Airbus A32X capacity and list price

[Virgin Serbia]

A32X seating capacity:

A318: 132
A319: 156
A320: 180 (For all variants, at the moment the -200 has 179)
A321: 220

List price: [Average price in €]

A318: $56 - 62.1 mio, €39.8 - 44.1 mio [€42.0 mio]
A319: $63.3 - 77.3 mio, €44.9 - 54.9 mio [€49.9 mio]
A320: $73.2 - 80.6 mio, €52.0 - 57.2 mio [€54.6 mio]
A321: $87.7 - 92.8 mio, €62.3 - 65.9 mio [€64.1 mio]

Sources: Seats: Wikipedia, Airliners.net, Airbus
Prices: Airbus

http://www.airbus.com/store/mm_repository/pdf/att00011726/media_object_file_ListPrices2008.pdf

[Virgin Serbia]

Range:

A318-100:
1498 nm, option for 2845 nm

A319-100:
2537 nm, option for 3671 nm

A320-200:
2888 nm, option for 2969 nm

A321-100/200:
2699 nm, option for 2969 nm

Source: Flight International, September 2001

[CHR]

Regarding the prices, they are generated by a script - allowing the prices to be comparable across different regions and time periods, so they will almost certainly be wrong. Certainly any older aircraft will have had their prices changed by inflation.
I don't know about the ranges, but they may be affected by different engine types.

[Virgin Serbia]

Regarding the prices, they are generated by a script - allowing the prices to be comparable across different regions and time periods, so they will almost certainly be wrong. Certainly any older aircraft will have had their prices changed by inflation.
I don't know about the ranges, but they may be affected by different engine types.

Maybe, but only the A320 would have that advantage over the 737NG, coming 10 years before the 737-800. But the A319 comes only a year before the 737-700, has a much superior range and costs over 15 mio less. Don't tell me inflation is the reason behind that?
And regarding range, the A319 with full load most certainly can't go transatlantic (CDG-JFK), which is very normal in AM.
Raising the price for the A319/A32X family would help solve the problem with fast growth. The A319 is too good as it is, and too cheap, and many airlines buy hundreds of them in no time.

[Mastafa]

Regarding the prices, they are generated by a script - allowing the prices to be comparable across different regions and time periods, so they will almost certainly be wrong. Certainly any older aircraft will have had their prices changed by inflation.
I don't know about the ranges, but they may be affected by different engine types.

Maybe, but only the A320 would have that advantage over the 737NG, coming 10 years before the 737-800. But the A319 comes only a year before the 737-700, has a much superior range and costs over 15 mio less. Don't tell me inflation is the reason behind that?
And regarding range, the A319 with full load most certainly can't go transatlantic (CDG-JFK), which is very normal in AM.
Raising the price for the A319/A32X family would help solve the problem with fast growth. The A319 is too good as it is, and too cheap, and many airlines buy hundreds of them in no time.

exactly

[CHR]

The A319 doing the transatlantic routes is a specific longhaul version, which is used IRL for such flights (such as this). BA was also doing it with A318s from London City, I think. Either way, even if it wasn't done, that doesn't mean airlines shouldn't be able to do it if the aircraft can make the distance. I would also point out that the longer range A319 costs considerably more (59 million rather than 47 million).

Comparing the shorter range A319 and the 737-700, the stats are fairly similar, the 737 has a bit of an edge on seats, speed is about the same, and the A319 has the edge on range. I think this is more to do with problems in the cost formula - as seats seem to be overrepresented in terms of price setting. Compare the A319 with 2000 range versus 4000 range - the latter is only 12 million extra - a 300 nm difference between the A319 and 737 wouldn't be so great I should think. The difference may also have something to do with the fact the 737 series is older (the construction date of the aircraft type certainly affects price, I'm not sure if the system "knows" that the 737 is an older aircraft, i.e. with roots as old as the 737-100).

[Virgin Serbia]

The A319 doing the transatlantic routes is a specific longhaul version, which is used IRL for such flights (such as this).

That is only St. Johns - London. Far from Paris - New York, or London - New York. And with a two class cabin.

BA was also doing it with A318s from London City, I think.

True, but they only carry 50 seats, and even then they need to refuel in Shannon when heading west.

Either way, even if it wasn't done, that doesn't mean airlines shouldn't be able to do it if the aircraft can make the distance. I would also point out that the longer range A319 costs considerably more (59 million rather than 47 million).

Comparing the shorter range A319 and the 737-700, the stats are fairly similar, the 737 has a bit of an edge on seats, speed is about the same, and the A319 has the edge on range. I think this is more to do with problems in the cost formula - as seats seem to be overrepresented in terms of price setting. Compare the A319 with 2000 range versus 4000 range - the latter is only 12 million extra - a 300 nm difference between the A319 and 737 wouldn't be so great I should think. The difference may also have something to do with the fact the 737 series is older (the construction date of the aircraft type certainly affects price, I'm not sure if the system "knows" that the 737 is an older aircraft, i.e. with roots as old as the 737-100).

This doesn't make sense to me. The 737NG is the newer of the two families. The A320 family is from 1988?, the 737NG is from 1997. The A319 is from 1996. The 737NG is in no way related to the 737-100, -200, -300, -400 or -500, other than in name.

And if prices are made up, then why is a more capable plane (The A319, long range version) cheaper than the least capable 737-700? The less capable A319 should cost almost the same as the 737-700, while the more capable A319 should be slightly more expensive than the 737-700HGW.

[StephenM]

BA was also doing it with A318s from London City, I think.

True, but they only carry 50 seats, and even then they need to refuel in Shannon when heading west.

To be a little pedantic, its 32 seats.

General point: Transatlantic operations cannot be realistically compared like with like to AM transatlantic ops. AM doesn't simulate winds and other factors that will impact operations, including fuel reserves. I will try and take a look at our primary source for aircraft data in order to reconcile them.

[Cheung Airlines]

I remembered there was a small issue about old and new cost formula around half years ago, is it what caused this problem?
coz its the same thing with SE10B and 737-100