Airlines with the most fleet types

[Derf]

Does anyone have a list of all the types that the airline uses? It looks like a mishmash of all different types of aircraft. That has to cost a bundle to have so many different types.

I BELIEVE that may types of aircraft is bad for an airline as there is many more mechs needed for different types, spares needed for different types, training needed for different types, inability to use flight crews and resources on certain types..... Southwest's Idea of using one type was always shunned from most airlines just in case of a Airworthiness directive where they took an entire type out of the air for unforeseen issues with aircraft. As most of us know it did not affect Southwest as they were using one of the most reliable aircraft ever made. Can you imagine the impact on Southwest if the Rudder issues let to a grounding of all 737's? Not good for any airline that has the 737 but Southwest????

So here comes the question, who thinks that it is good for an airline that already has service issues to take on a new aircraft type when they have so many.

Looking for peoples opinions here.... I like U.S. Air but really a good idea?

[mirrodie]

My guess would be NW has the most diverse fleet.

Stay tuned for the US fleet list

[PhilDernerJr]

It's certainly bad for an airline to have too many aircraft types. I think it's a matter of not just different types, but how many differnet aircraft manufacturers you have. One airline may have 5 types of Airbus and be more effective with that than an airline that has 3 types, a Boeing, an Airbus and a Fokker. The age of those aircraft also comes into play.

But there's a bit difference between having many types, and uncommon aircraft. For example, a 757 and a 767 are two types, but they go together....very similar mechanically, and the pilot certifications are shared for the two types as one.

A bad example if JetBlue, who took on the E190, an aircraft that comes from a completely different manufacturer than the A320s that they are used to. Why they didn't opt for the A318....I'll never know.

[PhilDernerJr]

In addition, keep in mind their markets. You can't really compare Southwest to airline like JetBlue or US Airways because they have different demands for their flights. Southwest does only domestic, compared to US which flies internationally, has business class configs, and various large and small operations. Southwest just wouldn't be able to do that with their existing fleet. Their 737s are perfect for what they do.

[T-Bird76]

It's certainly bad for an airline to have too many aircraft types. I think it's a matter of not just different types, but how many differnet aircraft manufacturers you have. One airline may have 5 types of Airbus and be more effective with that than an airline that has 3 types, a Boeing, an Airbus and a Fokker. The age of those aircraft also comes into play.

But there's a bit difference between having many types, and uncommon aircraft. For example, a 757 and a 767 are two types, but they go together....very similar mechanically, and the pilot certifications are shared for the two types as one.

A bad example if JetBlue, who took on the E190, an aircraft that comes from a completely different manufacturer than the A320s that they are used to. Why they didn't opt for the A318....I'll never know.

Phil you're incorrect in you're assumption that having to many aircraft types is bad for the airline. Large airlines must have a diverse fleet type to support their operations and the markets they serve. There's very good reasons jetBlue didn't go for the A318 like many other airlines didn't go for the A318 as their 100 seat solution, the weight of the A318 for the kind of markets the E190 serves would make it highly unprofitable. The E190 is a perfect fit for jetBlue's operation and was a smart choice over the A318. While airlines like WN and Airtran are successful airlines with similar fleet types they are locked out of markets because of this. Airlines like NW will continue to have a diverse fleet with their E jets coming online but won't hinder their success in the future. NWA as an example serves a variety of markets where they need 747s, 757s, A330's, A320s, A319s, and E jets in order to stay competitive. The same holds true for airlines like UAL.

[adam613]

Where you run into problems with diversity is when you start flying more than one aircraft type in the same category. For example, USAir operates both the 767 and the A330; the two aircraft are similar in capabilities and target martkets. Same with Virgin Atlantic operating both the A340 and the 747. Not many airlines do this, and with good reason.

(A lot of airlines operate both the A320 and the 737, but in every case I can think of, the 737s are old and being slowly phased out. This doesn't strike me as being so counter-productive.)

[Mateo]

The US majors with all pax types represented, but grouped by common type ratings -
NW: DC9(30/40/50), 319/320, 752/753, 332/333, 744
AA: M80, 738, 752/762/763, 772
US: 190, 733/734, 319/320/321, 752/762, 333
DL: M80, M90, 738, 752/763/764, 772
CO: 733/735/73G/738/739, 752/753/762/764, 772
UA: 319/320, 733/735, 752/763, 772, 744

For comparison:
BA: 733/734/735, 319/320/321, 752/763, 772, 744
AF: 318/319/320/321, 744, 772/773, 332/343
LH: 319/320/321, 733/735, 306, 333/343/346, 744

[hiss srq]

Where you run into problems with diversity is when you start flying more than one aircraft type in the same category. For example, USAir operates both the 767 and the A330; the two aircraft are similar in capabilities and target martkets. Same with Virgin Atlantic operating both the A340 and the 747. Not many airlines do this, and with good reason.

(A lot of airlines operate both the A320 and the 737, but in every case I can think of, the 737s are old and being slowly phased out. This doesn't strike me as being so counter-productive.)

Not so true actually. The way I was taught it in company indoctrine is the reason for the 330-300 and 762 is not only because of seating and age but it is cargo. Airlines make more on cargo than passengers beleive it or not. Air cargo is HUGE cash and the 330 serves that purpose well along with the range requirements and passenger seating. It is one of the reasons US flys the widebody fleet types to San Juan. More profit to SJU from cargo than pax generally speaking. There is narrow body action to SJU as well and they are cargo capible as well to an extent.

[PhilDernerJr]

Phil you're incorrect in you're assumption that having to many aircraft types is bad for the airline. Large airlines must have a diverse fleet type to support their operations and the markets they serve.

That's exactly what I said....so we agree. But as I said, in detail, it is possible for an airline to have too many types to where it unnecessarily raises their costs in terms of MX and such.


There's very good reasons jetBlue didn't go for the A318 like many other airlines didn't go for the A318 as their 100 seat solution, the weight of the A318 for the kind of markets the E190 serves would make it highly unprofitable. The E190 is a perfect fit for jetBlue's operation and was a smart choice over the A318.

But taking on the E190 is part of JetBlue's recent downfall.

[LGA777]

I remember there was a period in the nineties when US operated the following types at LGA, alone on any given day.

F-28-1000, F-28-4000, F-100
DC-9-31/32 and MD-81/82.
737-200. 737-300, 737-400
727-200
757-200

Those where fun and sometimes not so fun days.

Cheers

LGA777