Fiedman
Topic Author
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 2:49 pm

Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:52 am

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

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

http://www.aircanada.ca/about-us/our-fleet/images/airplanes/321a.jpg Air Canada Airbus A321-200
Westjet - Canada's National Low-fare Airline
 
NWA757
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 8:53 am

RE: Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:59 am

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

Personally, I would love to see Air Canada operate the Boeing 757 a great aircraft for a great airline. On a final note, marketing at Air Canada must have looked into both aircraft at one time or another and finally decided that the Airbus A321 was the way to go for one reason or another.
Fly High!
 
kim777fan
Posts: 497
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 11:47 pm

RE: Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:10 am

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

I happen to love the B757 myself and whenever in fly DTW-LAX on NW (usually twice a year or more), I choose the flights that have the B757 instead of the A320 as they operate both on that route.
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:19 am

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

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

The 757 would make more sense if AC wanted to open up more "thin" transatlantic routes to Europe in the way that CO has...but that must have obviously not been a priority to serve markets with anything less than a 762ER.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:25 am

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

The 321 is lacking in range on many routes necessitating a 319-762 gauge upgrade on such routes as MEX, BOG.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:29 am

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

Good point. This type of route would be perfect for a 752. Oh well, I guess you win some (saving fuel on the domestic trunk routes and common mx) and lose some (lack of flexibility and possible lost opportunities).
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:38 am

Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

One word -

Commonality.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
Guest

RE: Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:45 am

I agree with Boeing_nut, they were working towards eventually an all Airbus fleet, if you look at the other aircraft they operate (A319, A320, A330, A340) it makes sense they chose the A321.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:49 am

Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

One word -

Commonality.


Well, the 752 has commonality with the 762/763 so that is perhaps a moot point.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:10 am

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

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

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

No easy answer to the connundrum but they made their choice and now have to stick with it - for better of for worse.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
sebring
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Air Canada Airbus A321 Why Not 757?

Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:50 am

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

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