disadvantage of narrow-body TATL flights is their range. They do have the range to make it across the pond, but just barely. Therefor they can't reach too far into either continent and it's mostly European west coast to American east coast. Central and eastern Europe are off limits because of insufficient range, the same goes for central and western America.

Well CDG - JFK will be operated next year by Primera Air A321 NEO.
Does Wide bodies operators could be affected by a such operator?

tommy1808 wrote:

ibhalla wrote:

I believe that airlines will stick to widebodies on larger markets like JFK-AMS because of the lower costos.

Are we sure that wide bodies have the lower costs? After all an A321neo LR only has to lift only a 50t plane to take 150 or so pax across the Atlantic, while an A339 needs to lift what, 125t, for twice that?

Best regards
Thomas

Right, but then again we have to talk about who flies the route. If the narrow bodies don't have a good business class, or a good economy class like the widebodies, then pax will go to the widebodies. Then there's also the problem of slot constraints. At airports like LHR and AMS, you want to maximize the aircraft you use. You may be right about the costs factor.

A380MSN004 wrote:

Well CDG - JFK will be operated next year by Primera Air A321 NEO.
Does Wide bodies operators could be affected by a such operator?

Hardly, the demand between Paris and New York is huge and Primera is only a small operator. No doubt they could fill a wide body on that route if they had one, the demand is there so in fact by using a narrow body they're only bleeding money for not selling a number of seats they could fill but don't have. And it's not like they could charge more for the seats that they do have because if they get too expensive the passengers just walk off to the competition.

Of course with a narrow-body you got a lower income (less seats sold) but you only got marginally lower costs. You burn less fuel and have a smaller crew on board, but a slot remains a slot no matter if it's a wide body or a narrow body so those costs are the same.

Of course that goes for airports with a huge demand. For airports with little demand it becomes a different story, there you can be glad if there is enough demand to fill an aircraft at all and a narrow body is easier to fill than a wide body.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I don't expect to ever see an airline flying JFK-AMS on a narrowbody unless it is a new entrant trying to gain market share.

Narrowbodies are good for routes to smaller destinations. Smaller cities in the UK have historically struggled to maintain year round transatlantic service. Same with Ireland other than to JFK/BOS. Narowbodies let smaller markets get nonstop service even if the cost per seat mile is a little higher. Many people pay more for nonstop service.

UA currently flies a narrowbody on EWR-LHR once a day. I don't think a narrow body is out of the question on JFK-AMS.

Almost nobody's flying NB's on busy TATL's. The 737MAX/A320neo allow for airlines to open up secondary routes that don't have anywhere near the demand for WB's and were previously too unprofitable with older-gen planes, like the 757.

tommy1808 wrote:

ibhalla wrote:

I believe that airlines will stick to widebodies on larger markets like JFK-AMS because of the lower costos.

Are we sure that wide bodies have the lower costs? After all an A321neo LR only has to lift only a 50t plane to take 150 or so pax across the Atlantic, while an A339 needs to lift what, 125t, for twice that?

Best regards
Thomas

Right, but then again we have to talk about who flies the route. If the narrow bodies don't have a good business class, or a good economy class like the widebodies, then pax will go to the widebodies. Then there's also the problem of slot constraints. At airports like LHR and AMS, you want to maximize the aircraft you use. You may be right about the costs factor.

A few years ago, I was downgauged from a UA 777 EWR-LHR to a 757. And it was perfectly fine from my viewpoint. I don't understand the fascination with widebodies on the shorter TATL routes. The seats are just as cramped on either plane.

DaveFly wrote:

A few years ago, I was downgauged from a UA 777 EWR-LHR to a 757. And it was perfectly fine from my viewpoint. I don't understand the fascination with widebodies on the shorter TATL routes. The seats are just as cramped on either plane.

Really? Good to know, I'm flying (I think) on a UA 757 EWR-ARN in June. Also, The thing is that you were in economy right? Business class is a lot different from narrowbodies to widebodies....

DaveFly wrote:

A few years ago, I was downgauged from a UA 777 EWR-LHR to a 757. And it was perfectly fine from my viewpoint. I don't understand the fascination with widebodies on the shorter TATL routes. The seats are just as cramped on either plane.

I dont know about the 757, but I ve done TATL with an A340 and plenty of European flights on 737s. And even at the current DY price, and I am reluctant to say the least to spend +8 hrs that way....

Jayafe wrote:

DaveFly wrote:

A few years ago, I was downgauged from a UA 777 EWR-LHR to a 757. And it was perfectly fine from my viewpoint. I don't understand the fascination with widebodies on the shorter TATL routes. The seats are just as cramped on either plane.

I dont know about the 757, but I ve done TATL with an A340 and plenty of European flights on 737s. And even at the current DY price, and I am reluctant to say the least to spend +8 hrs that way....

What airlines flies TATL with 737 apart DY?

A380MSN004 wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

DaveFly wrote:

A few years ago, I was downgauged from a UA 777 EWR-LHR to a 757. And it was perfectly fine from my viewpoint. I don't understand the fascination with widebodies on the shorter TATL routes. The seats are just as cramped on either plane.

I dont know about the 757, but I ve done TATL with an A340 and plenty of European flights on 737s. And even at the current DY price, and I am reluctant to say the least to spend +8 hrs that way....

What airlines flies TATL with 737 apart DY?

Not sure if you got the point. After knowing what is like flying mid range flights on narrow body (737 at least), assuming 7-8 hours in a non wide body plane looks really painful, when a wide body is "ok" in Y.

AC and Icelandair are coming with the MAX, likely a couple more coming....