Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2750976/

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: Wnsocal
Posted 2006-05-03 03:20:52 and read 8286 times.

Rumor...The talk around SNA is that UsAirways is looking at dropping 1 LAS r/t and 1 PHX r/t...and adding 1 SNA-HNL and 1 SNA-OGG Daily 757-200 to take on Alohaair.....wnsocal

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: SESGDL
Posted 2006-05-03 03:27:53 and read 8257 times.

When do they plan on adding a PHL-SNA flight or possibly a CLT-SNA flights?

Jeremy

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: MalpensaSFO
Posted 2006-05-03 04:01:45 and read 8144 times.

The America West portion of US Airways always had a soft feeling for SNA so to speak. At one time it was the only city outside of Phoenix and Las Vegas to have a point to point (Sacramento). In addition the notion that SNA needs a additional airline to HNL is almost laughable, and the thought of a HNL and OGG nonstop is well dreamy..

Another interesting rumor that may very well happen is that SNA, SMF, and PDX will all recieve Saturday only United Airlines 757-200 service to Honolulu feeding off of United Airlines contract partner for Hawaiian vacations. At current SAN, and SEA are in the initial round of new United Airlines West Coast to Honolulu nonstops. At current United serves Honolulu daily from Denver, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Tokyo, and Osaka.

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: Azul320
Posted 2006-05-03 04:16:12 and read 8104 times.

Hawaii? They are likely dropping a couple PHX/LAS flights to accomadate PHL/CLT service since SNA is slot restricted.

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: MD90fan
Posted 2006-05-03 04:37:44 and read 8050 times.

Hmmm this is interesting, these new US rumors get more and more interesting everytime  wink 

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: AirCop
Posted 2006-05-03 04:44:33 and read 8021 times.

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 2):
The America West portion of US Airways always had a soft feeling for SNA so to speak. At one time it was the only city outside of Phoenix and Las Vegas to have a point to point (Sacramento)

Also had point to point service to San Francisco, Seattle and Reno. Somehow I can't believe this rumor mainly because they don't have the planes and the lack of feed to Orange County.
The soft feeling for SNA could be the number of flight fund members in Orange County, 2nd only to Arizona.

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: PSA727
Posted 2006-05-03 04:50:42 and read 7992 times.

I would think that they would first surrender a LAS and/or PHX
slot for a flight to CLT and/or PHL first.

They could get more higher-paying passengers on those flights;
plus use one of their Airbus aircraft instead of a 757.

They can only use a 757 on the Hawaiian runs and I don't
think they could fill them up daily throughout the year, given the
fact that there would be minimal connection feed at SNA.

However, with the Airbus, they can shift back and forth among the
319, 320, and 321 throughout the year based upon high and low
travel demand.

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: RamerinianAir
Posted 2006-05-03 04:54:51 and read 7960 times.

Maybe an HNL-OGG tagged flight.
SR

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: John
Posted 2006-05-03 05:10:47 and read 7915 times.

Definitely a RUMOR! Hawaii will be served from the PHX and LAS hubs for now.

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: USPIT10L
Posted 2006-05-03 05:15:15 and read 7894 times.

Quoting RamerinianAir (Reply 7):
Maybe an HNL-OGG tagged flight.
SR

Connecting the hubs to the primary spokes in the west, namely, SMF, SJC, SNA, RNO, PDX, and maybe SLC are the primary focus right now--NOT adding additional flying to Hawaii. Please, it's just a RUMOR people! Let it go!

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: USPIT10L
Posted 2006-05-03 05:17:06 and read 7894 times.

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 2):
Another interesting rumor that may very well happen is that SNA, SMF, and PDX will all recieve Saturday only United Airlines 757-200 service to Honolulu feeding off of United Airlines contract partner for Hawaiian vacations. At current SAN, and SEA are in the initial round of new United Airlines West Coast to Honolulu nonstops. At current United serves Honolulu daily from Denver, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Tokyo, and Osaka.

I definitely could see that happening, Malpensa. In fact, I'm surprised UA hadn't started up PDX-HNL service more recently anyway, especially with the large presence they've had at PDX over the years, including a weekly flight to NRT back in the mid '80s.

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: HPRamper
Posted 2006-05-03 06:35:47 and read 7754 times.

I honestly don't think PDX needs more capacity to HNL. We already have daily HA flights to HNL and OGG and a NW 753 to HNL. From what I've heard the loads are usually nowhere near full on the NW flight.

The UA feed into PDX isn't hub sized, for now it's nearly all O&D except for the people hopping onto the UAX props to smaller regional markets. Why would someone want to make an extra connection flying through PDX to HNL when they could go one-stop through a UA hub like LAX, SFO or ORD?

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: USPIT10L
Posted 2006-05-03 06:45:26 and read 7733 times.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 11):
The UA feed into PDX isn't hub sized, for now it's nearly all O&D except for the people hopping onto the UAX props to smaller regional markets. Why would someone want to make an extra connection flying through PDX to HNL when they could go one-stop through a UA hub like LAX, SFO or ORD?

Actually, I was saying that UA has been so big at PDX over the last 25 years, that I'm surprised the service wasn't started, that's all. The only reason UA would start such a service now is for a charter vacation package.

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: FCYTravis
Posted 2006-05-03 07:17:47 and read 7672 times.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 6):
However, with the Airbus, they can shift back and forth among the 319, 320, and 321 throughout the year based upon high and low travel demand.

The A321 would never make it off the ground at SNA with a full pax load. Remember, it's a 5,700-foot runway. The A319 is more likely.

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: HPLASOps
Posted 2006-05-03 07:45:33 and read 7623 times.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 13):
The A321 would never make it off the ground at SNA with a full pax load. Remember, it's a 5,700-foot runway. The A319 is more likely.

Does the A319/A320 have the range to make SNA/OGG? I know it has PHX/ANC range however I don't know how the two compare in mileage.

I hope they don't use the 757s, Lord knows we have a hard enough time keeping them in service on the PHX/LAS to Hawaii flights as is. Stupid things break down every third flight.

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: ScottB
Posted 2006-05-03 08:04:35 and read 7578 times.

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 14):
Does the A319/A320 have the range to make SNA/OGG?

The A319 probably has the range, but I don't know if it has the performance to make it off a 5700' runway with enough fuel to make it all the way to OGG. AQ manages SNA-HNL with the 73G, but the 73G is a bit lighter than the A319. HP's A319's aren't ETOPS-rated in any event, and adding yet another subfleet might mean more complexity than the incremental revenue would be worth.

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 14):
I hope they don't use the 757s, Lord knows we have a hard enough time keeping them in service on the PHX/LAS to Hawaii flights as is. Stupid things break down every third flight.

Considering most of HP's 757's are over 20 years old, they're doing pretty darned well...

Topic: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: HPLASOps
Posted 2006-05-03 08:12:51 and read 7563 times.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 15):
HP's A319's aren't ETOPS-rated in any event, and adding yet another subfleet might mean more complexity than the incremental revenue would be worth.

Actually, some of them are. I don't know off the top of my head which ones are and which aren't, but I do know we had to get a number of them ETOPS rated in order to do ANC.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: FCYTravis
Posted 2006-05-03 08:39:00 and read 7511 times.

HPLASOps, those birds would be EOW-rated - extended overwater. Life rafts, life vests, etc. They're needed for any flight which travels more than 25 nm offshore. You don't need ETOPS to go to Anchorage from Phoenix.

My suggestion re: A321/320/319 was with regards to potential transcon flying from SNA to CLT/PHL. I rather doubt they'll initiate any Hawaii service from there.

[Edited 2006-05-03 08:40:29]

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-05-03 08:40:21 and read 7506 times.

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 14):
Does the A319/A320 have the range to make SNA/OGG? I know it has PHX/ANC range however I don't know how the two compare in mileage.

The A320 wouldn't be able to but the A319 should with limited issue.

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 16):
Actually, some of them are. I don't know off the top of my head which ones are and which aren't, but I do know we had to get a number of them ETOPS rated in order to do ANC.

PHX/LAS-ANC doesn't require ETOPS anything, and I have never heard of America West doing ETOPS for anything other than the 757s to Hawai'i. Perhaps you mean overwater equipped?

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: HPLASOps
Posted 2006-05-03 08:52:26 and read 7487 times.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 17):
HPLASOps, those birds would be EOW-rated - extended overwater. Life rafts, life vests, etc. They're needed for any flight which travels more than 25 nm offshore.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):
Perhaps you mean overwater equipped?

I guess I stand corrected......

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 17):
A321/320/319 was with regards to potential transcon flying from SNA to CLT/PHL.

The A321 is part of US East metal. I know we're starting to swap flights with each other (them getting the LAS - RDU/MIA redeyes while we are getting the SEA/PDX - PHL redeyes), but I don't see US using an A321 to do PHL-SNA just to feed a Hawaiian flight - I don't know if the demand exists yet for such a large aircraft east coast to SNA.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-05-03 08:59:47 and read 7475 times.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 17):
My suggestion re: A321/320/319 was with regards to potential transcon flying from SNA to CLT/PHL. I rather doubt they'll initiate any Hawaii service from there.

Neither the A321 nor the A320 can make it out of SNA on a transcon flight. The only aircraft in the HP/US fleet that can do it are the A319s and the 757s

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: FCYTravis
Posted 2006-05-03 09:13:04 and read 7460 times.

I knew the A321 couldn't make it but didn't know the A320 would be too heavy. It would be a pretty thin route anyway so I think a 319 would be fine load-wise.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-05-03 09:24:21 and read 7445 times.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 21):
I knew the A321 couldn't make it but didn't know the A320 would be too heavy.

Weight isn't the issue, it is performance. The 752 is heavier than either of those planes and we know it can make it.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: Flyboy7974
Posted 2006-05-03 13:49:32 and read 7366 times.

HP has tried a number of things from SNA, all of which, sadly to say, have failed. Let's start way way back when, HP actually flew B757 nonstop to JFK, first once daily, then twice daily, then the route was cut all together. On and off, a number of other routes and cities have hit the SNA map for HP- SEA, SMF, SFO, RNO. I actually wish they would try the Reno service again, because their only attempt went up against AA just after the Reno Air takeover, and at that time, AA would do anything to fight off any competitor, sadly enough, on the SNA market it was HP. I do think though now this route could work, maybe at least a midday daily since the Aloha flight times really aren't tourist friendly. As mentioned above, SNA per capita, actually has a the greatest HP f.f member ratio per area per capita considering population, even greater than the PHX area simply because how larger the PHX area is now. ( I think AA has the same claim to fame with SNA vs. other areas)

Maybe it's time to pull the Express RJ flights from SNA and try to fill voids left from days past and fill the needs of their SNA clientel and f.f base

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: MalpensaSFO
Posted 2006-05-03 16:18:14 and read 7227 times.

Quoting Flyboy7974 (Reply 23):
On and off, a number of other routes and cities have hit the SNA map for HP- SEA, SMF, SFO, RNO.

The SMF-SNA route was the longest from 1991 to 2001

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: Flyboyaz
Posted 2006-05-03 17:02:46 and read 7176 times.

We have some very good route planners and they usually make good decisions on where to fly. Of course the fuel prices put a damper on the coast to coast flights we started...they filled, just didn't make any money.

I would not be suprised to see some sort of Hawaii service from a SOCAL airport on US. SNA certainly is a possiblity, we do have a lot of customers there. It's more convienent than LAX. Perhaps they would do weekend only service or something like that.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: Ca2ohHP
Posted 2006-05-03 17:19:41 and read 7154 times.

You won't see SNA-Hawaii service on HP/US. The planners are busy with other things.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: USPIT10L
Posted 2006-05-03 19:49:54 and read 6984 times.

AA has a large FF base in SNA because that was AirCal's headquarters. Those travelers that took OC in California in the '80s stayed with AA and still do. In fact, SNA had a pretty good sized station in SNA while the OC base was in place. They had flights to SFO, SJC, LAX, and LAS, IIRC even in 1991.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: Stirling
Posted 2006-05-03 19:58:28 and read 6968 times.

Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 10):
I'm surprised UA hadn't started up PDX-HNL service more recently anyway, especially with the large presence they've had at PDX over the years, including a weekly flight to NRT back in the mid '80s.

That service has declined sadly over the years. At one time, UA had about 50 daily departures from PDX....for awhile, even more than SEA, and was at its highest, 6th/7th busiest station in the UA network. (after ORD, DEN, SFO, CLE, LAX, *SEA*)

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 11):
I honestly don't think PDX needs more capacity to HNL. We already have daily HA flights to HNL and OGG and a NW 753 to HNL.

Yeah, more capacity PDX-HNL would not be good at this point.

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 24):
The SMF-SNA route was the longest from 1991 to 2001

Loved that flight, got bumped to First on ocassion....

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: DTWAGENT
Posted 2006-05-04 01:09:00 and read 6348 times.

Speaking of the B757-200's. Does anyone from USAirways know when they are planning to put first/envoy class on the ATA planes that where purchased. I ask this because I have a group that is flying DTW-PHL-GLA and SNN-PHL-DTW. The PHL-GLA and SNN-PHL are on these aircraft and they are in a all coach aircraft. Any information would be helpful. Thanks is advance for your help......

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: WN57787
Posted 2006-05-04 02:08:09 and read 6098 times.

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 14):
Does the A319/A320 have the range to make SNA/OGG? I know it has PHX/ANC range however I don't know how the two compare in mileage.

From To Distance
SNA (33°40'32"N 117°52'06"W) HNL (21°19'07"N 157°55'21"W) 2584 mi
SNA (33°40'32"N 117°52'06"W) OGG (20°53'55"N 156°25'50"W) 2513 mi
PHX (33°26'03"N 112°00'42"W) ANC (61°10'28"N 149°59'47"W) 2551 mi
LAS (36°04'49"N 115°09'08"W) ANC (61°10'28"N 149°59'47"W) 2304 mi

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-05-04 02:11:18 and read 6081 times.

Quoting Flyboyaz (Reply 25):
It's more convienent than LAX.

To whom? People in Orange County? LAX is much more central to the region as a whole

Quoting WN57787 (Reply 30):
SNA (33°40'32"N 117°52'06"W) HNL (21°19'07"N 157°55'21"W) 2584 mi
SNA (33°40'32"N 117°52'06"W) OGG (20°53'55"N 156°25'50"W) 2513 mi
PHX (33°26'03"N 112°00'42"W) ANC (61°10'28"N 149°59'47"W) 2551 mi
LAS (36°04'49"N 115°09'08"W) ANC (61°10'28"N 149°59'47"W) 2304 mi

Distance has nothing to do with this. SNA has a 5701' runway

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: FCYTravis
Posted 2006-05-04 04:13:13 and read 5752 times.

Yes, I should have been more specific... too heavy for its available thrust  Wink

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: HPRamper
Posted 2006-05-04 04:20:41 and read 5740 times.

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 29):
Does anyone from USAirways know when they are planning to put first/envoy class on the ATA planes that where purchased.

Supposedly after summer, but before the winter holidays.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: Molykote
Posted 2006-05-04 05:45:16 and read 5649 times.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 21):
I knew the A321 couldn't make it but didn't know the A320 would be too heavy. It would be a pretty thin route anyway so I think a 319 would be fine load-wise.

I don't know anything about this proposed service but I want to address something that comes up from time to time.

The A319 and A321 have more range than the A320.

The A319 weighs less and the A321 carries more fuel. Both airplanes can fly roughly 10% farther than the A320.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: PSA727
Posted 2006-05-04 07:26:58 and read 5560 times.

Someone help me figure this one out...

I've used SNA many times and am familiar with its short runway,
and more importantly, its noise abatement rules after take-off.

But is the issue with take-off for a CLT or PHL flight in a 320 or
321 the weight of added fuel and engine-type performance?
Because doesn't CO operate its EWR service with a 738 or is it only
with the 737-700 series?

I know the distance to CLT from SNA is about 350 miles less than a
flight to PHL; but also wouldn't there be less fuel loaded on a flight
from SNA-CLT than a CLT-SNA because of the tail-wind factor?

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-05-04 07:44:49 and read 5541 times.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 35):
Because doesn't CO operate its EWR service with a 738 or is it only
with the 737-700 series?

All -700

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 35):
But is the issue with take-off for a CLT or PHL flight in a 320 or
321 the weight of added fuel and engine-type performance?

It is a power to weight ratio and wing issue.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 35):
I know the distance to CLT from SNA is about 350 miles less than a
flight to PHL; but also wouldn't there be less fuel loaded on a flight
from SNA-CLT than a CLT-SNA because of the tail-wind factor?

It doesn't matter, because you still wouldn't make it. The longest A320 flight out of SNA is United's 1 a day to ORD, otherwise both United and American fly all 757s on the route. SNA-ORD is over 300 nm shorter than SNA-CLT. It is a matter of performance.

Let me put this another way, because people seem to not be understanding this. On jetBlue's BUR-JFK flights on the A320, they have to block off 21 seats because of BUR's 6886 foot main runway. That flight, just like eastbound flights from SNA, goes with the jetstream. SNA's runway is over 1100 feet shorter than that at BUR, exponentially lowering the lifting ability of an aircraft. The A320's power to weight ratio is 6.164 pounds per pound of thrust at its middle weight while the A319's is 6.004 pounds per pound of thrust at its max weight when not operating as an ACJ or ER/LR model. Additionally, the A319 burns less fuel because it weighs less and uses less thrust. Get it now?

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: FCYTravis
Posted 2006-05-04 07:59:26 and read 5535 times.

Quoting Molykote (Reply 34):
The A319 and A321 have more range than the A320.
The A319 weighs less and the A321 carries more fuel. Both airplanes can fly roughly 10% farther than the A320.

Correct, but the issue is that the A321 is an underpowered flying pig. If one tried to take off fully-loaded for a transcon flight from SNA, it would end up using about 8,000 feet of Santa Ana's 5,700-foot runway.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: SonOfACaptain
Posted 2006-05-04 08:07:14 and read 5526 times.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 37):
underpowered flying pig

And that is an understatement.  Smile

-SOAC

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: Flyboyaz
Posted 2006-05-04 08:37:26 and read 5502 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
To whom? People in Orange County? LAX is much more central to the region as a whole

Yep exactly...LAX sucks though, it's a pain to use. I always fly into SNA when I go to LA....it's a lot better.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: USPIT10L
Posted 2006-05-04 08:45:29 and read 5496 times.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 37):
Correct, but the issue is that the A321 is an underpowered flying pig. If one tried to take off fully-loaded for a transcon flight from SNA, it would end up using about 8,000 feet of Santa Ana's 5,700-foot runway.

Hate to start critcizing US Airways again, but they shouldn't have bought the aircraft knowing it was so underpowered. But then again, when these orders are made, it isn't about quality as much as it is about quantity and price. Stephen Wolf supposedly knew what he was doing when these order were made in 1996, but then most of the 321 orders have been cancelled, correct? So there's just a dozen or so spread about the fleet, correct? Oh well, this problem may have sorted itself out. Sorry for the rant.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: PSA727
Posted 2006-05-04 08:51:31 and read 5495 times.

Quoting Flyboyaz (Reply 39):
Yep exactly...LAX sucks though, it's a pain to use. I always fly into SNA when I go to LA....it's a lot better.

It is also convenient for those of us that have to travel to North
San Diego County. It can be a nightmare getting to SAN in the morning,
plus that stretch of I-5 through Camp Pendleton can be a breeze to
speed through.

Without any traffic, getting to SNA is only about 10 minutes longer than
getting to SAN (without any traffic).

I think the reason so many people make the trek to LAX is because
of the flight options. I don't see how anyone living in the SF valley
would find LAX more conenient than BUR, or someone living in the
eastern part of L.A. County thinking LAX is more convenient than ONT.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: DTWAGENT
Posted 2006-05-04 14:04:01 and read 5434 times.

Thank you HPramper for the information....

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: A330323X
Posted 2006-05-05 11:58:08 and read 5269 times.

I don't see US operating PHL-SNA service again in the near future. It did operate it briefly using an A319 from 8 June 2003, when it switched from 2x daily PIT-SNA roundtrips to 1x PHL-SNA + 1x PIT-SNA, until 6 September 2003, when US closed its station at SNA. One of the big reasons for closing the station was that it was super-senior, with ex-PSA employees, and the costs were spread over only 2 flights, since SNA is slot-restricted. While the station costs would no longer be an issue now, that benefit I think would be more than offset by the drastic fall in transcon yields in the past several years. The very poor transcon yields coupled with US's lack of available fleet to operate long stage lengths like that combine to mean that the only real chances for transcon expansion come with redeyes (like with PHL-PDX), but those flights are not possible at SNA due to the curfew.

Quoting Flyboyaz (Reply 25):
I would not be suprised to see some sort of Hawaii service from a SOCAL airport on US.

There was a route map filed with the bankruptcy court right after the merger was announced, that was the first route map to indicate US/HP service to Hawaii, and one of the routes shown was SAN-HNL, for what it's worth.

Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 40):
Hate to start critcizing US Airways again, but they shouldn't have bought the aircraft knowing it was so underpowered.

Er, why not? The A321 does exactly what it's supposed to do in the US fleet. Every plane has its own limitations, and US knew what the A321's were before it bought the type.

Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 40):
Wolf supposedly knew what he was doing when these order were made in 1996, but then most of the 321 orders have been cancelled, correct? So there's just a dozen or so spread about the fleet, correct?

What are you talking about? US has never cancelled a single A321 order, nor has it ever got rid of any of its A321s.

US has 28 A321s in its fleet, and another 13 on order for delivery in 2009-10.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: USPIT10L
Posted 2006-05-05 19:22:03 and read 5179 times.

Quoting A330323X (Reply 43):
US has 28 A321s in its fleet, and another 13 on order for delivery in 2009-10.

Thanks. US' two bankruptcies have made it very difficult for me to keep up on fleet updates/order deferments, etc. I appreciate the update. Due to the hot/high problems with the A321s, what markets do you see US using them for--Florida-Northeast?

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: A330323X
Posted 2006-05-05 22:27:34 and read 5099 times.

Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 44):
Due to the hot/high problems with the A321s, what markets do you see US using them for--Florida-Northeast?

US will continue to use them primarily for transcon markets, just as they are used now, along with select other markets that need a large F cabin. The A321s can't do every single transcon market that US might like, but they perform just fine on the vast majority of them, and US can use other birds if it really wants to fly in a market where the A321 wouldn't work.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: CentPIT
Posted 2006-05-06 18:37:36 and read 4930 times.

Quoting A330323X (Reply 43):
Er, why not? The A321 does exactly what it's supposed to do in the US fleet. Every plane has its own limitations, and US knew what the A321's were before it bought the type.

I agree!

Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 44):
Thanks. US' two bankruptcies have made it very difficult for me to keep up on fleet updates/order deferments, etc. I appreciate the update. Due to the hot/high problems with the A321s, what markets do you see US using them for--Florida-Northeast?

Well, right now in PIT (as of May 11, 2006) the A321 is used in these markets:

PIT-CLT--1 daily A321
PIT-MCO--1 daily A321

Sad huh?  Yeah sure

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-05-06 18:51:58 and read 4915 times.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 41):
Without any traffic, getting to SNA is only about 10 minutes longer than
getting to SAN (without any traffic).

Yeah, seeing the El Toro Y with no traffic would be a hell of a site

Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 40):
Hate to start critcizing US Airways again, but they shouldn't have bought the aircraft knowing it was so underpowered.

It isn't underpowered, it just isn't as powerful as the 757. It is made to do a certain job and it does it.

Topic: RE: US Airways New SNA Service
Username: John
Posted 2006-05-06 19:28:21 and read 4887 times.

There's also quite a bit of hub to Florida flying utilizing the A321s.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/