CRJ900, E175 or Q400 90 seats configuration or 86 seats. E175 90 seats configuration makes most sense, but we probably won't see it.

It works in volatile times, and it seems that's the new normal. It would be great to plan huge Middle East expansion and get 5 planes for that, but what to do with them when things go south? LH can deploy them to, I don't know, Swiss to play with them some time, JU has to work with them exclusively from one, not so big and wealthy, market. Many markets where JU has important operations are volatile: Russia and war situation, Montenegro joining EU, parts of Mediterranean questionable (Turkey, Cyprus, Egypt), region going heavy ULCC even in destinations like Dubrovnik... Not to mention the tech making huge breakthroughs which makes the market life of new planes very questionable. Could be that long term planning is dead in business overall, at least while wars/AI etc. situation lasts. I don't dislike their fleet strategy which is, true, very short term.

+100 finally someone that gets it!

Airbus makes more A321 in a month than ATR or Embraer does in a year. Market has grown and don't want small planes anymore.

With all technical problems A220 has? I do not hink so.

Based on what do you still think it’s better solution? Higher price than competitors? Completely different type rating crews needed? Loud engines? Uncomfortable 2+3 seating? Impossiblity of carrying typical cargo crates? Engine problems after one year of utilization? What exactly? Even A319 neo is better solution than A220

The Pratt situation has been resolved for newly delivered aircraft.
And with jet fuel price doubling in March so far it would be great if JU had access to A220s, at least for its longer rotations.

No, it isn't. OU's expecting first engine problems during this year

^ LOL, no!

I agree.
Instead of looking for a 90 seat turboprop they should get E-175s which have 88 seats.

Even on shorter routes, if there is a fair bit of cargo and/or pax luggage then the ATR cannot accommodate that. One thing that comes to mind is the long haul transfer pax which have generous checked in luggage allowance.

Jet burns some 30% more fuel.

Jets do burn more fuel but if they can ofset the extra fuel burn with additional cargo then the jet makes more sense. Plus its worth looking at their entire network rather than a single or a couple of routes to see what works and what doesn't.

Jets also get to fly a lot more flights during a day than ATRs can thus spreading their fixed costs over more passengers.

The JU network is currently fixed on 4 main waves. Quicker rotations between flights doesn't mean much to JU currently, just more ground time.

For example, ATR vs E190 to PRG. 2 hours block time on the ATR while Hainan had a block time of 1:30 on the A330 (lets assume the same for the E190). Turn around time for the ATR is 30 mins vs 45 for the E190. In base (BEG), the turn around time is 30 mins for the ATR vs 1:10 typically for aircraft such as the E190. The difference isn't alot.

To benefit from the advantage of having more flights per day JU would need to expand on their 2 smaller departure banks (1 at 10am, the other at 8pm). Even then, JU's capacity to do so is limited seeing that inter-Balkan connectivity (where extra rotations is useful due to short sectors) isn't in high demand (ie OTP to SJJ or TIA to SOF) while anything outside of the region pushes up the average block times compared to other airlines (ie BEG-PRG vs VIE-PRG).

Is it?

It is. Gulf carriers may want to offload a few birds asap, as they know it will take years to recover to the number of flights and passengers. It does not look like the conflict will end anytime soon. I'm not saying the Ex-Yu carriers should look for an A-380, but they might be able to get a better deal on smaller and newer aircraft.

Have a feeling that Embraer would probably give them the best deal.

The war will end 10 times before they get these planes...so I am not sure it would be at this moment clever move.

^ We seem to be from one wat to another and from one oil crisis to another for years now.
Things can get ugly in Venezuela fast again, the Middle East in the foreseeable future will be in bigger turmoil that it is now, not less and there is of course Russia.
Not to mention Nigeria.
So getting a fuel a efficient fleet is more pressing than ever.

Just my2cents

Nigeria? So Air Serbia better not launch flights to Lagos then...

^ What?

Some fool always suggests Nigeria and India as the next destinations

And we still have many of people that think that JU is YU...

The SSJ would have been a much better choice for JU than the A319 12 years ago.
But today's political situation with Russia has killed its chances.

+100

The SSJ has been a complete disaster for every non Russia airline who operated it.
And I'm suspecting the Russian ones have no option of complaining about it.

The SSJ isn't a bad aircraft, the problem is sourcing spare parts for them and that is what killed the aircraft.

SSJ is an unreliable gas guzzler that has the landing speeds of a B777 despite being a clean sheet design regional jet.

Even if you get unreliable aircraft for free, you can still get bankrupt by EU261 claims. Not worth it.

Air Serbia is basically saying: we’ll buy what’s cheap and available

Exactly! But concerned analysts will stay concerned

Strange that such "strategy" is not popular with any major airline in the planet.

Air Serbia is not a "major" airline. It is a smaller regional carrier. Actually it is rather unique regional carrier with long haul operations but still small.

Difference between JU and major airlines is the scale of aircraft acquisitions/purchases as well as decades of financial and market stability.

For a small airline it is doing a pretty great job!

Then again, why not?

Or A330 size turboprop with five engines.....that would be cool....

But the fifth one must be on the nose, like Messerschmitt 🙂

My thoughts exactly, E190 with 108 seats would be a good long-term addition

Exactly would fit right into their fleet, and there are some 190s that have 100 seat config. It makes way too much sense for Air Serbia hopefully we see it happen

Agree. It better matches demand on thinner routes.

What is the capacity of E175?

^ 88 seats.
It is ideal for JU!
It would increase frequencies on many of its current network, open new destinations and replace ATRs in certain routes that have enough demand.

Increasing frequencies means hiring a lot more pilots.

JU management is not very keen on doing that.

JU has 4 E190's through its wet lease arrangement with FB.

An interesting thing to note is that LOT has a little over 40 Ejets with a majority being a mix of E175's and E195's.

Imajte na umu da na ruti gde ATR potroši 600kg goriva da Embraer potroši 1800

Sure. But that passengers are also not ready to pay more to fly in newer airplanes.

They seem to do so with LHG, AF/KL etc. from our region.

LH regularly sends 20+ old aircraft on flights to BEG.

Today's Lufthansa Munich-Belgrade flight is being operated by a 22 year old plane.

Which has a refreshed cabin, seatback power charging ports and Wi-Fi.

Not really. My last flight BEG-FRA on LH in January did not have power charging ports and had big stains on the carpet in front of me. Although it did have wifi.

YOUR last flight is not representative of reality.

^ neither are your wishes and dreams. Reality is something different. You were first proven wrong how LH sends factory fresh planes to BEG.

The fact that you think that anyone in Serbia checks the aircraft age or any other metric other than price is quite delusional. Especially on a flight that is barely 2 hours long.

Age isn't really much of an issue compared to how the airline configures and maintains the cabin. You can have a brand new cabin already show age if not maintained well and a 20-25 yo aircraft look amazing with a nice interior that is well maintained.

Cheaper but ~10 yo aircraft has allowed JU the exceptional growth it has experienced as well as to have a decent but affordable fleet modernisation allowing for that growth into profitability.

@10:30

LHG and KLM also have a tonne of other routes where they are rotating that same aircraft, especially in higher yield markets.

As a non aviation fan and usual passenger, I never know which model airplane is, how old it is and I don’t care. I would only notice if seat is falling apart or if legroom is horrible. Usual passenger focus more on will we get free water and snacks.

No, they just choose to spend their money more wisely unlike another airline int he region which is leasing new planes and being bailed out by the government at the same time because it does not have enough money to pay its staff.

That's why one airline has record profitability and the other is on the brink of bankruptcy.

Sure thing, that's why it has a long haul network that can be flown with just two A330s but is paying leases for four.

They don't have the money because aircraft are expensive. A quick break down into new aircraft replacement 1 for 1:

10 ATR72's at $20 million each = $200 million
6 A320neo at $60 million each = $360 million
4 A330-800neo at $120 million each = $480 million

Lets round up the A319 (9) and E195 (4) fleet for 15 E195-E2 at $40 million each = $600 million.

Without factoring wet lease replacement we have a total of $1.64 billion needed for fleet replacement. With current profits at around ~$40 million it would take JU 41 years to pay off the new aircraft without factoring in addition expenses that come with acquisition of new aircraft such as training, parts, interest for loans etc.

We also would like to see JU grow in the mean time and expansion costs money. Investing in onboard product also costs money.

You forget some essential elementi like reduced maintenance cost, reduced fuel burn, warranty covers, better passengers experience leading to increased yields and attracting new passengers and not only the one's looking for the cheapest fare....
Otherwise no one would invest in new airplanes or upgrade the existing one's.

Those benefits really don't mean much when the repayment period is still spanning the entire lifespan of the aircraft. Hypothetically if those benefits you point out reduce the repayment period by a few years, say 35 years, or even 30, again the aircraft will have no opportunity to create revenue for the airline before needing to be retired.

Even breaking down the order and going for an initial order of 20 E195-E2 allowing for a 1 for 1 replacement plus a few more for expansion, its still 20 years of repayments while the main competitors are doing that in 5-10.

Airlines such as LH, KLM, Wizz, LOT, FR etc take on new aircraft because of various factors such as the capability to repay them significantly faster, have higher revenue, operate in higher yield markets, benefit from significant discounts (buying 10 aircraft and buying 100 aircraft isn't the same) etc. and can actually reap the benefits of having new, factory fresh aircraft.

Jedino šta je autor ovde zaboravio da napiše je činjenica da u računicu nije ubacio koliko košta iznajmljivanje svih ovih nabrojanih aviona, već tvrdnju zasniva na pretpostavci da su trenutni avioni u saobarćaju svi u vlasništvu AirSerbije i da su svi otplaćeni.
Ako se ovo uračuna, onda nije period otplate 40 godina nego mnogo kraći

The A220 is a much better replacement for the A319 fleet.

+1

More frequencies instead of bigger aircraft is the right approach for Belgrade as a hub.

And the more they postpone it the longer delivery times are getting.
But I don't think they are serious about ordering new aircraft from whichever manufacturer.
They will just wait for the 2nd hand market for NEOs to open at the beginning of next decade when the initial 12 year leases expire from initial operators.

Depends on what they want to get. OU got their A220's quite quickly.

OU didn't buy A220s. It's leasing them.

Is anyone expecting rapid demand growth and why? The market is maturing; the growth can't be so rapid with these base figures anymore.

When they sort the issues with the engine, there wouldn’t be a better option for JU.

They need bigger ATR, not smaller.

Atr42 is not of any use in Europe. If thr route can only carry a very tiny number of passengers from Belgrade its bound it be a loss maker that JU are not in the game of running.

JU need to feed its long haul flights from around the Balkans. And the best way for that is multiple daily frequencies. And the best way to keep multiple frequencies is to have cheapest possible plane, which is ATR42. For this short turboprop routes, profitability is not a primary goal, because profit is being made on long haul tickets.

Cheapest plane definitely isn't the ATR42. Practically the same operating expense as the 72 with 30 less seats (ie higher expense per pax). And JU's main profit is driven by the Euro-Med region and not long haul.

With fuel prices going through the roof, passengers will look to price of tickets more than ever.

18:06
Of course it is, for JU. There are cheaper smaller planes, but for them you need different crew, unlike AT42. And more extra expenses for completely new aircraft type.
ATR42 expenses are nowhere near "practically same". Fuel burn is 30% lower than AT72, although AT72 is more efficient per passenger, when cabin is full. But for short routes with low LF, AT42 is far more cheaper. So 2-3 pcs could help more daily frequencies, especially in the winter

No, ATR42 does not have 30% less fuel burn.
ATR72 fuel burn is 950 litres / hour and for ATR42 it is 800 litres / hour.

Fuel costs for ATR76 per passenger with 100% LF is 12 l
Fuel costs for ATR46 per passenger with 100% LF is 15 l

ATR76 with 60% LF = fuel burn per passenger = 20 l
ATR46 with 80% LF = fuel burn per passenger = 19 l

So, here we can see how ATR76 is far more economical as it has almost the same fuel burn per passenger with 60% LF as ATR46 has with 80% LF.

So, ATR42-600 is not "far more economical" with low LF - quite the opposite.

Bringing ATR42 would be a huge error and JU know that. Those who advocate it have no real idea that it would bring nothing but a headache to flight ops too.

20:59

Sorry, but this is nonsense. AT42 is 5 meters shorter and 5 tons lighter. With 30 pax on board, it has to have significantly less fuel consumption than AT72 with 30 pax on board. They both have same engines.

Za tipičnu rutu oko 200nm koju leti AirSerbia sa ATR-om razlika u potrošnji je negde oko 100kg goriva između ATR72 i ATR42, što je mizerna ušteda u odnosu na ograničenja koja donosi činjenica da nemaš 30 sedišta.
Zaključaj je: bolje je leteti Atr72 sa 60% popunjenosti kabine po ceni od 100kg veće potrošnje goriva i imati šansu da prodaš ostatak kabinne ili iskoristiš avion negde drugo u toku dana nego leteti ATR42 dupke pun za uštadu koju naknade karte koje kupe dva - tri putnika.

You are the only one that managed to come to that conclusion.

Apart from Mr. Marek:

"...the business case last year did not justify new aircraft acquisitions, as the higher ownership costs were not offset by fuel savings. However, with fuel prices now significantly higher, and with uncertainty over how long they will remain at these levels or continue to rise, the economics have shifted considerably."

Yes, it is true he did not have a crystal ball, but then again, in business, those who have some sort of a crystall ball, win.

JU also didn't have the cash to invest in new aircraft either.

JU has enough cash to be profitable, pay that profit back into the state budget instead of being a leach, expand its fleet significantly over past 5 years, more than double its network size over past 5 years and now it flies to over 100 destinations. So that's fine.

^

Exactly this. Many here forget how far JU has come since 2019.

Are we forgetting another airline from the region ordered more than a dozen new planes and how they are now in red?

True dat.