Ward86IND
Topic Author
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:13 am

757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:17 pm

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

Hey everybody,

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited 2006-04-30 10:23:06]
Live your dream.
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:02 pm

The A321 isnt a direct competitior to the B757, its a B739 competitior. The B757 doesnt really have a true competitior
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:09 pm

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

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

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

[Edited 2006-04-30 13:40:41]
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:20 pm

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

Surly Boeing could have started the B752ER once Boeing announced the B762ER would no longer be built
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:29 pm

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

[Edited 2006-04-30 13:31:07]
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4792
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:52 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Depends. On shorter stages, the A321 certainly is a 757 competitor, and the A321 probably cost the 757 quite a few sales to airlines that didn't need the range. For those needing the range, you're right, it doesn't really have a competitor.
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:03 pm

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

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

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

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

You seem to acknowledge most of what I am saying with your initial post but the A321 basically milks the A320 platform for all it's worth (which is a lot).
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:32 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:47 pm

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

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

Agree that the A300/310/752/762 leave a gab. 4 years ago I thought A&B would jump in this gab (this was in the sonic cruiser era)..
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/773211
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:51 pm

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

Yes, it is.....  Yeah sure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 biggrin 
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:59 pm

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

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

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

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

[Edited 2006-04-30 15:03:02]
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:38 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

What route is there that the A321 can operate that is over 180 minute Etops? Aren't you getting beyond the range of the plane? What ETOPS is required to get to Hawaii for the A321?
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:44 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point I wish to make is that the 757 niche areas are not quite trivial when comparing them to the A321. European flights and some difficult airports are simply not possible with the A321 (at least if you want decent payload). The additional capability that the 757 affords is quite meaningful in many contexts (Note: I am not rebutting anyone with this comment or attempting to suggest that someone has trivialized the difference between the two airplanes.)
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:56 pm

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

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

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

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

[Edited 2006-04-30 16:11:13]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4792
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:25 pm

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

Um.. aren't you forgetting the tiny little fact that the 757 had been around for a full decade by the time the A321 came around?
 
panam330
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:58 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:48 pm

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

They are still making 767s; check your facts.

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

No, the B757-300 does.

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

NK has A321s as well.

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

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

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

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

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

It does, although on some days it has a bit of trouble.
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:56 pm

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

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

Its a free market and I love the ground breaking products that are coming from both manufacturers. In the past, I was down on Boeing for being sluggish with their response but I am happy to see them being aggressive today. All this will only make better airliners for the future. Go A - Go B.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 12:24 am

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

The 757 was built in Renton. The 767 is built in Everett and that's where the 787 will be assembled.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
ultrapig
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:38 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 12:58 am

Hey maybe someon this thread can answer this-Why does flying in a 757 seem more comfortable than being in 1 737-Is it simply an illusion because the plane is higher off the ground or is the cabin higherh than the 737?
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 1:04 am

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

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

What I think caused the 757 line to close was that the airlines that were ordering and flying the 757 went through a bad industry downturn. The lack of popularity of the 757 in other markets resulted in a lack of orders when US airlines were not expanding. The 757 was hugely popular in the 90s. US airlines were growing, but when 9/11 hit, no more orders came in, and airlines (like Continental) tried to get out of orders that were placed. I think a combination of the 757s localized popularity and 9/11 killed the line, not the A321. But I will agree that the A321 certainly did not cause more new carriers to want the 757. I think the A321 hurt 757 sales when it started flying for airlines in 1997, but the final blow was 9/11. And one other thing was that Boeing certainly saw the 737NGs as having more potential and knew that it could probably get more out of the space in Renton that was being used for 757 production by ramping up 737 production. Boeing didn't seem to fight for sales in the last days of the 757 as it did for the 717.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Geo772
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:40 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 1:08 am

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

180 minute ETOPS is required for HNL.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
 
futureualpilot
Posts: 2402
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 10:52 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 1:16 am

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited 2006-04-30 18:19:46]
Life is better when you surf.
 
skymileman
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 2:32 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 1:17 am

This thread isn't even worth reading since the author of the thread-starter claims Boeing quit making the 767. They did not. It is still well in production.
 
JoeCattoli
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 1:06 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 1:26 am

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

No, before your post it has been perfectly unbiased.

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

BA Order 1 A320, 3 A321

A321 Vs. 757

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

Ciao  wave 
Joe
 
ramerinianair
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 6:03 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 1:34 am

HERE ARE THE OFFICIAL NUMBERS:
The A321 costs ~ 1.8% more to operate than the 752
ans
The 753 costs ~ 11.4% less to operate than the 752
SR
W N = my Worst Nightmare!!!!!
 
FCYTravis
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:21 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 1:51 am

I've heard that Airbus gave US Airways a steal of a deal on the A321s because they wanted to get someone in the United States operating them, so they threw 'em in with Stephen Wolf's "Global Carrier of Choice" Airbus order.

The A321-100 does not have transcontinental range - Airbus had to come up with the A321-200 with extra fuel tanks in the cargo hold to meet US Airways range/payload needs.

US Airways uses the A321 as its workhorse for transcontinental business routes from Philadelphia and Charlotte to San Francisco, Phoenix and Los Angeles. It's visibly a bit of a pig on fully-loaded takeoffs, and on days when the jetstream is real strong, it's fuel-stop city. Also, it generally can't climb directly to max cruise - the pilot will fly a stair-step profile, up to 30k, then 34, then 38 as fuel burns off.

Inside, however, it's a very comfortable transcon jet, outfitted in a 26F/143Y configuration - lots of upgrades for the elites!
USAir A321 service now departing for SFO with fuel stops in CAK, COS and RNO. Enjoy your flight.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 2:01 am

Quoting RamerinianAir (Reply 25):
HERE ARE THE OFFICIAL NUMBERS:
The A321 costs ~ 1.8% more to operate than the 752
ans
The 753 costs ~ 11.4% less to operate than the 752
SR

The officially wrong numbers? I can only assume you mean on a per seat basis.
 
richm
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:21 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 2:06 am

So when is the 747 vs A320 topic coming?  Yeah sure
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 2:09 am

Quoting RamerinianAir (Reply 25):
HERE ARE THE OFFICIAL NUMBERS:
The A321 costs ~ 1.8% more to operate than the 752
ans
The 753 costs ~ 11.4% less to operate than the 752

Without any context, you can produce all the official numbers you want, but they don't mean anything. Statistics is about more than just producing numbers.

The 757 and A321 have different numbers for different stage lengths, takeoff weights, and even airline operating them. There are different maintenance costs associated with different aged planes. The lease rates are different. So unless you give some context, it doesn't mean anything. I am sure you can find routes where one plane is better than the other and other situations that say the opposite.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Ward86IND
Topic Author
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:13 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 2:26 am

Quoting Azza40 (Reply 5):
The 762ER is still available, there are 4 unfilled orders



Quoting Molykote (Reply 7):
You might want to check that again: the 767 is still in production.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
The 767-200ER is still available - CO ordered some in 1998, if I'm not mistaken, and they've done very well for them.



Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 17):
They are still making 767s; check your facts.



Quoting Skymileman (Reply 23):
The A330 did hurt the 767 but it is still in production.

Sorry guys, this is only my second thread-starter, should have checked my facts. I forgot about the cargo version and had never even heard of the 767-200ER.

Quoting JoeCattoli (Reply 24):
This thread isn't even worth reading since the author of the thread-starter claims Boeing quit making the 767

Ok....going a little far there?

Quoting RamerinianAir (Reply 25):
As I read 2 very enlightening threads about exactly the same argument some months ago I think it's good to share and to remember how well the search mode of the forum works...

BA Order 1 A320, 3 A321

A321 Vs. 757

I thought I searched for "A321" in "title" but nothing turned up. Maybe I did something wrong.

Anyway thanks everyone for sharing info, I have a much better understanding now.
Live your dream.
 
JoeCattoli
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 1:06 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 2:40 am

Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 30):
Quoting JoeCattoli (Reply 24):
This thread isn't even worth reading since the author of the thread-starter claims Boeing quit making the 767

Ok....going a little far there?

Quoting RamerinianAir (Reply 25):
As I read 2 very enlightening threads about exactly the same argument some months ago I think it's good to share and to remember how well the search mode of the forum works...

BA Order 1 A320, 3 A321

A321 Vs. 757

I don't know how you did but I guess you wrong-quoted me and RamerinianAir... but anyway, my post wasn't against you... I just wrote "757 A321" in the "topic and body" and the thread came out in the archived forums.. Keep in mind for the next time... As you see there is a lot of people that still has information about it so it's not a big mistake.

Personally I think the facts quoted especially by Rootsair in the forums I linked are particularly well-written, I don't know where RamerinianAir gets his information.

Ciao
Joe
 
FL370
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 2:25 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 2:42 am

im not a huge Airbus fan, but i think overall the 757 looks better than the A321. im not familir with the peformance if the two airplanes, if someone can fill me in with that info.
 
S12PPL
Posts: 3603
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:26 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 2:50 am

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
Everyone is familar with how the 767 was a very popular airliner until the A330 came along with its superior ecomomics and cargo capacity and made the 767 obsolete, whipping it in sales to the point where Boeing stopped making them.

Well, I won't be the first to say this...


But the 767 is still very much in production.

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

Ummmmm.......

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
until the A330 came along with its superior ecomomics and cargo capacity and made the 767 obsolete, whipping it in sales to the point where Boeing stopped making them

You made it A vs. B.

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
US airline with the A321

Spirit.

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
Ok did a little more research

But obviously you didn't do much.
The 767 is still in production.
There is no 757 "ER"
The A321 competes with the 737-900, NOT the 757, OR 767.
Next Flights: 12/31 AS804 PDX-MCO 2/3 AS19 MCO-SEA QX2545 SEA-PDX
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 2:53 am

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

That's incorrect. The only aircraft in existence that flies 207 minute routes is the 777, and only on a route-by-route deviation from the policy.

180 minute ETOPS is the highest current certification.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
No, the A-321 CASM for a single asle airplane does not approach that of the B-757-200, B-757-300, or B-737-900.

That's not correct either.

Quoting RamerinianAir (Reply 25):
HERE ARE THE OFFICIAL NUMBERS:

Official numbers from what office?

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 26):
I've heard that Airbus gave US Airways a steal of a deal on the A321s

Every time Airbus sells a plane, I hear that.

N
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 2:56 am

Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 30):
Sorry guys, this is only my second thread-starter, should have checked my facts. I forgot about the cargo version and had never even heard of the 767-200ER.

The 767-200ER is what Qantas had from 1985! Nevermind, the point of coming here is sometimes to learn and you certainly are.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
 
Caspian27
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:48 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 3:34 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 27):
US Airways uses the A321 as its workhorse for transcontinental business routes from Philadelphia and Charlotte to San Francisco, Phoenix and Los Angeles. It's visibly a bit of a pig on fully-loaded takeoffs, and on days when the jetstream is real strong, it's fuel-stop city. Also, it generally can't climb directly to max cruise - the pilot will fly a stair-step profile, up to 30k, then 34, then 38 as fuel burns off.

According to my uncle who works in the SOC for HP/US, the 321 does very poorly out of PHX on hot summer days with high density-altitudes due to weaker engines than the 57.
Meanwhile, somewhere 35,000 ft above your head...
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 4:28 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 4):
The 762ER is still available, there are 4 unfilled orders

Thanks for thats. Is CO the final customer?
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
BA
Posts: 10133
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 4:28 am

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 25):
The A321-100 does not have transcontinental range - Airbus had to come up with the A321-200 with extra fuel tanks in the cargo hold to meet US Airways range/payload needs.

Airbus did not come up with the A321-200 for US Airways. The A321-200 has been in production since 1997. US Airways didn't get its first A321 until 2001, 4 years after production began.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
gilesdavies
Posts: 2271
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:51 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 5:46 am

Everyone always seems to be going on about 757 doing transatlantic routes, but when you consider over 1050 were built. The number of 757's operating over the Atlantic is fractional with probably no more than 5% of all built operating these or similar length routes.

Even though the A321 may not be considered as a direct competitor to the 757, it can probably operate the vast majority of similar routes to the 757 and offer better economics, while carrying similar payloads.

Another area that has helped Airbus and assisted Boeing in ending production of the 757, is carriers that already have the A320 family in their fleet and require an aircraft larger like 757. Would automatically consider the A321 due to its fleet commonality and assist in keeping costs low.

However Airbus did very much "miss the boat", as they were late in producing an aircraft of similar proportions to the 757 and therefore most carriers that needed an aircraft of this size were already flying the 757 when the A321 was launched. This applies to most US carriers and as US Airways wanted the A320 the A321 was a natural choice.

Several airlines continue to fly the A321 and 757 side by side and operate the same routes... Airlines that spring to mind are US Airways, Iberia, Monarch Airlines, First Choice Airways and British Airways.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5155
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 6:01 am

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
Everyone is familar with how the 767 was a very popular airliner until the A330 came along with its superior ecomomics and cargo capacity and made the 767 obsolete, whipping it in sales to the point where Boeing stopped making them.

You need to check your premises a little bit. The A330 didn't make the 767 "obsolete". Indeed, it's still in production, although most airlines will probably end up waiting for a version of the more-advanced airliner rather than order new 767s. That said, the 767-300ER is the perfect *currently-available* aircraft for a wide range of intercontinental routes, both as to range and as to size, and that's why you can't find a decent one available on the used market at any kind of reasonable price. Of airliners available today, it's ideal for many, many routes -- at least on carriers that actually operate in a competitive marketplace without subsidy. Not too many seats, not too few, not too much aircraft, not too little...just right.

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

The 757-300 has the best CASM of any single-aisle airliner.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5155
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 6:14 am

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 25):
Also, it generally can't climb directly to max cruise - the pilot will fly a stair-step profile, up to 30k, then 34, then 38 as fuel burns off.

The A321 is a very comfortable aircraft inside (mmmm....wider), particularly in 1st on US. It is, however, a lead sled when you're talking about transcontinental TO weights. So if you (like I) enjoy the Porsche-like acceleration of the 757 on takeoff, forget it. If you're a regular Joe, you probably don't even notice.

You are doubtless correct that the A321 flies a stair-step climb, and maybe even gets a little closer to coffin corner a little more easily on a transcontinental-weight flight. Nevertheless, if you're looking for the most fuel-efficient flight profile, you're gonna have a stair-step climb in a 757 on a transcontinental flight as well.
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 8:07 am

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 25):
It's visibly a bit of a pig on fully-loaded takeoffs

Yes.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 25):
on days when the jetstream is real strong, it's fuel-stop city.

No. At least not more so than other narrowbus.

An A321 may have to stop occasionally but the A320 is going to be stopping first about 10% shorter.
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5155
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 9:06 am

Quoting Molykote (Reply 41):
Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 25):
on days when the jetstream is real strong, it's fuel-stop city.

No. At least not more so than other narrowbus.

But that's not saying much. Yes, the 319 and the 321 have more range than the A320, but given that this is a 757 vs. 321 thread, the point is that it is absolutely "fuel stop city" for the 321 in conditions that wouldn't faze the 752. That's all.

Best,

Bill
 
Ward86IND
Topic Author
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:13 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 9:56 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 33):
Well, I won't be the first to say this...


But the 767 is still very much in production.

Then why say it? I made an incorrect assumption without doing the research and already acknowledged it after many people pointed it out.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 33):
Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
***NOT and A vs. B Thread***

Ummmmm.......

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
until the A330 came along with its superior ecomomics and cargo capacity and made the 767 obsolete, whipping it in sales to the point where Boeing stopped making them

You made it A vs. B.

Ummmmm......no I didn't. Minus the part about me incorrectly stating how Boeing stopped making them (even if they only have a few more left to make and the line is closing in two years while the A330 line will stay open and be very busy for many years to come) I told it how it is. Want me to sugar-coat it next time? FYI I actually am more of a Boeing fan overall, and am a huge 757 fan, greatful that the A321 didn't make IT obsolete. But it's only an A vs. B thread if you make it one.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 33):
There is no 757 "ER"

Guess BA didn't get the memo...what do you call it?

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 33):
The A321 competes with the 737-900, NOT the 757, OR 767.

Read the thread. A lot of people beg to differ. Why do they have the same passenger capacity then? Why has BA chosen to replace their 757's with A321s?

Edit: that's S12PPL I meant to quote. Don't know why it keeps doing that.

[Edited 2006-05-01 02:57:57]
Live your dream.
 
phllax
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:53 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 10:43 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
I find it particularly interesting how two planes with roughly the same capacity could sell so differently.

RoseFlyer- Look at when the 757 was introduced and first started flying. At that time - early 80's, airlines with 707 and DC8 fleets were beginning to phase them out, and the 757 offered a bit more capacity with one less flight deck member and 2 less engines.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 25):
It's visibly a bit of a pig on fully-loaded takeoffs, and on days when the jetstream is real strong, it's fuel-stop city.

Travis- during the strong jetstream this February that caused fuel stops for everyone, some 321's made it across non-stop on days when the 320 an hour or so later didn't.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 11:01 am

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

Wrong, as pointed out above

Quoting Ward86IND (Thread starter):
And about the same passenger capacity (about 180 in the two-class configuration, like the 752),

No, it actually holds about 10-20 fewer passengers in a 2 class config and is certified to about 20 fewer

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

The 753 was offered too late. When Boeing offered the airplane, airlines were in the midst of their short-sighted love affair with the RJ. The 757-200ER or 757-250 was studied by Boeing and would have probably met with success had airlines like CO already shown the potential of transatlantic 757 flying.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 5):
Mostly, yes. I don't think the A321 has transcontinental range in the US, while the 757 does.

The A321-100 certainly doesn't, though the A321-200 was specifically designed for transcon range. The only routes it should have a consistant issue on are Boston/Miami-West Coast and PHX/LAS-East

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
Of course this has some advantages in some cases. However in the big picture it isn´t an advantage. This is not a street race. Fuel & maintenance costs have become uncompetitive that´s why it stopped selling.

That is completely untrue. The reason the 757 stopped selling was that airline fleets were already full of rather young 757s and they didn't particularly need replacement. If they were so uncompetitive, airlines like United that already operate the A320 Family would have ordered the A321-200 en masse back when they were turning multi-billion dollar profits.

Quoting Geo772 (Reply 20):
180 minute ETOPS is required for HNL.

Not always. 777s and 757s with the PW2040 or RB211-E4B can do it with ETOPS 138.

Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 29):
had never even heard of the 767-200ER.

Where have you been?

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 33):
Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 26):
I've heard that Airbus gave US Airways a steal of a deal on the A321s

Every time Airbus sells a plane, I hear that.

Well, they did get a steal of a deal, but that is because they placed a 400 aircraft order in November 1996. If someone did that with Boeing, they would get a steal of a deal too. Hell, Boeing would reopen the 717 line right now if someone ordered 400 of them.

Quoting 777ER (Reply 36):
Thanks for thats. Is CO the final customer?

No, their 767-200ER order was filled quite a while ago.

Quoting BA (Reply 37):
Airbus did not come up with the A321-200 for US Airways. The A321-200 has been in production since 1997. US Airways didn't get its first A321 until 2001, 4 years after production began.

Actually, US Airways ordered the aircraft in 1996. The plane was designed with US transcons in mind

Quoting Molykote (Reply 41):
An A321 may have to stop occasionally but the A320 is going to be stopping first about 10% shorter.

That is only if the A321 has all the ACTs

Quoting Phllax (Reply 44):
Travis- during the strong jetstream this February that caused fuel stops for everyone, some 321's made it across non-stop on days when the 320 an hour or so later didn't.

The major reason for that was the fact that the A320s in question were some of the heaviest that exist and were also not fully fueled.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
USPIT10L
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:24 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 11:17 am

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 25):
US Airways uses the A321 as its workhorse for transcontinental business routes from Philadelphia and Charlotte to San Francisco, Phoenix and Los Angeles. It's visibly a bit of a pig on fully-loaded takeoffs, and on days when the jetstream is real strong, it's fuel-stop city. Also, it generally can't climb directly to max cruise - the pilot will fly a stair-step profile, up to 30k, then 34, then 38 as fuel burns off.

Inside, however, it's a very comfortable transcon jet, outfitted in a 26F/143Y configuration - lots of upgrades for the elites!

Interesting info, FCYTravis. I knew that 321s had hot/high problems in places like LAS and possibly SLC (if/when US goes there from PHL/CLT), but I didn't realized it used up that much fuel on takeoff and during climbing to cruise altitude. Makes you wonder if US may switch off to something else later on down the line. I remember when LAS-LGA was supposed to be operated on Saturdays in 2004, but the flights were pulled after the A321s hot/high problems at LAS caused the route to be axed.
It's a Great Day for Hockey!
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 12:32 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
I think it was the other way around. The right sized engine weren´t there when the 757 was developed. They had to go with the next best available PW & RR variants.

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

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

What in your opinion would have been the right sized engine? Can't A321s be had with ~33k of thrust? Given this and the additional MTOW of a 757, the PW 2037 doesn't seem outrageous in the same way as the the 43k RB211 and PW variants. (I have no Pratt 2000 experience).

I don't think anyone is doubting that for most uses under discussion here that a 757 is not necessary. This does not mean that the 757 isn't highly valued for its unique capabilities.

I should disclaim that I am a huge 757 fan. This is probably my only meaningful bias as far as A/B or PW/RR/GE. Again, however, as much as I like the 757 I am not claiming it as superior (economically) to the A321. The 757 does kick more ass  Smile (I'm an engineer, not an accountant).
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
phllax
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:53 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 12:47 pm

Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 46):
I remember when LAS-LGA was supposed to be operated on Saturdays in 2004, but the flights were pulled after the A321s hot/high problems at LAS caused the route to be axed.

Had those flights even started they were to be operated with the 757, but Bankruptcy 2 halted that plan.
 
Ward86IND
Topic Author
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:13 am

RE: 757 Vs. A321

Mon May 01, 2006 1:03 pm

Quoting Caspian27 (Reply 35):
The 767-200ER is what Qantas had from 1985! Nevermind, the point of coming here is sometimes to learn and you certainly are.

I was aware of the 767-200, 300, 300ER, and 400. When I heard that the -200ER was still in production, I assumed that it was a new variant of the old -200, but I guess not...I would be interested to know exactly how many of these are still being made. I would have thought, especially since this aircraft has been around for over 20 years, that Continental and whoever else would have ordered the A330 instead. Did they get a great deal or something? Looking at the range, my info says the 767-200ER's is 6600nm and the A330-200's is 6400nm, not much of a differance...

Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 46):
Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 29):
had never even heard of the 767-200ER.

Where have you been?

Jupiter, thanks.

Seriously though, I don't claim myself to be any kind of airliner expert and I'm posting so people who ARE experts can inform me. BTW I did hear somewhere on the web that the A321 had the best casm of any single-aisle jetliner and also that 767 had stopped. Obviously not from very good sources but just FYI I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass.

It quoted the wrong people again...

[Edited 2006-05-01 06:04:16]
Live your dream.

Who is online