peterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 229 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 20774 times:
I was just looking at the range of the A320 and the A320 Neo, at 3000nm and 3600nm respectively. The 737NG / Max also seems to have a similar range of 3100/3700nm depending on the version. So, given that JFK-LON is 3000nm, I.. was wondering if an airline based in the northeast corner of the US (like Jet Blue, for example) could start to offer transatlantic flights to Europe and what other new low cost routes might become possible.
eaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 956 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 20749 times:
Iceland is probably the only place where the A320NEO and B737MAX can be used for Trans-Atlantic travel. Icelandair has already bought 16 of them for this purpose.
peterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 20299 times:
But if the NEO and the MAX have a range of 3600nm, then from New York a lot of major European cities such as London, Paris, Frankfurt etc are reachable. That would make it possible for an airline like Jet Blue or Southwest to offer 2 or 3 cities in Europe to connect to their domestic networks. And on the European side, an airline like Easyjet or Ryanair could offer flights from London Stansted - New York, Boston or Toronto. On the face of it, 3600nm looks like enough range to do the trip comfortably without any restrictions, or am I wrong about that?
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20089 times:
Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 4): But if the NEO and the MAX have a range of 3600nm, then from New York a lot of major European cities such as London, Paris, Frankfurt etc are reachable. That would make it possible for an airline like Jet Blue or Southwest to offer 2 or 3 cities in Europe to connect to their domestic networks. And on the European side, an airline like Easyjet or Ryanair could offer flights from London Stansted - New York, Boston or Toronto. On the face of it, 3600nm looks like enough range to do the trip comfortably without any restrictions, or am I wrong about that?
SEA-HNL are 2326 for comparison
LHR-JFK are 2999 nm on the great circle
CDG-JFK are 3158
FRA-JFK are 3350 nm
Perhaps LHR, but give it a bad headwind and I would not like it.
The B 757-200 used for flights like this, has a range of 3900 nm without and 4100 nm with winglets.
It still would hardly make the middle European destinations.
If we talk about fewer passengers (reduced loads) business class only, than perhaps.
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20073 times:
Quoting eaa3 (Reply 1): Iceland is probably the only place where the A320NEO and B737MAX can be used for Trans-Atlantic travel. Icelandair has already bought 16 of them for this purpose.
ely747 From Slovakia, joined Jan 2013, 79 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20065 times:
Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 4): But if the NEO and the MAX have a range of 3600nm, then from New York a lot of major European cities such as London, Paris, Frankfurt etc are reachable.
However this significantly reduces taking into account strong headwinds over the North Atlantic. Not so long ago United used to operate a 757-200 on AMS-IAD and CDG-IAD sector. Flying westbound in winter months especially, unscheduled fuel stops were quite regular occurrence. Also remember SouthWest and likes use a single class configuration which may not be economically viable on long haul routes, but I suppose this is a subject on its own.
That would be the airline match-up of the century.
Going off the numbers the OP put for the MAX and NEO, GCM shows that they can reach western Poland. I doubt they will be able to pull that off everyday year round but that is very impressive for these aircraft. Maybe we will finally see FR start that TATL operation and WN invade Europe.
Does this also mean that the 757s TATL days are over?
There's nothing like the smell of Jet-A in the morning. It smells like... VICTORY!!!
debonair From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19604 times:
Quoting peterinlisbon (Thread starter): I was just looking at the range of the A320 and the A320 Neo, at 3000nm and 3600nm respectively. The 737NG / Max also seems to have a similar range of 3100/3700nm depending on the version.
There is a slight error in the thinking, you have also account for the ETOPS regulations...
Quoting eaa3 (Reply 1): Iceland is probably the only place where the A320NEO and B737MAX can be used for Trans-Atlantic travel.
As said, Icelandair has just ordered B737MAX, but on top, WOW AIR will start shortly A321 routes to the USA and is a likely A320NEO candidate...
JoKeR From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2152 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 19372 times:
Aircraft range - the possibility to actually cover a given distance is one thing. Being able to do it profitably (long flight and few seats to sell) is another; you only have so much revenue to earn while still facing costs of a long-haul flight. That's why the 762s were so difficult to make money with on long sectors. Boeing 757s are a league of their own and cannot be compared to 320s and 737NGs.
With regards to doing it, Air Canada flew from East Coast to LHR with A319s during summer peak months and BA fly their Airbus 318 across the Atlantic every day, twice daily from LCY via SNN on the way to JFK - and non-stop on the return leg.
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 19345 times:
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 9): That would be the airline match-up of the century.
Going off the numbers the OP put for the MAX and NEO, GCM shows that they can reach western Poland. I doubt they will be able to pull that off everyday year round but that is very impressive for these aircraft. Maybe we will finally see FR start that TATL operation and WN invade Europe.
Does this also mean that the 757s TATL days are over?
You can not just take the range of the air plane and look at the great circle mapper.
3000 nm with reserves is about maximum for a frame having a range of 3600 nm.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, RR: 13 Reply 13, posted (2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19220 times:
Let's not forget Privat Air, which did contract flying for LH out of mainly DUS, to (I believe) ORD and IAD, also MUC to IAD I believe. These were operated by all-J BBJs. I think there was also a service from AMS to IAH. The BBJ is not quite the 73G, but close. Sadly, these premium services seem now to have shifted to the oil fields in West Africa and also to service ME destinations.
Not quite regular airline service, for sure. Privat Air have ordered 5 CS100s,with 5 options. BBD have stated that the CS100 will be certified for LCY operations and will be capable of LCY-JFK nonstop in an all-J config.
ManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 2971 posts, RR: 51 Reply 14, posted (2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19154 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13): Let's not forget Privat Air, which did contract flying for LH out of mainly DUS, to (I believe) ORD and IAD, also MUC to IAD I believe. These were operated by all-J BBJs. I think there was also a service from AMS to IAH.
PrivatAir also used their 737 on the ZRH-EWR route.
GCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1104 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18160 times:
I think we should fully expect to see NEOs and MAXs on TATL flights - my guess is that the A321NEO will be the pioneer as it seems to have the range, some pretty impressive CASM economics and is likely to be in the fleets of the likely contenders for Ireland/Northern UK to NE US operations such as JetBlue, EI, Easyjet.
I can't see them coming as far as London in the early days, my guess is that they will start appearing on routes such as MAN-BOS, DUB/SNN-BOS, GLA/EDI-New York. I'm hoping for an EDI-BOS as that would suit my company really well
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17688 times:
I think we should expect A319/320neo and B 737-8MAX rather than A321 neo and B 737-9MAX.
The smaller frames have the longer legs.
The neo version of the A319 LR for example.
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1004 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17128 times:
As others have said, quoted maximum ranges are based on still-air distance, and the air over the North Atlantic is anything but still, especially in winter.
To give you an example:
LHR-JFK is 2999NM.
Cruising speed for the A320 would be about 450 knots (nautical miles per hour), so we would have a still-air travel time of about 6 hours, 40 minutes (leaving aside climb and descent for simplicity's sake).
Now imagine we've got a good jetstream blowing, so there's a headwind of 100 knots. This reduces our speed-over-ground by 100 knots to 350 knots, giving an adjusted travel time of 8 hours, 34 minutes.
If we now multiply 8h34m by our cruising speed of 450 knots, we'll come to a theoretical in-air distance of 3857NM which the aircraft would have to be able to cover.
Quite a difference, isn't it?
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6873 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 16938 times:
I don't expect the A320NEO on TATL routes but the A321NEO will, I am sure. By the way, this topic has been discussed extensively in other threads. Routes like BOS/NYC-UK, BOS/NYC-Ireland, BOS/NYC-LIS, BOS-AMS/BRU/CDG/CGN/HAM/DUS and similar will all be in range for the A321NEO.
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15840 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 18): I don't expect the A320NEO on TATL routes but the A321NEO will, I am sure. By the way, this topic has been discussed extensively in other threads. Routes like BOS/NYC-UK, BOS/NYC-Ireland, BOS/NYC-LIS, BOS-AMS/BRU/CDG/CGN/HAM/DUS and similar will all be in range for the A321NEO.
If you add fuel stops yes. Flyingalex just explained it.
Why the A 321neo rather than the A 320neo?
Has the A 330-300 more range than the A 330-200?
Or the 777-300 more range than the 777-200?
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 100 Reply 20, posted (2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14798 times:
Airbus and Pratt are working to make later A321NEOs TATL capable. The minimum range customers wish to discuss is 3900nm and they want more. When it is done, the CASM will be *very* competitive. I fully expect the -8MAX to gain enough range for TATL.
Right now, the PW1100G looks like it should have 3% lower fuel burn than what was used for the 3,650nm extimate. That implies 3,775nm range. A little weight savings... an engine PIP, and airframe aerodynamic PIP and we're almost at 3900nm. Put in a little more fuel (higher MTOW which requires more hot takeoff thrust) and we're at 4,100nm.
Quoting peterinlisbon (Thread starter): could start to offer transatlantic flights to Europe and what other new low cost routes might become possible.
It will happen. Its a question of when. US air was the primary proponent of the customers... so I'm not sure how the AMR merger will impact that planning.
Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 5): Boston-Dublin is just 2600nm, perhaps Ryanair would want to take that on?
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 6): The B 757-200 used for flights like this, has a range of 3900 nm without and 4100 nm with winglets.
It still would hardly make the middle European destinations.
It wouldn't be a complete takeover of TATL, but enough to justify the project.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 19): Why the A 321neo rather than the A 320neo?
Lower CASM, about the same range.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 19): Has the A 330-300 more range than the A 330-200?
With the latest range improvements, A333 sales now are greater than A332 sales. It is the best costs to do enough of the missions.
That would be the airline match-up of the century.
I doubt it.....FR would floor SWA. FR have taken the SWA model to the limits......FR give you nothing, while SWA are a friendly bunch. FR set out to charge you more from the very start.
SWA flight attendants are paid very well, while FR pay their's the legal minimum, FR pilots are all contractors and easily droppable if required.
I agree that it is logical to push the range of the A 321, but we will not see 4,000 nm on the first iteration of the A 321neo and I think it will be difficult to push 4.000 nm + without going for a higher MTOW and than one needs to have a look at the wings.
It is a completely different proposition for the A 320. You will have the same advantages out of new engines, aerodynamics and so on.To increase MTOW one could use the stuff out of the A 321, as there is changes to the wingbox, wings and landing gear.
Bingo, well over 4.000 nm and they could offer it from the first days of the neo.
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1004 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13505 times:
Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 21): I doubt it.....FR would floor SWA. FR have taken the SWA model to the limits......FR give you nothing, while SWA are a friendly bunch. FR set out to charge you more from the very start.
SWA flight attendants are paid very well, while FR pay their's the legal minimum, FR pilots are all contractors and easily droppable if required.
Ryanair definitely has a competitive cost base, but the customer experience is piss-poor. You might be able to put with their antics on a shorthaul flight, but all the way across the Atlantic? I don't care how cheap they'd be, I'd rather swim than fly Ryanair for that long.
Additionally, keep in mind that trans-Atlantic ops would require nightstops for the crew, something which is anathema to Ryanair's model. I doubt we will seriously see them pursuing longhaul operations, at least not within their current operational setup.
Southwest are, as you said "a friendly bunch". I'd have no qualms at all flying trans-Atlantic with them.
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 1999 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13575 times:
While the B737-700 may have the range for EWR-SNN/DUB/BFS/GLA/EDI and even open EWR-ABZ/NCL/CWL/NQY/SCQ; We don't believe we'll see UA having a sub-fleet of B737-700 to cover those transatlantic routes.
And a (albeit sort of minor) point against those routes w/B737-700 is the strong head-winds when flying westbound sometimes per year.
I wish I'd see U2 flying BFS-BOS and/or GLA-YHZ with A319 (range-wise better than A320, but none on its fleet).
awthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13216 times:
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13):
Let's not forget Privat Air, which did contract flying for LH out of mainly DUS, to (I believe) ORD and IAD, also MUC to IAD I believe. These were operated by all-J BBJs. I think there was also a service from AMS to IAH.
PrivatAir also used their 737 on the ZRH-EWR route.
The following flights (there may have been more) were operated by PrivatAir using Boeing 737/A319.
DLH 412 MUC-EWR often using HB-IIQ B737-7CN/W BBJ
DLH 424 MUC-BOS mainly using D-APBB B737-8Q8/W
DLH 484 FRA-EWR also using HB-IIQ B737-7CN/W BBJ
KLM 663 AMS-IAH mainly using HB-JJA B737-7AK BBJ
SWR 18 ZRH-EWR mainly using HB-IIR B737-86Q
Also:
DLH 408 DUS-EWR
DLH 436 DUS-ORD
- were operated for a period using D-APAC & D-APAD both A319-132LR.
Confusing numbers there! Hope I typed them all correctly!
EagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1616 posts, RR: 2 Reply 27, posted (2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13372 times:
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 24): Ryanair definitely has a competitive cost base, but the customer experience is piss-poor. .........I'd rather swim than fly Ryanair for that long.
......I doubt we will seriously see them pursuing longhaul operations, at least not within their current operational setup.
Southwest are, as you said "a friendly bunch". I'd have no qualms at all flying trans-Atlantic with them.
Valid points, I would fully agree with you. But it seems that some people (70m last year) only look at up front fare prices
peterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11906 times:
Just looking at some more great circle distances out of Boston. With 3600nm range, it looks like quite a few European cities would be comfortably reach, even allowing an extra 1000nm for reserves, headwinds etc.
BOS-DUB 2601nm
BOS-EDI 2667nm
BOS-LON 2837nm
And, although I guess St Johns is not a very popular destination, it's still in Canada, and from Dublin it's actually about the same distance as the Canary Islands, so probably it's doable with even today's 737s. A flight of about 3h45m on Ryanair, perhaps. That's not too bad!
ghYHZ From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11487 times:
Astraeus also flew to YYT in the mid 2000s after Air Canada ended the Transatlantic service from YYT and began flying the YHZ-LHR route nonstop. A year or so later Air Canada was back with the seasonal YYT-LHR A319 service.
(.....and a funny story. We were skiing at the Marble Mountain Resort near Deer Lake and got to talking to a couple who had come over on the Astraeus flight from LGW. They thought they were up near Greenland and were quite surprised when I told them they were actually further south than London (Deer Lake is at 49.2 deg. N......London is at 51.3 N)
ghYHZ From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11301 times:
Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 32): And, although I guess St Johns is not a very popular destination.......
There’s a recent Trip Report (link below) by palmjet on Air Canada's LHR-YYT A319 service with some nice photos of St. John for those not familiar with this great unspoilt destination.
SCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11153 times:
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 24): Ryanair definitely has a competitive cost base, but the customer experience is piss-poor. You might be able to put with their antics on a shorthaul flight, but all the way across the Atlantic? I don't care how cheap they'd be, I'd rather swim than fly Ryanair for that long.
Additionally, keep in mind that trans-Atlantic ops would require nightstops for the crew, something which is anathema to Ryanair's model. I doubt we will seriously see them pursuing longhaul operations, at least not within their current operational setup.
Southwest are, as you said "a friendly bunch". I'd have no qualms at all flying trans-Atlantic with them.
I can't see Southwest flying to Europe either. They are a very American company... they barely fly to some sun destinations in Mexico/the Caribbean. I am maybe assuming too much, but I don't think WN customer base (if that exists) is the kind of people that flies regularly to Europe on vacation (which would be the first target of low-cost TATL operations). Nor I think Southwest style would triumph in Europe (yet that is also arguable, seen how FR is successful there ).
I think JetBlue would be the perfect candidate. They are strong and loved in BOS and NYC, which have two of the most educated and international-minded customer base in the US. And in terms of distances and demand, New York and Boston would be the perfect candidates to start with low-cost TATL service.
They are also strong in MCO and FLL, which are potential low-cost destinations for European tourists. And I think their smart design and friendly image would be very easy to transfer to the European customer (I mean JetBlue could be perfectly an European or Asian air carrier as it is today... Southwest... I doubt it).
If they get planes with longer range they could also eventually go further into LATAM (Brazil, Peru...; they already fly to Colombia), which has more growing potential than Europe.
TC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (2 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10713 times:
Maybe AC should look to A321neo's for some shorter transatlantic hops, like their current YHZ - LHR service which I'm sure doesn't really need a 763 year-round. Should be suited to thinner routes out of YUL as well, like MAN,GLA,DUB.
BasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1254 posts, RR: 1 Reply 38, posted (2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9309 times:
flyglobespan did UK-Florida with 738's from time to time when the 757's and 767's were leased out or went TEC and nothing else was available.
Don't forget Travel Service, they operate 738's on very long transatlantic routes such as PRG-TER-VRA-CUN-BDA-TER-PRG, PRG-TER-AZS-MBJ-TER-PRG, PRG-TER-VRA-TER-PRG and PRG-TER-POP-PMV-TER-PRG.
[Edited 2013-03-17 14:45:40]
'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
YTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1444 posts, RR: 23 Reply 39, posted (2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9175 times:
Quoting TC957 (Reply 37): Maybe AC should look to A321neo's for some shorter transatlantic hops, like their current YHZ - LHR service which I'm sure doesn't really need a 763 year-round. Should be suited to thinner routes out of YUL as well, like MAN,GLA,DUB.
I got laughed at when I made the same suggestion on another thread. Not YUL, but YHZ where quite a few still have ties to the UK. I think AC (or maybe TS) could do well with a mini-hub at YHZ serving GLA, EDI, MAN, BHX, DUB, and maybe BFS. And connecting those cities to IAD, BOS, EWR, PHL, ORD through UA and to YYZ, YUL and YOW through AC. I would bet this would be a more successful venture than AC Rouge.
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8116 times:
Icelandair does quite a good job out of connecting northern Europe with North America.
To the west they fly this summer to ANC, BOS, DEN, MSP, JFK, SFB, SEA, WAS, YHZ, YTO
They have code sharing with Alaska Airlines.
To the east AMS, BCN, BGO, BLL, BRU, CPH, FRA, GLA, GOT, HAM, HEL, LGW, LHR, MAD, MAN, MXP, MUC, OSL, CDG, LED, ARN, SVG, TRD, ZRH.
Some code sharing with SAS, only certain destinations.
All with a NB fleet. They have kept to the 757. So if you want to fly NBs between North America and Europe you can do it.
They tried 767-300ER to LAX, SFO and NRT, but they had not enough passengers.
They ordered 14 737-800 delivered between 2006 and 2007 but never used them themselves.
They ordered 4 787-8 but transferred 3 orders to Norwegian.
I hope to get to travel in the 16 737MAX they ordered the other day.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10671 posts, RR: 100 Reply 41, posted (2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7824 times:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22): but we will not see 4,000 nm on the first iteration of the A 321neo
Agreed. It will take time and improvements.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22): I think it will be difficult to push 4.000 nm + without going for a higher MTOW and than one needs to have a look at the wings.
I agree on both counts, for a MTOW weight increase on the A321 begs for more wing area.
Yes. But since the A333 gained 5,700nm range, it has handily outsold its longer legged sibling. There just isn't a need for *enough* missions for A332 range. It is a question of pushing up the NEO range enough to boost sales.
Naturally the plane isn't going to fly FCO or ATH to the US.
It won't surprise me to see B6 on those routes early with the A321NEO. Then they'll demand (and pay for) improvement kits to improve the payload/economics as well as open up the next further out markets.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21465 posts, RR: 24 Reply 42, posted (2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7043 times:
Quoting JoKeR (Reply 11): With regards to doing it, Air Canada flew from East Coast to LHR with A319s during summer peak months
Quoting david_itl (Reply 34): Air Canada A319s already do YYT-LHR in rhe summer
But YYT-LHR is only 2012 nm. AC has half a dozen longer nonstop A319 routes.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13): These were operated by all-J BBJs. I think there was also a service from AMS to IAH. The BBJ is not quite the 73G, but close.
Big difference.The BBJ1 (based on 737-700) that Privatair operated AMS-IAH for KLM had almost the maximum number of optional fuel tanks in the cargo compartment. Can't compare a BBJ to a standard 737NG.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13): Sadly, these premium services seem now to have shifted to the oil fields in West Africa and also to service ME destinations.
Privatair no longer operates any all-J class services. The services now operated for LH to various Middle East and India points are now all 2 class (J and Y).
Quoting ManuCH (Reply 14): PrivatAir also used their 737 on the ZRH-EWR route.
Again, that was a BBJ2 (based on 737-800) with significantly longer range than a standard 737-800.
Quoting photoshooter (Reply 23): That cabin looks rather outdated. I would prefer LX business class! I believe they still have the 757/767 from ZRH-EWR/IAH.
LX has never operated ZRH-IAH and their ZRH-EWR service now uses the A330-300. It was A340-300 for some time after the Privatair BBJ service ended more than a year ago.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6873 posts, RR: 7 Reply 43, posted (2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6996 times:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 19): If you add fuel stops yes. Flyingalex just explained it.
Why the A 321neo rather than the A 320neo?
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 31): To do it with an A 321neo or B 737-9MAX is without further development unrealistic.
Do a google search. There is plenty of material available that shows that the A321NEO will be able to fly the shorter TATL routes out of the box (2800nm or less), and that it will easily reach 3000nm with the next PIP. Airbus is selling it as a TATL capable aircraft so they must be pretty sure it can do it.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, RR: 13 Reply 45, posted (2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5917 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 42): Big difference.The BBJ1 (based on 737-700) that Privatair operated AMS-IAH for KLM had almost the maximum number of optional fuel tanks in the cargo compartment. Can't compare a BBJ to a standard 737NG.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13):
Sadly, these premium services seem now to have shifted to the oil fields in West Africa and also to service ME destinations.
Privatair no longer operates any all-J class services. The services now operated for LH to various Middle East and India points are now all 2 class (J and Y).
BBJ vs 73G difference was noted.
A search of the Privat Air site reveals this. Done prior to post.
ghYHZ From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5763 times:
Quoting YTZ (Reply 39): ......I think AC (or maybe TS) could do well with a mini-hub at YHZ serving GLA, EDI, MAN, BHX, DUB, and maybe BFS. And connecting those cities to IAD, BOS, EWR, PHL, ORD through UA
Don’t know if connecting to the US would contravene an agreement between YHZ and BGR when Halifax obtained US CBP Pre-Clearance.
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5685 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 43): Do a google search. There is plenty of material available that shows that the A321NEO will be able to fly the shorter TATL routes out of the box (2800nm or less), and that it will easily reach 3000nm with the next PIP. Airbus is selling it as a TATL capable aircraft so they must be pretty sure it can do it.
If we take TATL serious than we should stop talking about Halifax, Bangor and Dublin.
JFK to LHR is 3,000 nm.
BOS to LHR is 2,837 nm.
So this would be possible in your argument after the first pip of the still to come A 321neo.
If we start talking about the other hubs in Europe
BOS to MAD 2963
BOS to CDG 2997
BOS to FRA 3188
JFK to CDG 3158
JFK to FRA 3350
JFK to MAD 3118
To be able to talk about TATL East Coast North America to Western Europe in a serious way you need at least 4,000 nm range, even that is tight east to west in the winter time.
So yes, we will someday see the A 321neo and the B 737-9max doing it.
But out of the box as the numbers are today you would need a A 319/320neo or the B 737-7 or 8MAX
SCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5645 times:
Quoting YTZ (Reply 39): If we take TATL serious than we should stop talking about Halifax, Bangor and Dublin.
Dublin is a "serious" destination from the US, considering the VFR traffic. Even Shannon sees multiple carriers and destinations in the US (Aer Lingus, Air Transat, Delta, United, US Airways)...
IMO, Dublin would be a top destination for TATL "low-cost" flights since most of this traffic is VFR and tourism. Other top destinations would be secondary cities in Europe from NY that now do not warrant direct service and with smaller planes and lower base cost could be viable. Probably a LON-NYC is already too competitive when there are so many options and good fares available already.
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3648 posts, RR: 1 Reply 49, posted (2 months 4 days ago) and read 5425 times:
Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 48): Other top destinations would be secondary cities in Europe from NY that now do not warrant direct service and with smaller planes and lower base cost could be viable. Probably a LON-NYC is already too competitive when there are so many options and good fares available already.
Bristol UK seemed to have good traffic most of the year, but apparently sCO needed the 757s elsewhere. Bournemouth (pmCO), Stansted (AA), and Dusseldorf (NW) have also been tried with 757s, if I'm not mistaken.
eicvd From Ireland, joined Mar 2008, 2068 posts, RR: 5 Reply 50, posted (2 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5225 times:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 47): If we take TATL serious than we should stop talking about Halifax, Bangor and Dublin.
Explain why we should leave out DUB. As SCQ83 noted all the major North American airlines bar AC have up to 2 times daily flights from their hubs during the summer season at least, even EI have a small hub connecting North America with the UK regions & Europe. Aer Lingus & Dublin should be just as much involved in this topic as Icelandair & their KEF hub.
Dublin, where Sam Maguire will be coming home to in mid September
It'll be curious to see if an agreement between two municipal governments constricts two national governments in any way. As far as I know, there is nothing stopping a passenger from booking a through routing to the US via YHZ today.
Moreover, I don't get what exactly Bangor is trying to protect. They have no scheduled international service today. And they aren't likely to have any in the future. On the other hand if YHZ does develop a small TATL hub, BGR could massively benefit. They would likely see regular AC/AC Express service feeding into a hub that could open up to several TATL destinations, with reduced travel times (compared to backtracking to BOS/PHL/EWR/IAD).
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6873 posts, RR: 7 Reply 52, posted (2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5123 times:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 47): To be able to talk about TATL East Coast North America to Western Europe in a serious way you need at least 4,000 nm range, even that is tight east to west in the winter time.
None sense. DUB, SNN, LON, MAN, BHX, GLA, LIS, PDL, are all serious/realistic, less than 3000nm A321NEO destinations from BOS/PVD/BDL/NYC.
The A321NEO EIS range is currently set at 3,650nm. If Pratt delivers a better than expected fuel burn as has been rumored that will likely extend to around 3,800nm at EIS. As you can see, the A321NEO will be pretty darn close to the 4,000nm range at EIS that you claim is needed.
Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 48): Dublin is a "serious" destination from the US, considering the VFR traffic. Even Shannon sees multiple carriers and destinations in the US (Aer Lingus, Air Transat, Delta, United, US Airways)...
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4275 posts, RR: 36 Reply 53, posted (2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5070 times:
Quoting TC957 (Reply 37): Maybe AC should look to A321neo's for some shorter transatlantic hops, like their current YHZ - LHR service which I'm sure doesn't really need a 763 year-round.
Quoting YTZ (Reply 39): I got laughed at when I made the same suggestion on another thread.
We didn't laugh at you, honest!
One of the main reasons the flight changed from YHZ-YYT-LHR to YHZ-LHR is because YHZ-LHR CAN support a daily B767-300. While always full in the cabin during high season, (summer), in winter load factors rarely go below 75%. However, the real kicker is the cargo carried. It is usually "topped off", and full. Often cargo out of YHZ is backtracked to YUL or YYZ to LHR as the non-stop can't carry it. A 321 on the route would be abysmal!
Quoting YTZ (Reply 39): mini-hub at YHZ serving GLA, EDI, MAN, BHX, DUB, and maybe BFS. And connecting those cities to IAD, BOS, EWR, PHL, ORD through UA and to YYZ, YUL and YOW through AC.
That's assuming the business exists between those markets, and it assumes it is not being presently satisfied. One could pick a hub anywhere, and join up flights. But any time you include a hub, you increase your operating costs by a wide margin.
Quoting YTZ (Reply 39): I would bet this would be a more successful venture than AC Rouge.
If you want the lowest possible seat mile costs, you fly a non-stop flight, and you pack them in tight. Considering Canada for example, and looking at GLA, EDI, MAN, BHX, DUB and BFS you mention, those are all low yield routes. It is far cheaper to fly a non-stop from you market, then to route everyone through a hub.
Bob Crandall of AA talked of this a few decades ago. AA, who virtually invented the hub/wave system with ORD and DFW, said later that it was a very very expensive way to do business. If one is competing with LCCs, a hub puts one at a huge disadvantage. He mentioned the only reason it worked is because a high yield passenger was willing to pay a premium for the opportunity to chose several flights a day, between two markets.
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5007 times:
Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 48): IMO, Dublin would be a top destination for TATL "low-cost" flights since most of this traffic is VFR and tourism. Other top destinations would be secondary cities in Europe from NY that now do not warrant direct service and with smaller planes and lower base cost could be viable. Probably a LON-NYC is already too competitive when there are so many options and good fares available already.
We do not seem to reed what the other is saying.
Yes JFK/EWR to DUB/SNN would work.
LON-NYC is 3,000 nm and therefore borderline for an A 321neo. West to east ok, but east to west only on good days.
So what is your list of secondary cities in Europe a first iteration A321neo strait out of the box could reach from New York?
My would be Dublin, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Shannon would be in range.
ghYHZ From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4955 times:
Quoting YTZ (Reply 51): ........As far as I know, there is nothing stopping a passenger from booking a through routing to the US via YHZ today.
Probably nothing at all on an individual basis and we see it all the time….connecting on UA or US on AC 860/861 to/from LHR.
Quote: Moreover, I don't get what exactly Bangor is trying to protect. They have no scheduled international service today. And they aren't likely to have any in the future......
BGR sees diversions from BOS, JFK, EWR, PHL etc usually do to weather and since the aircraft is now in the US…..they just run the passengers through CBP there while they are delayed anyway.
BGR collects the landing fees, refueling costs etc. they might otherwise lose to YHZ if the diversion was to there instead. With US Pre-Clearance now in place at YHZ, passengers could just as easily be run through CBP here and just arrive in the US at a domestic gate avoiding additional time at customs on an otherwise already delayed flight.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 53): One of the main reasons the flight changed from YHZ-YYT-LHR to YHZ-LHR is because YHZ-LHR can support a daily B767-300.
I get LHR. But LHR wasn't really my point. Like I've said earlier, any 321 service will be to smaller markets. If any market can fill a 763/788, it would be pointless to deploy a 321.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 53): Often cargo out of YHZ is backtracked to YUL or YYZ to LHR as the non-stop can't carry it. A 321 on the route would be abysmal!
A 321 wouldn't be great on the route. But what about a 321NEO? YHZ-LHR would be within max range-payload, even with winds, for ESAD.
But again, I see the 321NEO enabling smaller markets, where cargo doesn't necessarily come into play.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 53): That's assuming the business exists between those markets, and it assumes it is not being presently satisfied. One could pick a hub anywhere, and join up flights. But any time you include a hub, you increase your operating costs by a wide margin.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 53): . Considering Canada for example, and looking at GLA, EDI, MAN, BHX, DUB and BFS you mention, those are all low yield routes. It is far cheaper to fly a non-stop from you market, then to route everyone through a hub.
I understand what you're saying. But I'm not looking at my hypothetical YHZ hub in the traditional hub sense (a la Pearson). It's not going to be hugely frequency driven. Think of it like an LCC hub. We're talking about a flight a day to GLA, MAN, EDI, DUB, BFS, MAN, and LHR (on a 763), fed by regional flights from YOW, YUL, YYZ/YTZ, and the New England states. Essentially a TATL wave a day.
In any event, if not AC at YHZ, maybe B6 will get the same idea for BOS....
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4812 times:
The A 321neo will have according to prediction still air range of 3.650 nm.
That is good for a nearly 8 hour flight without any reserves. Flying at 460 knots.
Let us take that down to 7 hours with reserves.
Flying east to west lets have a bad headwind 80 knots, that leaves 380 knots ground speed.
7 hours x 380 knots gives us a range of 2,660 nm.
With a headwind of 50 knots, leaving 410 knots ground speed gives a range of 2,870 nm.
Taking a B 757-200 with winglets, the plane used for this flights now. Still are range 4,100 nm.
Flying at 460 knots that gives about 9 hours. Bad headwind 80 knots.
8 hours flight with reserves at 380 knots ground speed gives us a range of 3,040 NM.
50 knots headwind, 410 knots ground speed, range 3280 nm.
That is why I talk about that the A 321neo and the B 737-9MAX do not have the legs.
GCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1104 posts, RR: 1 Reply 58, posted (2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4740 times:
Quoting ghYHZ (Reply 46): Don’t know if connecting to the US would contravene an agreement between YHZ and BGR when -Halifax obtained US CBP Pre-Clearance.
I hope not as I am connecting in YHZ next week LHR-YHZ-BOS (due to the lack of non-stop LHR-BOS flights on Star Alliance .... grrrrrrrrrr)
Quoting ghYHZ (Reply 55):
Probably nothing at all on an individual basis and we see it all the time….connecting on UA or US on AC 860/861 to/from LHR.
AC, and the online booking sites, always quote LHR-YHZ-BOS as an option to get from LHR to BOS, so AFAIK it has always been possible and is probably done on a daily basis by at least one pax.
ghYHZ From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4595 times:
Quoting GCT64 (Reply 58): Quoting ghYHZ (Reply 46):
Don’t know if connecting to the US would contravene an agreement between YHZ and BGR when -Halifax obtained US CBP Pre-Clearance.
I hope not as I am connecting in YHZ next week LHR-YHZ-BOS (due to the lack of non-stop LHR-BOS flights on Star Alliance .... grrrrrrrrrr)
Don’t think that is the scenario BGR is concerned about at all. It more of the situation presented in my reply #55 above…….and if an actual Hub was set up to feed into the NE US……they might have a real problem with that.
SASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 549 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4511 times:
Air Canada flies the A319 from LHR to Saint John's.
Quoting debonair (Reply 10): There is a slight error in the thinking, you have also account for the ETOPS regulations...
The 787 got the (240 minutes?) ETOPS certification without proving anything. Who decided whether or not - and if yes, how many minutes - an aircraft is ETOPS authorised?
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6873 posts, RR: 7 Reply 61, posted (2 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4448 times:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 57):
That is why I talk about that the A 321neo and the B 737-9MAX do not have the legs.
At 3,650nm, indeed, only the shortest of routes in the summer will be possible. But some of us believe the A321NEO will have longer range than that at EIS Another thing to keep in mind is that a TATL A321 will have fewer seats than a domestic A321, thus giving it a little bit more extra range.
richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4022 posts, RR: 6 Reply 62, posted (2 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4379 times:
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 24): Additionally, keep in mind that trans-Atlantic ops would require nightstops for the crew, something which is anathema to Ryanair's model. I doubt we will seriously see them pursuing longhaul operations, at least not within their current operational setup.
While I completely agree that FR won't be coming stateside any time soon, I believe there are FR flights pushing 4 hours in duration. Imagining a 6 hour EB/8 hour WB flight across the pond isn't out of the realm of reality, just highly unlikely.
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 24): Southwest are, as you said "a friendly bunch". I'd have no qualms at all flying trans-Atlantic with them.
I would! Their planes wouldn't make it!
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 41): It won't surprise me to see B6 on those routes early with the A321NEO. Then they'll demand (and pay for) improvement kits to improve the payload/economics as well as open up the next further out markets.
TO my knowledge, B6 has only ordered A320NEOs at this time, atlhough I'm sure it could be altered to A321NEOs should their desires change. But I really don't think they are looking at TATL routes now, even on a 5-year plan. It does strike me as odd, however, that the new generation of Airbus single-aisle aircraft would not offer a product to compete in the potentially large secondary TATL markets, especially as the B757 will be nearing the end of its service life over the next decade.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6873 posts, RR: 7 Reply 63, posted (2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4291 times:
Quoting richierich (Reply 62): It does strike me as odd, however, that the new generation of Airbus single-aisle aircraft would not offer a product to compete in the potentially large secondary TATL markets, especially as the B757 will be nearing the end of its service life over the next decade.
It will. Look at the current TATL 757 routes and it's not difficult to envision a time when all but 1 or 2 will be replaced by A321NEO's.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, RR: 13 Reply 64, posted (2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4274 times:
Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 60): Quoting debonair (Reply 10):
There is a slight error in the thinking, you have also account for the ETOPS regulations...
The 787 got the (240 minutes?) ETOPS certification without proving anything. Who decided whether or not - and if yes, how many minutes - an aircraft is ETOPS authorised?
Actually, I don't think LHR-YYT is technically an ETOPS situation, at a ground speed of 450 knots or so, you're not much more than 90 mins from an airport. But AC have essentially made the two a/c subfleet ETOPS compatible with rafts, extra radios, etc.
clydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 998 posts, RR: 0 Reply 69, posted (2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3505 times:
Aerlingus is reported to be seriously considering the A321NEO for Transatlantic operations. They will use the aircraft for two different purposes.
1- Year round services from SNN to both JFK and BOS where currently the A330 is too large for the lean winter months.
2- From the EI hub in DUB to potential new destinations on the East coast such as YYZ etc.
sierra3tango From United Arab Emirates, joined Mar 2013, 79 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (2 months 3 days ago) and read 3374 times:
I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that most US airlines (and BA) were backing P2P as the way ahead whilst the European Airlines (and AB) were mostly leaning more to the traditional business model, ie the 787 v A380 raison d'etre
If A and / or B come up with a narrowbody that can at the very least achieve (year round) TATL P2P then the battle could begin, but it would seem that we have the 787 which uses toomuch runway for small airports (especially on the European side) and an A321 without (at present) the range; not sure on the position with the 737Max.
I can't see something like an A321 competing (on a CASM basis) with an A380 or a 777 out of any significant airport. So if it is to suceed it has to be on a P2P basis.
Quoting eicvd (Reply 50): Bristol UK seemed to have good traffic most of the year, but apparently sCO needed the 757s elsewhere.
This is a perfect case in point, BRS with a runway length of ~6600' at 600' above sea level. 9th busiest airport in the UK, LUZ of 1m+, 5th largest GDP per capita in the UK (40% above UK average). It could support some NA east coast services but the only aircraft that can do it is the 757 and that hasn't got much shelf life left (in aviation terms) . And they are nearly all being used running running medium hauls into major hubs such as LHR/AMS/FRA/CDG etc.Which contradicts the P2P argument anyway.
Obviously BRS problem(and a few others) could be solved by lengthening the runway - well it'd be like getting a 3rd runway at LHR, it is in the UK after all.
Really do hope A and / or B prioritise sorting this range issue out - so near to a fix but so far
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6873 posts, RR: 7 Reply 74, posted (2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3196 times:
Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 70): I can't see something like an A321 competing (on a CASM basis) with an A380 or a 777 out of any significant airport. So if it is to suceed it has to be on a P2P basis.
If the 752 can, why not the A321NEO?
UA and AA fly 752's on the NYC-CDG-NYC route alongside multiple 777 and A380. It's a similar story from BOS where DL flies TATL with a 752.
sierra3tango From United Arab Emirates, joined Mar 2013, 79 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3123 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 74): If the 752 can, why not the A321NEO?
UA and AA fly 752's on the NYC-CDG-NYC route alongside multiple 777 and A380. It's a similar story from BOS where DL flies TATL with a 752.
Fully agree why can't the A321NEO do it
But doubt the logic when it comes to NYC-CDG-NYC
If P2P is the future, so we are led to believe (by BA), so major hub to major hub (intercontinetal) on a narrowbody - interesting theory
Suspect the reason is that these aircraft are "what's available" otherwise either its no service (ie slot lost) or the route isn't worth it using a widebody on.
Further they are amortised ac . Is it worth buying a brand new (from A or B) an aircraft (not amortised) to replace the 757 on such a route - doubt it
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2248 posts, RR: 1 Reply 76, posted (2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2853 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 20): Put in a little more fuel (higher MTOW which requires more hot takeoff thrust)
Higher MTOW and more thrust are doable IMO... but will it be able to tank the extra fuel? The problem with the A321 is that it becomes fuel-volume limited... that's where I have my doubts about it as a true TATL platform. Let's see how the GTF fares at EIS... it has to beat its fuel burn promise if later A321NEO's are to even have a chance at being PIPed into TATL range.
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 79, posted (2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2375 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 76): Higher MTOW and more thrust are doable IMO... but will it be able to tank the extra fuel? The problem with the A321 is that it becomes fuel-volume limited... that's where I have my doubts about it as a true TATL platform. Let's see how the GTF fares at EIS... it has to beat its fuel burn promise if later A321NEO's are to even have a chance at being PIPed into TATL range.
I really do not understand why the discussion always talks about the stretched versions. TATL will be a difficult for the A 321neo as well as for the B 737-9MAX They both start off as a standard with the extended range versions: A 321-200 instead of 100 and the B 737-900ER.
But go a step down to the A 320neo and the 737-8MAX and it is doable.
They have anyway more range than the bigger sisters and you could put up the MTOW to take more fuel, actually doing what is already done to the bigger sisters to get them transcontinental.
Today both the A 319 and B 737-700 do have the range.
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1004 posts, RR: 1 Reply 80, posted (2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2359 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 74): If the 752 can, why not the A321NEO?
UA and AA fly 752's on the NYC-CDG-NYC route alongside multiple 777 and A380. It's a similar story from BOS where DL flies TATL with a 752.
If P2P is the future, so we are led to believe (by BA), so major hub to major hub (intercontinetal) on a narrowbody - interesting theory
Suspect the reason is that these aircraft are "what's available" otherwise either its no service (ie slot lost) or the route isn't worth it using a widebody on.
Further they are amortised ac . Is it worth buying a brand new (from A or B) an aircraft (not amortised) to replace the 757 on such a route - doubt it
In those cases where you see a US carrier operating a B752 into a major European hub, the key thing to remember is that it is not their hub (or their partners', for that matter).
Some examples of flights which are or have been on B752s:
DL JFK-FRA (SkyTeam carrier to Star Alliance hub)
UA EWR-CDG (Star Alliance carrier to SkyTeam hub)
UA IAD-AMS (Star Alliance carrier to SkyTeam hub)
UA EWR-LHR (Star Alliance carrier to oneworld hub)
The European destination is a major hub in every case, but unfortunately it is a hub for the wrong alliance. Therefore, for the airline in question, the airport is just another spoke. Usually an important destination in its own right, but one with little or no connecting traffic at the European end. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that they might send a smaller aircraft.
It would be very unlikely for an airline to send a B752 between two alliance hubs though (though in special circumstances this can also happen).
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 79): I really do not understand why the discussion always talks about the stretched versions. TATL will be a difficult for the A 321neo as well as for the B 737-9MAX They both start off as a standard with the extended range versions: A 321-200 instead of 100 and the B 737-900ER.
But go a step down to the A 320neo and the 737-8MAX and it is doable.
They have anyway more range than the bigger sisters and you could put up the MTOW to take more fuel, actually doing what is already done to the bigger sisters to get them transcontinental.
Today both the A 319 and B 737-700 do have the range.
I just thought I would highlight this post because it's a point you have made several times already in this thread, and it's a good one. People seem hell-bent on ignoring it though.
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2248 posts, RR: 1 Reply 81, posted (2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2125 times:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 79): I really do not understand why the discussion always talks about the stretched versions. TATL will be a difficult for the A 321neo as well as for the B 737-9MAX [...]
But go a step down to the A 320neo and the 737-8MAX and it is doable.[...]
Today both the A 319 and B 737-700 do have the range.
Mainly because A321/739 is the aircraft size most people consider the minimum for TATL to be profitable in a typical 2-3 class config (obviously all-premium configs in niche markets à la BA A318 are another story). I agree it is doable for the A320NEO / -8MAX and no problem at all for the A319NEO / -7MAX. But will they carry enough pax to make money? IMO unfortunately no...
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (2 months 2 days ago) and read 2053 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 81): Mainly because A321/739 is the aircraft size most people consider the minimum for TATL to be profitable in a typical 2-3 class config (obviously all-premium configs in niche markets à la BA A318 are another story). I agree it is doable for the A320NEO / -8MAX and no problem at all for the A319NEO / -7MAX. But will they carry enough pax to make money? IMO unfortunately no...
We are talking about neo and MAX, so we can forget about the A319 and B 737-700 and go to the A 320neo and B 737-800MAX.
Lets say the A 320 140 pax, 12 business, 8 economy comfort, 120 economy.
The 737-800 146 pax, 12 business, 8 economy comfort, 126 economy.
Is that too few for TATL?
Of course the 757-200 would do more, for example Icelandair: 178 pax, 22 business, 10 economy comfort and 146 economy.
But we can stretch it anyway we want neither the A321 nor the B 737-9 are the same size of a B 757-200 anyway apart from having the problems with the range.
overall length: A321 44.51 m, B737-900 42.1 m, B 757-200 47.32 m
I understand that some want to crown the 757 replacement, but we are not there yet.
Make a A322, stretch it to 50 m, a bigger wing, up the MTOW and give it bigger engines, BINGO you are there.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6873 posts, RR: 7 Reply 83, posted (2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1854 times:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 79): They have anyway more range than the bigger sisters and you could put up the MTOW to take more fuel, actually doing what is already done to the bigger sisters to get them transcontinental.
AFAIK the A321 and A320 have very similar ranges, about 100nm apart. It's the A319 that has a significant longer range.
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 80): I just thought I would highlight this post because it's a point you have made several times already in this thread, and it's a good one. People seem hell-bent on ignoring it though.
It's being ignored because it's a mute point to make. The A321NEO and A320NEO have practically the same range but the 321 carries more people making it more financially viable for TATL service. And it's the one that Airbus is touting to airlines as a 752 replacement for TATL routes. It's as simple as that.
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1697 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 83): AFAIK the A321 and A320 have very similar ranges, about 100nm apart. It's the A319 that has a significant longer range.
If you just look into the wikipedia and do not try do understand what the numbers mean than of course the A321 and the A320 have similar range. If you than keep believing that you can stretch a frame, having nearly the same wings, the same size of tanks than pack the airplane full to the seems with pax and than keep the same range than I do not know how you keep from getting information into your head.
You would believe it if I would tell you the A330-300 and A330-200 have the same range.
I keep to the Airbus, but most will apply to the Boeing as well.
The A321 is a stretch of the A320-200. It starts out with more passengers but less range than the A320, it is called the A321-100.
The A321-100 has for the same reason less range than the A320-200 as the A319-100 has more range than the A320-200, everything being the same, the shorter lighter version carries less passengers but has more range.
Than Airbus makes a second Version of the A321 the 200. More MTOW bigger tanks to get the A321-200 up to transcontinental range regarding North America.
But what is about the A320?
Lets again have a look at the wikipedia, all three A319,A320 and A321 are offered with two tank capacity's.
A smaller tank about 24,000 l and and a bigger tank about 30,000 l. Could it be that you are able to buy the A320 with the bigger tank originally developed for the A321? And could it be that this tank which helped the A321 to reach the same range as the A320 would extend the range of the A320 beyond that of the A321?
But let us assume now you buy a A320 with the big tank 30.000 l and a A321 also with the big tank also 30.000 l.
If you fill them both up you of course expect the same range, I understand you well, it is written somewhere.
Could it be that the range cited for the A320 is in regards to the smaller tank (most sold version) and the range cited for the A321 is in regard to the bigger tank? They do not give two numbers. Perhaps you think a little bit about it.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6873 posts, RR: 7 Reply 86, posted (2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1575 times:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 85):
If you just look into the wikipedia and do not try do understand what the numbers mean than of course the A321 and the A320 have similar range. If you t
No, I believe in Airbus's own numbers and various industry publications. I'm sure you're familiar with www.airbus.com. they have the same range whether you chose to believe it or not. The A321 has higher MTOW and a different wing. It is not a simple straight stretch.
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 87, posted (2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 86): No, I believe in Airbus's own numbers and various industry publications. I'm sure you're familiar with www.airbus.com. they have the same range whether you chose to believe it or not. The A321 has higher MTOW and a different wing. It is not a simple straight stretch.
I am familiar with airbus.com and there are numbers, but try to find the numbers for different version of the different aircraft.
We all have been reading that Airbus is offering a 243 t version of the A 330-300, do me a favour and find those numbers on the airbus.com wepsite? No luck?
You can get the A 319 with different numbers of extra tanks, up to six, do please show me the different range charts for this different configuration. No Luck?
Special version of the A319 for EasyJet more Passengers four over wing exits, try to find a range chart.
You can fit the A320 with different tank configurations, I assume you get the real numbers when you try to buy one.
I can not find on the internet the real numbers for every version.
I just know that when I would fit the A 320 with the same usable tank volume as the A 321 and I fill up, maximum fuel, than the A320 will fly further than the A 321.
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3648 posts, RR: 1 Reply 89, posted (2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 88): There is a Polish airline (name alludes me) that flies Poland to Thailand using high denity 738's (189Y seats I believe)
Sponsor Message: 
From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 229 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 956 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 4844 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 355 posts, 
From Slovakia, joined Jan 2013, 79 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2098 posts, 
From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2152 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 2971 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1104 posts, 
It wouldn't be a complete takeover of TATL, but enough to justify the project. 
From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1616 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Feb 2010, 353 posts, 
From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 1999 posts, 
From UK - England, joined May 2012, 335 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1254 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2008, 2068 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Mar 2013, 79 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 40 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
