Nobody spotted the 737 answer yet ? – it is obvious but people see what they expect to see. Nothing to do with winglets though.

Hapag Fly has no eyebrow windows. All new 737s have been delivered without them since a few months back.

What kind of parts does the whistle blower refer to then ? Is it high risk electronic or mechanical parts, or as suggested locker doors and toilet snibs ?

From the Ducommun website (I highlighted some text):

Ducommun AeroStructures designs, engineers and manufactures the largest, most complex contoured aerostructure components in the aerospace industry. Our integrated processes include stretch-forming, thermal-forming, chemical milling, precision fabrication, machining, finishing processes, and integration of components into subassemblies.

We are also the largest independent supplier of composite and metal bond structures and assemblies in the US, including aircraft wing spoilers, helicopter blades, flight control surfaces and engine components.

The argument is basicaly “If an airline has the 737classic or NG, then more 737s will make sense for fleet expansion”

For most airlines I would suggest this is correct. It is not necessary to get two plane types with the same roles. of course there are very large airlines that can absorb the additional cost easily and reap benefits from finetuning the schedule to a particular type.

“If an airline has A320s, the A340/A380 makes sense for long haul expansion” All down to either common pilot ratings or aircraft parts and engines.

And there I agree with you, that commonality is overrated. Two different planes with two vastly different misions. So the additional savings from ordering from the same manufacterer are small. Sure, Airbus offers the same cockpit throughout the fleet but the expenses of retraining pilots is tiny compared to buying the planes. As for engines, how many widebodies really have the same engines as their smaller cousins? Lets face it, a 777 will never have a CFM56 nor will a 737 ever get the GE90.

But, I have always thought that commonality (especially the common type ratings for pilots) were just a little bonus and not the deciding factor themselves.

Correct, the pilot commonality is spare change on a contract that can be worth 100s of millions.

However, recently, with the advent of the 787 and the excellenrt 777/787 package deals Boeing is offering, we are seeing a lot of Airbus operators order the 787, sometimes with 777s, sometimes not. And some are big players. Northwest, Air Canada etc. conversely you have the likes of Air Europa with an all Boeing fleet ordering the A350.

That is like comparing apples and oranges. Sure the 777 may come from the same “orchard’ as the 737, but its role is so different that getting the A340 from the competing “orchard” makes little difference.

No doubt you will get some minor benefits from buying from the same “orchard”. Same maintenance procedures, cockpit procedures (and in Airbus’s case layout) and perhaps a reduction for being a good loyal customer. But buying the plane that is most economical for the route will often yield greater benefit then buying the plane that just happens to come from the same manufacturer as your other planes.

So my question…. does anyone think that the aviation enthusiast world is overhyping the commonality argument a bit too much?

Yes and no. On a mission-basis the commonality makes sense. But when comparing seperate missions (long haul/short haul/tourist/bizz) then the commonality will be a bonus.

And for the largest of airlines commonality is not required either. As Easyjet already stated when they got the A319, as long as our individual fleets stay above 50 it will be worthwhile. Of course additional synergies and savings could have been obtained from getting more 737s. But in Easyjets case the A319 offered a good combination of financial and operational incentives.

Now Easyjet can put the ideal plane to the a specific route. Thereby guaranteeing maximum profit per route. Of course it is not known if overall they would have made more money had they sticked to one fleet only. It must be said though that SAS seems to be doing OK-ish on the European flights even though they operate every plane known to man.

When it comes to commonality Southwest is always cited as the granddaddy of them all. But they have seperate fleets as well. The 737NG compares very hard with the 732 maintenance wise. Even when compared with the 733 and 735 there are very mayor differences. Same for the pilots. Since the retirement of the 732 Southwest has 2 very disctint fleets. Before that 3 very different fleets.

from the legand that is ricard hamster hammond heeh great clip. The virgin titles were on during the acutual show me thinks they have been coverd over by the guy who posted the vid on that site.

Actually, during the TV clip half the time the titles where blanked out and half the time they where not. Not quite sure why. Most obvious candidate would be to prevent claims of product placement (advertising). But then blanking them out half the time is rather stupid.

Just one question, is the DL 763 a regular or a diversion? I thought that all American airlines had left DUS shortly after 9/11. I can remember the days that UA and CO flew there.

High wings can come equiped with winglets as well. The Fokker 50/60 has tiny winglets as well. Although they are referred to as Foklets.

Difference between the winglet and the foklet is that the foklet is connected with the outer flaps and thus move up and down with them.