xcltflyboy
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:12 pm

US A321 Performance

Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:07 pm

I was on the top parking garage Friday at PHX watching the "birds" blast off. Over the course of a couple hours, I noticed almost all a/c types rotating and breaking ground at roughly the same point on the runway. Except for US's A321s. The two "21s" I saw depart, initiated rotation and had wheels off noticeably farther past the typical rotation/off point on the runway of other a/c types.

This made me think of some comments I heard from A321 drivers when I was a f/a at US back in the early 2000's. Several pilots on the 21 felt that the A321 was a pig, because it lacked the performance to climb to final cruising altitude without stopping on transcon flights. They said they always had to level off at around 30,000 feet to burn fuel, then climb for higher.

With all that said, I would love to hear from members in-the-know about the A321's technical capabilities that may cause these performance issues. Are there any Boeing A/C that experience the same, e.g. 739?

Thanks in advance for the informative replies!
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:38 am

The wings must be small relative to the body.
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7071
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:30 am

US currently has two types of A321's. They have those powered by IAE engines and GE engines. The GE engines were the orignal batch ordered prior to the merger with America West. When US merged, they ordered A321's with the IAE engines.

The first IAE powered A321, N507AY, was delivered in 08. The last GE powered example, N197UW was delivered in 09'. The oldest A321 in the fleet is N161UW which was delivered to US in 2001. The latest A321 is N558UW, which was delivered in 2012.

KH
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:36 am

Quoting Xcltflyboy (Thread starter):
With all that said, I would love to hear from members in-the-know about the A321's technical capabilities that may cause these performance issues.

Its simple - its wings are mostly the same as the rest of the A320 family, but it is much bigger.

It has a different flaps configuration that help it with lift.

Quoting Xcltflyboy (Thread starter):
Are there any Boeing A/C that experience the same, e.g. 739?

The 739 is a runway hog as well. Its wings are entirely too small for its capacity as well, and even the revisions of the 737-900ER don't get it up off the ground much better.

This is one aspect of the 757 that neither manufacturer will be able to address.

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 3):
The first IAE powered A321, N507AY, was delivered in 08. The last GE powered example, N197UW was delivered in 09'. The oldest A321 in the fleet is N161UW which was delivered to US in 2001. The latest A321 is N558UW, which was delivered in 2012.

... ok?

NS
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:40 am

It must perform okay the missions US uses them on as US has kept on ordering them....
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:47 am

60 now. More coming.

NS
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3784
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:16 am

Take off distance is generally not a good indicator of performance, given that they're rarely operated at maximum thrust.

And then every aircraft is a pig to another. An A321 might not take off or climb as hard as an A320/738, but compared to a fully loaded 747, it might as well be ballistic missile...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
boberito6589
Posts: 363
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:09 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:44 am

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 3):
The last GE powered example, N197UW was delivered in 09'.

There will actually be 2 or 3 CFM powered 321s coming into the fleet this year
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1976
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:45 am

Perhaps the A321s you saw were scheduled for long flights and thus were heavy and needed the runway length they used.

The A321 seems to be disliked in the US, "everyone" complains about it. Here in Europe, the charter airlines fly them non-stop for 5-6 hours with 200-215 pax onboard without any problems.
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:52 am

Quoting francoflier (Reply 7):
An A321 might not take off or climb as hard as an A320/738, but compared to a fully loaded 747, it might as well be ballistic missile...

You need to remember PHX is 1135' above sea level, so it can be considered a high hot airport. The A-321 is the heaviest member of the A-32X family. Although it can be ordered with engines up to about 32,000 lbs of thrust, it still has a high thrust to weight ratio. Compared to the B-747-8 at a MTOW take-off (a 3.39:1 thrust to weight ratio), the A-321's take-off performance is only slightly better (3.21:1). But that is comparing apples to rocks. The B-747-8 has better and more advanced lift divices and therefore has a much better climb to cruising capability.

A much better comparison would be comparing the A-321 to the B-757, which is a true high performance airplane close to the same size of the A-321, although the B-757 has a MTOW some 50,000 lbs heavier than the A-321.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:07 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 4):
Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 3):The first IAE powered A321, N507AY, was delivered in 08. The last GE powered example, N197UW was delivered in 09'. The oldest A321 in the fleet is N161UW which was delivered to US in 2001. The latest A321 is N558UW, which was delivered in 2012.

... ok?

I think the point here is that we're dealing with potentially very different performance depending on which frame is in question. As with most planes, a 2010 model has numerous improvements over a 2002 model, and that's to say nothing about the V2500 vs CFM engines.
 
93Sierra
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:01 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:09 pm

I understand why other large A320 family operators did not order the 321 ( PMUA, NW ) due to the large number of 757 aircraft in their fleets.

The 321 seems to be a good fit for US out of PHX
 
migair54
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:59 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 5):
60 now. More coming

That´s a better indication of the good performance of the model with them.


Usually when a plane is taking off to save some life for the engines airlines use flex take off power, so they use the minimum required thrust for a given runway and conditions. and of course the heavier the plane the longer the runway needed.

The only plane that nobody can call a pig is the B757, that´s a rocket always!!!! I love to see it taking off....
 
fokkerf28
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:04 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:30 pm

The Primary reason for the long takeoff roll is the temps in PHX. I deal with the A321 daily. Anything going to the East coast is usually at MTOW. Weight restriction are very common on the the A321. Even a one degree increase in temp can equate to having to take off an additional 1000 to 1500 lbs of weight. We usually give the A321 the north runway due to it being the longest in PHX.
Over all a good aircraft for the shorter routes but add the higher temps and longer distances and unfortunately the aircraft struggles. There really is no true replacement for the B757.


cheers......
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:47 pm

Quoting Xcltflyboy (Thread starter):
With all that said, I would love to hear from members in-the-know about the A321's technical capabilities that may cause these performance issues. Are there any Boeing A/C that experience the same, e.g. 739?

Yes, the A321 needs quite a bit of runway in high/hot conditions such as those at PHX in the summer. Its unique flaps actually help it considerably -- the 739 needs yet more runway and is the worst runway hog among modern narrowbodies.

But there is *enough* runway, and it's an excellent aircraft economically and from a customer perspective.
 
PRAirbus
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:59 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:50 pm

Too bad US A320 family has no IFE! A missed opportunity; not even boarding music! It's awful to be stuck on a US A321 on a 5+ hrs flight on a transcon; just wifi is not good enough! At least AA will have state-of-the-art IFE on its A321s! (let's hope a US acquisition doesn't kill those innovative fleet plans!); that would truly suck!
 
User avatar
DesertFlyer
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:05 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:55 pm

Does anyone know how common fuel stops are for them anymore? Westbound PHL-SFO in the winter is always over 5.5 hours in the air and often the flight is full (of passengers at least), but it hardly ever seems to need to stop. I would think that's a decent measure of performance.
 
ROSWELL41
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2001 3:50 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:02 pm

A321's can have vastly different fuel capacities as well. I'm fairly certain that US's new A321's have the larger capacity fuel option. For example, NK's A321's actually hold less fuel than their A319's and A320's. This ultimately affects the capability of the aircraft. I'd imagine US's are taking off at heavier weights due to the longer legs they fly on average.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:06 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 3):
The 739 is a runway hog as well. Its wings are entirely too small for its capacity as well, and even the revisions of the 737-900ER don't get it up off the ground much better.

Yeah I watched the UA 739s take off out of EWR about a month ago. Absolutely terrible take off performance compared to a 757.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
Flighty
Posts: 7857
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:10 pm

Quoting fokkerf28 (Reply 13):
Over all a good aircraft for the shorter routes but add the higher temps and longer distances and unfortunately the aircraft struggles. There really is no true replacement for the B757.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 14):
But there is *enough* runway, and it's an excellent aircraft economically and from a customer perspective.

The A321 carries the same passengers and bags as the 757 at the end of the day. In greater comfort, lower noise and 25% less fuel or so. The fuel is very, very expensive now, so that's checkmate.
 
warreng24
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:38 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:19 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Compared to the B-747-8 at a MTOW take-off (a 3.39:1 thrust to weight ratio), the A-321's take-off performance is only slightly better (3.21:1). But that is comparing apples to rocks. The B-747-8 has better and more advanced lift divices and therefore has a much better climb to cruising capability.

Also don't forget that the A321 is only a twin (vs the 748, a quad). Engine out capability factors into the takeoff performance as well.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:05 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
The A321 carries the same passengers and bags as the 757 at the end of the day. In greater comfort, lower noise and 25% less fuel or so. The fuel is very, very expensive now, so that's checkmate.

Presuming it's a route the 321 can fly, sure. But that only works as long as you don't the field performance and/or extreme range capability of a 757. For those missions, there is only one plane that will suffice. There are of course a dwindling number of those, but they do still exist.
 
caljn
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:37 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:32 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
In greater comfort, lower noise

i get so tired of the subjective noise factor equalling better argument. Just flew transcon yesterday on a UA 757 and enjoyed every minute of it. From the best in the biz take off to the solid, secure, "no need to be concerned, I am in total control" feeling one gets while cruising in the mighty '57.
The humm of the engines are part of the experience, the 321 quite dull in comparison.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:49 pm

Quoting caljn (Reply 22):
i get so tired of the subjective noise factor equalling better argument. Just flew transcon yesterday on a UA 757 and enjoyed every minute of it. From the best in the biz take off to the solid, secure, "no need to be concerned, I am in total control" feeling one gets while cruising in the mighty '57.
The humm of the engines are part of the experience, the 321 quite dull in comparison.

In fact, didn't Boeing just release a PR recently stating that their studies had shown that people were disconcerted by TOO LITTLE ambient noise in the 787 cabin? I may be wrong on the specifics there, but I do recall a recent PR to that effect, that people find some level of noise reassuring.
 
wn676
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:12 pm

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 17):
I'm fairly certain that US's new A321's have the larger capacity fuel option.

All US A321s (pre- and post-merger aircraft) can carry up to 52,000 lbs of fuel as they have two ACTs installed in the aft cargo bin.

Quoting boberito6589 (Reply 7):
There will actually be 2 or 3 CFM powered 321s coming into the fleet this year

Are they going to start delivering CFMs with 500-series tail numbers? I know 198 is one of the new ones coming but I didn't see any others...
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
wn676
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:18 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
The A321 carries the same passengers and bags as the 757 at the end of the day.

Depending on which 757 fleet you're talking about, they actually carry more. US A321s seat 183 (soon to be 187); US East 757s seat 176 and US West 757s seat 190.
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
lucky777
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:40 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:30 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
The A321 carries the same passengers and bags as the 757 at the end of the day. In greater comfort, lower noise and 25% less fuel or so

I see you conveniently left off the cargo capabilities of the A321 versus the 757. Good luck making it to SFO from PHL with 5,000 lbs of cargo in the belly of an A321. The 757 could make that route all day long and not even break a sweat.
 
southwest737500
Posts: 611
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:49 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:45 pm

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 15):

No it's not, read a book play with and IPad, get on the gogo, you guys hate on US to much.

They get you from point A to point B
Next flight: TUL-ATL-CLT CRJ900 and MD88
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:43 pm

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 15):
Too bad US A320 family has no IFE! A missed opportunity; not even boarding music! It's awful to be stuck on a US A321 on a 5+ hrs flight on a transcon; just wifi is not good enough! At least AA will have state-of-the-art IFE on its A321s! (let's hope a US acquisition doesn't kill those innovative fleet plans!); that would truly suck!

It's actually worse than that. US A320s had IFE but RIPPED OUT the systems after HP integration in 2006/2007!!
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7947
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:45 pm

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 26):
I see you conveniently left off the cargo capabilities of the A321 versus the 757. Good luck making it to SFO from PHL with 5,000 lbs of cargo in the belly of an A321. The 757 could make that route all day long and not even break a sweat.

And would that cargo bring enough revenue to pay for the difference in fuel burn and maintenance ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
wn676
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:34 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 28):
It's actually worse than that. US A320s had IFE but RIPPED OUT the systems after HP integration in 2006/2007!!

The monitors were removed/deactivated starting in November 2008 and had nothing to do with the integration of the two airlines.
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:50 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 29):
And would that cargo bring enough revenue to pay for the difference in fuel burn and maintenance?

I think US's choice of equipment for that route (all A320/A321) answers that question convincingly in the negative.

Yet again people are too emotionally attached to the 757 to remember that airlines are businesses and operate to maximize profit.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:59 pm

Quoting wn676 (Reply 30):
The monitors were removed/deactivated starting in November 2008 and had nothing to do with the integration of the two airlines.

It did -- "weight savings" which we all know is BS when they were small LCD monitors. This was around the same time US was charging for water.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
lucky777
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:40 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:04 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 31):
Yet again people are too emotionally attached to the 757 to remember that airlines are businesses and operate to maximize profit.

Remind yourself this winter when you see the obligatory fuel stops for the LCC A321's headed to the west coast with nothing but passengers and bags as the mighty 757 flies overhead while looking down at earth at the A321 in shame.

[Edited 2012-09-10 14:05:52]
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:15 pm

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 33):
Remind yourself this winter when you see the obligatory fuel stops for the LCC A321's headed to the west coast with nothing but passengers and bags as the mighty 757 flies overhead while looking down at earth at the A321 in shame.

I don't think Parker is too ashamed of those few fuel stops when he compares the profitability of his A321s with that of the competition's 757s -- which are being replaced on that route, anyway, by 737-900ERs.
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:27 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 32):
"weight savings" which we all know is BS when they were small LCD monitors

Actually IFE systems are incredibly heavy. It's not the screens, it's the significant amount of cabling. Scoot claim to have reduced the weight of their 777s by 7% by taking out SQ's IFE system. Similarly, QF are rolling out iPads on their 767 fleet primarily because of the massive cost savings associated with installation and weight over traditional IFE systems. That US have cut their fuel bill by removing IFE cannot be doubted.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ipads-help-some-airlines-cut-costs
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:34 pm

The second most powerful jetliner takeoff I've ever experienced was on an A321. It was an AC flight YYZ-YYC..so not a short flight at all. Brake release to rotation in 17 seconds, no messing around with Flex thrust  

I seem to remember longhauler saying the A320 can actually be more "piggish" than the A321s at MTOW.
 
User avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:12 pm

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 8):
The A321 seems to be disliked in the US, "everyone" complains about it.

There seems to be some kind of 321 thread just before there is a "When will they reopen the 757 line" thread." I'm sure a little of that is Boeing-fanboy partisanship.

But early 320 series frames on transcontinental runs in the US had the misfortune of having to make tech stops mid-continent (both B6 and US) even though the problem never affected AC, NW, or UA. And for whatever reason, there was always a media outlet nearby to record the event.

But when defunct Canadian airline 'Jetsgo' attempted to fly MD-80s from coast-to-coast against winter winds and jetstream currents (IIRC AA once flew an MD-82 as a replacement aircraft LAX-IAD [2288 sm] without a tech stop) no one seemed to mind.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:31 pm

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 37):
But early 320 series frames on transcontinental runs in the US had the misfortune of having to make tech stops mid-continent (both B6 and US) even though the problem never affected AC, NW, or UA. And for whatever reason, there was always a media outlet nearby to record the event.
NW and UA never used their early A320s on transcons. NW had almost no transcons, while UA had tons of 757s which it used on those flights. And AC's transcons are a bit shorter.

A320s and A321s, particularly when heavy (like those of B6 in their original configuration), were, and remain, slightly challenged on the longest transcons during the winter months. It's not the catastrophe some make it out to be, because it only affects a few flights per year at most. But it is a slight operational advantage for the 737NG in the US. It will be rectified (and then some) by the A320neo and A321neo, and in the meantime the affected airlines have figured out how to work around it very well.

[Edited 2012-09-10 15:35:07]
 
Flighty
Posts: 7857
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:43 pm

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 26):
I see you conveniently left off the cargo capabilities of the A321 versus the 757. Good luck making it to SFO from PHL with 5,000 lbs of cargo in the belly of an A321. The 757 could make that route all day long and not even break a sweat.

From a hobbyist perspective, maybe the Spruce Goose should be selected to fly the route. People talk like that until it's their wallet paying to fill the tanks.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:50 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 38):
A320s and A321s, particularly when heavy (like those of B6 in their original configuration), were, and remain, slightly challenged on the longest transcons during the winter months. It's not the catastrophe some make it out to be, because it only affects a few flights per year at most. But it is a slight operational advantage for the 737NG in the US. It will be rectified (and then some) by the A320neo and A321neo, and in the meantime the affected airlines have figured out how to work around it very well.

Even during the winter the 739ER can divert on transcons.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 35):

Actually IFE systems are incredibly heavy. It's not the screens, it's the significant amount of cabling. Scoot claim to have reduced the weight of their 777s by 7% by taking out SQ's IFE system. Similarly, QF are rolling out iPads on their 767 fleet primarily because of the massive cost savings associated with installation and weight over traditional IFE systems. That US have cut their fuel bill by removing IFE cannot be doubted.

It was a particularly dumb move because at this point US is the only legacy carrier in the US without any kind of comp IFE.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
wn676
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:01 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 32):
...which we all know is BS when they were small LCD monitors.

They cut back not only on weight, but also with maintenance and licensing costs. It was projected to save about $10 million annually. And again, it had nothing to do with the integration of the two airlines. HP had an IFE system installed and operating on its Airbus fleet prior to the merger, which they continued to utilize for over three full years after the merger. Do you remember what was going in the second half of 2008? US had to make some drastic cutbacks to survie that period, and showing Cranium trivia on 90% of their equipped flights was just something that had to go.

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 33):
Remind yourself this winter when you see the obligatory fuel stops for the LCC A321's headed to the west coast with nothing but passengers and bags as the mighty 757 flies overhead while looking down at earth at the A321 in shame.

Obligatory? Really? You have no idea what you're talking about. The fuel stop issue with the A321s is so overblown and distorted these days. They probably account for less than 1% of their total ops every year, or are in line with the normal amount of fuel diversions for the rest of the airline related to weather, ATC, etc.

Even when US had a large domestic 757 fleet, you mostly saw them going to Vegas and Florida. What does that say about the mighty 757? The cost to operate a 757 on a transcon just to carry a few extra thousand pounds of domestic mail and freight that can easily take a one-stop routing just isn't worth it.

[Edited 2012-09-10 16:31:50]
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
USAIRWAYS321
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:31 pm

RE: US A321 Performance

Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:42 pm

I used to fly CLT/PHL/PIT-SEA very regularly on US when the A320 family was new to the US fleet, and never experienced a fuel stop on the A321, or any other aircraft. It seems to do the job just fine, as evidenced by US continuing to order 321s.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:27 am

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 33):
Remind yourself this winter when you see the obligatory fuel stops for the LCC A321's headed to the west coast with nothing but passengers and bags as the mighty 757 flies overhead while looking down at earth at the A321 in shame.

Really? How many of those really happen.

Their A320s seem to stop much more.

NS
 
KPDX
Posts: 2374
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:34 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
In greater comfort, lower noise

Hahahaha at mentioning noise in the A321. I sat in the front/back on two different flights this summer. It's hillarious when people mention noise on these narrowbodies. There's hardly any difference at all.. That's just grasping at straws.
View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4633
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:07 am

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 40):
It was a particularly dumb move because at this point US is the only legacy carrier in the US without any kind of comp IFE.

Wifi and the public love for tablets/laptops/smartphones are quickly making IFE an outdated and non very cost effective system especially given the added weight and maintenance costs. I can not count how many times I've seen cracked screens or busted LCD...
If given a choice between wifi and IFE most people will probably take the wifi since there is so much more you can do with it anyway. Social media rules the world and wifi keeps people in that oh-so-important loop.
 
lucky777
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:40 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:41 am

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 40):
Even during the winter the 739ER can divert on transcons.

I doubt that VERY much. With a range of 3200nm versus 3060 nm for the 737-800 which also does its fair share of transcons year round without trouble.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:47 am

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 46):
I doubt that VERY much. With a range of 3200nm versus 3060 nm for the 737-800 which also does its fair share of transcons year round without trouble.

Stated range tells you little to nothing about actual operating conditions.

The stated 3200 nm range is with two AFTs. No US airlines are taking their 739ERs with both AFTs, and they cut into usable payload. So far actual in-service experience for UA shows fully loaded 739ERs falling slightly short of fully loaded 738s with respect to range. And on top of that they take restrictions for runway length much more often, even from fairly long (9000'-10,000') runways.

The 739ER still does marginally better than the A321 assuming a looong runway, but then again that is with the A321 carrying more payload.

This is all a tempest in a teacup because we're talking about the difference of a couple of fuel stops per year.

[Edited 2012-09-10 18:48:43]
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:49 am

The range of a 737-800 is 3115nm vs a 737-900ER with two tanks at 3200.

Nobody has ordered two tanks that I am aware of.

NS
 
lucky777
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:40 am

RE: US A321 Performance

Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:16 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 47):
talking about the difference of a couple of fuel stops per year.

You keep trying to gloss over the fact that a couple of winters ago LCC was having to make what damn near became regularly-scheduled fuel stops to make it to the west coast. So let's quit pretending as if its a once-in-a-blue-moon type of event for the -321 doing transcons during winter operations. Fact is, the -321 doesn't even have the legs of the 737-800, nevermind the -900 or 757.

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