fvyfireman
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:31 am

A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:13 am

why would an airline like US pick the A321 instead of the 757?
 
SonOfACaptain
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:18 am

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

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

-SOAC
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1379
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:26 am

Good question. Probably not due to pilot preference!

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

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

I think overall the A321 is cheaper to operate but the 757 has significant advantages particularly at the top end of its performance table.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:30 am

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

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

The A321 and 739 are comparable in size to the 757, but the 757 has a lot more range and payload capability. But with the extra weight of the 757, it is more expensive to operate because it isn't as efficient on shorter routes. So overall, the A321/739 and 757 can perform different tasks and are both good planes. However many airlines have opted for the 738/A320 over the A321/739 due to operating capabilities.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:44 am

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

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:45 am

Another good reason is that they don't make 757s anymore.  boggled 
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:50 am

The 757 came out earlier, it has much better field performance than the underpowered A321. Moreover, they never updated their fuel tanks, so it's range is poor. If they gave it more fuel (and bigger engines to move that), it might be able to compete, but A321 has had soft sales, it clearly isn't that attractive. It seems like too little, too late, 757 already won over the market.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:54 am

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

They are only almost as big as the 757. The 757 is still about 20 or so passengers larger.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:04 am

FlyDreamliner.

The A321 is not underpowered, not at all.

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

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

[Edited 2006-01-09 03:04:57]
 
Tom_EDDF
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 8:47 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am

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

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

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

Cheers

[Edited 2006-01-09 03:11:22]
 
apodino
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:09 am

I have heard numerous stories about the A321 being a bad handling plane, especially in a crosswind. It often causes some bad landings or missed approaches. I was told this by an FAA inspector.
 
Tom_EDDF
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 8:47 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:19 am

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

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

Especially on the A319 he said landing can be quite tricky if you're not used to it, as it is a fairly nervous aircraft and hard landings and very firm touchdowns happen quite often, particularly in bad weather conditions, while the A320 is easier to fly and the A321 feeling like a much bigger aircraft. His words - they might be subjective, but he has more than 35 years of flying experience. He also said the 747 and the A340, while being quite different and the A340 not being very "sporty" are "easiest" to take off and land.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:19 am

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

Actually Airbus did make those modifications. The A321-100 was the first A321 and it really was underpowered and did lack range. Airbus added fuel tanks and increased thrust by 2-4000 lbs and increased the range by about 300nm when designing the A321-200 which entered service about three years after the initial A321-100. So the A321-200 does have the capability to fly transcon domestic flights in the United States whereas the original A321-100 did not. However there still can be some payload restrictions on longer flights with strong winds and high temperatures.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:37 am

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

Thrust/MTOW

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

The A321 is comparatively less powered than any aircraft in its class. The only aircraft with as poor of a power to weight is the 739ER, which is also underpowered.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
Oykie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:48 am

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

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

I wonder why it was more common to do something with the wings in the early days, when Boeing used different wings on their 707, and Douglas with the DC-8. Seems like the aircraft manufacturer have hesitated to do this on later projects like the A321. Boeing is taking up that tradition with the 787.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:56 am

It's really not a different sized airplane. The 752 is a mere 9 feet longer than the 321, and the 321 has a wider fuselage. 757 is heavier, and more powerful, but not that much larger.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
Oykie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:01 pm

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



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

You are quite right. I used the word almost as the 757 has a greater range and Take-off performance
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:46 pm

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

 checkmark 

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


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

"Up the Irons!"
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:44 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The wider fuselage does nothing from an economic standpoint because it doesn't allow more seats. Also, those "mere 9 feet" allow the 757 to carry 10-20 more seats
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Orion737
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:14 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:54 pm

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

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

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

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

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

I love the 319/320 and the A310 but please dont get me started on that 321, I hate that aircraft with a passion.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:54 pm

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

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

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

But doesn't the wider fuse allow them to handle bigger cargo compared to the 757? Maybe their capacity doesn't allow much more cargo than the 757 but they could surely put wider pallets into a wider narrowbody fuse.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:00 pm

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

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

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

Not particularly. Also, narrowbodies carrying pallets doesn't really make a difference given that the main restriction is weight, not volume.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Orion737
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:14 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:06 pm

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

Not like our charter carriers not to fill their aircarft to the rafters!
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:08 pm

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

Yeah, that's a point. But still, what about the double slotted flaps on the A321?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:09 pm

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

What difference should they make? The 757 has a much larger wing and will lift a lot more weight as compares to its size.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
ual747den
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:29 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:16 pm

I was going to just post a 757 next to an A320 and let you decide but after searching for pictures of 757's I realized that they are all beautiful and I couldn't post just one.
I also decided that after putting all these sexy 757's in this post I couldn't ruin it with a sad dolphin looking A320, the fierce manly look of the 757 would make the dolphin wet itself!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thierry Deutsch
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Wilson



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JetPix
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Florian Trojer - TCAS



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Wang
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Luc Verkuringen



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Maier



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Aric Thalman
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Aric Thalman



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Aric Thalman

/// UNITED AIRLINES
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:21 pm

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 25):
I was going to just post a 757 next to an A320 and let you decide but after searching for pictures of 757's I realized that they are all beautiful

The 757 with Rollers being the best of them all. Big grin
 
Toulouse
Posts: 2193
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:30 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:11 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):
First, the A321 is not a 180 seater in a practical 2-class configuration. It is more like a 165-170 seater. Second, it has trouble with medium haul flights at high temperatures

Typical two-class seating capacity for the A321 is 185 seats with 16 in first class and 169 in economy, while the A321 single-class configuation comfortably seats 199 passengers.

Personnally, I'm not a big fan of the 321 either. Love the 320 and 319 though.
Long live Aer Lingus!
 
BA
Posts: 10166
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:11 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 20):
I do wonder about the reasons why Airbus put double slotted flaps only on the A321. Why is that?

Because the A318, A319, and A320 don't need it.

The A321 is a longer aircraft and thus it is bigger and thus it is heavier than the A320 and Airbus deemed that single slotted flaps aren't sufficient enough for it.

Double-slotted flaps allow for greater flap extension which results in greater effectiveness of the flaps which the A321 needs.

There is no doubt that the 757 is a better performer than the A321, but let's not dismiss the A321.

Ever since Airbus came out with the A321-200, sales improved. The A321-100 is widely regarded as a flop.

The A321-200 features allows for either 1 or 2 auxiliary fuel tanks to boost its range. It also features more powerful engines rated at 33,000lb. each to boost its MTOW and take-off performance.

The A321-200 has proven to be a good aircraft for flights between Europe and the Middle East and North Africa.

By the way, I believe the A321-200 has better take-off performance than the A320-200. This is because of the double-slotted flaps. This was mentioned in the Tech-Ops forum.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vatche Mitilian
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vatche Mitilian


Regards
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:14 pm

Quoting BA (Reply 28):
The A321 is a longer aircraft and thus it is bigger and thus it is heavier than the A320 and Airbus deemed that single slotted flaps aren't sufficient enough for it.

Double-slotted flaps allow for greater flap extension which results in greater effectiveness of the flaps which the A321 needs.

Thanks for the explanation. I thought of that myself but I wasn't really sure in the end. This clears things up.  Smile
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:32 pm

Quoting Toulouse (Reply 27):
Typical two-class seating capacity for the A321 is 185 seats with 16 in first class and 169 in economy

Only according to Airbus. In that same "typical" configuration, the 752 would hold nearly 200. Even Lufthansa, who list the A321's configuration based on its European style all Y seat cabin, given a max of 182, which would be all Y.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13677
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:57 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
The A321 has 340 some delivered and 479 ordered, not bad, but hardly the 1,000 of the 757

As others have tried to point out, although the A321 overlaps at the bottom end of the 757's "envelope" it can't match the top end. The planes are aimed at slightly different markets.

When Airbus publishes it's final 2005 sales, it's very possible that the A321 will have hit the 500 mark. That's pretty damn good considering it's just one of a family. A better comparison would be with the 739 which has not sold anywhere near the same numbers (just 85 as at end 2005 including ER version).

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 19):
I am not a fan of the 321. I think as far as a charter/IT aircraft for UK and European airlines the 757 is much more flexible in what it can do, and where it can fly.

However, it is true that many of the UK's charter airlines are now buying A321s. The range advantage of the 757 is not used that often.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Toulouse
Posts: 2193
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:30 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:01 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Only according to Airbus. In that same "typical" configuration, the 752 would hold nearly 200. Even Lufthansa, who list the A321's configuration based on its European style all Y seat cabin, given a max of 182, which would be all Y.

Fair enough, just checking Iberia seat plans, and indeed their 757's have 200 seats, and the 321's between 178 and 194.

And just checked BA. Their 757's hold a maximum of 180 pax, while their 321's accommodate a maximum of 194 pax. Also noticed the range of the 321 is greater than the 757 (757: 3.432km. 321: 3.692km).

[Edited 2006-01-09 11:09:35]

[Edited 2006-01-09 11:12:23]
Long live Aer Lingus!
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:17 pm

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

There are still orders for the A321, the B757 line is not even operating anymore. How can you say the B757 won over the market when its not even in the market any longer?

They are different aircraft designed for a different job.

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 19):
The 321 cannot do the job of the 757, but the 757 can do the job of the 321

The 757 can not operate anywhere close to as efficiently as the A321 on any route the A321 can fly so therefore the 752 can not do the job of the A321.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
Orion737
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:14 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:22 pm

The range advantage of the 757 has been used to good effect by charter airlines, actually.

Routes to Orlando and the Dominican republic, Egypt's Red sea resort etc from smaller regional airports like NCL, CDF, BRS etc would not be economically feasible with larger wide bodied aircraft so the 757s range has always been an important pat of its worth for UK charter carriers. If they were to replace all their 757s with 321s they would have problems with these such routes.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2426
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:30 pm

Quoting Toulouse (Reply 32):
Also noticed the range of the 321 is greater than the 757 (757: 3.432km. 321: 3.692km).

Which is clearly a mistake. The A321 has no where near the range the 757 has, at any comparable load.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:56 pm

You could conclude that the two complement each other perfectly.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2426
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:09 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 36):
You could conclude that the two complement each other perfectly.

Indeed so.

Where the full capabilities of the 757 is not needed, an A321 seems to do just nicely.
But if you need a better hot-high performance and/or range with higher payload, the 757 is the aircraft of choice.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9054
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:16 pm

The A321 is one of there reasons the 757 didn't sell well for some years.

Vast majority of the flights 190-220 seats (line & leisure) are shorter then 5/6 hours /2500nm.

Looking at cost drivers such as fuel consumption, maintenance costs (engine shop visits, component pbh rates, check intervals) & crew commonality, many operators "could live" with the lower seatcount & range of the A321.

The reason Boeing will introduce the 737-900ER is the fact the 737-900 is seatcount restricted up to 180 because of the number of exits, while the a321 is allowed to carry 220 passengers.

The 737-900ER will correct this (extra exit) and will IMO be an attractive option for existing 737 NG operators and operators wanting to replace the not so cost efficient 757-200 ($Fuel$).
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9054
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:24 pm

To illustrate my point about required range:

A321's 2500nm range from New York, Oslo & Singapore.

Range is not an the bigger the better thing. Enough is enough.



That said the A321 is also quiet heavy and not as optimized as smaller narrowbodies. I would say there is certainly room for improvement in this segment.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:36 pm

Reading through this I see there is a lot of confusion over number of seats and range. Remember that to get 239 seats on a B757, there are no galleys or space for toilets! Also you must have the correct type of emergency exits.
BA has 180 seats on B757 and 196 on A321 (the same seats), but the galleys on the B757 are much larger so it is difficult to compare.
The B757 is more capable, but it is rarely used in Europe so why pay for the extra weight and power that you do not need. In fact BA B757 are artificially reduced to 99700 kg MTOW to save money on landing fees, and still operate all routes in Europe with no trouble.
Instaed of quoting max range, does anyone know max range at a typical TOW?
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2426
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:37 pm

Where does this chart come from, as the ranges seem wildly over stated. I'm guessing Airbus.com

An A321 can barely do US transcon, yet your cute little chart shows the A321 as more than capable with plenty range to spare. Perhaps empty, yes.

[Edited 2006-01-09 14:38:52]
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
dazeflight
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 1999 1:32 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:08 pm

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 25):
I was going to just post a 757 next to an A320 and let you decide but after searching for pictures of 757's I realized that they are all beautiful and I couldn't post just one.
I also decided that after putting all these sexy 757's in this post I couldn't ruin it with a sad dolphin looking A320, the fierce manly look of the 757 would make the dolphin wet itself!

so, which of those "sexy 757's" is your g/f?  scratchchin 
 
DTWAGENT
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:16 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 am

As for me..... I like the 757 over the 321. I was on US this summer from PHL to SAN on a 321. I hated every minute of it. Airbus aircraft have not made a great impression on me yet. I'm a Boeing person and always will be.... To bad US has ordered so many A350's. And as far as this A380 is concerned.....What and how on earth is an airline going to fill that thing....?????? They are having enough problems filling what planes they have now..... It is an aircraft that is made to only go to a few places in the world. LAX and SFO are not even close to being ready for the A380. JFK is ready. I just think Airbus is not thinking very well on making all of these aircraft. We already have some airlines parking their A340's for the B773ER.
So that says something in it self....
 
FA4B6
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:00 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:15 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):
There are no other carriers using the A321 in the US (or North America for that matter). Also, the US flights are not completely transcon, they fall 100-300nm short

oh really?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ron Peel
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos Aleman - SJU Aviation Photography

"Leap! And the net will appear."
 
RICARIZA
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:56 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:15 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 8):
The A321 is a regional airliners, it's optimised for 300-2000nm range trips, it doesn't need a lot of fuel or range. And it can do a lot of these trip at noticably lower costs than the 757.

You took the words from my mouth..
I miss ACES, I am proud of AVIANCA & I am loyal to AMERICAN
 
ourboeing
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:35 am

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

I guess it makes more sense for them to have an Airbus fleet after merging with HP. Doesn't HP have the largest Airbus fleet in North America?

OURBOEING
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:47 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
That said the A321 is also quiet heavy and not as optimized as smaller narrowbodies. I would say there is certainly room for improvement in this segment

I'm surprised that Boeing didn't exploit the 200 seater segment with the 787.

Quoting GARPD (Reply 41):
An A321 can barely do US transcon

Really... dont US fly Transcon with an A321? You wouldnt be biased perchance?

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 43):
I was on US this summer from PHL to SAN on a 321. I hated every minute of it. Airbus aircraft have not made a great impression on me yet. I'm a Boeing person and always will be

And you wouldnt be biased either?
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
Oykie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:56 am

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 47):
I'm surprised that Boeing didn't exploit the 200 seater segment with the 787.

So am I
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: A321 Vs. 757

Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:04 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):
There are no other carriers using the A321 in the US (or North America for that matter). Also, the US flights are not completely transcon, they fall 100-300nm short

I think Air Canada and Spirit might disagree with you there....

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos