CRJ900
Topic Author
Posts: 1940
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:01 am

I'm confused. Boeing is doing their sales thing about the B739ER on their website and it is a fairly good read - they give out lots of info about range and weight with different configs etc (source: boeing.com). Airbus is a different animal... they have very little info about the A321-200, and their numbers doesn't match those of airlines.

Example: Airbus claims that the A321-200 can fly 5,550 kms Paris-Boston with 185 pax and baggage while German carrier LTU claim that their A321-200 can fly 5,700 kms with 204 pax... (source: airbus.com and LTU.de).

MyTravel fly Oslo-Canary Islands which is 4,100-4,300 kms with 211 pax, Airbus claim that the A321-200 can fly US transcon routes but many a.netters say that the aircraft cannot fly US transcon with a useful payload (185 pax at least) and the distance is about the same as Oslo-Canary Islands... I have not seen any US transcon schedules flown with the A321-200.

Does anyone know how far a high-density-configured A321-200 can fly without the extra centre tank? Does MyTravel or Monarch or LTU or Novair have extra fuel tanks in their high-density seating aircraft?

Is the B739ER a serious threat to the A321-200?

Suggestions and opinions most welcome  Smile
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:33 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Thread starter):
Airbus is a different animal... they have very little info about the A321-200, and their numbers doesn't match those of airlines.

Airbus use to provide a range/payload Z-chart for the A321-200 in the "Performance" section of the A320 page. Since the Airbus redesgin, I cannot find the graphs.

Quoting CRJ900 (Thread starter):
Is the B739ER a serious threat to the A321-200?

It is a very serious threat, on paper. It fully levels the A320 and 737NG families, and the 739ER should be quite a bit lighter and more fuel efficet with the same payload over a greater distance.

In terms of orders, both the A321 and 739ER are outliers and fill niche markets only. The A321 has hardly set the world on fire with 487 orders over about 15 years, likewise, the 739ER will not be a rapid seller. Airlines with bulk 757 replacement will likely wait a few years until Airbus/Boeing launch their next-generation narrow-bodies.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:00 am

There are also other factors which distort the numbers.

For instance, flights may depart airports with shorter runways which need the aircraft to be lighter. Hence less fuel. Also some routes carry more additional cargo, especially those on what we now call legacy carriers. Another factor is the temperatures of the airports being operated to and how that impacts on the aircraft.

LTU and MyTravel are principally charter carriers who would not be using the maximum payload of the A321. Similarly, there are airports in the USA which don't have long runways but still have transcontinental service (places like Burbank). The same issue cropped up when Virgin wanted to use LHR for its longer runways, allowing them to load the aircraft with more fuel and cargo than LGW with its shorter runway allows.

It is much more complex than just swallowing constructor figures, and depends so much on just what the aircraft is being used for (and from where).
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17093
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:24 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Thread starter):
I have not seen any US transcon schedules flown with the A321-200.

Well, are there any US operators of the 321? I'm tired so I may be missing an obvious one. But in any case all the US operators are up to their ears in 757s. Those will do the job without complaint for a while longer.

As Whitehatter says, the interesting time will be when the 757s get old. Will airlines simply say "321 is fine"? Will they buy the short 787? Will Airbus make a 321NG (is this possible given the already stretched plane)?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:13 pm

Why A321-200.What was the A321-100.I've heard of the A320-100 though.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
CRJ900
Topic Author
Posts: 1940
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:06 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
Well, are there any US operators of the 321?

US Airways and Spirit Airlines in the US, Air Canada in Can.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 4):
Why A321-200.What was the A321-100.

The A321-100 was the baseline aircraft with about the same weight as the A320, giving it extra seats but shorter range. LH and AF fly the -100 on short Euro hops. The A321-200 has a higher MTOW to offer more pax AND range.

I dropped by Monarch's website and they say the 220-seat A321-200 has about 4,250 km range... so MYT must have about 4,500 km in their 211-seat A321-200s then, I guess... but is that with or without extra fuel tanks? If that is with extra fuel, then LTU must have a typo in their fleet overview as they say their A321-200 can fly 5,700 km with 204 pax... or...?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17093
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Fri Dec 30, 2005 8:19 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 5):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
Well, are there any US operators of the 321?

US Airways and Spirit Airlines in the US, Air Canada in Can.

US Airways!!! Of course. Thx. I had a brainfart.

Still, the 321 wasn't really built for US transcon. As I see it, it was built for lesser trunk Euroroutes like LHR-CPH. Capacity was more important for customers than range.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4950
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:14 am

We fly the A321-200 from YYZ-SFO, about 2100 nms. At about 5:40, it is the longest A321 flight in our system. Range is never a problem with the aircraft, even with a long alternate, and we usually leave with a lot of open weight, even with all the passenger seats filled. (24J / 142Y in our configuration). While runway performance is certainly a factor, it really all depends to what MTOW the aircraft has been licenced.

Certain airlines, AC included, do not licence the aircraft to its maximum capability. Our MTOW is 93,000 kgs for the A321-200. This may cause the variation in performance figures you mention.

And for the record, the A321 has far better runway performance than the A320.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
CRJ900
Topic Author
Posts: 1940
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:03 pm

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 7):
Certain airlines, AC included, do not licence the aircraft to its maximum capability. Our MTOW is 93,000 kgs for the A321-200. This may cause the variation in performance figures you mention.

I thought 93,500 kgs was the ultimate MTOW for the A321-200 (according to airbus.com)... that should make your company's aircraft a powerhouse machine with "only" 166 seats...? Thanx for your reply, mate  thumbsup . Oh, by the way, do AC A321-200 have extra fuel tanks?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:32 am

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 7):
And for the record, the A321 has far better runway performance than the A320.

I this because of the A321's double slotted flaps, because the T/Ws are about the same for AC's A320s (0.30 or 0.32) as they are for AC's A321s (0.31)? The nominal W/Ss are of course a fair bit higher for the A321 (155 psf vs 126 or 129 psf).
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:33 am

On www.amadeus.net , I´ve found US flights PHL-SFO and PHL-LAX flights on the A321, scheduled with flight times up to 6:22.

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 7):
And for the record, the A321 has far better runway performance than the A320.

Really ? I didn´t know this. How big is the difference to the A319 ? I´m asking this because I´d like to know if the A321 could fly to/from SDU.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17093
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:49 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 10):
On www.amadeus.net , I´ve found US flights PHL-SFO and PHL-LAX flights on the A321, scheduled with flight times up to 6:22.

6:22? That must be block time. JFK-LAX is only about 5½ in the air normally.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:59 pm

The A321-200 has got a MTOW of 93t.
The -200 indicates that it has got the option for one or two ACT's (hence the higher MTOW - visible from the rear belly by either the drain holes for the ACT or the blanks if there isn't an ACT). Some airlines might just take an option for 1 ACT and therefore the MTOW is less and landing fees also.
That's why you'll have different ranges with the -200 (as it can have no, 1 or 2 extra fuel tanks)
 
danman
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 6:11 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:15 am

The MyTravel 321s used for the longer sectors have the ACT
 
320tech
Posts: 489
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 11:38 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:51 am

do AC A321-200 have extra fuel tanks?

Yes.
The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the manufacturer and impossible for the AME.
 
CRJ900
Topic Author
Posts: 1940
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:56 am

Quoting Danman (Reply 13):
The MyTravel 321s used for the longer sectors have the ACT

As in one tank or two, or do they have one tank that is big enough to fit two tanks...?

Quoting 320tech (Reply 14):
do AC A321-200 have extra fuel tanks?

Yes.

As in two tanks?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:02 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 15):
As in one tank or two, or do they have one tank that is big enough to fit two tanks...?

You can't have one tank as big as two. Each tank holds around 2.6t off the top of my head.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:29 am

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 12):
The A321-200 has got a MTOW of 93t.
The -200 indicates that it has got the option for one or two ACT's (hence the higher MTOW - visible from the rear belly by either the drain holes for the ACT or the blanks if there isn't an ACT). Some airlines might just take an option for 1 ACT and therefore the MTOW is less and landing fees also.
That's why you'll have different ranges with the -200 (as it can have no, 1 or 2 extra fuel tanks)

So you could select 93-ton MTOW without ACTs, say if you want to carry much cargo over medium distances ?
How much cargo could a A321-200 typically take in addtion to the baggage ?
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:35 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
So you could select 93-ton MTOW without ACTs, say if you want to carry much cargo over medium distances ?
How much cargo could a A321-200 typically take in addtion to the baggage ?

I have no idea, but I suppose you could carry the same weight as the ACT and fuel in it in that same space. However, IIRC landing fees increase with increasing MTOW.
But such things are not my speciality.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:20 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Thread starter):
I have not seen any US transcon schedules flown with the A321-200.

US uses theirs almost exclusively on transcons.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
Still, the 321 wasn't really built for US transcon.

The -200 was. It was a major consideration of US purchasing them.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):
JFK-LAX is only about 5� in the air normally.

Not during the winter... it almost always is north of 6.

N
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17093
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:56 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 19):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):
JFK-LAX is only about 5� in the air normally.

Not during the winter... it almost always is north of 6.

Winter. Ah well good point. Still, I flew it in 2nd week of Dec in 5:24. And we all know trends can be extrapolated from one datapoint. Big grin
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Actual Range Of The A321-200?

Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:28 am

You can find almost all the numbers you want on most airliner types.

Many airlines have (some of) their planes registered with a lower MTOW than the max certified TOW.

At many airports you pay a fee which is partly based on the registered MTOW. If you don't need the full range potential of the plane, then it is a wise and natural way to save on airport fees.

For instance SAS has had some 737-600 registered with such a low MTOW that the range with full pax load was no more than 800nm. It makes sense when the planes are used entirely from Scandinavian capital cities to Germany, Britain, Benelux or on for instance Swedish domestic routes.

To have such a plane "re-registered" with a different MTOW is probably little more than an email to the local CAA.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests