Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?  
User currently offlineFiedman From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 211 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7786 times:

I don't know if this has been covered before but I was wondering why Air Canada chose the Airbus A321 did they consider the Boeing 757 either the -200 version or the -300 version I was looking up the flight range on both aircrafts the range of the Boeing 757 is 3,395nm (according to the Boeing website) and the range of the Airbus A321 is 2,650nm (according to this website using the aircraft data and history search) so why based on that why did Air Canada chose the Airbus A321.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00000231 Air Canada Boeing 757-200

http://www.aircanada.ca/about-us/our-fleet/images/airplanes/321a.jpg Air Canada Airbus A321-200


Westjet - Canada's National Low-fare Airline
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNWA757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7750 times:

I think it would be nice to see the Boeing 757 Series in with the Air Canada fleet. However, I see where Air Canada is coming from, they want aircraft family commonality and since they operate an all Airbus fleet aside from the Boeing 767 Series they must have felt the A321 was a better choice. But at the same time they already have pilots with the type rating for the Boeing 757 Series. There would be absolutely no training fee involved with operating the Boeing 757.

Personally, I would love to see Air Canada operate the Boeing 757 a great aircraft for a great airline. On a final note, marketing at Air Canada must have looked into both aircraft at one time or another and finally decided that the Airbus A321 was the way to go for one reason or another.



Fly High!
User currently offlineKim777fan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 510 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7725 times:

Best guess is that the B757 was perceived as an aircraft on the way out and that the design happened to run it's course. By comparison, the A321 is a relatively new kid on the block and shares family commonality with the the A319 and A320. AC does use both the B767 AND the A300/A340 on the YYZ-YVR route, but they own/operate no B777's or and B747's. Therefore, the B757 just wouldn't make sense for that particular operator.

I happen to love the B757 myself and whenever in fly DTW-LAX on NW (usually twice a year or more), I choose the flights that have the B757 instead of the A320 as they operate both on that route.


User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4795 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7695 times:

There is indeed a case for AC to operate the B757 but they have decided to go with the high gross weight A321-200 which does an excellent job for AC but lacks the range capabilities of the 757. The A321 has mostly replaced the old non-ER 767-200s that did yeoman's work for AC for over 20 years on domestic trunk routes (there are not many left). Therefore, the extra range and payload capacity of the 757 would be largely wasted in such a role and the A321 is a bit more fuel efficient.

Engine commonality may also share a part in the decision - as AC has not operated any RB.211 aircraft for almost 10 years and has never used the PW 2000 series. The A319/320/321 all use CFM56 engines but obviously not all the same model. The A319 uses the CFM56-5A with about 23,000 pounds of thrust while the A321 uses the CFM56-5B2 with a healthy 33,000 lbs of thrust. This is almost as much thrust as the initial RR and PW engines offered on the 757-200. The power on takeoff is actually quite impressive.

The 757 would make more sense if AC wanted to open up more "thin" transatlantic routes to Europe in the way that CO has...but that must have obviously not been a priority to serve markets with anything less than a 762ER.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16335 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7686 times:

The 752 would have been ideal for the lighter Euro routes in the winter and opening new summer Euro routes, as well as an efficient capacity fill betw the 320 and 762/763. It could also easily handle the new CCS/BOG/MEX routes without payload restrictions. Also commonality with the 763.

The 321 is lacking in range on many routes necessitating a 319-762 gauge upgrade on such routes as MEX, BOG.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4795 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7672 times:

The 321 is lacking in range on many routes necessitating a 319-762 gauge upgrade on such routes as MEX, BOG.

Good point. This type of route would be perfect for a 752. Oh well, I guess you win some (saving fuel on the domestic trunk routes and common mx) and lose some (lack of flexibility and possible lost opportunities).


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7643 times:

Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

One word -

Commonality.


User currently offlineWestJetYYZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7630 times:

I agree with Boeing_nut, they were working towards eventually an all Airbus fleet, if you look at the other aircraft they operate (A319, A320, A330, A340) it makes sense they chose the A321.

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16335 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7615 times:

Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

One word -

Commonality.


Well, the 752 has commonality with the 762/763 so that is perhaps a moot point.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7591 times:

Well, the 752 has commonality with the 762/763 so that is perhaps a moot point.

Yes, but the 321 doesnt just have commonality but also scalability with the rest of the family. On North American routes, that is a very key benefit of sticking with the 320 family.

The 752 on the other hand would be a perfect plane for AC's thinner transatlantic operations. Many routes like AMS/ZRH/etc... that are now seasonal could be efficiently operated year-round with the smaller guage.

No easy answer to the connundrum but they made their choice and now have to stick with it - for better of for worse.


User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1666 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks ago) and read 7536 times:

As I have said before, AC CEO Robert Milton is a big believer in a two-supplier fleet plan (excluding regional jets). He sees both Boeing and Airbus in the picture. The sure bet is that narrowbody will be all Airbus, because of commonality, parts inventory issues, and the availability of high quality (nearly new) aircraft AC was able to obtain on extremely advantageous lease and subleases. A 170-seat narrowbody is not the backbone of the AC domestic fleet, just a top of the narrowbody adjunct to the fleet. On the widebody side, the airline seems to be heading Airbus, but don't be surprised to see a copurse change. It has more Boeing fins - all 767s after the last 747s are parked at the end of the summer schedule - than Airbus fins, and it wouldn't be a difficult thing to push out the Airbus fins to take a combination of 7E7s/777s. Air Canada is looking long and hard at the 7E7 for its 767 replacement.

In no scenario have I heard a 757 option ever contemplated. The plane has never been on AC's radar. It is just too big for most domestic missions, and too small for those domestic missions where a larger plane is useful, like Toronto-Vancouver. Yes, it might do some long-thin international routes, but you would hardly build a fleet around that kind of mission.



Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Does Air Canada Promote .com And Not .ca posted Sun Feb 22 2004 20:41:19 by Yegbey01
Air Canada Airbus @ AMS posted Mon Aug 14 2006 23:41:50 by TheSunseeker
Air Canada Project XM, Why The Delay? posted Thu Jun 15 2006 12:57:57 by IMatAMS
Air Canada Airbus Orders posted Fri Jun 2 2006 03:16:58 by Aeroplan73
Where Are Air Canada's Airbus Widebodies Heading? posted Wed Apr 27 2005 00:20:38 by Cruiser
Air Canada Airbus A340-500 Info? posted Fri May 28 2004 11:31:02 by Fiedman
A321 Why Not posted Tue May 4 2004 20:56:36 by Rsmith6621a
Air Canada Airbus A345 And A346 Routes posted Wed Oct 15 2003 05:57:45 by ACB777
Air Canada Airbus At Sydney posted Thu Dec 6 2001 01:16:28 by Sydneybuses
Air Canada Airbus Deliveries posted Tue Nov 20 2001 19:15:08 by Vinovalentino