RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Some interesting news.... There's nothing wrong with waiting on the news. No movement from a strategy is a strenght :-)
I hear you about the leg room, I'm 6 feet and had to make a last minute flight on a 737-800 a couple years ago, with no extended leg room seats available. Spent a 4.5 hour trip cursing at Westjet. Never had this problem on an A320. I also felt a bit of difference in the feelings during turbulence, but that can be a personal thing as well, but overall it was definitely quieter.
From what I gather, the YHM to YXX flight Jetlines was planning is "just" inside the worst case scenario for an older A320. I imagine that we will see some neo's in the grow-out fleet to offset the fuel/range differences though.
trader520 wrote: First off, I haven't adjusted my asking bid....I expect no news any time soon....I will wait. I believe I have time. I have over the years of trading stocks learned to sit on my hands the hard way.
I have flown on both many times. The A320 has a more spacious "perception", as the cabin is larger. Sadly, for me personally, being 6'1", it all comes down to the legroom. That knee crunching experience comes down to airline decisions....The worst ever pitch was on Air Transat, Royal and Canada 3000 Boeing 757's......28" of legroom...horrible.....A few years later I flew on a BA 757....wonderfull 34" of legroom. The part where the A320 wins versus a 737NG, is that an A320 is exit limited to 180 pax, whereas a NG is exit limited to 189 pax. That automatically makes the A320 a bit more comfy in regards to legroom, and, leaves 9 fair paying passengers behind, while consuming a few percent more fuel, and having slightly less range. YYZ to YVR might call for a fuelling stop in the winter against a strong jet stream, whereas a NG will always make it with a full load. On the flipside, A320 leases in general are less than NG leases.
Cheers and GLTA