majano
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:10 am

compensateme wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
F27500 wrote:
Kind of sad to see everyone with such hard-ons over these cramped narrowbody planes .. I remember the days when transcons .. and DL's ATL-Florida, NYC, California would be widebodies … all this excitement over a 737 or A320 derivative ? Snore.


Agreed. My first time flying included an MD-11 on ATL-MCO. And later it was always hard to choose between the 763, 764, and 777 on that route.


The days when people shopped at malls instead of Amazon, listened to FM radio instead of streaming music, left their teacup dog at home instead of pretending it’s a service dog, met at bars instead of Tindr, and didn’t pretend to know what gulten was when asking if the bread is gulten free.

Welcome to 2019, where 15x-16x daily service to Florida triumphs over 8 or 9 widebodies, where load factors are in the 90s instead of the 50s... and where DL is making lots of $$$$.

Well done Sir! Good to wake up to a laugh! :checkmark: :checkmark:
 
dlflynhayn
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:21 am

FSDan wrote:
laca773 wrote:
I know DL has sent the 739ER on LAX/SEA-KOA in the past. I don't know if it wanted to see how they would do, since these are usually 752/753 depending on demand. I suspect LAX/SEA-KOA/LIH will see more 739ERs before HNL or OGG.


This summer, LAX-HNL is scheduled to have 2x daily 739s and LAX-KOA is also a daily 739. The rest of the West Coast-Hawai'i flights are on 752s and 753s, plus one daily 763 on LAX-HNL to rotate 763s between Pacific ops and the rest of the network.


Gonna miss the 757 this summer, not sure why DL can't make 2x LAX-KOA work for the upcoming summer schedule yet we down grade with plane and capacity but SEA keeps the 757 wow :evil:
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5945
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:52 am

compensateme wrote:
EBiafore99 wrote:
FB330 wrote:
Given the similarity between the two, what were the the reasons Delta ordered both?


Wasn't the 739 order part of the "deal" when DL rescinded PMNWs order of the 787?


No. The 787 failed to live up to expectations guaranteed to NW, thus Boeing owed NW/DL compensation, which was credited toward the 739 purchase. Boeing would’ve owned DL compensation whether they took delivery of the 787 or not, although it’s not likely DL would’ve ordered the 739 without the credits (sources indicated DL would go for the 321).


This seems like a short-term opportunistic transaction. It seems to me that had DL up-gauged to the 787-9, they would have had a winner in their fleet. And in the long term, the 787-8 (at least past the initial few dozen) appears to be a winner from a customer standpoint.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
n7371f
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:20 am

On the 321NEO order, don't underestimate the deal TechOps signed with Pratt & Whitney to be the overhaul base for the GTF engine. This alone has a huge bottom line boost to DAL. And it's nothing that Boeing could work around.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:23 am

N328KF wrote:
compensateme wrote:
EBiafore99 wrote:

Wasn't the 739 order part of the "deal" when DL rescinded PMNWs order of the 787?


No. The 787 failed to live up to expectations guaranteed to NW, thus Boeing owed NW/DL compensation, which was credited toward the 739 purchase. Boeing would’ve owned DL compensation whether they took delivery of the 787 or not, although it’s not likely DL would’ve ordered the 739 without the credits (sources indicated DL would go for the 321).


This seems like a short-term opportunistic transaction. It seems to me that had DL up-gauged to the 787-9, they would have had a winner in their fleet. And in the long term, the 787-8 (at least past the initial few dozen) appears to be a winner from a customer standpoint.


No. Boeing owned DL performance penalties, regardless of whether they took delivery of the 787 or not. It’s dependent on the contact NW signed, but most likely DL could’ve accepted a cash payment or received credits toward Boeing orders, and typically the latter is of larger value. It has nothing to do with cancellation of the 787.
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
F27500
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:59 am

dlflynhayn wrote:
FSDan wrote:
laca773 wrote:
I know DL has sent the 739ER on LAX/SEA-KOA in the past. I don't know if it wanted to see how they would do, since these are usually 752/753 depending on demand. I suspect LAX/SEA-KOA/LIH will see more 739ERs before HNL or OGG.


This summer, LAX-HNL is scheduled to have 2x daily 739s and LAX-KOA is also a daily 739. The rest of the West Coast-Hawai'i flights are on 752s and 753s, plus one daily 763 on LAX-HNL to rotate 763s between Pacific ops and the rest of the network.


Gonna miss the 757 this summer, not sure why DL can't make 2x LAX-KOA work for the upcoming summer schedule yet we down grade with plane and capacity but SEA keeps the 757 wow :evil:



Whats really the difference (as a pax) between a 757 and a 737-800/900? Its a 3x3 cramped awful ride in the back (and the same 2x2 up front) ..
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6391
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:31 am

n7371f wrote:
On the 321NEO order, don't underestimate the deal TechOps signed with Pratt & Whitney to be the overhaul base for the GTF engine. This alone has a huge bottom line boost to DAL. And it's nothing that Boeing could work around.


I'm sure that was helpful in getting Pratt-powered neos on property for the first time, but I'm not sure it would have any effect on future orders, given that TechOps is already an overhaul provider for the CFM56 and will most likely end up as one for the LEAP whether Delta orders the MAX or not..
 
SteelChair
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:04 pm

F27500 wrote:
dlflynhayn wrote:
FSDan wrote:

This summer, LAX-HNL is scheduled to have 2x daily 739s and LAX-KOA is also a daily 739. The rest of the West Coast-Hawai'i flights are on 752s and 753s, plus one daily 763 on LAX-HNL to rotate 763s between Pacific ops and the rest of the network.


Gonna miss the 757 this summer, not sure why DL can't make 2x LAX-KOA work for the upcoming summer schedule yet we down grade with plane and capacity but SEA keeps the 757 wow :evil:



Whats really the difference (as a pax) between a 757 and a 737-800/900? Its a 3x3 cramped awful ride in the back (and the same 2x2 up front) ..


The difference is that the 739 rolls 3,000 feet further down the runway on takeoff, climbs very slowly to FL310, and then is unable to top any weather...... :rotfl:
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 551
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:17 pm

SteelChair wrote:

The difference is that the 739 rolls 3,000 feet further down the runway on takeoff, climbs very slowly to FL310, and then is unable to top any weather...... :rotfl:


LOL! Not the case.The 900ER outclimbs the A321ceo, both in average climb rate with clean wings and initial cruising altitude (usually 33-35k)

The 739 runway performance is a bit low relative to other narrowbodies, but this because of geometric constraints to prevent tail strike. Once in the air, it’s every bit average and not such a dog. The Max9 takes performance up a notch but also so does the neo.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 868
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:12 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

The difference is that the 739 rolls 3,000 feet further down the runway on takeoff, climbs very slowly to FL310, and then is unable to top any weather...... :rotfl:


LOL! Not the case.The 900ER outclimbs the A321ceo, both in average climb rate with clean wings and initial cruising altitude (usually 33-35k)

The 739 runway performance is a bit low relative to other narrowbodies, but this because of geometric constraints to prevent tail strike. Once in the air, it’s every bit average and not such a dog. The Max9 takes performance up a notch but also so does the neo.

He was talking 757 vs 738/9.
When you quote something, quote it in full.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7207
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:42 pm

F27500 wrote:
dlflynhayn wrote:
FSDan wrote:

This summer, LAX-HNL is scheduled to have 2x daily 739s and LAX-KOA is also a daily 739. The rest of the West Coast-Hawai'i flights are on 752s and 753s, plus one daily 763 on LAX-HNL to rotate 763s between Pacific ops and the rest of the network.


Gonna miss the 757 this summer, not sure why DL can't make 2x LAX-KOA work for the upcoming summer schedule yet we down grade with plane and capacity but SEA keeps the 757 wow :evil:



Whats really the difference (as a pax) between a 757 and a 737-800/900? Its a 3x3 cramped awful ride in the back (and the same 2x2 up front) ..

The 752 has a better F experience than the 739ER and A321 for a few reasons, primarily because has a seperate F-mini cabin feel seperate from Y.
-Typically boarding through L2 where possible, thus a quiet and calm experience during boarding
-Lav at L2 that keeps most Y passengers from using the forward Lav at L1
-Boarding via L2 tends to leave more bin space in F for later boarding F pax
-There tends to be more space at L2 for Y passengers to "hang-out" in flight versus nowhere on the 739 other than front or rear galleys

739 F is a bit tight, especially when the person in front reclines their seat.
I have yet to fly on the A321 in F.
Row 13 exit row on the A321 has massive amounts of leg-room
Row 19 exit row on the 739 is very comfortable as well; better than C+ in my opinion.

A321 has the mid-cabin lav which particularly helps alot when FAs have carts in the aisle. Its annoying on the 739 if they are doing service as C+ and the forward part of Y can be cut-off from the rear lavs for 45+ minutes during cabin service.

The second tranche of 739s have the larger overhead bins which take rollerboards on their side.
 
flyboy80
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:17 pm

The A321 CEO is tight in DL's configuration. They have the space flex-flex and then a modified space-flex galley and hence the two seating configurations; both aft lavs are behind the aft (4L/4R) doors on the left side of the wall with the galley on the right side- Bathrooms in the galley. DL's 321s also have pivot overheads and do not fit bags on their sides.
 
FSDan
Posts: 2402
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:35 am

dlflynhayn wrote:
not sure why DL can't make 2x LAX-KOA work for the upcoming summer schedule yet we down grade with plane and capacity but SEA keeps the 757 wow :evil:


There's way more competition on LAX-KOA than SEA-KOA. On SEA-KOA, DL's competition is 2x daily on AS. On LAX-KOA, they're up against 2x daily AA, 2x daily UA, and 1x daily HA. I suspect that's a large part of it.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
n7371f
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:16 am

First Class on the 321 is no different than the 739. Same pitch. Same width. Same seat.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
F27500 wrote:
dlflynhayn wrote:

Gonna miss the 757 this summer, not sure why DL can't make 2x LAX-KOA work for the upcoming summer schedule yet we down grade with plane and capacity but SEA keeps the 757 wow :evil:



Whats really the difference (as a pax) between a 757 and a 737-800/900? Its a 3x3 cramped awful ride in the back (and the same 2x2 up front) ..

The 752 has a better F experience than the 739ER and A321 for a few reasons, primarily because has a seperate F-mini cabin feel seperate from Y.
-Typically boarding through L2 where possible, thus a quiet and calm experience during boarding
-Lav at L2 that keeps most Y passengers from using the forward Lav at L1
-Boarding via L2 tends to leave more bin space in F for later boarding F pax
-There tends to be more space at L2 for Y passengers to "hang-out" in flight versus nowhere on the 739 other than front or rear galleys

739 F is a bit tight, especially when the person in front reclines their seat.
I have yet to fly on the A321 in F.
Row 13 exit row on the A321 has massive amounts of leg-room
Row 19 exit row on the 739 is very comfortable as well; better than C+ in my opinion.

A321 has the mid-cabin lav which particularly helps alot when FAs have carts in the aisle. Its annoying on the 739 if they are doing service as C+ and the forward part of Y can be cut-off from the rear lavs for 45+ minutes during cabin service.

The second tranche of 739s have the larger overhead bins which take rollerboards on their side.
 
dlflynhayn
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:04 am

Whats really the difference (as a pax) between a 757 and a 737-800/900? Its a 3x3 cramped awful ride in the back (and the same 2x2 up front) ..[/quote]


Big Difference when you are on this flight twice a month..DL configuration 19 more seats on the 757 non revs appreciate that.Also shouldn't matter especially in the summer months Delta should be at least 2x LAX-KOA sad for me.
 
bravoindia
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:26 am

SteelChair wrote:
F27500 wrote:
dlflynhayn wrote:

Gonna miss the 757 this summer, not sure why DL can't make 2x LAX-KOA work for the upcoming summer schedule yet we down grade with plane and capacity but SEA keeps the 757 wow :evil:



Whats really the difference (as a pax) between a 757 and a 737-800/900? Its a 3x3 cramped awful ride in the back (and the same 2x2 up front) ..


The difference is that the 739 rolls 3,000 feet further down the runway on takeoff, climbs very slowly to FL310, and then is unable to top any weather...... :rotfl:



True true
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:46 am

SteelChair wrote:
F27500 wrote:
dlflynhayn wrote:

Gonna miss the 757 this summer, not sure why DL can't make 2x LAX-KOA work for the upcoming summer schedule yet we down grade with plane and capacity but SEA keeps the 757 wow :evil:



Whats really the difference (as a pax) between a 757 and a 737-800/900? Its a 3x3 cramped awful ride in the back (and the same 2x2 up front) ..


The difference is that the 739 rolls 3,000 feet further down the runway on takeoff, climbs very slowly to FL310, and then is unable to top any weather...... :rotfl:


While The 737-900ER would be cruising at FL310, the A321 would be needing a fuel stop (unless Delta put in some aux tanks causing it to cruise at FL290).

This last week, some of JetBlues A321 transcons flights have had initial cruising altitudes of only 28,000ft. There Even was one flight that started cruising at FL260.
 
EChid
Posts: 523
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:00 am

Re: Delta B739 vs A321

Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:47 am

evank516 wrote:
speedbird2263 wrote:
    evank516 wrote:
    You used to see the 739 at LGA quite a bit, now you don't really see them at all. Lots of A321s though.


    I wonder if given both frames, the A321 is a little more flexible when it comes to payload and performance with relatively short runways compared to the 739?


    You see I thought the 739 had an edge on the A321 with shorter runways, or at least over the A321ceo, which is what Delta currently flies out of LGA.

    LGA may have short runways, but they aren't that short. I think the reality is that the range of the A321ceo is really well suited to restrictions in place on stage length out of LGA, as well as the volumes. Presumably they like operating their biggest narrowbodies on a bunch of routes.

    TTailedTiger wrote:
    What's wrong with remembering better times? I don't care about Delta's profits. I'm not an investor. And don't remember ATL-MCO ever being that low. Looking at the BTS data it was still 13x daily in 1999. And very rare that there was an empty seat next to me. Maybe that was true in the 70's and 80's but that's way before my time.

    A lot of people talk about the "better" times when widebodies were more common, but I really really don't understand this. If you're in Economy, there is no difference between being on a widebody or a narrowbody, unless you're missing things like IFE or wifi (which on DL, you'll have on the narrowbody). The seat pitch and quality is the same. The distance from the window seat to the aisles is the same. The entertainment and service is the same. The noise levels are the same. A widebody would just mean longer boarding times.
    2018: DRW-PER-HKG-ICN-MEL-AVV-BNE-OOL-SYD-YYZ-YYZ-YUL-YVR-PDX-SEA-SFO-PEK-KIX-CDG-IST-NRT-HND-BKK-FAT; AC J-TK J-OZ F-DL F-TG J/F-NH J/F-CX J-VA J
     
    zippy
    Posts: 139
    Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 9:46 pm

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:07 am

    EChid wrote:
    A lot of people talk about the "better" times when widebodies were more common, but I really really don't understand this. If you're in Economy, there is no difference between being on a widebody or a narrowbody, unless you're missing things like IFE or wifi (which on DL, you'll have on the narrowbody). The seat pitch and quality is the same. The distance from the window seat to the aisles is the same. The entertainment and service is the same. The noise levels are the same. A widebody would just mean longer boarding times.


    I'll bite since I just had a chance to fly the 767-300ER and -400ER transcon recently. A widebody cabin is more spacious both in terms of width and height, even if you don't have more room to sit it feels more spacious. I'm not claustrophobic, but I did appreciate the extra space. The extra aisle means it's easier to get around when the galley carts are out. I really like that Delta still does 2-x-2 seating on their older widebodies. On the 767 2-3-2 means only one middle seat, but extra aisle seats per row. I'd also expect that for the same number of passengers boarding would be faster on a widebody with the extra aisle.
     
    SteelChair
    Posts: 887
    Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:05 pm

    Newbiepilot wrote:
    SteelChair wrote:
    F27500 wrote:


    Whats really the difference (as a pax) between a 757 and a 737-800/900? Its a 3x3 cramped awful ride in the back (and the same 2x2 up front) ..


    The difference is that the 739 rolls 3,000 feet further down the runway on takeoff, climbs very slowly to FL310, and then is unable to top any weather...... :rotfl:


    While The 737-900ER would be cruising at FL310, the A321 would be needing a fuel stop (unless Delta put in some aux tanks causing it to cruise at FL290).

    This last week, some of JetBlues A321 transcons flights have had initial cruising altitudes of only 28,000ft. There Even was one flight that started cruising at FL260.


    As previously pointed out, the comparison was 739 to 757, not to A321.

    Man, the A vs B runs deep around here.
     
    Newbiepilot
    Posts: 3635
    Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:17 pm

    SteelChair wrote:
    Newbiepilot wrote:
    SteelChair wrote:

    The difference is that the 739 rolls 3,000 feet further down the runway on takeoff, climbs very slowly to FL310, and then is unable to top any weather...... :rotfl:


    While The 737-900ER would be cruising at FL310, the A321 would be needing a fuel stop (unless Delta put in some aux tanks causing it to cruise at FL290).

    This last week, some of JetBlues A321 transcons flights have had initial cruising altitudes of only 28,000ft. There Even was one flight that started cruising at FL260.


    As previously pointed out, the comparison was 739 to 757, not to A321.

    Man, the A vs B runs deep around here.


    The thread is about 737-900ER vs A321 so I thought I’d bring the conversation back to that comparison. My apologies if that came across too much as A vs B. Both the 739 and A321 have some performance limitations when compared to the 757, but both burn a whole lot less fuel to make those compromises worth it
     
    ihmcallister
    Posts: 14
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:14 am

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:33 pm

    Choose your flights wisely, folks. The 1980s designed A321 cabin is 7" wider that the 1950s designed cabin of the 737, and the standard seat width is 18", as opposed to 17". It has correspondingly larger baggage bins too. The A321 is also capable of handling containerised baggage, while the 737 must be bulk-loaded. That's a direct comparison, and makes a huge difference to any flight over a couple of hours!
     
    bgm
    Posts: 1981
    Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:47 pm

    ihmcallister wrote:
    Choose your flights wisely, folks. The 1980s designed A321 cabin is 7" wider that the 1950s designed cabin of the 737, and the standard seat width is 18", as opposed to 17". It has correspondingly larger baggage bins too. The A321 is also capable of handling containerised baggage, while the 737 must be bulk-loaded. That's a direct comparison, and makes a huge difference to any flight over a couple of hours!


    Add to the list that the 737 windows sit lower (although not as bad as the CRJ-200) and increased cabin noise, faster approach speeds and less flare/rotation due to the tiny landing gear (originally designed for the 737-200 length fuselage with JT8D engines) resulting in 'firmer' touchdowns, especially with the 739.

    What is the benefit of containerized luggage vs bulk load? Does it mean your bag doesn't get tossed about so much so less likely to get damaged? Easier for W&B calculations?
    A pilot cannot be expected to compensate for a flawed design.
     
    DylanHarvey
    Posts: 120
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:48 pm

    In terms of comfort the DL 321 is one of the more comfortable narrow bodies that I’ve flown on, the 739ER is tight in the pitch and width category.
     
    gsg013
    Posts: 503
    Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:03 pm

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:50 pm

    Newbiepilot wrote:
    tinpusher007 wrote:
    The longest routes we fly the 321 on are ATL-California and JFK-SLC. The 739 has more range and does full on transcons where the 321ceo cannot. However we have 100 firm plus 100 options on the P&W GTF powered 321 neo. Stay tuned!!!


    I think I read that Delta didn’t put aux fuel tanks in the A321s to save weight and allow more cargo, so they can’t do a full transcon. The 737-900ER has more fuel storage so it can do transcons so it flies longer missions than the A321.


    As a general rule the 737-900's are doing more East-West flying while A321 CEO's are doing more north south routings... This is not hard in stone but more a rule of thumb. A lot of the NYC-South Florida is now on A321 much out of LGA .. as well as a number of the island flights (DTW-MBJ and such) although JFK-MBJ is 737-900ER mostly..
     
    User avatar
    seabosdca
    Posts: 6391
    Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:59 pm

    DylanHarvey wrote:
    In terms of comfort the DL 321 is one of the more comfortable narrow bodies that I’ve flown on, the 739ER is tight in the pitch and width category.


    The pitch in Y of Delta's A321 and 739 are identical.
     
    User avatar
    compensateme
    Posts: 3257
    Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:07 pm

    gsg013 wrote:
    Newbiepilot wrote:
    tinpusher007 wrote:
    The longest routes we fly the 321 on are ATL-California and JFK-SLC. The 739 has more range and does full on transcons where the 321ceo cannot. However we have 100 firm plus 100 options on the P&W GTF powered 321 neo. Stay tuned!!!


    I think I read that Delta didn’t put aux fuel tanks in the A321s to save weight and allow more cargo, so they can’t do a full transcon. The 737-900ER has more fuel storage so it can do transcons so it flies longer missions than the A321.


    As a general rule the 737-900's are doing more East-West flying while A321 CEO's are doing more north south routings... This is not hard in stone but more a rule of thumb. A lot of the NYC-South Florida is now on A321 much out of LGA .. as well as a number of the island flights (DTW-MBJ and such) although JFK-MBJ is 737-900ER mostly..


    That rule was true when the 321 were first introduced, but is no longer true. Today, the 321 operate interchangeably with the 739, there’s no predictive flow at all.
    We don’t care what your next flight is.
     
    User avatar
    william
    Posts: 3052
    Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:28 pm

    F27500 wrote:
    Kind of sad to see everyone with such hard-ons over these cramped narrowbody planes .. I remember the days when transcons .. and DL's ATL-Florida, NYC, California would be widebodies … all this excitement over a 737 or A320 derivative ? Snore.


    :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Oh so long ago. Maybe its why Delta is "excited" by the 797. It will be the closest we get back to a domestic WB.
     
    DylanHarvey
    Posts: 120
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:44 pm

    seabosdca wrote:
    DylanHarvey wrote:
    In terms of comfort the DL 321 is one of the more comfortable narrow bodies that I’ve flown on, the 739ER is tight in the pitch and width category.


    The pitch in Y of Delta's A321 and 739 are identical.

    I do like the 18” wide seats on the 321. But yea they both have 31” lol, idk the 321 felt better
     
    tinpusher007
    Posts: 936
    Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:58 pm

    Newbiepilot wrote:
    tinpusher007 wrote:
    The longest routes we fly the 321 on are ATL-California and JFK-SLC. The 739 has more range and does full on transcons where the 321ceo cannot. However we have 100 firm plus 100 options on the P&W GTF powered 321 neo. Stay tuned!!!


    I think I read that Delta didn’t put aux fuel tanks in the A321s to save weight and allow more cargo, so they can’t do a full transcon. The 737-900ER has more fuel storage so it can do transcons so it flies longer missions than the A321.

    They didn't order them with aux tanks because the 321 is primarily a MD-88 replacement aircraft. The idea was to replace those older aircraft with new more fuel efficient airplanes that can carry more pax through our hubs on the same number of flights. The 321 neos, of which we are slated to take 200 examples of when all options are exercised will be more than sufficient for transcons. Additionally the 739ER's can do them now.
    "Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
     
    mjoelnir
    Posts: 8361
    Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

    Re: Delta B739 vs A321

    Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:30 pm

    evank516 wrote:
    speedbird2263 wrote:
      evank516 wrote:
      You used to see the 739 at LGA quite a bit, now you don't really see them at all. Lots of A321s though.


      I wonder if given both frames, the A321 is a little more flexible when it comes to payload and performance with relatively short runways compared to the 739?


      You see I thought the 739 had an edge on the A321 with shorter runways, or at least over the A321ceo, which is what Delta currently flies out of LGA.


      The A321ceo has a far better runway performance than both the 737-900ER and 737-9. The A321ceo is a match for the 737-800 in runway performance.

      The A321ceo at MTOW, ISA, sea level, needs about 2200m, the A321neo about 2000m, the 737-900ER about 3000m, the 737-9 2600m, the 737-800 2300m, the 737-8 2500m, the A320ceo 2100m and the A320neo 2000m. All numbers without the short field kit available on the A320 and 737-800.
       
      WN732
      Posts: 475
      Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:49 am

      Re: Delta B739 vs A321

      Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:48 pm

      william wrote:
      F27500 wrote:
      Kind of sad to see everyone with such hard-ons over these cramped narrowbody planes .. I remember the days when transcons .. and DL's ATL-Florida, NYC, California would be widebodies … all this excitement over a 737 or A320 derivative ? Snore.


      :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Oh so long ago. Maybe its why Delta is "excited" by the 797. It will be the closest we get back to a domestic WB.


      Well I mean you could fly UA's WB's all over the US, albeit the domestic 777's are pretty terrible.
       
      evank516
      Posts: 1923
      Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

      Re: Delta B739 vs A321

      Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:22 pm

      mjoelnir wrote:
      evank516 wrote:
      speedbird2263 wrote:

        I wonder if given both frames, the A321 is a little more flexible when it comes to payload and performance with relatively short runways compared to the 739?


        You see I thought the 739 had an edge on the A321 with shorter runways, or at least over the A321ceo, which is what Delta currently flies out of LGA.


        The A321ceo has a far better runway performance than both the 737-900ER and 737-9. The A321ceo is a match for the 737-800 in runway performance.

        The A321ceo at MTOW, ISA, sea level, needs about 2200m, the A321neo about 2000m, the 737-900ER about 3000m, the 737-9 2600m, the 737-800 2300m, the 737-8 2500m, the A320ceo 2100m and the A320neo 2000m. All numbers without the short field kit available on the A320 and 737-800.


        So how much of a payload hit do you think the A321ceo takes at LGA? 2200m is longer than both of LGA's runways. I can't imagine DL needs full tanks to fly LGA-ATL though, nor would AA need full tanks to fly LGA-CLT.
         
        mjoelnir
        Posts: 8361
        Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

        Re: Delta B739 vs A321

        Tue Feb 26, 2019 3:14 pm

        evank516 wrote:
        mjoelnir wrote:
        evank516 wrote:

        You see I thought the 739 had an edge on the A321 with shorter runways, or at least over the A321ceo, which is what Delta currently flies out of LGA.


        The A321ceo has a far better runway performance than both the 737-900ER and 737-9. The A321ceo is a match for the 737-800 in runway performance.

        The A321ceo at MTOW, ISA, sea level, needs about 2200m, the A321neo about 2000m, the 737-900ER about 3000m, the 737-9 2600m, the 737-800 2300m, the 737-8 2500m, the A320ceo 2100m and the A320neo 2000m. All numbers without the short field kit available on the A320 and 737-800.


        So how much of a payload hit do you think the A321ceo takes at LGA? 2200m is longer than both of LGA's runways. I can't imagine DL needs full tanks to fly LGA-ATL though, nor would AA need full tanks to fly LGA-CLT.


        Both LGA runways are 2134m. LGA is at sea level. Somebody doing take off calculations for an A321 should answer that for exact numbers. But the hit to TOW should be small. And much smaller than for a 737-900 or 737-9.
        I would assume that the 737-900 and 737-9 do well on long routes with on both ends airports with full sized runways. The A321 will do better on long routes when there are shorter runways on one or both sides. You will of course need one or more ACT on the A321, but you also have the MTOW to carry that and a decent payload.
         
        User avatar
        compensateme
        Posts: 3257
        Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

        Re: Delta B739 vs A321

        Tue Feb 26, 2019 4:39 pm

        WN732 wrote:
        william wrote:
        F27500 wrote:
        Kind of sad to see everyone with such hard-ons over these cramped narrowbody planes .. I remember the days when transcons .. and DL's ATL-Florida, NYC, California would be widebodies … all this excitement over a 737 or A320 derivative ? Snore.


        :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Oh so long ago. Maybe its why Delta is "excited" by the 797. It will be the closest we get back to a domestic WB.


        Well I mean you could fly UA's WB's all over the US, albeit the domestic 777's are pretty terrible.


        UA hardly operates widebodies “all over the US;” the number of flights within the continental US is comparable to DL.
        We don’t care what your next flight is.
         
        FSDan
        Posts: 2402
        Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

        Re: Delta B739 vs A321

        Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:08 pm

        compensateme wrote:
        WN732 wrote:
        Well I mean you could fly UA's WB's all over the US, albeit the domestic 777's are pretty terrible.


        UA hardly operates widebodies “all over the US;” the number of flights within the continental US is comparable to DL.


        Since DL retired the bulk of the domestic 763s, UA actually has significantly more domestic widebody flights than DL. This summer, DL will have:
        SLC-BOS (1x 763)
        ATL-LAX (1x 763 + 1x 77L)
        JFK-LAX (2x 763 + 4x 764 + 1x 333)

        UA will have:
        SFO-DEN (1x 772)
        SFO-IAH (1x 772)
        SFO-ORD (1x 772)
        SFO-IAD (1x 788 + 1x 772)
        SFO-EWR (1x 78J + 3x 772)
        LAX-DEN (1x 772)
        LAX-IAH (1x 789 + 1x 772)
        LAX-EWR (2x 78J + 1x 772)
        DEN-IAH (1x 772)
        DEN-ORD (2x 772)
        DEN-IAD (1x 788)
        IAH-ORD (1x 763)
        IAH-IAD (1x 763)

        In addition to the above, there is expected to be a 772 "triangle" with one way segments on IAH-ORD, ORD-EWR, and EWR-IAH that isn't fully loaded past May yet, and if the May schedule carries forward into June and July there will also be a EWR-IAH-EWR 763 rotation.

        If you want to include Hawai'i service, the disparity only widens:
        DL LAX-HNL (1x 763)
        DL MSP-HNL (1x 764)
        DL DTW-HNL (4x weekly 764 starting in late June)
        DL ATL-HNL (1x 764)
        UA SFO-HNL (3x 772)
        UA LAX-HNL (1x 772)
        UA DEN-HNL (1x 772)
        UA DEN-OGG (1x 772)
        UA IAH-HNL (1x 772)
        UA ORD-HNL (1x 772)
        UA ORD-OGG (1x 772)
        UA IAD-HNL (1x 764)
        UA EWR-HNL (1x 764)
        This is my signature until I think of a better one.
         
        User avatar
        compensateme
        Posts: 3257
        Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

        Re: Delta B739 vs A321

        Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:16 pm

        FSDan wrote:
        compensateme wrote:
        WN732 wrote:
        Well I mean you could fly UA's WB's all over the US, albeit the domestic 777's are pretty terrible.


        UA hardly operates widebodies “all over the US;” the number of flights within the continental US is comparable to DL.


        Since DL retired the bulk of the domestic 763s, UA actually has significantly more domestic widebody flights than DL. This summer, DL will have:
        SLC-BOS (1x 763)
        ATL-LAX (1x 763 + 1x 77L)
        JFK-LAX (2x 763 + 4x 764 + 1x 333)

        UA will have:
        SFO-DEN (1x 772)
        SFO-IAH (1x 772)
        SFO-ORD (1x 772)
        SFO-IAD (1x 788 + 1x 772)
        SFO-EWR (1x 78J + 3x 772)
        LAX-DEN (1x 772)
        LAX-IAH (1x 789 + 1x 772)
        LAX-EWR (2x 78J + 1x 772)
        DEN-IAH (1x 772)
        DEN-ORD (2x 772)
        DEN-IAD (1x 788)
        IAH-ORD (1x 763)
        IAH-IAD (1x 763)

        In addition to the above, there is expected to be a 772 "triangle" with one way segments on IAH-ORD, ORD-EWR, and EWR-IAH that isn't fully loaded past May yet, and if the May schedule carries forward into June and July there will also be a EWR-IAH-EWR 763 rotation.

        If you want to include Hawai'i service, the disparity only widens:
        DL LAX-HNL (1x 763)
        DL MSP-HNL (1x 764)
        DL DTW-HNL (4x weekly 764 starting in late June)
        DL ATL-HNL (1x 764)
        UA SFO-HNL (3x 772)
        UA LAX-HNL (1x 772)
        UA DEN-HNL (1x 772)
        UA DEN-OGG (1x 772)
        UA IAH-HNL (1x 772)
        UA ORD-HNL (1x 772)
        UA ORD-OGG (1x 772)
        UA IAD-HNL (1x 764)
        UA EWR-HNL (1x 764)


        Thanks for sharing that! DL operates about half the domestic wide bodies (10 vs. 21) as UA in the peak summer months. The difference shrinks considerably offpeak, when DL redeploys D1 equipment into the domestic system (from ATL: SLC, SFO, PDX, SEA, additional LAX were operated within the last year).
        We don’t care what your next flight is.
         
        FSDan
        Posts: 2402
        Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

        Re: Delta B739 vs A321

        Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:30 pm

        compensateme wrote:
        FSDan wrote:
        compensateme wrote:

        UA hardly operates widebodies “all over the US;” the number of flights within the continental US is comparable to DL.


        Since DL retired the bulk of the domestic 763s, UA actually has significantly more domestic widebody flights than DL. This summer, DL will have:
        SLC-BOS (1x 763)
        ATL-LAX (1x 763 + 1x 77L)
        JFK-LAX (2x 763 + 4x 764 + 1x 333)

        UA will have:
        SFO-DEN (1x 772)
        SFO-IAH (1x 772)
        SFO-ORD (1x 772)
        SFO-IAD (1x 788 + 1x 772)
        SFO-EWR (1x 78J + 3x 772)
        LAX-DEN (1x 772)
        LAX-IAH (1x 789 + 1x 772)
        LAX-EWR (2x 78J + 1x 772)
        DEN-IAH (1x 772)
        DEN-ORD (2x 772)
        DEN-IAD (1x 788)
        IAH-ORD (1x 763)
        IAH-IAD (1x 763)

        In addition to the above, there is expected to be a 772 "triangle" with one way segments on IAH-ORD, ORD-EWR, and EWR-IAH that isn't fully loaded past May yet, and if the May schedule carries forward into June and July there will also be a EWR-IAH-EWR 763 rotation.

        If you want to include Hawai'i service, the disparity only widens:
        DL LAX-HNL (1x 763)
        DL MSP-HNL (1x 764)
        DL DTW-HNL (4x weekly 764 starting in late June)
        DL ATL-HNL (1x 764)
        UA SFO-HNL (3x 772)
        UA LAX-HNL (1x 772)
        UA DEN-HNL (1x 772)
        UA DEN-OGG (1x 772)
        UA IAH-HNL (1x 772)
        UA ORD-HNL (1x 772)
        UA ORD-OGG (1x 772)
        UA IAD-HNL (1x 764)
        UA EWR-HNL (1x 764)


        Thanks for sharing that! DL operates about half the domestic wide bodies (10 vs. 21) as UA in the peak summer months. The difference shrinks considerably offpeak, when DL redeploys D1 equipment into the domestic system (from ATL: SLC, SFO, PDX, SEA, additional LAX were operated within the last year).


        True, DL does redeploy international capacity to domestic in the winter. In addition to your list, I believe ATL-PHX and MSP-PHX often see widebodies in Feb/March. From the DL Widebody thread, it's also evident that DL regularly operates non-scheduled widebody flights on routes like ATL-MCO and ATL-JFK.

        But with a dedicated domestic fleet of 772s and with hubs in some of the largest metro areas in the country, I imagine UA will lead the US3 in domestic widebodie flights for years to come.
        This is my signature until I think of a better one.
         
        evank516
        Posts: 1923
        Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

        Re: Delta B739 vs A321

        Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:34 pm

        mjoelnir wrote:
        evank516 wrote:
        mjoelnir wrote:

        The A321ceo has a far better runway performance than both the 737-900ER and 737-9. The A321ceo is a match for the 737-800 in runway performance.

        The A321ceo at MTOW, ISA, sea level, needs about 2200m, the A321neo about 2000m, the 737-900ER about 3000m, the 737-9 2600m, the 737-800 2300m, the 737-8 2500m, the A320ceo 2100m and the A320neo 2000m. All numbers without the short field kit available on the A320 and 737-800.


        So how much of a payload hit do you think the A321ceo takes at LGA? 2200m is longer than both of LGA's runways. I can't imagine DL needs full tanks to fly LGA-ATL though, nor would AA need full tanks to fly LGA-CLT.


        Both LGA runways are 2134m. LGA is at sea level. Somebody doing take off calculations for an A321 should answer that for exact numbers. But the hit to TOW should be small. And much smaller than for a 737-900 or 737-9.
        I would assume that the 737-900 and 737-9 do well on long routes with on both ends airports with full sized runways. The A321 will do better on long routes when there are shorter runways on one or both sides. You will of course need one or more ACT on the A321, but you also have the MTOW to carry that and a decent payload.


        What is ACT?
         
        User avatar
        Polot
        Posts: 9238
        Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

        Re: Delta B739 vs A321

        Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:44 pm

        evank516 wrote:
        mjoelnir wrote:
        evank516 wrote:

        So how much of a payload hit do you think the A321ceo takes at LGA? 2200m is longer than both of LGA's runways. I can't imagine DL needs full tanks to fly LGA-ATL though, nor would AA need full tanks to fly LGA-CLT.


        Both LGA runways are 2134m. LGA is at sea level. Somebody doing take off calculations for an A321 should answer that for exact numbers. But the hit to TOW should be small. And much smaller than for a 737-900 or 737-9.
        I would assume that the 737-900 and 737-9 do well on long routes with on both ends airports with full sized runways. The A321 will do better on long routes when there are shorter runways on one or both sides. You will of course need one or more ACT on the A321, but you also have the MTOW to carry that and a decent payload.


        What is ACT?

        Additional/Auxiliary Center Tank aka the removable fuel tank in the cargo hold.
         
        smflyer
        Posts: 133
        Joined: Tue May 01, 2018 4:44 pm

        Re: Delta B739 vs A321

        Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:54 pm

        n7371f wrote:
        First Class on the 321 is no different than the 739. Same pitch. Same width. Same seat.

        PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
        F27500 wrote:


        Whats really the difference (as a pax) between a 757 and a 737-800/900? Its a 3x3 cramped awful ride in the back (and the same 2x2 up front) ..

        The 752 has a better F experience than the 739ER and A321 for a few reasons, primarily because has a seperate F-mini cabin feel seperate from Y.
        -Typically boarding through L2 where possible, thus a quiet and calm experience during boarding
        -Lav at L2 that keeps most Y passengers from using the forward Lav at L1
        -Boarding via L2 tends to leave more bin space in F for later boarding F pax
        -There tends to be more space at L2 for Y passengers to "hang-out" in flight versus nowhere on the 739 other than front or rear galleys

        739 F is a bit tight, especially when the person in front reclines their seat.
        I have yet to fly on the A321 in F.
        Row 13 exit row on the A321 has massive amounts of leg-room
        Row 19 exit row on the 739 is very comfortable as well; better than C+ in my opinion.

        A321 has the mid-cabin lav which particularly helps alot when FAs have carts in the aisle. Its annoying on the 739 if they are doing service as C+ and the forward part of Y can be cut-off from the rear lavs for 45+ minutes during cabin service.

        The second tranche of 739s have the larger overhead bins which take rollerboards on their side.


        Can confirm, I've flow both 739 and 321 F recently and the experience was exactly the same. The only difference I noticed was that there's some extra gap between the window and seat on the A321 which gives you more elbow room I guess. Most passengers seems to just shove their pillows and blankets into that crevice so I guess you can think of it as a "storage space". Other than that, I couldn't tell a single difference between the two.
         
        xdlx
        Posts: 939
        Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

        Re: Delta B739 vs A321

        Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:58 pm

        Newbiepilot wrote:
        SteelChair wrote:
        F27500 wrote:


        Whats really the difference (as a pax) between a 757 and a 737-800/900? Its a 3x3 cramped awful ride in the back (and the same 2x2 up front) ..


        The difference is that the 739 rolls 3,000 feet further down the runway on takeoff, climbs very slowly to FL310, and then is unable to top any weather...... :rotfl:


        While The 737-900ER would be cruising at FL310, the A321 would be needing a fuel stop (unless Delta put in some aux tanks causing it to cruise at FL290).

        This last week, some of JetBlues A321 transcons flights have had initial cruising altitudes of only 28,000ft. There Even was one flight that started cruising at FL260.



        Funny you mentioned the performance of the 739ER... Out of TJSJ to KATL ( and at the SYS LF of 85% LF ) is UNABLE to go directly to FL320 must step climb thru FL260, FL300 before the optimum altitude 2/3 of the way there..... Certainly no 757 REPLACEMENT no matter what they say!
         
        rbavfan
        Posts: 3055
        Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

        Re: Delta B739 vs A321

        Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:01 pm

        speedbird2263 wrote:
          evank516 wrote:
          You used to see the 739 at LGA quite a bit, now you don't really see them at all. Lots of A321s though.


          I wonder if given both frames, the A321 is a little more flexible when it comes to payload and performance with relatively short runways compared to the 739?


          The A321ceo does have better short field performance vs the 739. LGA make sense for their use.
           
          ilovelamp
          Posts: 287
          Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:45 am

          Re: Delta B739 vs A321

          Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:39 pm

          xdlx wrote:
          Newbiepilot wrote:
          SteelChair wrote:

          The difference is that the 739 rolls 3,000 feet further down the runway on takeoff, climbs very slowly to FL310, and then is unable to top any weather...... :rotfl:


          While The 737-900ER would be cruising at FL310, the A321 would be needing a fuel stop (unless Delta put in some aux tanks causing it to cruise at FL290).

          This last week, some of JetBlues A321 transcons flights have had initial cruising altitudes of only 28,000ft. There Even was one flight that started cruising at FL260.



          Funny you mentioned the performance of the 739ER... Out of TJSJ to KATL ( and at the SYS LF of 85% LF ) is UNABLE to go directly to FL320 must step climb thru FL260, FL300 before the optimum altitude 2/3 of the way there..... Certainly no 757 REPLACEMENT no matter what they say!


          Weird. I fly the 739ER for Delta and always climb straight to FL300 or 320 even with full loads out of TJSJ. Maybe you caught it on a high wind day and they step climbed as the headwinds decreased westbound.
           
          SteelChair
          Posts: 887
          Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

          Re: Delta B739 vs A321

          Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:21 pm

          ilovelamp wrote:
          xdlx wrote:
          Newbiepilot wrote:

          While The 737-900ER would be cruising at FL310, the A321 would be needing a fuel stop (unless Delta put in some aux tanks causing it to cruise at FL290).

          This last week, some of JetBlues A321 transcons flights have had initial cruising altitudes of only 28,000ft. There Even was one flight that started cruising at FL260.



          Funny you mentioned the performance of the 739ER... Out of TJSJ to KATL ( and at the SYS LF of 85% LF ) is UNABLE to go directly to FL320 must step climb thru FL260, FL300 before the optimum altitude 2/3 of the way there..... Certainly no 757 REPLACEMENT no matter what they say!


          Weird. I fly the 739ER for Delta and always climb straight to FL300 or 320 even with full loads out of TJSJ. Maybe you caught it on a high wind day and they step climbed as the headwinds decreased westbound.


          Bragging about climbing straight to FL300 isn't much of a brag......just sayin'. Especially when you would be at 380 in a 757 with a similar load.
           
          WayexTDI
          Posts: 868
          Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

          Re: Delta B739 vs A321

          Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:32 pm

          SteelChair wrote:
          ilovelamp wrote:
          Weird. I fly the 739ER for Delta and always climb straight to FL300 or 320 even with full loads out of TJSJ. Maybe you caught it on a high wind day and they step climbed as the headwinds decreased westbound.


          Bragging about climbing straight to FL300 isn't much of a brag......just sayin'. Especially when you would be at 380 in a 757 with a similar load.

          But at a higher fuel burn.
          The days of hot-rod aircraft are long gone; now it's hyper-mileage all along.
           
          jagraham
          Posts: 837
          Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

          Re: Delta B739 vs A321

          Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:41 pm

          FSDan wrote:
          dlflynhayn wrote:
          not sure why DL can't make 2x LAX-KOA work for the upcoming summer schedule yet we down grade with plane and capacity but SEA keeps the 757 wow :evil:


          There's way more competition on LAX-KOA than SEA-KOA. On SEA-KOA, DL's competition is 2x daily on AS. On LAX-KOA, they're up against 2x daily AA, 2x daily UA, and 1x daily HA. I suspect that's a large part of it.


          SEA is the longest west coast destination. When the winds are bad, 737s (and A321s) take hits. AS has been known to fly 737s down the coast to SFO and then over because of the winds; obviously, payload is reduced. 752s fly right through those winds.
           
          ilovelamp
          Posts: 287
          Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:45 am

          Re: Delta B739 vs A321

          Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:36 pm

          SteelChair wrote:
          ilovelamp wrote:
          xdlx wrote:


          Funny you mentioned the performance of the 739ER... Out of TJSJ to KATL ( and at the SYS LF of 85% LF ) is UNABLE to go directly to FL320 must step climb thru FL260, FL300 before the optimum altitude 2/3 of the way there..... Certainly no 757 REPLACEMENT no matter what they say!


          Weird. I fly the 739ER for Delta and always climb straight to FL300 or 320 even with full loads out of TJSJ. Maybe you caught it on a high wind day and they step climbed as the headwinds decreased westbound.


          Bragging about climbing straight to FL300 isn't much of a brag......just sayin'. Especially when you would be at 380 in a 757 with a similar load.


          I wasn’t bragging at all. I was simply disproving a matter-of-fact statement based on my proven experience.


          ILL
           
          rbavfan
          Posts: 3055
          Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

          Re: Delta B739 vs A321

          Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:55 pm

          EChid wrote:
          evank516 wrote:
          speedbird2263 wrote:

            I wonder if given both frames, the A321 is a little more flexible when it comes to payload and performance with relatively short runways compared to the 739?


            You see I thought the 739 had an edge on the A321 with shorter runways, or at least over the A321ceo, which is what Delta currently flies out of LGA.

            LGA may have short runways, but they aren't that short. I think the reality is that the range of the A321ceo is really well suited to restrictions in place on stage length out of LGA, as well as the volumes. Presumably they like operating their biggest narrowbodies on a bunch of routes.

            TTailedTiger wrote:
            What's wrong with remembering better times? I don't care about Delta's profits. I'm not an investor. And don't remember ATL-MCO ever being that low. Looking at the BTS data it was still 13x daily in 1999. And very rare that there was an empty seat next to me. Maybe that was true in the 70's and 80's but that's way before my time.

            A lot of people talk about the "better" times when widebodies were more common, but I really really don't understand this. If you're in Economy, there is no difference between being on a widebody or a narrowbody, unless you're missing things like IFE or wifi (which on DL, you'll have on the narrowbody). The seat pitch and quality is the same. The distance from the window seat to the aisles is the same. The entertainment and service is the same. The noise levels are the same. A widebody would just mean longer boarding times.



            Ok L1011, DC10 & A300//330/340 all has 2 seats window to isle. atandard 17" width, like the DC-9/MD80/MD88. The boeing NB's & DC8/A320 are all 3 seats widow to isle. So your seat statement is mixed up at best.
             
            SteelChair
            Posts: 887
            Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

            Re: Delta B739 vs A321

            Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:30 am

            WayexTDI wrote:
            SteelChair wrote:
            ilovelamp wrote:
            Weird. I fly the 739ER for Delta and always climb straight to FL300 or 320 even with full loads out of TJSJ. Maybe you caught it on a high wind day and they step climbed as the headwinds decreased westbound.


            Bragging about climbing straight to FL300 isn't much of a brag......just sayin'. Especially when you would be at 380 in a 757 with a similar load.

            But at a higher fuel burn.
            The days of hot-rod aircraft are long gone; now it's hyper-mileage all along.


            You know, that's what is so amazing to me. Fuel burn per seat on the 757 is actually very competitive with the 739 and A321, all the moreso given that it is 1980-81 technology. Based upon the flight plans that I have seen for a 2-4 hour flight, fuel burn per seat is 36-39 lbs/hr on all 3. Where the 757 failed imho was WRT engine reliability on the PW powered aircraft. No comparison to reliability of the 757/RR or 737-A321/CFM.

            The 757 was more expensive to purchase, pilot and landing costs are higher, but fuel burn appears to be competitive with 739ceo or A321ceo according to the data that i have seen. But its wwaaayyyy too much airplane for a 1-2 hour flight imho.

            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