Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A321 USairways The Only Airline That Has Them?  
User currently offlineAdman737 From Ecuador, joined Sep 2007, 86 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14075 times:

Any US airlines have the A321 other then USairways? Why arent they that populare?

109 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyTUITravel From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 723 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14083 times:

Maybe because it doesn't live up to the B757s performance so it will always take a back seat? Just a thought

User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3764 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14068 times:

Huge fleets of 757s probably have something to do with it. But I believe Spirit has a couple A321s as well.

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11405 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14057 times:



Quoting Adman737 (Thread starter):
Any US airlines have the A321 other then USairways?

Spirit has a few, but has also gotten rid of a few.

Quoting Adman737 (Thread starter):
Why arent they that populare?

They're just not that great a plane compared with their competition, 757s. The main draw of the A321 is that, for operators who already fly other A320-family aircraft like the A319 or A320, it is very common (standard cockpit, ratings, layouts, etc.). However, it's technical capabilities are lacking in some key ways - range chief among them. A321s often have trouble making it all the way across the U.S. nonstop both directions year-round. US has had particular problems with this since their A321s were stupidly "Tempefied" (i.e., F shrunk and Y expanded). This has lead to heavier A321s with more people and more bags, and thus they sometimes have to make tech stops in DEN, SLC, etc. for fuel during the summer.


User currently offlineAdman737 From Ecuador, joined Sep 2007, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14035 times:

I was thinking about that its almost the size of the 757 well i dont wanna say almost cause the 757 still makes the A321 look like a dwarf. i think i heard the range sucks on it so airlines wanted to stay with the 757. I heard somewhere that the A321 has less range the A318 to the A320. I dont know so can some one clear that up for me.

User currently offlineAdman737 From Ecuador, joined Sep 2007, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14019 times:

You respond fast you answered my question before i posted it lol thanx

User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13981 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
They're just not that great a plane compared with their competition, 757s. The main draw of the A321 is that, for operators who already fly other A320-family aircraft like the A319 or A320, it is very common (standard cockpit, ratings, layouts, etc.). However, it's technical capabilities are lacking in some key ways - range chief among them. A321s often have trouble making it all the way across the U.S. nonstop both directions year-round. US has had particular problems with this since their A321s were stupidly "Tempefied" (i.e., F shrunk and Y expanded). This has lead to heavier A321s with more people and more bags, and thus they sometimes have to make tech stops in DEN, SLC, etc. for fuel during the summer.

For sure the A321 can't do trans-atlantic, but I fly AC's 321s YOW-YVR (1,923 n.m.) year-round and I've never had to tech stop anywhere. I believe the 321 is also deployed on some YUL-YVR (1,994 n.m.) flights as well. I believe it has about the same CASM as a 757 and the DOC is lower. The interior is more comfortable than any 757 I've been in -- although that is largely up to the airline, for example AC's 321 are 24J/142Y.

I think the relative lack of 321s in the US is, as was pointed out, largely due to the huge numbers of 757s already in place. But if you're already operating the 319/320, it's a natural choice.

Apparently AC are looking for a few more 321s as the 762s transition out of the fleet.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11405 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13940 times:



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 6):
For sure the A321 can't do trans-atlantic, but I fly AC's 321s YOW-YVR (1,923 n.m.) year-round and I've never had to tech stop anywhere. I believe the 321 is also deployed on some YUL-YVR (1,994 n.m.) flights as well.

YUL/YYZ/YOW-YVR are both significantly shorter (by several hundred miles) than PHL/BOS/JFK/IAD-LAX/SFO/SAN.


User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13939 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
This has lead to heavier A321s with more people and more bags, and thus they sometimes have to make tech stops in DEN, SLC, etc. for fuel during the summer.

That problem is way overrated. The A321s only make about 20-30 fuel stops a year, when there are particularly strong headwinds. (And they generally stop in MCI, FWIW.) It is an increase of about 50% since Tempe got their hands on them, but it's really an insignificant number in the grand scheme of things.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21488 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13916 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
They're just not that great a plane compared with their competition, 757s.

Unless you count its competition as the 739, in which case the 321 is a very good airplane.

Quoting Adman737 (Reply 4):
i think i heard the range sucks on it so airlines wanted to stay with the 757.

Depends. Range only sucks if need it and don't have it. BA has discovered that the 321 beats the 757 on intra-Europe routes. If you wanted to run high capacity routes up and down the East Coast of the US, a 321 will do it far more efficiently than a 752. Same thing for the West Coast. But with US transcons being as lucrative as they are, airlines need the planes that can reliably fly those routes, and there the 321 is lacking compared to the 757. The 757 isn't that much more expensive than the 321 to justify operating fleets of both, so the 757 tends to win out.

Quoting Adman737 (Reply 4):
I heard somewhere that the A321 has less range the A318 to the A320. I dont know so can some one clear that up for me.

It does. Stretches generally have less range than the original model.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24996 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13898 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
They're just not that great a plane compared with their competition,

Was it intended to compete with the 757?

I thought it was designed to lift more pax than the A320 on similar routes. I'd guess it is something that the European carriers wanted, and it didn't cost a heap to develop.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13900 times:

People always say the 321 is 'almost' the same size as a 757. No it is not, it does not carry as much passengers/payload/baggage/cargo as a 757 as it cant travel anywhere near as far as a 757. It also looks pretty hideous parked aside a 757.

The 321 has got poorer range than the 320, 319 and 318 and almost any other jet come to that. The NG737 can fly further tan the 321!


User currently offlineBoston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13809 times:



Quoting Orion737 (Reply 11):
People always say the 321 is 'almost' the same size as a 757. No it is not, it does not carry as much passengers/payload/baggage/cargo as a 757

The US A321 has a capacity of 180 passengers. The United 757 has a capacity of 182. The A321 has a cabin length of 113 feet, while the 757's is only 4 feet longer. The A321 also has a wider cabin than the 757.

The A321 IS almost as "big" as the 757.



"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21488 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13793 times:



Quoting Orion737 (Reply 11):
The NG737 can fly further tan the 321!

Not the -900. The -600 through -800 can go farther, but that's to be expected, since the 318 through 320 can go farther as well.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13762 times:

The 321 is a range restricted beast then. Also it has perhaprs the worst 'hot and high' performance of any narrow body.

If AC are replacing 762s!! with the 321 then they might have a lot falling into the ocean or leaving a lot of passengers behind on the runway!!


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2211 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13709 times:



Quoting Orion737 (Reply 11):
The 321 has got poorer range than the 320, 319 and 318

It's poorer than the 318 and 319, but better than the 320:
318: 3,200nm
319: 3,700nm
320: 3,000nm
321: 3,050nm

The range is more than enough for BOS-LAX, which is only 2269 nm.

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 11):
The NG737 can fly further tan the 321!

736: 3,050nm
73G: 3,365nm
738: 3,060nm
739ER: 3,200nm (with two aux. tanks, 2,700nm without aux. tanks)



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13691 times:



Quoting Boston92 (Reply 12):
The US A321 has a capacity of 180 passengers. The United 757 has a capacity of 182. The A321 has a cabin length of 113 feet, while the 757's is only 4 feet longer. The A321 also has a wider cabin than the 757.

Interesting. Over in Europe, a BA 757 seats 180, and a BA A321 seats 189. More seats on the A321. Crazy!


User currently offlineCaribbean484 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Jan 2007, 2634 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13691 times:

I remember a time in the caribbean the A321s could not fly nonstop POS-JFK(1990nm) for the then BWIA year round. It had to do BGI-JFK 1800nm with 172pax. Back then it did more flights to MIA as the distance was something like 1450nm. Basically, it had a high pax load but poor range performance and was then sublease to another airline.

What about the 737-900ER it was a range of 3200nm at 2 auxillary tanks and 3000nm with 1 auxillay, surly it can do the transcon better?



All ah we is one family
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11405 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13675 times:



Quoting Mariner (Reply 10):
Was it intended to compete with the 757?

No, which is largely why it hasn't done that well in the U.S., a market that was made for the 757 - and one that has had a long love affair with that airframe.


User currently offlineBoston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13674 times:



Quoting RedChili (Reply 15):
321: 3,050nm

The range is more than enough for BOS-LAX, which is only 2269 nm.

That range is in a typical seating config and max range, which US has neither. The A321 has trouble doing PHL-LAX in some cases.



"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13661 times:

Probably the 321 performs like it looks, poorly and underpowered. Also I agree its ridiculous that BA configure the 321 with more seats than the much larger 757. Foe example, charter ailines in UK fly 757s with 235 seats yet 321 is at the most 220 seats, usually less.

User currently offlineEGNR From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 508 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13613 times:



Quoting LHR777 (Reply 16):
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 12):
The US A321 has a capacity of 180 passengers. The United 757 has a capacity of 182. The A321 has a cabin length of 113 feet, while the 757's is only 4 feet longer. The A321 also has a wider cabin than the 757.

Interesting. Over in Europe, a BA 757 seats 180, and a BA A321 seats 189. More seats on the A321. Crazy!

The UK charter carriers squeeze 220 pax on the A321, and around 230-235 on the 757-200...



7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2211 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13596 times:



Quoting Orion737 (Reply 20):
the much larger 757. Foe example, charter ailines in UK fly 757s with 235 seats yet 321 is at the most 220 seats, usually less.

I find it interesting that, in one sentence, you claim that the 757 is "much" larger, and in the next sentence, your figures reveal that the 321 is only 6 percent smaller than the 757.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13524 times:

Yes I wasnt taking into account the cargo, underfloor area. the 757 can handle all pax bags over a full payload, the 321 has all on to handle passenger bags, the 757 can handle passenger bags and extra cargo. Big difference in upper weight limits/payload as well as seating.

User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13505 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 7):
YUL/YYZ/YOW-YVR are both significantly shorter (by several hundred miles) than PHL/BOS/JFK/IAD-LAX/SFO/SAN.

YUL-YVR is 1,994 n.n., JFK-LAX is 2,151 n.m. Difference is 157 n.m. Source: Great Circle Mapper. Check it out.
I think the 321 can do it, might be weight-limited though, esp. in winter.

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 14):
The 321 is a range restricted beast then. Also it has perhaprs the worst 'hot and high' performance of any narrow body.

If AC are replacing 762s!! with the 321 then they might have a lot falling into the ocean or leaving a lot of passengers behind on the runway!!

Hot and high performance does suck, agreed. That's when you see some of the bags not showing up at destination.

I think all (7 ?) remaining 762s are ERs. Some go to low-yield stations in Europe, usually seasonal routes like AMS & MAD, one is used for BOG & LIM (each 3x weekly), and some domestically. Those would be the ones targeted for replacement by 321s. BOG could be reached by a 321, although on the return leg to YYZ it would likely have to weight-limit due to Eldorado airport's altitude. LIM can't be reached by a 321 -- maybe not by a 319 either. AC's 319s were delivered w/o the automated luggage system (bins) so they would be light enough to be certified for YHZ-YVR (2,399 n.m.) year-round w/o load limits. The bin system, although very convenient for load/off-load, does add a lot of weight.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25 Mariner : I think that may be the heart of it. I assume that Boeing listens greatly to it's home base customers - the US airlines - as to what they want, and t
26 CRJ900 : Scandinavian charter carriers fly 211 pax Oslo-Canary islands on the A321, the distance is about the same, OSL-LPA as PHL-SFO, about 2200 nm. OSL-LPA
27 RoseFlyer : No one has commented on the fact that the A321 didn't come out until 1997. The plane was offered about 10 years after the A320, so that is definitely
28 RedChili : A couple of years ago, I was actually on a DK A321 ARN-LPA-ARN, which is 2342 nm. A six hour nightmare on a 321 with 211 seats!!!
29 Post contains images Connies4ever : Excellent point ! Just checking on-line indicates A321 got its' type certificate in Dec 93, so likely EIS was shortly after that. But I do agree that
30 MCOflyer : When I asked the crew of US A321, that crew said they prefer it for some reason. Con someone explain why? Kinghunter
31 Flighty : Correct point. The A321 is superior to the 757 in maintenance costs and fuel economy. So, it is a superior airplane unless you are flying over 2,200
32 Post contains links CitationJet : USAir flight 965 from PHL to SFO has stopped for fuel 7 times in the past four months. They stopped in MCI once, DEN three times and PHX three times.
33 Post contains images Leskova : ... ... not really, but if if it makes you feel better if you post nonsense like that, then go right ahead. Whether the B757 or the A321 looks better
34 US330 : There's also the fact that, as some has previously mentioned, the A321 lacks power and performance for hot and high operations. "Hot and high" isn't t
35 Mariner : And if it was built with primarily European (and Asian) operators in mind, I don't see the problem. mariner
36 Captaink : Different conditions at 37000ft? And if I remember correctly that was the -100, the first version of the the 321 without the aux fuel tanks. JM uses
37 RoseFlyer : My apologies as I was referring to the A321-200. The -100 entered service in 1994 but could never have worked in the US due to it having the range of
38 Post contains images LHR777 : That's a bit strong, isn't it? We're all entitled to our opinions on here, right or wrong.
39 AirNZ : Now that's not exactly true, and somewhat selectively distorted. The A321 was not designed as a direct competitor to the 757 and both have entirely d
40 Mariner : I think the the thread title reflects that view. US is not the only airline that has them. US may be the only US airline that has them (hello, Spirit
41 N1120A : Fuel stops are not the only issue. Weight restrictions, which were happening out of LAS and PHX even before the merger and increased capacity, are. F
42 Post contains images Flighty : As much as we A321 supporters may favor the aircraft, the problem of transcons remains. Airbus SHOULD have designed its A321 and A320 to perform US tr
43 Post contains images Mariner : It is a member of the A320 family, none of which were designed to compete with the 757. The 757 is out on its own - it is not a member of, say, the 7
44 PlaneHunter : You haven't checked the customer list along with total orders lately, have you? It's very competitive if an airline already has A32X family aircraft
45 Boston92 : It was never about capacity. It was about size...where cabin width does have something to do. My entire point was that the A321 is similar in size to
46 Scbriml : Well, this degenerated to the usual, futile A321 vs 757 "debate". As others have pointed out, the A321 can do about 80-85% of the 757's mission profil
47 Viscount724 : The 321 is mainly operated by carriers that also operate other members of the 320 family which significantly reduces training costs and permits the sa
48 Post contains images CO787EWR : The 757 wins in the flexibility category; you can throw it on various types of routes and it will perform. The A321 is a great aircraft it can perform
49 Orion737 : Is AC seriously considering the 321 as a replacement for remianing 762ERs??? The 762s go to hot and high South American destinations and till recently
50 Viscount724 : Other threads have mentioned that AC may be looking for a small number of 321s to replace older 762s that were mainly used on domestic routes which c
51 ERJ : " target=_blank>http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...story True... it has stopped 7 times... but those 3 PHX stops were not tech, those were Super
52 Post contains images Gigneil : Opinions are one thing. Filling a thread with 20 posts of nothing is not. That is NOT true. The 3700 nm range is a standard A319. Not even an A319LR.
53 Post contains images Connies4ever : You're quite right about the -200 EIS, which is the version AC has. So perhaps I owe you one... I don't see that the A320 has a problem. Again, AC us
54 Viscount724 : There's no way a standard A319 without extra tanks can operate 3700 nm with a full passenger load and normal reserve fuel. The Airbus site seems to s
55 A318 : Can you board through door 2L on the A321?
56 A330323X : Yes, but US doesn't like to do it, as the jetway comes too close for comfort to the engine nacelle.
57 Post contains images Kappel : And that's what counts. The a321 has sold very well, even with the advent of the 739ER, that are mostly sold to one carrier (Lion Air). So I guess th
58 Ikramerica : To answer the actual question: The A321-200 came on too late for most US carriers to buy it. They had already purchased their second wave of 757s. Add
59 AT : While it is certainly valid to compare the 757 with the A321, and it is also of note that the two aircraft were never intended to compete with each ot
60 Gilesdavies : The discussions of A321 v 757-200, gets extremely boring when it has been discussed to death on here! If you care to do a search you will see many thr
61 N1120A : Actually, it is the A319ER, which uses ACJ/A319LR parts. If you want to compare limited run models, why not just do the 73GER and the A319LR, where t
62 Adman737 : Are there any US airlines considering the A321?
63 Hypercott : Oh, Is this why LH/Private Air operate 2 A319LR and only one of the special 737s? Can you quote some numbers?
64 Gigneil : Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. The A319LR features up to 4500nm of range in the standard offered config. As to fuel consumption, I've
65 A330323X : Well, US has been placing add-on orders for the darn things every six months or so, and converting A319/A320 orders to A321 orders, so I'd say they'r
66 N1120A : The "special" 737 PrivatAir operates is actually a BBJ. I find Avitas about as reliable as the A.net database. And the 73GER offers over 5000nm in th
67 Gigneil : Ok well then, please, provide me with some alternate numbers. LOL! No, it doesn't! I really, REALLY want to see a source for that. I still love you,
68 Post contains links N1120A : http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec3.pdf
69 Gigneil : K, I reviewed it thoroughly, and with any payload at all with winglets it hits in at 3400nm. At 3900nm the plane maybe some fuel. At MTOW its slightly
70 Panman : I'll remember that next time I have to change yet another seat track in an Airbus. It's a given that if we lift the floorboards in the wet areas on o
71 Absimilliard : Actually, AC 321 now have a configuration of 20J/154Y. When they did the XM project, they removed one row of J seats and the coat lockers between the
72 Post contains images Nwarooster : The only thing a A321 has over a 757 is you can still buy them new. Few 757s will go to the bone yard as they are being rediscovered and winglet-ed to
73 Flighty : The FedEd thing is by far the more significant factor. Freight can soak up virtually the entire 757 fleet. Atlantic ETOPS flying has pretty much alre
74 LACA773 : Is TA happy with their 321s? It seems this is a great a/c for them since they already have the 32X family minus the 318s and they do need more capcity
75 Tancrede : Do any 737s or 757s have to stop, also, when there is the season of strong headwinds in the USA, or is it only the “privilege” of the sole A321?
76 ReverseThrust : One of the Spirit A321's (N583NK) has just been taken on by Monarch as G-OZBR. I think the A321's are great and I've flown on loads - but you can't be
77 Pictues : the 3 Air Canada got rid of were the Ex-Air France birds, i believe they were the -100 and did not have the range of the AC ordered planes -200's. Al
78 GCT64 : After reading this thread last night, it was interesting to see the following parked next to each other at LTN this morning: N586NK A321 - to join Mon
79 Gigneil : 737s, yes. 757s, no. NS
80 Orion737 : The 321 should never have been a transon aircraft nor attempted to be deployed on such missions.
81 ERJ : 757's do occassionally have to tech stop... although rare, it does happen. So to say they never do is a fallacy. It all depends on loading, winds, ru
82 Orion737 : If the 757 has to make a tech stop. the 321 is 10 times more likely to require a tech stop
83 EA772LR : I am always boggled about how and why the 321 is so underpowered: 2 32-33Klb thrust engines with a 205k MTOW. That sounds like a favorable thrust to w
84 Post contains images Kappel : Or the 753 . But agreed, for those missions (if you can fill the plane of course), these are the aircraft to look to.
85 Gigneil : Can I please see your numbers? NS
86 Orion737 : Everone knows the 757 has superior range compared to the 321. That is why one does transat flights and the other would drop in the Atlantic en-route.
87 Gigneil : Unfortunately, common sense seems to be missing as well. This is a forum for factual discussion. When you have some, please present it. Not flaming yo
88 Post contains images Leskova : While LX's new seats are thinner than the old ones, they're - unfortunately - much less comfortable as well, in my opinion: I'm always glad when I bo
89 Gigneil : The majority of the problem with more performance, of course, is the wing. Both the 737-900ER and A321 have revised wing devices to help get them off
90 Egmcman : IIRC these were -211's leased from ILFC. Orion thats called aesthetics, beauty is in eye of beholder. That's down to carrier the manufacturers offer
91 Viscount724 : Additional fuel tanks are available. BMI's A321s (inherited with their purchase of BA's former franchise partner BMED) have no trouble operating nons
92 Xtoler : I see the point of flying A321's for the amount of pax on short hops. The more I read into it, the more it seems Airbus really wasn't trying to compet
93 Gigneil : Indeed, and the US birds have them. Still causes a smidge of trouble during the heaviest weathered months. I wonder if the difference really is cargo
94 Post contains images EA772LR : Which is what I've always thought. I've seen plenty of videos of 321 takeoffs, and none seemed out of the ordinary to me. The 321 is a terrific aircr
95 Orion737 : Not only was the 321 not designed for transat, they were never designed for transcon either, hence US Airways problems operating them on such missions
96 EXAAUADL : The A321 is a perfectly designed aircraft for crowded European skies. Say Airline X serves LHR 5x daily with A320s and cannot get anymore slots for mo
97 Orion737 : So would I, especially from canada. AC wont be able to substitute the 766 with the 321 on services to Carribean or South America with a full payload a
98 Flighty : Okay, people have said that 100 times. Probably true too. But how could Airbus ignore the fact that the USA operates so many 1,000s of narrowbodies..
99 Mariner : They don't ignore it, but for Airbus, anything they sell in the US is a bonus. Three of the major US airlines have a stated preference for Boeing - n
100 Gigneil : Can I have some examples? How many tech stops do they get, on what routes, and what is the total percentage of flights. Further, what is the cost of
101 Connies4ever : The ex-AF birds were a problem for ops, as they didn't have the mid-body lav, and didn't have a full-service galley. AF used them on ORY-NCE/LYS/MRS
102 Connies4ever : Don't be so sure of yourself. I believe the only missions the 321 might have a problem with are YYZ-POS & YYZ-CCS. All other destinations ex-YYZ (i.e
103 Mir : 737s do from time to time. 757s have the range to do transcons nonstop in all but the very worst wind conditions. Didn't they try this and discover t
104 Gigneil : On the A320, aye. The ACT is almost necessary on the A321, which has different wing config and much more thrust. NS
105 Brons2 : I'm a Boeing fan but credit where credit is due. The wider aisle is awfully nice, I have to admit. When I flew EasyJet in the EU on the A319 I was ab
106 Bobnwa : Since NWA flies no transcons, the A321 would be perfect for them as all their domestic hubs are in the center of the country. In the early 90's NWA d
107 Mir : Absolutely. That would allow them to move some more 752s to transatlantic routes. Now if only they weren't flat broke and could order some. -Mir
108 Flighty : I agree completely.
109 Boston92 : What I don't agree with is why Northwest has all their domestic hubs in the center of the country.
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...
Is SFO The Only Airport That Has A Spotters Club? posted Tue Jun 26 2001 01:29:17 by 777-500ER
OA The Only Airline Serve Meals On Short Flights? posted Fri Mar 7 2008 11:47:43 by EL-AL
Is United The Only Airline Offering Audio On..? posted Sat Feb 10 2007 00:56:43 by AirCanada014
Was WN Meant To Be The Only Airline On TV? posted Wed Jan 25 2006 14:57:20 by AirCanada014
Is BA The Only Airline To Do This? posted Fri Dec 31 2004 02:06:21 by AAFLT1871
Why Is CO The Only Legacy That Forages New Routes? posted Mon Sep 27 2004 03:59:11 by Cory6188
Know An Airline That Has Its Little Quirks? posted Fri Sep 3 2004 00:14:08 by Flybyguy
Jetblue The Only Airline Wif Cable? posted Sat Nov 1 2003 19:34:33 by Asianguy767
Is AA The Only Airline W/ All 4 Fleet Types? posted Wed Jul 30 2003 01:33:27 by 727LOVER
Planes Retired W/same Airline That Bought Them New posted Mon Jun 2 2003 09:06:45 by IslandHopper