Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757 Vs. A321  
User currently offlineWard86IND From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 295 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 14239 times:

***NOT and A vs. B Thread***

Hey everybody,

Reading that MD90 vs 737NG and A320 thread sparked a thought. Everyone is familar with how the 767 was a very popular airliner until the A330 came along with its superior ecomomics and cargo capacity and made the 767 obsolete, whipping it in sales to the point where Boeing stopped making them. My question is: How come the Airbus A321 didn't do the same to the 757?

The A321 has the best CASM of any single-aisle airliner, right? And about the same passenger capacity (about 180 in the two-class configuration, like the 752), so how come, although the 757 line is also closed, the 757 still flies in great numbers for the top carriers? I can only think of one US airline with the A321 (US). Is it a range issue? Depending on payload, looks like the 757 has the ability to fly considerably further. If this is the case, I assume Airbus couldn't squeeze any more fuel capacity into the A321-200, being that they already were stretching the A320 airframe to its max? If this is the case, it is a shame for them because I think they could have smoked the 757! (though I love it).

Which brings about one more question. It seems like airlines more and more nowadays are really stretching the 752's range to the max, putting it on long flights over the atlantic. I know NW would love for their 752's to have a little bit more range so they could do DTW-AMS (and they have the weakest engine variant). So why, instead of the poor-selling 753, didn't Boeing offer a 757-200ER? Was there just not a market for it 6 or 7 years ago, or did the airframe not allow for any more fuel capacity? Would love to know if anyone has any kind of insight.

Edit: Ok did a little more research and found out there is in fact a 757-200ER. Obviously I had never heard of it...is it not that popular? I saw BA had them. I see they have updated powerplants...

[Edited 2006-04-30 10:22:07]

[Edited 2006-04-30 10:23:06]


Live your dream.
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 14181 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

The A321 isnt a direct competitior to the B757, its a B739 competitior. The B757 doesnt really have a true competitior

User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14019 times:

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
Edit: Ok did a little more research and found out there is in fact a 757-200ER. Obviously I had never heard of it...is it not that popular? I saw BA had them. I see they have updated powerplants

Actually there was no official ER. Just a higher gross weight version, which some airlines dubbed the ER.

The 752ER was proposed. Would have a range of 4500nms, Never came to fruition. Maybe because it would begin to cannibalise the 762ER.

[Edited 2006-04-30 13:40:41]

User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13999 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 2):
The 752ER was proposed i think. Would have a range of 4500nms, Never came to fruition. Maybe because it would begin to cannibalise the 762ER.

Surly Boeing could have started the B752ER once Boeing announced the B762ER would no longer be built


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13970 times:

The 762ER is still available, there are 4 unfilled orders. the 757 is no longer built

[Edited 2006-04-30 13:31:07]

User currently onlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5014 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13898 times:

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
made the 767 obsolete, whipping it in sales to the point where Boeing stopped making them.

You might want to check that again: the 767 is still in production.

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
Is it a range issue?

Mostly, yes. I don't think the A321 has transcontinental range in the US, while the 757 does.

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
how come, although the 757 line is also closed, the 757 still flies in great numbers for the top carriers?

Several reasons:
-the range issue, as mentioned above
-the 757s aren't that old, most are quite a bit younger than the 762ER (remember the 757 had a pretty slow sales start, with many large carriers like UA and AA only starting to acquire them from the late eighties, quite a bit after they got the 762)
-even if they wanted to, most of the US majors aren't exactly in a financial position to be replacing large fleets of 757s.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 1):
The A321 isnt a direct competitior to the B757, its a B739 competitior.

Depends. On shorter stages, the A321 certainly is a 757 competitor, and the A321 probably cost the 757 quite a few sales to airlines that didn't need the range. For those needing the range, you're right, it doesn't really have a competitor.


User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13875 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 6):
Mostly, yes. I don't think the A321 has transcontinental range in the US, while the 757 does.

Although an A321 doesn't have the range of a 757, transcontinental flights aren't a problem (provided enough fuel was loaded for the flight). Both the A319 and the A321 have more range than the A320. The A319 is lighter while the A321 carries more fuel.

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
The A321 has the best CASM of any single-aisle airliner, right? And about the same passenger capacity (about 180 in the two-class configuration, like the 752), so how come, although the 757 line is also closed, the 757 still flies in great numbers for the top carriers? I can only think of one US airline with the A321 (US). Is it a range issue? Depending on payload, looks like the 757 has the ability to fly considerably further. If this is the case, I assume Airbus couldn't squeeze any more fuel capacity into the A321-200, being that they already were stretching the A320 airframe to its max? If this is the case, it is a shame for them because I think they could have smoked the 757! (though I love it).

The A321 is a moneymaker for moving people (starting with an already good A320 platform, the stretch is likely to have only better CASM. However, no A32x has the ultimate capabilities of a 757. The 757 is more robust, more powerful, has more range, and can carry more payload than any A321.

You seem to acknowledge most of what I am saying with your initial post but the A321 basically milks the A320 platform for all it's worth (which is a lot).



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21512 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13820 times:

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
How come the Airbus A321 didn't do the same to the 757?

It did for BA - they are replacing their 757s with 321s. The reasoning behind that is pretty simple - the 757 is too much plane for intra-European flights that want high capacity but don't need 3000nm range. The 321 is perfect for that. In the US, where a 321 is going to be a stretch on a transcon (not that it can't be done, and US does it fairly often), the 757 makes a lot more sense.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 3):
Surly Boeing could have started the B752ER once Boeing announced the B762ER would no longer be built

The 767-200ER is still available - CO ordered some in 1998, if I'm not mistaken, and they've done very well for them. The 757-200ER is really the 757-200IGW, and it's been around for a while (cosmetically identical to the 752) - I think you're referring to a 757-200LR of sorts, which probably wasn't built due to the downturn in the economy causing a lack of demand. It's a shame, since the 757 is still a very good plane that occupies a niche that will not be filled by the 787 or 350, and cannot be filled by the 321 or 739.

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
I can only think of one US airline with the A321 (US).

And NK. And you could sort of count AC, as Canada is geographically similar to the US.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13775 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 7):
The 757 is more robust, more powerful, has more range, and can carry more payload than any A321.

The A321 can´t replace the 752 on the longer stretches. However on the routes below the 321 max range it offers far superior economics in term of fuel consumption and e.g. maintenance. Take a look at the OEW & engines of the 752 vs A321 an the writing is on the wall.

Agree that the A300/310/752/762 leave a gab. 4 years ago I thought A&B would jump in this gab (this was in the sonic cruiser era)..
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/773211


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13759 times:

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
***NOT and A vs. B Thread***

Yes, it is.....  Yeah sure

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
The A321 has the best CASM of any single-aisle airliner, right? And about the same passenger capacity (about 180 in the two-class configuration, like the 752), so how come, although the 757 line is also closed, the 757 still flies in great numbers for the top carriers? I can only think of one US airline with the A321 (US). Is it a range issue? Depending on payload, looks like the 757 has the ability to fly considerably further. If this is the case, I assume Airbus couldn't squeeze any more fuel capacity into the A321-200, being that they already were stretching the A320 airframe to its max? If this is the case, it is a shame for them because I think they could have smoked the 757! (though I love it).

No, the A-321 CASM for a single asle airplane does not approach that of the B-757-200, B-757-300, or B-737-900.

Boeing closed the B-757 line after it sold about 1050 B-757s and they didn't get additional orders for it. The B-757 production line, line the B-767 production line, when it closes in about 2 years, will be used to produce B-787s.

The B-757 is 207 minute ETOPS certified, where the A-321 is 180 minute ETOPS certified. This gives the B-757 much more flexibility in scheduling for the airlines. The B-757 still flys in greater numbers for the airlines because it easily out sold the A-321, which is a different class of airplane. The basic weight of each airplane is very close to each other, but the B-757 has a tremendous advantage in power, range, CASM, and cargo carrying capability over the A-321.

Additionally, the B-757 has a much different look to it, when compaired to it's Boeing sisters. I believe the B-757 is one of the two best looking airliners ever built, the B-707 being the other one, for setting the standard look for most of Boeing's following designs.

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
Which brings about one more question. It seems like airlines more and more nowadays are really stretching the 752's range to the max, putting it on long flights over the atlantic. I know NW would love for their 752's to have a little bit more range so they could do DTW-AMS (and they have the weakest engine variant). So why, instead of the poor-selling 753, didn't Boeing offer a 757-200ER? Was there just not a market for it 6 or 7 years ago, or did the airframe not allow for any more fuel capacity? Would love to know if anyone has any kind of insight.

The airlines can modify their B-757s, or A-321s to the range they need them to fly. The limitation comes in that they need to stay within the design max gross take-off weight, unless they want to spend more money increasing the weight, then getting an additional type certification from the FAA/JAA.

Quoting Molykote (Reply 7):
The A321 is a moneymaker for moving people (starting with an already good A320 platform, the stretch is likely to have only better CASM. However, no A32x has the ultimate capabilities of a 757. The 757 is more robust, more powerful, has more range, and can carry more payload than any A321.

It sounds liuke you are saying that both types are money makers for the airlines, which I agree with you. But, that statement can be extended to all airliners. If they didn't make the airlines money, they would not be used.

 biggrin 


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13737 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
the A-321 CASM for a single asle airplane does not approach that of the B-757-200

It certainly approaches the 752's and 739's.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
The basic weight of each airplane is very close to each other

What? The 757 is 10t heavier, or 20%.

[Edited 2006-04-30 15:03:02]

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9490 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 13597 times:

I find it particularly interesting how two planes with roughly the same capacity could sell so differently. The 757 was a huge success in the United States and became a backbone of the US airlines in the way that its predecessesor the 727 did. It had transcontinental range and flexibility. It was perfect for the US market. However it was pretty much a flop in the rest of the world. Yes there are some airlines outside of the United States that ordered it, but its sales numbers were dominated by the large US airlines. Those were the routes the plane was designed to fly and that is what it flies.

The A321 is completely opposite. It has only sold to two airlines in the United States, but has had many more sales in Europe. It is great for short haul flights and was designed to with those routes in mind. It has the range, but it just wasn't successful.

It all comes down to the fact that Airbus designed a plane that was popular in Europe and Boeing produced a plane that was popular in the United States. Part of me says that US airlines had a lot of input in the 757 design with Boeing and European airlines probably had more input on the A321, but I totally could be wrong. Both are great planes, and I have enjoyed flying both personally.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 6):
Mostly, yes. I don't think the A321 has transcontinental range in the US, while the 757 does.

The original A321-100 did not, but they added tanks and range to get the A321-200. It does have transcontinental range on most days. However excessive heat and winds can limit that.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
The B-757 is 207 minute ETOPS certified, where the A-321 is 180 minute ETOPS certified.

What route is there that the A321 can operate that is over 180 minute Etops? Aren't you getting beyond the range of the plane? What ETOPS is required to get to Hawaii for the A321?



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 13542 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
It sounds liuke you are saying that both types are money makers for the airlines, which I agree with you. But, that statement can be extended to all airliners. If they didn't make the airlines money, they would not be used.

So I guess the UA/US/DL/NW fleets are soon to be grounded  duck 

Kidding aside, I really just dumped a bunch of text into my last post and should have gathered my thoughts more clearly. Two major points - both of which aren't news to most people reading this.

- The A321 is a stretch and lacks power and performance compared to a 757. This is not a disadvantage for many operations (quite the opposite in fact). However, the capability of the A321 is limited compared to the 757. For high density short/medium range routes, arguably no better airplane exists than the A321. This airplane can move a lot of people a good distance with a heck of a lot of fuel less than a 757-200.

- The 757 has real "cock and balls" performance that few airliners can match. Is it necessary all the time? No. Do applications exist where a 757 is warranted? Yes. These would include special airports like Vail, CO or Caribbean operations in hot weather with lots of payload. Take a look at what metal AA and US send to the Caribbean. The additional capability of the 757 can also be used for European flights from the Eastern US.

In the end I am not adding much new information to the discussion (only a few examples perhaps). However, I see quite a bit of discussion on these boards where some A321s compete with some 757s which compete with some 767s and so on....

The point I wish to make is that the 757 niche areas are not quite trivial when comparing them to the A321. European flights and some difficult airports are simply not possible with the A321 (at least if you want decent payload). The additional capability that the 757 affords is quite meaningful in many contexts (Note: I am not rebutting anyone with this comment or attempting to suggest that someone has trivialized the difference between the two airplanes.)



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 13413 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 13):
- The A321 is a stretch and lacks power and performance compared to a 757. This is not a disadvantage for many operations (quite the opposite in fact). However, the capability of the A321 is limited compared to the 757.

I think it was the other way around. The right sized engine weren´t there when the 757 was developed. They had to go with the next best available PW & RR variants.

Of course this has some advantages in some cases. However in the big picture it isn´t an advantage. This is not a street race. Fuel & maintenance costs have become uncompetitive that´s why it stopped selling.

The reason why they are still popular is because there is no real replacement capacity / range wise.

[Edited 2006-04-30 16:11:13]

User currently onlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5014 posts, RR: 44
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13135 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
The B-757 still flys in greater numbers for the airlines because it easily out sold the A-321

Um.. aren't you forgetting the tiny little fact that the 757 had been around for a full decade by the time the A321 came around?


User currently offlinePanAm330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2669 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12911 times:

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
whipping it in sales to the point where Boeing stopped making them.

They are still making 767s; check your facts.

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
The A321 has the best CASM of any single-aisle airliner, right?

No, the B757-300 does.

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
I can only think of one US airline with the A321 (US).

NK has A321s as well.

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
I know NW would love for their 752's to have a little bit more range so they could do DTW-AMS (and they have the weakest engine variant).

No they wouldn't. The A330-300 is on that route (multiple times daily, at that) for a reason- capacity. They are flying from their hub to the hub of a very close-knit carrier, KLM, and those planes are filled almost every day.

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
instead of the poor-selling 753, didn't Boeing offer a 757-200ER?

I wouldn't really call the 753 a poor seller. It was just offered at the wrong time. Take a look at what's happened to the fleets of carriers who have/had the 753- TZ sold them to CO, who wanted/needed the capacity. NW wants more 753s, thanks to their low per-seat costs, but obviously it's out of the question now. The thing is, the 753 is a superior aircraft for many airline's operations, but it was just wasn't the right time for it to be introduced.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 6):
Mostly, yes. I don't think the A321 has transcontinental range in the US, while the 757 does.

It does, although on some days it has a bit of trouble.


User currently offlineAviator27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12861 times:

The A321 did kill off the B757 line. The B757 has not been in production for a few years. There are some lingering B767 sales and production. The line is being kept open for the US Air Force Tanker Program which was initially approved but then rejected by Congress for gross mismanagement of tax payer dollars. Now Airbus, with the A330, and Boeing, with the B777, are competing in the latest round for this HUGE defense contract.

For all practical purposes the B767 has been killed off by the A330. Hence Boeing's response with the B787, which so far has been an absolute success. Hence all the B787 sales and the low amount of A330/A340 sales in the past two years. I suppose Airbus will have an appropriate response soon with an updated A350 because the first rendition wasn't faring so well. By the way, Boeing made the same mistake with the B767-400, thinking it would hold up well against the A330.

Its a free market and I love the ground breaking products that are coming from both manufacturers. In the past, I was down on Boeing for being sluggish with their response but I am happy to see them being aggressive today. All this will only make better airliners for the future. Go A - Go B.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12557 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
The B-757 production line, line the B-767 production line, when it closes in about 2 years, will be used to produce B-787s.

The 757 was built in Renton. The 767 is built in Everett and that's where the 787 will be assembled.


User currently offlineUltrapig From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 581 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12259 times:

Hey maybe someon this thread can answer this-Why does flying in a 757 seem more comfortable than being in 1 737-Is it simply an illusion because the plane is higher off the ground or is the cabin higherh than the 737?

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9490 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12203 times:

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 17):
The A321 did kill off the B757 line. The B757 has not been in production for a few years.

I struggle to believe that when I look at the orders that the A321 has. Other than US Airways, what airline bought the A321 that would have also considered the 757? I can think of US Airways, British Airways and Iberia. Three airlines switching isn't enough to kill a production line. Also the 739 is very similar in size to the A321 and 757. The 739 certainly didn't kill the 757.

What I think caused the 757 line to close was that the airlines that were ordering and flying the 757 went through a bad industry downturn. The lack of popularity of the 757 in other markets resulted in a lack of orders when US airlines were not expanding. The 757 was hugely popular in the 90s. US airlines were growing, but when 9/11 hit, no more orders came in, and airlines (like Continental) tried to get out of orders that were placed. I think a combination of the 757s localized popularity and 9/11 killed the line, not the A321. But I will agree that the A321 certainly did not cause more new carriers to want the 757. I think the A321 hurt 757 sales when it started flying for airlines in 1997, but the final blow was 9/11. And one other thing was that Boeing certainly saw the 737NGs as having more potential and knew that it could probably get more out of the space in Renton that was being used for 757 production by ramping up 737 production. Boeing didn't seem to fight for sales in the last days of the 757 as it did for the 717.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12179 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 12):
What route is there that the A321 can operate that is over 180 minute Etops? Aren't you getting beyond the range of the plane? What ETOPS is required to get to Hawaii for the A321?

180 minute ETOPS is required for HNL.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlineFutureUALpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2602 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12081 times:

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 17):
The A321 did kill off the B757 line. The B757 has not been in production for a few years.

Boeing shut down the 757 line because it wasnt selling, which was because the airlines probably either had all the 757s they wanted/needed/could afford at the time. As has been stated before, the A321 is more of a 739 competitor.

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 17):
For all practical purposes the B767 has been killed off by the A330. Hence Boeing's response with the B787, which so far has been an absolute success. Hence all the B787 sales and the low amount of A330/A340 sales in the past two years. I suppose Airbus will have an appropriate response soon with an updated A350 because the first rendition wasn't faring so well. By the way, Boeing made the same mistake with the B767-400, thinking it would hold up well against the A330.

The A330 did hurt the 767 but it is still in production. The 787 was offered because the 767 fleets are getting older and after 20-25yrs its time to come up with a viable replacement to their own product, so they do not loose out on the market as well as to compete with the A330, as you stated.

The 764 was marketed as an L1011/DC10 replacement for DL and CO respectively. It was never intended to compete full time with the A330. The 777 series is what killed, or is killing the A340, not the 764.

[Edited 2006-04-30 18:19:46]


Life is better when you surf.
User currently offlineSkymileman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12081 times:

This thread isn't even worth reading since the author of the thread-starter claims Boeing quit making the 767. They did not. It is still well in production.

User currently offlineJoeCattoli From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 569 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11990 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Yes, it is.....

No, before your post it has been perfectly unbiased.

As I read 2 very enlightening threads about exactly the same argument some months ago I think it's good to share and to remember how well the search mode of the forum works...

BA Order 1 A320, 3 A321

A321 Vs. 757

I think you can find all the information that you need about the discussion

Ciao  wave 
Joe


User currently offlineRamerinianAir From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11911 times:

HERE ARE THE OFFICIAL NUMBERS:
The A321 costs ~ 1.8% more to operate than the 752
ans
The 753 costs ~ 11.4% less to operate than the 752
SR



W N = my Worst Nightmare!!!!!
25 FCYTravis : I've heard that Airbus gave US Airways a steal of a deal on the A321s because they wanted to get someone in the United States operating them, so they
26 RJ111 : The officially wrong numbers? I can only assume you mean on a per seat basis.
27 Post contains images RichM : So when is the 747 vs A320 topic coming?
28 RoseFlyer : Without any context, you can produce all the official numbers you want, but they don't mean anything. Statistics is about more than just producing nu
29 Ward86IND : Sorry guys, this is only my second thread-starter, should have checked my facts. I forgot about the cargo version and had never even heard of the 767
30 JoeCattoli : I don't know how you did but I guess you wrong-quoted me and RamerinianAir... but anyway, my post wasn't against you... I just wrote "757 A321" in th
31 FL370 : im not a huge Airbus fan, but i think overall the 757 looks better than the A321. im not familir with the peformance if the two airplanes, if someone
32 S12PPL : Well, I won't be the first to say this... But the 767 is still very much in production. Ummmmm....... You made it A vs. B. Spirit. But obviously you
33 Gigneil : That's incorrect. The only aircraft in existence that flies 207 minute routes is the 777, and only on a route-by-route deviation from the policy. 180
34 ClassicLover : The 767-200ER is what Qantas had from 1985! Nevermind, the point of coming here is sometimes to learn and you certainly are.
35 Caspian27 : According to my uncle who works in the SOC for HP/US, the 321 does very poorly out of PHX on hot summer days with high density-altitudes due to weake
36 777ER : Thanks for thats. Is CO the final customer?
37 BA : Airbus did not come up with the A321-200 for US Airways. The A321-200 has been in production since 1997. US Airways didn't get its first A321 until 2
38 Gilesdavies : Everyone always seems to be going on about 757 doing transatlantic routes, but when you consider over 1050 were built. The number of 757's operating o
39 Wjcandee : You need to check your premises a little bit. The A330 didn't make the 767 "obsolete". Indeed, it's still in production, although most airlines will
40 Wjcandee : The A321 is a very comfortable aircraft inside (mmmm....wider), particularly in 1st on US. It is, however, a lead sled when you're talking about tran
41 Molykote : Yes. No. At least not more so than other narrowbus. An A321 may have to stop occasionally but the A320 is going to be stopping first about 10% shorte
42 Wjcandee : But that's not saying much. Yes, the 319 and the 321 have more range than the A320, but given that this is a 757 vs. 321 thread, the point is that it
43 Ward86IND : Then why say it? I made an incorrect assumption without doing the research and already acknowledged it after many people pointed it out. Ummmmm......
44 Phllax : RoseFlyer- Look at when the 757 was introduced and first started flying. At that time - early 80's, airlines with 707 and DC8 fleets were beginning t
45 N1120A : Wrong, as pointed out above No, it actually holds about 10-20 fewer passengers in a 2 class config and is certified to about 20 fewer The 753 was off
46 USPIT10L : Interesting info, FCYTravis. I knew that 321s had hot/high problems in places like LAS and possibly SLC (if/when US goes there from PHL/CLT), but I d
47 Post contains images Molykote : What in your opinion would have been the right sized engine? Can't A321s be had with ~33k of thrust? Given this and the additional MTOW of a 757, the
48 Phllax : Had those flights even started they were to be operated with the 757, but Bankruptcy 2 halted that plan.
49 Ward86IND : I was aware of the 767-200, 300, 300ER, and 400. When I heard that the -200ER was still in production, I assumed that it was a new variant of the old
50 FCYTravis : When they go there (and it's more likely when) it won't be with anything nearly as big as an A321... probably an A320/A321.
51 Wjcandee : Well...I don't know, but wouldn't be surprised to find that the A321 has the best CASM of any single-aisle jetliner *currently in production* (now th
52 Wjcandee : I'm not being snippy, just wondering if you meant an "A320/A319".
53 Columba : Actually there is two: Spirit flies them as well. But agree it is not much in comparison with all the A321s flying around in Europe and all the A319s
54 Post contains images FCYTravis : Oops. Yes, I did
55 SDLSimme : Since the A332 is quite a lot bigger than the 762ER, they probably went for the Boeing because they didn't need the capacity of the A332. Also (pleas
56 Post contains links and images Scorpio : Hardly any. I don't think any passenger version of the -200ER has been built in years. The only ones still in production now are for the tanker versi
57 Andaman : Finnair use their 757s only for 'holiday flights', their charter division have 7 B757-200s.
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...
Comparing 757 Vs A340 Looks posted Sat Nov 11 2006 17:21:32 by BOACVC10
Long Haul Seating Differences - 757 Vs. 707/DC-8 posted Tue May 30 2006 00:50:41 by AeroWesty
Iberia's 757 And A321 Range posted Thu May 11 2006 21:52:21 by OB1504
Cost Per Hour - 757 Vs 737 posted Thu Jan 12 2006 00:23:00 by FLY777UAL
BMI 757 Vs Continental 757 posted Wed Sep 28 2005 20:13:00 by Planesailing
Seating Charts Help (MD-83, 757,A340,A321) posted Sun Jun 19 2005 19:24:03 by Airportmanager
739 Vs. 752 Vs. A321? posted Tue Oct 12 2004 06:41:45 by Wilax
757 Vs. 727 posted Fri Jul 16 2004 07:16:48 by KingGeo3
757 Or A321 posted Mon May 3 2004 23:42:49 by UNITED777300
757's & A321's posted Sun Feb 22 2004 16:46:10 by UNITED777300