Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AmtrakGuy
Topic Author
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 1999 11:25 am

NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:40 am

This been in my mind and I decided to ask.

How many of their 757s can be converted into ETOP for TATL? Refresh my mind, how many 757 have been already have ETOP and are being used for TATL.

If I understand, 757-300 doesn't have the range to fly across the pond? Even with winglet?

Lastly, suppose NWA converted more 757 into new TATL routes, NWA could use lot of good # of seats they need for domestic routes, do you think NWA could get A321 as a replacement for 757 (that was converted)? I believe, correct me if I'm mistaken, A320/A319 pilots with little extra training, will be able to fly A321 -- no extra cost for new type of fleets.

Dave
 
burnsie28
Posts: 5300
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:49 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:46 am

Quoting AmtrakGuy (Thread starter):
How many of their 757s can be converted into ETOP for TATL? Refresh my mind, how many 757 have been already have ETOP and are being used for TATL.

16 total (as of now) are scheduled to be converted. I believe 10 are currently converted at this point.

Quoting AmtrakGuy (Thread starter):
If I understand, 757-300 doesn't have the range to fly across the pond? Even with winglet?

The 753 can't recieve winglets, in fact on the 753 a winglet would do more damange then good. But yes the 753 could make it accross the pond, keep in mind NW uses their 753's A LOT to Hawaii.

Quoting AmtrakGuy (Thread starter):
Lastly, suppose NWA converted more 757 into new TATL routes, NWA could use lot of good # of seats they need for domestic routes, do you think NWA could get A321 as a replacement for 757 (that was converted)? I believe, correct me if I'm mistaken, A320/A319 pilots with little extra training, will be able to fly A321 -- no extra cost for new type of fleets.

They wouldn't need any extra training. But the A321's economics are quite poor and thus NW has no interest. US Airways has problems flying their A321's out of places like LAS because they are too weak. NW would have problems with the A321 to places like ANC, LAS, etc.
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:20 am

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
But the A321's economics are quite poor and thus NW has no interest.

... which obviously goes miles in explaining why LH has something around 30 of them on order...  Yeah sure ... after all, they're well known to operate aircraft with bad economics.

The A321 doesn't fit some of the routes that US (or NW) operate the B757 on, and they're not as well suited for LAS operations as the B757... that hardly qualifies them as "poor" or "weak". The overwhelming majority of B757 routes can easily be operated by A321s or B739s.
Smile - it confuses people!
 
panam330
Posts: 2204
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:58 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:27 am

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
US Airways has problems flying their A321's out of places like LAS because they are too weak.

Not weak, just not the best choice for LAS and PHX. They did order ~30 (36?) of them a few months back, though. Must be good enough.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:29 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 2):
The A321 doesn't fit some of the routes that US (or NW) operate the B757 on, and they're not as well suited for LAS operations as the B757... that hardly qualifies them as "poor" or "weak".

What's meant when an airplane is called "weak"? Underpowered?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5937
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:30 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 2):
The overwhelming majority of B757 routes can easily be operated by A321s or B739s.

Is this true? From what I understand, this is a fabrication. The A321 can not handle the range and power of the 757. A321 cannot do TATL or service West Coast - Hawaii..

It may be able to handle a similar number of people, but it can not overpower a 757. There is no replacement for the versatility and maneuverability of the 757. Not even the 739ER.

You will not see A321s operating transcons flights. You will see A321s on routes that are required to move a lot of people in a decent (but not extended) amount of time.

Therefore, I refute your statement and call it a fallacy.

Thank you. This has been a public service announcement.
Aiming High and going far..
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:31 am

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
But yes the 753 could make it accross the pond

Maybe BOS-DUB, but surely nothing like DTW-FRA or anything of the sort, especially in the winter.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:37 am

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
But the A321's economics are quite poor and thus NW has no interest.

It's mind boggling to suggest an aircraft that has the same capacity as the B752, is 22t lighter, with smaller wings and smaller engines (10000lbf smaller), burns less fuel (0.598 v 0.543 sfc), has crew commonality with 5000 other Airbuses in the world and 160 others in NW's fleet is economically challenging to operate.

Payload/range and hot/high performance are the issues. Not economics.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:38 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 5):
Is this true? From what I understand, this is a fabrication. The A321 can not handle the range and power of the 757. A321 cannot do TATL or service West Coast - Hawaii..

It may be able to handle a similar number of people, but it can not overpower a 757. There is no replacement for the versatility and maneuverability of the 757. Not even the 739ER.

You will not see A321s operating transcons flights. You will see A321s on routes that are required to move a lot of people in a decent (but not extended) amount of time.

Therefore, I refute your statement and call it a fallacy.

Nonsense - I clearly said the majority of routes, not all routes: the majority of B757 routes are hardly US transcons or West Coast to Hawaii routes... don't forget that there's also a world outside of the United States of America, and the B757 plays a role there as well. Most routes that they're used on are well below US transcon/Transatlantic range.

Therefore my comments stand.
Smile - it confuses people!
 
COERJ145
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:22 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:49 am

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 4):
What's meant when an airplane is called "weak"? Underpowered?

Yup.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1123
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:02 am

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
They wouldn't need any extra training. But the A321's economics are quite poor and thus NW has no interest. US Airways has problems flying their A321's out of places like LAS because they are too weak. NW would have problems with the A321 to places like ANC, LAS, etc.

The 321's economics are actually quite good. As mentioned by others, its performance lags on some missions. However, it could easily operate all of NW's domestic routes, including MSP-ANC.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:06 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 5):

You will not see A321s operating transcons flights. You will see A321s on routes that are required to move a lot of people in a decent (but not extended) amount of time.

Oh yeah?
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/USA1421 PHL-LAX
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/USA965 PHL-SFO
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA111 YUL-YVR

Not saying that it's the most reliable equipment to run on these routes as far as a fuel-stop goes, but you definitely see A321's running transcons daily.
 
cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:07 am

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
The 753 can't recieve winglets, in fact on the 753 a winglet would do more damange then good.

can you explain that? is it a physical impossability?

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 5):
You will not see A321s operating transcons flights

fact: i've flown on US 321s SFO-PIT.
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5937
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:07 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 8):
Nonsense - I clearly said the majority of routes, not all routes: the majority of B757 routes are hardly US transcons or West Coast to Hawaii routes... don't forget that there's also a world outside of the United States of America, and the B757 plays a role there as well. Most routes that they're used on are well below US transcon/Transatlantic range.

Therefore my comments stand.

Let's get back to the scope of the thread. Northwest 757 TATL and A321.. therefore, I have to say that we are talking about between the US and Europe.. And to compare.. TATL = about 7-9 hours, transcons and Hawaii = about 4-6 hours.. Therefore, even flying transcons and Hawaii, the A321 cannot handle it.. thus why USAirways will be keeping their 757s for Hawaii runs...

Flying across the Atlantic, the 321 just cannot do it. And there are no 321's flying across the Atlantic. There will be no A321 flying across the Atlantic.. And no US or EU will buy or lease a 321 to fly TATL...

As far as the shorter length flights as you stated.. yes, the A321 can perform the same as the 757. intra-Europe and intra-US...

Hmmm... it would be interesting to see what is the longest A321 vs 757 run ....
Aiming High and going far..
 
nwa757300
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2001 12:18 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
16 total (as of now) are scheduled to be converted. I believe 10 are currently converted at this point.

When you say converted, do you mean just adding winglets or the full transatlantic conversion? If memory serves me right they originally planned to convert just 10.

If it's the full conversion on 6 additional 752s, does that mean new transatlantic service for next year?
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5937
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:28 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 11):
Not saying that it's the most reliable equipment to run on these routes as far as a fuel-stop goes, but you definitely see A321's running transcons daily.



Quoting Cancidas (Reply 12):
fact: i've flown on US 321s SFO-PIT.

Grr.. okay.. you don't see it ALOT then.. hehehe..
Aiming High and going far..
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:48 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 5):
Quoting Leskova (Reply 2):
The overwhelming majority of B757 routes can easily be operated by A321s or B739s.

Is this true? From what I understand, this is a fabrication. The A321 can not handle the range and power of the 757. A321 cannot do TATL or service West Coast - Hawaii..

...none of which constitute "the overwhelming majority of 757 routes".

Quoting Leskova (Reply 8):
don't forget that there's also a world outside of the United States of America, and the B757 plays a role there as well.

Albeit, a rather limited one

Quoting Cancidas (Reply 12):
can you explain that? is it a physical impossability?

Nope, just that no one's had the desire to have it certified for such; so it, at this point, can't have them.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:58 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 2):
... which obviously goes miles in explaining why LH has something around 30 of them on order... ... after all, they're well known to operate aircraft with bad economics.

I think the point is that the range/payload of the 757 is greater, and therefore it can fly longer routes with a full payload than the 757 can. On longer routes that the 757 can handle, a 321 would likely have to take a payload penalty in order to make the trip, which is where the comment of "weak economics" comes from.

It doesn't have to be a dig at the expense of the 321; it's more a matter of "you buy the most appropriate A/C for the job at hand."

I would think that LH's 321 operation out of Germany are routes that are generally shorter than U.S. trans-con or West Coast-Hawaii.
I come in peace
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15050
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:10 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 8):
Nonsense - I clearly said the majority of routes, not all routes: the majority of B757 routes are hardly US transcons or West Coast to Hawaii routes...

Very few of NW's 752 routes are shorter than 1000 miles, and while I don't feel the need to parse the schedules, I would guess that the majority of them are longer than 1500 miles. That's a completely different ballgame than US or a European carrier.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:14 am

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
But yes the 753 could make it accross the pond, keep in mind NW uses their 753's A LOT to Hawaii.

A 753 definitely cannot fly any good transatlantic routes.

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
But the A321's economics are quite poor and thus NW has no interest.

The A321's economics are FANTASTIC.

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
US Airways has problems flying their A321's out of places like LAS because they are too weak. NW would have problems with the A321 to places like ANC, LAS, etc.

Hardly. NW would have no problems with any of those routes.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 13):
Hmmm... it would be interesting to see what is the longest A321 vs 757 run ....

I don't really see why... the 757 is clearly a longer ranged plane.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 13):
Flying across the Atlantic, the 321 just cannot do it.

Nobody said you could. We were talking about converting more 757s for Atlantic services and replacing them on the US runs with A321s. A sound strategy. CO is replacing 757 capacity in the US with the 737-900ER.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 17):
On longer routes that the 757 can handle, a 321 would likely have to take a payload penalty in order to make the trip, which is where the comment of "weak economics" comes from.

I don't really think that's what he meant, but the reality is that for a lot of routes the 321 has superior economics to the 757.

I wouldn't replace a 757 with an A321 on BOS-SFO, but MSP-SFO? Sure.

NS
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:49 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 19):
A 753 definitely cannot fly any good transatlantic routes.

they could certainly fly BOS-LHR, and probably JFK-LHR as well.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:56 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 19):
A 753 definitely cannot fly any good transatlantic routes.

You better check with Thomas Cook.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:13 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 13):
Let's get back to the scope of the thread. Northwest 757 TATL and A321.. therefore, I have to say that we are talking about between the US and Europe.. And to compare.. TATL = about 7-9 hours, transcons and Hawaii = about 4-6 hours.. Therefore, even flying transcons and Hawaii, the A321 cannot handle it.. thus why USAirways will be keeping their 757s for Hawaii runs...

If you read the thread starter carefully, it asked that since NW is moving some 757s to transatlantic, could their place on domestic routes be replaced by 321s?

My answer would be absolutely. NW doesn't have many coast-to-coast routes to worry about, and the 757s would have to stay on the Hawaii runs, but for the MCO-DTW or LAX-MSP routes, it'd be great.

Only problem is that I don't think NW is really in the position to place a 321 order at the moment.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
BMIFlyer
Posts: 8064
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:11 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:19 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 5):
You will not see A321s operating transcons flights.

Really?

I flew one from LAX to PHL earlier this year. That is a "transcon", isn't it?  Wink
US Airways - MAN-PHL-LAS-LAX-PHL-MAN (Pics/Vids) (by BMIFlyer Mar 27 2007 in Trip Reports)


Lee
Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15050
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:22 am

Putting aside hot and high performance issues, at what mileage does a 321 become economically inferior to a 752?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:53 am

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
But yes the 753 could make it accross the pond, keep in mind NW uses their 753's A LOT to Hawaii.

You can't compare west coast-Hawaii with Transatlantic. USA-Europe routes operated by 757s are roughly 50 to 60% further, with the exception of Iceland. Examples:

SFO-HNL 2084 nm
SEA-HNL 2326 nm

EWR-TXL 3458 nm
DTW-AMS 3425 nm
EWR-ARN 3415 nm

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 13):
it would be interesting to see what is the longest A321 vs 757 run

BMED (soon to become bmi) operate the A321 LHR-THR 2389 nm, about 300 nm further than SFO-HNL and 240 miles further than JFK-LAX, but much shorter than any Transatlantic routes operated by 757s (except Iceland). However, if not mistaken the BMED A321 has an extra fuel tank in the cargo compartment.

[Edited 2007-09-23 22:58:44]
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:03 am

IINM, the longest scheduled 752 service was MX's CUN-EZE... though not sure why anyone would want to compare an A321 to that, as there's no way it could come close, even if tanked.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
lrdc9
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:27 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:54 am

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
A321's out of places like LAS because they are too weak

US flies A321s from DCA There is no way they could be to weak for LAS. Also, an A321 might look good in NW colors, and I think that there is a real chance of this happening
Just say NO to scabs.
 
toltommy
Posts: 2809
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:12 am

Quoting BMIFlyer (Reply 23):

I flew one from LAX to PHL earlier this year. That is a "transcon", isn't it?

More so than the SFO-PIT someone else referenced earlier.
A300/A310/A319/A320/A321/A332/A333 / 707/712/727/732/733/734/735/738/739/752/753
/762/763/764/772/788/789/DC8/DC9-10/30/40/50/MD81/83/87/88/90/L1011-/250/500/CRJ200/440 /700/900/EMB135/140/145/170/175/190/328Jet/F70/SF3/BE1/J31
 
JKJ777
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:47 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:18 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 5):
Is this true? From what I understand, this is a fabrication. The A321 can not handle the range and power of the 757. A321 cannot do TATL or service West Coast - Hawaii..

It may be able to handle a similar number of people, but it can not overpower a 757. There is no replacement for the versatility and maneuverability of the 757. Not even the 739ER.

You will not see A321s operating transcons flights. You will see A321s on routes that are required to move a lot of people in a decent (but not extended) amount of time.

Therefore, I refute your statement and call it a fallacy.

Nonsense - I clearly said the majority of routes, not all routes: the majority of B757 routes are hardly US transcons or West Coast to Hawaii routes... don't forget that there's also a world outside of the United States of America, and the B757 plays a role there as well. Most routes that they're used on are well below US transcon/Transatlantic range.

Therefore my comments stand.


Boy, some of us are a little testy on this Sunday.......
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:47 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 5):
There is no replacement for the versatility and maneuverability of the 757. Not even the 739ER.

A321 or 739 are more efficient and economic than the 757 unless you need the 757s range. If not, there's no need to fly around the extra weight and burn the additional fuel.


Quoting JKJ777 (Reply 29):
You will not see A321s operating transcons flights.

AC uses the A321 YYZ-YVR, admittedly not quite as far as some US transcon routes.
 
YHZ
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:37 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:49 am

NW has no intention of purchasing/leasing any A321. So this would fit into one of those Airliners net forum topics that is more about what ifs and not reality. It just does not fit into their plans. A lot goes into yield management and operational planning. This is not an A vs B argument either. On longer stages, the 757 is going to "out perform" the A321, and certainly in some key markets this is especially true and that is a fact. As to Lrdc9's comment, I don't think you can compare DCA with a very hot Las Vegas when it comes to aircraft types being "weak". The comment was directed to aircraft performance due to weather conditions.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 8750
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:35 am

Quoting Cancidas (Reply 12):
Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
The 753 can't recieve winglets, in fact on the 753 a winglet would do more damange then good.

can you explain that? is it a physical impossability?

It is possible, but the economics of the project make it rather infeasible. Since there are so few 753's out there, and even fewer carriers interested in winglet-ing their 753's, the engineering & certification costs would have to be spread over a small number of aircraft/customers. The only two that were mildly interested were CO & NW (initially it was only CO as NW was not interested), which at most is about 30-40 aircraft. However, the 753 has a much different wing structure than the 752 and due to the nature of the stretched -300's the costs were going to be that much more to beef up the wing. Hence why the 753 winglet project has never been taken up by any supplier.

Quoting NWA757300 (Reply 14):
When you say converted, do you mean just adding winglets or the full transatlantic conversion? If memory serves me right they originally planned to convert just 10.

10 were initially converted. As for the an additional 6 I do not know know. However, all of the 5600 series 757s are to receive winglets.

Quoting Mir (Reply 22):
Only problem is that I don't think NW is really in the position to place a 321 order at the moment.

They don't need them since they have the A320/752/753. With NW's fleet replacement priorities elsewhere, don't expect anything to change on aircraft between 125-220 seats.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:32 pm

Quoting YHZ (Reply 31):
As to Lrdc9's comment, I don't think you can compare DCA with a very hot Las Vegas when it comes to aircraft types being "weak". The comment was directed to aircraft performance due to weather conditions.

DCA is a short runway, so performance issues can come into play just as with LAS and hot weather.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
flymad
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:56 pm

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
The 753 can't recieve winglets, in fact on the 753 a winglet would do more damange then good

Burnsie 28, please could you explain this comment. I'm not in aviation, just extremely interested in things aviation. I find this comment very interesting and would like to know more
thnks
 
burnsie28
Posts: 5300
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:49 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:07 pm

Quoting Lrdc9 (Reply 27):
US flies A321s from DCA There is no way they could be to weak for LAS

They do it with payload restrictions, I few friends of mine were on them and they went out weight restricted LAS-CLT.

Quoting Flymad (Reply 34):
Burnsie 28, please could you explain this comment. I'm not in aviation, just extremely interested in things aviation

IIRC, since the 753 has a slightly larger wing, the winglet would add too much weight for the wing. Also because of the aircrafts weight the winglets would produce drag, rather then thrust, thus causing poor economics. IIRC thats the reason the 753 can't have winglets.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:45 pm

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 35):
the winglets would produce drag, rather then thrust.

Since when has any winglet started to produce thrust!? Check you facts. Winglets are there to mimic an increase in wingspan. They increases lift, reduces the WV strength hence the lift-induced drag or reduces L/D overall. Parasitic drag increases a tiny notch tho. Overall fuel effciency is improved. They are useless in the climb/descent phases of flight. So the winglets are relatively less beneficial to shouthaul aircraft than to longhaul aircraft.

The wings are of identical dimensions between the 200 and 300. Whether there are structural strengthening I am not sure. The fact that no B757-300 has any winglets is to do with the fact that it hasn't received supplementary certification. Not that it's a weight issue or structural issue.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
flyabr
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:24 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 22):
Only problem is that I don't think NW is really in the position to place a 321 order at the moment.

why not? they just bought a large chunk of midwest airlines. they can find money when they need it...except of course when the employees need a pay raise!
 
Carls
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:22 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:16 pm

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 1):
A321's out of places like LAS because they are too weak.

Can you elaborate your statement a bit better.
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:41 pm

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 32):
It is possible, but the economics of the project make it rather infeasible. Since there are so few 753's out there, and even fewer carriers interested in winglet-ing their 753's, the engineering & certification costs would have to be spread over a small number of aircraft/customers. The only two that were mildly interested were CO & NW (initially it was only CO as NW was not interested), which at most is about 30-40 aircraft. However, the 753 has a much different wing structure than the 752 and due to the nature of the stretched -300's the costs were going to be that much more to beef up the wing. Hence why the 753 winglet project has never been taken up by any supplier.

There is still considerable interest by NW, CO, and TZ to add winglets to the -300. In fact, NW and CO continue to push it. While the cost is higher due to the fleet size, they are trying to attract as many of the operators as possible to reduce this cost. The winglet and structural mods would be largely based of the -200 with the bulk of the cost in certification as the aircraft will have to be flight tested. The long term ROI still seems to work nonetheless. A larger hurdle in making this happen is that one of the airlines has to provide an aircraft for about 12 months for the flight testing and this is easier said than done at this point as the aircraft is highly utilized in service.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
 
nwab787techops
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:57 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:48 pm

Northwest is not ever going to buy A321!!! They are going to hold off till the new B737 with B787 tech comes out. As for the B757-200 5600's, to date 10 have wing-lets and of the 10 only 7 are ETOPS. But, due to fuel savings all B757-200 5600 ship will have wing-lets installed.
 
Baron52ta
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:52 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:23 am

I would just like to say that all these threads turning into pi**ing contests between Airbus and Boeing are really getting old, if anything this should be about the engines not the aircraft carrying them given that the 757 was designed to be over powered(making it possible to use on shorter fields) it just got reassigned to roles for which it was not originally built because of low pax numbers on runs making the wide bodies uneconomic. The 321 was not actually supposed to be competing with the 757 hence the smaller engines, its market area was supposed to be that of replacement for such aircraft as the 727 which could no longer fly in Europe due to noise and pollution regs (which don't count for much State side), which took the JT8 engined aircraft pretty much out of europe and replaced them with the CFM56 and V2500 types

Just a point to close on if they were to hang the same sized engines on both then you could justify the comparison but until they put CFMs on a 757 or RB211s on the 321 there is none

[Edited 2007-09-24 17:27:44]
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:48 am

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 36):
They are useless in the climb *** phases of flight.

...um, say what?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Orion737
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:14 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:56 am

The 321 cannot truly replace the 757. Here in Europe, Monarch cannot use the 321 to destinations like GIB with a full payload, the 757 can and that is only a 3 hour flight.
 
gilesdavies
Posts: 2331
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:51 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:56 am

When I see these A321 v 757-200 threads, I get a little annoyed seeing people talk about the A321 and slagging it off and clearly do not know what they are talking about!

The fact is Airbus produced the A321 as a supplementary aircraft to the rest of the A320 family, and has never been in the market to compete against the 757... The aircraft was produced at very low costs to the manufacturer, as customers were demanding extra capacity to what the A320 could offer while they did not have the costs of introducing a brand new fleet to the airlines! The aircraft in essentially an additional fusalage plug-in to the A320, with rearranged doors!

It wasn't until US Airways came along in the 1990's and showed an interest in the aircraft, did Airbus think of further modifying the aircraft with extra tanks for trans-con and slightly more powerful engines!

Airbus have never been interested in investing in the development costs of a head on competitor to the 757 and has been more by accident the 757-200 has become a competitor... Hence why airlines like British Airways, US Airways, Monarch, First Choice, Iberia and Thomas Cook all operate the A321 alongside the 757... Despite what I have said the A321 has proved an extremely capable aircraft!

Its not just US Airways offering longer missions on their A321's:

BMI (GB Airways)
LHR-TEH
LHR-ADD

Monarch, Thomas Cook and MyTravel
LGW-SSH
MAN-LUX

The UK charter carriers fly theirs on 5.5hr trips in an all economy 220 config, from hot and dry destinations!

I have drifted off topic!

The A321 could fly all of NWA's mainland US destinations, especially when their bases are centrally located in country.

This central location also has implications for their 757's flying TATL, as it restricts the aircraft to Western European cities. According to Airbus the A321 could fly non-stop JFK-DUB and CDG-BOS, but I think these performance figures boasted by the manufacturer are questionable!
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a320/a321/performance.html
 
Orion737
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:14 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:00 am

The 757 has no direct replacement does it. Similar to the A300/A310, where the 332 is much larger. Neglected gaps by both manufacturers.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:55 am

Quoting Nwab787techops (Reply 40):
They are going to hold off till the new B737 with B787 tech comes out.

They'll may well wait for something, but there is no way for you to make that statement.

NS
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:12 am

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 43):
Monarch cannot use the 321 to destinations like GIB with a full payload, the 757 can and that is only a 3 hour flight.

Source please?

BA have used the A320 and various model 737s there in the past, and I'm pretty sure i've seen seen a BA (GB Air) A321 there but could be wrong.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
Orion737
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:14 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:17 am

I cant recall the source but I do remember it clearly. I think only the A320 is used by GT and MON at GIb. The 321 would be payload restricted at GIB. The 757 can do it though and regularly does for Monarch.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: NWA's 757 Tatl And A321

Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:32 am

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 48):
I cant recall the source but I do remember it clearly. I think only the A320 is used by GT and MON at GIb. The 321 would be payload restricted at GIB. The 757 can do it though and regularly does for Monarch.

Have had a look: Its a length of runway @ GIB issue. I make it 6,000 foot / 1,829m long at more or less sea-level.

According to:
(http://www.mucforum.de/archive/index.php?t-3349.html)

At MTOW:
757-200 needs roughly 10,000 feet of runway.
A320: needs roughly 6,700 feet of runway.

At 80% Take-Off Weight:
757-200 needs roughly 5,000 feet of runway.
A320 needs roughly 4,200 feet of runway.

Some interesting landing figures there too. One would assume the A321 needs a bit longer runway than the 752. It basically means nothing is getting out of there at MTOW so even the 752 and A320 is weight restricted. I bet the A319 isnt though. Pretty unlikely a 752 or A320 will be anywhere near MTOW just for the short hop to LGW/LHR though. Lots of interesting TOGA full power departures though!  Smile
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???

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