Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A321 Vs. 757  
User currently offlineFvyfireman From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 41 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17366 times:

why would an airline like US pick the A321 instead of the 757?

89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17346 times:

Quoting Fvyfireman (Thread starter):
why would an airline like US pick the A321 instead of the 757?

Well, US does have 757's, and why not get the A321 since they operate the A320 family.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17313 times:

Good question. Probably not due to pilot preference!

Economics would suggest that if an airline already operates a fleet of Airbus narrowbodies, in terms of maintenance and pilot training costs it makes sense to operate the A321 if the extra capacity is needed.

The 757 is also a little older, and this can mean increased maintenance among other things. However it has better short field ability and hot and high performance as well as better range and cargo capacity.

I think overall the A321 is cheaper to operate but the 757 has significant advantages particularly at the top end of its performance table.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9817 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17300 times:

A321s have commonality with the rest of the A320 series. It decreases costs significantly. It is also a lighter airplane that is a newer design. Although it has limited range, it has a lot of potential on shorter routes.

The 739 and A321 are similar planes. Continental operates the 739 side by side with the 757.

The A321 and 739 are comparable in size to the 757, but the 757 has a lot more range and payload capability. But with the extra weight of the 757, it is more expensive to operate because it isn't as efficient on shorter routes. So overall, the A321/739 and 757 can perform different tasks and are both good planes. However many airlines have opted for the 738/A320 over the A321/739 due to operating capabilities.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17247 times:

Why would you pick the 321 instead of the 757? If you don't need the extra capability of the 757, the 321 makes good sense. BA has been putting 321s on intra-european routes instead of 757s. Those routes don't need the 757's range or takeoff performance, and thus it makes sense to do so. Plus, the 321 is in production right now (and will be for some time to come), and the 757 is not.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17244 times:

Another good reason is that they don't make 757s anymore.  boggled 

User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17220 times:

The 757 came out earlier, it has much better field performance than the underpowered A321. Moreover, they never updated their fuel tanks, so it's range is poor. If they gave it more fuel (and bigger engines to move that), it might be able to compete, but A321 has had soft sales, it clearly isn't that attractive. It seems like too little, too late, 757 already won over the market.


"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17199 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
The A321 and 739 are comparable in size to the 757, but the 757 has a lot more range and payload capability. But with the extra weight of the 757, it is more expensive to operate because it isn't as efficient on shorter routes. So overall, the A321/739 and 757 can perform different tasks and are both good planes. However many airlines have opted for the 738/A320 over the A321/739 due to operating capabilities.

They are only almost as big as the 757. The 757 is still about 20 or so passengers larger.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17178 times:

FlyDreamliner.

The A321 is not underpowered, not at all.

The A321 is a regional airliners, it's optimised for 300-2000nm range trips, it doesn't need a lot of fuel or range. And it can do a lot of these trip at noticably lower costs than the 757.

The sales have been relatively good (487) considering the time it entered the market and also that it is a derivative aircraft.

[Edited 2006-01-09 03:04:57]

User currently offlineTom_EDDF From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 452 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17171 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 6):
The 757 came out earlier, it has much better field performance than the underpowered A321. Moreover, they never updated their fuel tanks, so it's range is poor. If they gave it more fuel (and bigger engines to move that), it might be able to compete, but A321 has had soft sales, it clearly isn't that attractive. It seems like too little, too late, 757 already won over the market.

1. Different markets for the 757 and the A321
2. A321 does perfectly the job it was designed for
3. A321 is not at all "underpowered", can you please provide details on this? Referring to the better hot and high performance of the 757 is rediculous, you can't use the 757 as a benchmark here as it again was designed for a different market. The A321 is a short to medium haul 180 seater, nothing more, but nothing less, and it does this job very well, showing solid market success also relative to the 739, its most direct competitor
4. Its range is good enough and perfect for what it was designed for. Its also matching its design goals. Its not an ULH aircraft, but that market is covered by others.
5. Some carriers like US even fly the A321-200 transcon. Even though there aren't to many other carriers in the US using A321's, that should not lead you to the assumption it wasn't successful in other regions of the world.

Just flew FRA-CPH on an A321 last friday (return was the same day on an MD-87), and from a passenger point of view it's a wonderful aircraft, especially with the IAE engines, being quieter than the CFM's. Gives you a bit more of a "large aircraft" feeling than the usual 737 or A320's. And hell, the A321 can climb very well and can reach quite decent cruise altitudes fairly quickly. As most of my trips are from Frankfurt, I usually get at least around 10-15 flights per year on the A321, and I love them.

Cheers

[Edited 2006-01-09 03:11:22]

User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17155 times:

I have heard numerous stories about the A321 being a bad handling plane, especially in a crosswind. It often causes some bad landings or missed approaches. I was told this by an FAA inspector.

User currently offlineTom_EDDF From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 452 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17109 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 10):
I have heard numerous stories about the A321 being a bad handling plane, especially in a crosswind. It often causes some bad landings or missed approaches. I was told this by an FAA inspector.

I know a retired LH captain who during his career flew the 737, A319-A321, A343 and 744. He told me that, especially with Airbus FBW aircraft, even though they are designed to behave very similar, there are some distinct handling characteristics to each and every model. In general, he says, the longer the fuselage gets, the more "easy" it is to fly the aircraft and the more "forgiving" it behavies.

Especially on the A319 he said landing can be quite tricky if you're not used to it, as it is a fairly nervous aircraft and hard landings and very firm touchdowns happen quite often, particularly in bad weather conditions, while the A320 is easier to fly and the A321 feeling like a much bigger aircraft. His words - they might be subjective, but he has more than 35 years of flying experience. He also said the 747 and the A340, while being quite different and the A340 not being very "sporty" are "easiest" to take off and land.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9817 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17108 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 6):
Moreover, they never updated their fuel tanks, so it's range is poor. If they gave it more fuel (and bigger engines to move that), it might be able to compete, but A321 has had soft sales, it clearly isn't that attractive.

Actually Airbus did make those modifications. The A321-100 was the first A321 and it really was underpowered and did lack range. Airbus added fuel tanks and increased thrust by 2-4000 lbs and increased the range by about 300nm when designing the A321-200 which entered service about three years after the initial A321-100. So the A321-200 does have the capability to fly transcon domestic flights in the United States whereas the original A321-100 did not. However there still can be some payload restrictions on longer flights with strong winds and high temperatures.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17037 times:

The A321 has 340 some delivered and 479 ordered, not bad, but hardly the 1,000 of the 757, or well over 1,000 of the A320, 319 or various 737 variants. As for it being underpowered, here is my evidence

Thrust/MTOW

A321 = .295
A319 = .325
B738 = .313
B737-7 = .340
752 = .315
B739ER =.289

The A321 is comparatively less powered than any aircraft in its class. The only aircraft with as poor of a power to weight is the 739ER, which is also underpowered.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17012 times:

The 757-200 is almost a size bigger than the A321. So it is wrong to say that one is better than the other. Had Airbus built a bigger wing and strecthed the fuselage and put on some bigger engines and a new undercarriage it would have been a more similar to the 757.

But Airbus only gave the A320 a stretch, and kept the engines, wing and undercarriage.

I wonder why it was more common to do something with the wings in the early days, when Boeing used different wings on their 707, and Douglas with the DC-8. Seems like the aircraft manufacturer have hesitated to do this on later projects like the A321. Boeing is taking up that tradition with the 787.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16980 times:

It's really not a different sized airplane. The 752 is a mere 9 feet longer than the 321, and the 321 has a wider fuselage. 757 is heavier, and more powerful, but not that much larger.


"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16962 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 14):
The 757-200 is almost a size bigger than the A321.



Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 15):
It's really not a different sized airplane. The 752 is a mere 9 feet longer than the 321, and the 321 has a wider fuselage. 757 is heavier, and more powerful, but not that much larger.

You are quite right. I used the word almost as the 757 has a greater range and Take-off performance



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 16878 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
BA has been putting 321s on intra-european routes instead of 757s. Those routes don't need the 757's range or takeoff performance, and thus it makes sense to do so. Plus, the 321 is in production right now (and will be for some time to come), and the 757 is not.

 checkmark 

the A321's work great for many carriers including BA, EI, BD, AF, etc.


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Jacobin777




"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 16687 times:

Quoting Tom_EDDF (Reply 9):
The A321 is a short to medium haul 180 seater

First, the A321 is not a 180 seater in a practical 2-class configuration. It is more like a 165-170 seater. Second, it has trouble with medium haul flights at high temperatures

Quoting Tom_EDDF (Reply 9):
Some carriers like US even fly the A321-200 transcon. Even though there aren't to many other carriers in the US using A321's

There are no other carriers using the A321 in the US (or North America for that matter). Also, the US flights are not completely transcon, they fall 100-300nm short

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 12):
So the A321-200 does have the capability to fly transcon domestic flights in the United States whereas the original A321-100 did not.

It does not have the ability to fly two of the more important transcons reliably, BOS and JFK. Also, it takes restrictions at times out of PHL as well as going east from PHX and LAS

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 15):
The 752 is a mere 9 feet longer than the 321, and the 321 has a wider fuselage.

The wider fuselage does nothing from an economic standpoint because it doesn't allow more seats. Also, those "mere 9 feet" allow the 757 to carry 10-20 more seats



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 16657 times:

I am not a fan of the 321. I think as far as a charter/IT aircraft for UK and European airlines the 757 is much more flexible in what it can do, and where it can fly.

The 321 cannot do the job of the 757, but the 757 can do the job of the 321.

in high density fit the 757 can carry 235 passengers agaisnt a maximum of 220 in the 321. The 757 can get into and out of small airports like Gibraltar with no problems, the 321 cannot (ask Monarch scheduled about that one)

Also for the charter airlines the 757 can be deployed on long haul flights from regional airports as well as being equally at home in the short haul market.

And from a purely aesthetic opinion, those engines look too small on the 321 and being on one for take off, one feel like it might not make it all the way up, especially when its fully packed with seats and luggage on an IT flight.

I love the 319/320 and the A310 but please dont get me started on that 321, I hate that aircraft with a passion.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 16657 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 14):
But Airbus only gave the A320 a stretch, and kept the engines, wing and undercarriage.

However, the A321, unlike the A320 and respective shrinks, has double slotted flaps. I do wonder about the reasons why Airbus put double slotted flaps only on the A321. Why is that?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):
The wider fuselage does nothing from an economic standpoint because it doesn't allow more seats.

But doesn't the wider fuse allow them to handle bigger cargo compared to the 757? Maybe their capacity doesn't allow much more cargo than the 757 but they could surely put wider pallets into a wider narrowbody fuse.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 16648 times:

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 19):
in high density fit the 757 can carry 235 passengers agaisnt a maximum of 220 in the 321.

Actually, the 752 is certified to 239 (753 to 295)

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 20):
But doesn't the wider fuse allow them to handle bigger cargo compared to the 757? Maybe their capacity doesn't allow much more cargo than the 757 but they could surely put wider pallets into a wider narrowbody fuse.

Not particularly. Also, narrowbodies carrying pallets doesn't really make a difference given that the main restriction is weight, not volume.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 16631 times:

N1130A, shhhhh, dont tell UK charter 757 airlines like Thomsonfly else they will be putting in those extra 4 seats in their 757s before we know it.

Not like our charter carriers not to fill their aircarft to the rafters!


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 16630 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Not particularly. Also, narrowbodies carrying pallets doesn't really make a difference given that the main restriction is weight, not volume.

Yeah, that's a point. But still, what about the double slotted flaps on the A321?


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 16623 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 23):
But still, what about the double slotted flaps on the A321?

What difference should they make? The 757 has a much larger wing and will lift a lot more weight as compares to its size.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
25 Post contains links and images UAL747DEN : I was going to just post a 757 next to an A320 and let you decide but after searching for pictures of 757's I realized that they are all beautiful and
26 Post contains images LTU932 : The 757 with Rollers being the best of them all.
27 Toulouse : Typical two-class seating capacity for the A321 is 185 seats with 16 in first class and 169 in economy, while the A321 single-class configuation comf
28 Post contains images BA : Because the A318, A319, and A320 don't need it. The A321 is a longer aircraft and thus it is bigger and thus it is heavier than the A320 and Airbus d
29 Post contains images LTU932 : Thanks for the explanation. I thought of that myself but I wasn't really sure in the end. This clears things up.
30 N1120A : Only according to Airbus. In that same "typical" configuration, the 752 would hold nearly 200. Even Lufthansa, who list the A321's configuration base
31 Scbriml : As others have tried to point out, although the A321 overlaps at the bottom end of the 757's "envelope" it can't match the top end. The planes are ai
32 Toulouse : Fair enough, just checking Iberia seat plans, and indeed their 757's have 200 seats, and the 321's between 178 and 194. And just checked BA. Their 75
33 WAH64D : There are still orders for the A321, the B757 line is not even operating anymore. How can you say the B757 won over the market when its not even in t
34 Orion737 : The range advantage of the 757 has been used to good effect by charter airlines, actually. Routes to Orlando and the Dominican republic, Egypt's Red s
35 GARPD : Which is clearly a mistake. The A321 has no where near the range the 757 has, at any comparable load.
36 RJ111 : You could conclude that the two complement each other perfectly.
37 GARPD : Indeed so. Where the full capabilities of the 757 is not needed, an A321 seems to do just nicely. But if you need a better hot-high performance and/o
38 Keesje : The A321 is one of there reasons the 757 didn't sell well for some years. Vast majority of the flights 190-220 seats (line & leisure) are shorter then
39 Post contains images Keesje : To illustrate my point about required range: A321's 2500nm range from New York, Oslo & Singapore. Range is not an the bigger the better thing. Enough
40 TristarSteve : Reading through this I see there is a lot of confusion over number of seats and range. Remember that to get 239 seats on a B757, there are no galleys
41 GARPD : Where does this chart come from, as the ranges seem wildly over stated. I'm guessing Airbus.com An A321 can barely do US transcon, yet your cute littl
42 Post contains images Dazeflight : so, which of those "sexy 757's" is your g/f?
43 DTWAGENT : As for me..... I like the 757 over the 321. I was on US this summer from PHL to SAN on a 321. I hated every minute of it. Airbus aircraft have not mad
44 Post contains images FA4B6 : oh really?
45 RICARIZA : You took the words from my mouth..
46 Ourboeing : I guess it makes more sense for them to have an Airbus fleet after merging with HP. Doesn't HP have the largest Airbus fleet in North America? OURBOE
47 BestWestern : I'm surprised that Boeing didn't exploit the 200 seater segment with the 787. Really... dont US fly Transcon with an A321? You wouldnt be biased perc
48 OyKIE : So am I
49 A319XFW : I think Air Canada and Spirit might disagree with you there....
50 UAL747DEN : I would take any of them! I think I would give my wife the boot if it came to her or a 757.....! J/K
51 Post contains images BestWestern : So, you arent biased either then?
52 CRJ900 : Also, the A321-200 can fly 212-220 pax non-stop Scandinavia-Canary islands, that's 4,100 - 4,300 kms (about 2,250 nms) - and that ain't too bad eithe
53 YYZYYT : um, wrong in part - Air Canada uses the 321 (including Toronto-Vancouver)
54 GARPD : There you go again with your "biased" drivel. Give it a rest. Anyone who posts anything contrary to YOUR opinion is biased, in your opinion. FYI, I w
55 Post contains images A340600 : Oh yea, the engines look so small from inside it feels as though you're going to crash. Another wonderful Orion737 theory, yawn. Actually, the A321 h
56 Keesje : The A321 is not very light but the 787 is a different ball game.. Empty weight Airbus A321-200: CFM56-5, 48,500kg (92100 lb). Empty weight B757-200:
57 MBJ2000 : What's wrong with you? I really hope not many in the U.S. think like you! What if outside your country everybody thought the same? Then I guess, nobod
58 IRelayer : Uhh...A321 is not underpowered. If anything the 757 is overpowered (albeit, for a purpose). -IR
59 Drewfly : Just some size background: Spirit operates their A321s in a 16/182 combination for 198 seats, US uses a 26/143 combo for 169 seats, and AC uses a 24/1
60 TJCAB : Is this emotion or logic talking? If an airline based its needs on emotion rather than market needs, well you get the point...From your statements; I
61 Tom_EDDF : Even conservative assumptions show world wide air traffic double or even tripple within the next 20 years. Actually, if you would look beyond SFO, LA
62 DTWAGENT : No I would not be bias... I happen to like USAirways. I just think the Boeing aircraft have more passenger room. Where as Airbus has less room for com
63 Boo25 : I work on both as cabin crew.... Ive always loved the 757, but interior wise it is very dated compared to the A321, the wider fuselage on the A321 mak
64 Prebennorholm : Really funny to see how totally uninformed people call the A321 underpowered. The A321 and B739 are similar in size, the 739 being just a little small
65 BA : MEA went from a mixed A320/A321 narrowbody fleet to a purely A321 narrowbody fleet. They replaced 3 leased A320s and 2 leased A321s with 6 owned A321s
66 N1120A : Now that is completely wrong That is because of configuration, not size And how does that explain the 757's CASM advantage? My mistake on the operato
67 Trex8 : funny but if you look at the detailed 737 tech specs at the Boeing site, their 739ER 2 class layout has fewer seats than the 739 because they are put
68 N1120A : The new bulkhead is there to allow a gain in MTOW, not a space gain. The 739 (and the 738 for that matter) can already support more seats. The reason
69 FCYTravis : US does fly their longest transcon routes (PHL-SFO/LAX) on the A321. I can't see how that's really "less than transcon" - PHL is right on the water, t
70 N1120A : Neither flight is as long as JFK-west coast or BOS-west coast. As it is, the A320 has to make stops at times on BOS-LGB, so the A321 would really suf
71 Abba : A few here seems to be biased in a way that you get the feeling that their agenda is not to get a better understanding of the industry, its products,
72 GARPD : But to simply rubbish the views of others? I'm in TOTAL agreement.
73 Crosswind : Speaking as someone who works for an airline that operates both the B757 and A321, the answer as to which is better is; it depends... For most mission
74 BA : Excellent analysis Crosswind, thank you. Just one question. How can one determine whether an A321 is the 89T or 93T MTOW version? Regards
75 HiJazzey : Excellent post crosswind. Very informative. One issue though... Charter ops don't usually carry much cargo (other than bags), so shouldn't their paylo
76 Mandala499 : I. Airbus vs Boeing Battle #345522342 II. A321 v 752 Battle #2433455 Conclusion: Depends what kind of routes you want to fly. One cannot fully replace
77 Shenzhen : If you were to go back in time during the last order frenzy, US opted for Airbus over Boeing on a huge deal what amounted to some 400 planes, options
78 BestWestern : Crosswind - excellent post identifying the different missions for each aircraft. Thankyou. Post of the month - well researched. Crap, unthoughout and
79 GARPD : Completely agree. But when people rubbish the views of others, simply because their own opinion differs, that is wrong. That was my meaning behind th
80 BestWestern : GARPD, where in this thread have I rubbished someones well though out post? I have only rubbished comments such as: Thats Bias, and not a reason why t
81 B707321C : In most cases the interior and seat pitch are choosen by the Airline not Airbus or Boeing. I think you have been flying with the wrong airline not th
82 GARPD : But its not just this thread. On multiple threads you come across quite forcefully as acting as some sort of Airbus police. Maybe you don't realise i
83 BestWestern : Exactly. The original question asked... The fact that he's a boeing man and doesnt like Airbus isnt a reason why Now, onto your other comment... Garp
84 Post contains images Gkirk : 1 decent post in this thread from 80+ replies, cheers Crosswind for that
85 GARPD : With all due respect, it is not for you to govern who has gone astray and who hasn't. The mere fact that you seem to target PRo Boeing supporters mor
86 GARPD : I concur. Crosswind described precisely what I thought about the situation
87 A319XFW : Excellent post - best I've seen on here. Unbiased and informative. Welcome to my RU list. 1 ACT - 89T, 2 ACT 93T. Difference being additional weight
88 Gilesdavies : I really can't fault the A321 from a passenger perspective. I have flown the A321 with Monarch from LTN to LCA which is a 4.5hr flight in an all Y con
89 Phllax : Long time lurker, first time poster. To answer the original question, the decision to go with the Airbus narrowbody fleet instead of the 737NG series
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...
A321 Vs 757 - Cost posted Fri Oct 3 2003 23:18:33 by FLY777UAL
Match Up...737-900ER VS 757-200 posted Tue Aug 29 2006 14:52:15 by Socal
757-300 Vs. 757-200 - Question posted Wed Nov 17 2004 17:43:20 by Jeffie813
Pit Bull Vs. 757 posted Fri Sep 20 2002 12:58:49 by L-188
US Airways A321 And 757 posted Tue May 8 2001 22:51:08 by Godbless
Are A321 And 757 Close Competitors? posted Tue Nov 14 2000 20:49:32 by Red Panda
USAirways A321 Vs. B757 posted Mon Sep 18 2000 07:57:29 by Jmc1975
767-200 Vs. 757-300 posted Sun Aug 15 1999 16:01:49 by FirstClass!
A321-200/757-200 Operating Quest. posted Mon Jun 28 1999 23:25:11 by FLY777UAL
757 Vs. A321 posted Sun Apr 30 2006 10:17:17 by Ward86IND