http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0LZ08920150303?irpc=932

United says 77W great short term addition to fill demand before 2018. Doesn't see the 777X in United fleet as of today.

Sees issues with the A321neo, but did not elaborate - assuming that was in reference to 1:1 replacement with the 757.

Anyone know what issues UA sees with the A321neo ?

Quoting phxa340 (Thread starter): Anyone know what issues UA sees with the A321neo ?

Yes, it's not a cramped, runway-hugging Boeing 737-900. 

Quoting phxa340 (Thread starter): Anyone know what issues UA sees with the A321neo ?

It's manufactured by Airbus?   

Quoting phxa340 (Thread starter): Anyone know what issues UA sees with the A321neo ?

Same as the 777X, they want a better deal.

I posted this yesterday. It got taken down for some reason.

I think UA would be foolish to not at least consider the A321neo as a midterm solution to the 757.

The 777-300ER would be a good choice, but then again, A350-1000s are coming in only a few years.

Not sure about the 777X. It doesn't seem like UA is the right airline for the 777X. AA, sure, but UA? Who knows. Certainly, if they want a little more capacity or a little more range than the A350-1000, they'll have the option for the 777-8 and/or -9. They'd probably have to need it first.

[Edited 2015-03-03 10:24:10]

Quoting phxa340 (Thread starter): Anyone know what issues UA sees with the A321neo ?

Well since the A321neoLR is a stretched to the limit (spec wise) A320 series, and the 757 was essentially a scaled down widebody, I could see the 321LR not quite fitting the exact perimeters for 757 replacement in UA's unique circumstances. The 321 might be more fuel efficient, but the 757 already has some range issues part of the year, so if there is any question about dispatch reliability, additional fuel stops, or load limitations, UA might be just saying, we can suffer the fuel penalty for this specific group of planes and wait and see if something better comes along. If it doesn't, they can always order the 321LR then.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 4): It seems like Rainey isn't making the right choices.

Based on? Financing? CASM? Performance? Maintenance deals?

-Dave

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 4):

What wrong choices ? The widebody fleet of A35J, 788, 789, 78J, will provide excellent capacity and respective adjustments.

The 737-9 Max will still achieve excellent fuel burn. Yea, it won't take off out of SNA etc but it will still move a lot of butts around the U.S. extremely efficiently.

Quoting phxa340 (Thread starter): Anyone know what issues UA sees with the A321neo ?

I can think of a few that might have an effect on some of the missions: climb performance and driftdown out of DEN westbound, field performance at some of the European airports, payload capacity for p.s. (with heavy seats). But I think all of them would be surmountable and right now I think the A321neo looks like the best 757 replacement available for UA.

[Edited 2015-03-03 10:07:03]

I think the "issues" he's referring to could be as simple as the fact that the A321neo still doesn't have the payload/range capabilities (much less the hot and high performance) of the 757. Even Airbus isn't really denying that, or there wouldn't really have been any reason - following their own logic in such a case - to make painful sacrifices (such as most of the space for revenue cargo) for a working A321LR version. United will of course find it difficult to find a better type than the A321neo/-LR to replace their 757s before they literally start falling into pieces. The 737-900ER and the -9 MAX, while they may have their niche, are a complete joke in terms of offering a viable 757 replacement.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 6):

A.net has already collectively decided that the A321LR does everything short of curing cancer, there is no way that it can have any kind of downside (I.e. Field performance). Of course UA must not know what they are talking about.

Quoting Polot (Reply 10):

The same "airline" beleives the better selling, better performing neo has "issues" while the 737-9 Max is a game changer. That's just as delusional as the boeing exec who thinks Airbus is just trying to play catch up. Why is it so hard to admit that Boeing dropped the ball and dropped it hard.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 4): It seems like Rainey isn't making the right choices.

So UA/Rainey are making wrong choices because they didn't immediately order the 777-X ?

UA runs the broadest international network out of US3, so they know a thing or two about long-haul planes.

The collective wisdom somehow is that since DL/AA are more profitable than UA, if they decide to jump off a cliff together and UA stays put, then UA must be the dumb one.

Quoting Polot (Reply 10): A.net has already collectively decided that the A321LR does everything short of curing cancer, there is no way that it can have any kind of downside (I.e. Field performance). Of course UA must not know what they are talking about.

Well, it certainly whips the 737-900's ass.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 11): The same "airline" beleives the better selling, better performing neo has "issues" while the 737-9 Max is a game changer. That's just as delusional as the boeing exec who thinks Airbus is just trying to play catch up. Why is it so hard to admit that Boeing dropped the ball and dropped it hard.

  

Quoting phxa340 (Thread starter): Anyone know what issues UA sees with the A321neo?

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 2): It's manufactured by Airbus?

With the number of Airbus frames they have in their fleet and on order?   

It is good that they're still looking at the 777-300ER.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 11): Why is it so hard to admit that Boeing dropped the ball and dropped it hard.

Because they didn't. It's not a horrible product.

The 737-900ER (and 9 MAX) has one major problem: poor field performance.

But it's very good at what it does, if you don't ask it to take off from short runways or in hot and high conditions. On missions within its comfort zone, it's cheaper than the A321 to fly.

An airline the size of UA or DL can buy a big fleet of 737-900ERs and fly them only on missions where they do well. And for that kind of airline, they make a lot of sense, particularly when bought for cheap prices.

Quoting bgm (Reply 13): Quoting Polot (Reply 10): A.net has already collectively decided that the A321LR does everything short of curing cancer, there is no way that it can have any kind of downside (I.e. Field performance). Of course UA must not know what they are talking about. Well, it certainly whips the 737-900's ass.

Depends on the mission. If you're doing short hops like LGA-MIA or ORD-IAH, the performance difference is absolutely nullified, and the 739max might end up with lower Total C.O.S. if Boeing discounted them properly according to its field performance.

Quoting phxa340 (Thread starter): United says 77W great short term addition to fill demand before 2018. Doesn't see the 777X in United fleet as of today. Sees issues with the A321neo, but did not elaborate - assuming that was in reference to 1:1 replacement with the 757.

I think it's not the A321Neo with the issues, it's UA & Rainey. It has the capability and range to beat out the 739ER right out the door. I think what he meant to say is "The A321NEO is not 739ER enough for us."

Quoting a380787 (Reply 12): So UA/Rainey are making wrong choices because they didn't immediately order the 777-X ?

Rainey's "overentitled elites" and "F is effectively the same as J" comments plus him being the man behind the curtain with the 2 billion in cuts has never helped out his reputation.

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 7): What wrong choices ? The widebody fleet of A35J, 788, 789, 78J, will provide excellent capacity and respective adjustments.

Oh, absolutely. And that's all UA will need, me thinks.

I'm saying Rainey is silly for saying adding the A321neo "has issues." What issues? The A321neo seems almost made to order for airlines like UA.

And on top of that, there talking about ordering 10 777-300ERs at the expense of 10 787-9s (which, in my opinion, is the best widebody aircraft besides the 777) just to get the first of 35 A350-1000s 18-24 months later.

I honestly think a more cost effective option is to convert 10 77Es to a higher density layout to replace the 747s in the interim.

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 7): The 737-9 Max will still achieve excellent fuel burn. Yea, it won't take off out of SNA etc but it will still move a lot of butts around the U.S. extremely efficiently.

Well sure, but I still think the 737 MAX 8 and A321neo are planes to be considered as well.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 12): So UA/Rainey are making wrong choices because they didn't immediately order the 777-X ?

Why don't you read my comments before stating that?

I just said UA will have to need it first. In reality, UA probably isn't the right airline for the 777X.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 18): I'm saying Rainey is silly for saying adding the A321neo "has issues." What issues? The A321neo seems almost made to order for airlines like UA.

They must have evaluated it and decided it may not be. They know more than we know.

Quoting phxa340 (Thread starter): Doesn't see the 777X in United fleet as of today.

It seems that the 77W has the right capacity for United, while the 777-9X might be too much aircraft for them (as of now) and they have no sufficient missions for the 777-8X.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8): But I think all of them would be surmountable and right now I think the A321neo looks like the best 757 replacement available for UA.

True.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 11): The same "airline" beleives the better selling, better performing neo has "issues" while the 737-9 Max is a game changer. That's just as delusional as the boeing exec who thinks Airbus is just trying to play catch up. Why is it so hard to admit that Boeing dropped the ball and dropped it hard.

What a simplistic look at it. Do you not believe that the mission that they would want the neo for - transatlantic, for example - might just be too much to make the neo the right replacement for the 757 at UA? I don't think hardly anyone is arguing that the MAX9 is the better overall airframe, but that train left the station when UA chose to go MAX over neo a few years ago. Now instead of it simply being part of a huge A32Xneo fleet, the A321neoLR would be a standalone - is it "good enough" at the mission that they would use it on to make the plunge? Maybe not. And it sure as hell won't be the MAX9 filling that mission either. It'll either be wait and see or it'll be change the mission.

That certainly makes more sense to me over simply calling people delusional.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 17): I think it's not the A321Neo with the issues, it's UA & Rainey. It has the capability and range to beat out the 739ER right out the door. I think what he meant to say is "The A321NEO is not 739ER enough for us."

Just so I understand, why do you think that is? Or is anyone who doesn't order the A321neo delusional?

-Dave

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 15):

Poor field performance, lower fan diameter, only one engine option, lower landing gear, poor cockpit design. I guess all the airlines who ordered the neo are just too stupid to realize what a gem the MIN 9 is.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 17): Rainey's "overentitled elites" and "F is effectively the same as J" comments plus him being the man behind the curtain with the 2 billion in cuts has never helped out his reputation.

Get over yourself. You already pre-indicated your blind loyalty to DL through your signature footnote, so there's nothing objective you can say about UA.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 18): Why don't you read my comments before stating that? I just said UA will have to need it first. In reality, UA probably isn't the right airline for the 777X.

You already made up your mind to criticize UA and Rainey, so all your "comments" were just justifications to arrive at your pre-determined point before you even had the chance to view the scenario.

There's a key diff between "UA probably isn't the right airline for the 777X", which is potentially true, or "UA just makes wrong choices", which is patently false.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 22): Poor field performance, lower fan diameter, only one engine option, lower landing gear, poor cockpit design. I guess all the airlines who ordered the neo are just too stupid to realize what a gem the MIN 9 is.

Yes, we get it. But then why have airlines ordered it?

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 24): Rainey is an idiot and his tastes in penny pinching started when he was at CO. Wise up.

My boss is a penny-pincher too, of sorts. There's times it has annoyed me, but when it all hit the fan in 2008/2009, I was thankful. Unlike other operations in our business, we had almost no adjustment to make because we were already running as efficiently and productively as possible.

It's the lean times when you appreciate the penny-pinching. It's the times like now where suddenly it's the roaring 20's for airlines that money is no object.

To be fair, my generalization is not any more or less relevant than yours, but looking at it through the prism of making money, I can see why an airline (or any business) will make choices that baffle the naysayers and peanut gallery.

-Dave

Quoting UA444 (Reply 22): lower fan diameter

Who cares? Fuel consumption is still lower... mostly because the small gear that restricts fan diameter and field performance also helps lower weight.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 22): lower landing gear

The only real disadvantage of this is... the field performance.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 22): poor cockpit design

Pilots may care. Airlines don't care.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 22): I guess all the airlines who ordered the neo are just too stupid to realize what a gem the MIN 9 is

Field performance and smaller capacity mean it's not the best product for everyone. I'm just sick of people acting like airlines are stupid to buy it. They've done their homework.

[Edited 2015-03-03 11:06:43]

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 24): I think you should get over yourself. Rainey is an idiot and his tastes in penny pinching started when he was at CO. Wise up.

And Anderson is such a smarty pants for completely destroying Skymiles ... enjoy your Level 1 saver award within 21 days ... oh right, you can't.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 25): To be fair, my generalization is not any more or less relevant than yours, but looking at it through the prism of making money, I can see why an airline (or any business) will make choices that baffle the naysayers and peanut gallery.

Calling the A321NEO has issues is another public gaffe that you can add to Rainey's bucket list. Yes, I get it's always good to cut costs (my company does it too) but it's another thing to humiliate your loyal HVF base.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 28): Calling the A321NEO has issues is another public gaffe that you can add to Rainey's bucket list. Yes, I get it's always good to cut costs (my company does it too) but it's another thing to humiliate your loyal HVF base.

Calling a plane type "issues" apparently can be linked to "humiliate your loyal HVF base"

if I had a penny every time i hear your "logic" I'd be a trillionaire by now

Quoting a380787 (Reply 29): if I had a penny every time i hear your "logic" I'd be a trillionaire by now

Ditto. Anything CO managment does at UA is the best decision all the time, right?

Like I said, I don't really see how the A321NEO has any issues. I'm curious, what about his argument do you agree with?

Quoting a380787 (Reply 23): You already made up your mind to criticize UA

Which is something I started doing YEARS ago...

Quoting a380787 (Reply 23): and Rainey, so all your "comments" were just justifications to arrive at your pre-determined point before you even had the chance to view the scenario.

...and, in case you haven't noticed, I'm quite into the affairs of UA. I read the article, I saw what Rainey said.

Therefore, in my opinion, he's being foolish in some regards. Seeing as what a lot of other A.netters think of him, that may be putting it lightly.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 22): Poor field performance, lower fan diameter, only one engine option, lower landing gear, poor cockpit design.

Poor cockpit design?!   Only one engine option?

Sir, did you know that's been the standard of the 737 since the first -100 rolled out?!

I don't deny that the MAX 9 will have inferior field performance and a low fan diameter due to gear length, but you're being very unreasonable. The MAX 9 might have issues, but it's predecessor is incredible. The MAX 8 is also bound to be an incredible plane. In fact, that will be the best 737 Ever.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 28): Calling the A321NEO has issues is another public gaffe that you can add to Rainey's bucket lis

Sigh. This was his quote: "Rainey said United would like to see a replacement for the discontinued Boeing 757 aircraft, which "has a particular sweet spot in our network," adding the Airbus A321neo equivalent had "issues" but did not elaborate."

What's so magically bad about that? The A321neo doesn't hit the "sweet spot" that they use the 757 for currently. United uses their 757's extensively across the Atlantic. If the neo can't do that in the manner that they'd want it to, then why order it? Just because it's the best of the pack doesn't mean that the mission will be profitable or operationally acceptable or even completely doable.

Maybe they are just looking for Airbus to lower the price a bit to ease the pain of it not being the straight across ideal fit?

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 28): Yes, I get it's always good to cut costs (my company does it too) but it's another thing to humiliate your loyal HVF base.

Ok, wait. Are we talking about UA or DL? I just want to be clear because I don't see the connection between ordering the MAX and humiliating your HVF's.

-Dave

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 30): Like I said, I don't really see how the A321NEO has any issues. I'm curious, what about his argument do you agree with?

is that your personal opinion or you actually have data to back up your blind statement ? do you work for an airline or for Airbus or CAPA ? if not, then it's just your blind opinion that just because DL ordered it therefore it's good

if you're gonna be an armchair CEO and challenge a real CFO, at least have data to backup your accusations instead of parroting the "keep climbing" brainwash spin from your company's PR department.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 32): Ok, wait. Are we talking about UA or DL? I just want to be clear because I don't see the connection between ordering the MAX and humiliating your HVF's.

I don't work in the industry but I was referring to Rainey calling UA's elites overentitled some 2 years ago.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 32): "Rainey said United would like to see a replacement for the discontinued Boeing 757 aircraft, which "has a particular sweet spot in our network," adding the Airbus A321neo equivalent had "issues" but did not elaborate."

2 context clues that his statement is foolish:

1. He should know at this point that THERE IS NO active and ready replacement for the 757 and will be years before an accurate example is ready to replace the UA 757s on the TATL circuit. And yeah, duh it has a sweet spot in the network.

2. And big sigh here: "adding the Airbus A321neo equivalent had "issues" but did not elaborate." So he makes a lude statement and can't back it up. Another bang up PR job once again Rainey!

Quoting a380787 (Reply 33):

Delta has long since stopped caring about its HVFs (just look at what it has done, and continues to do, to Skymiles) and thus has not yet ordered any Neos (or Maxes). They had no issue getting 100 of everyone's favorite 737 version that is flying though.

[Edited 2015-03-03 11:23:59]

Quoting Polot (Reply 35): Delta has long since stopped caring about its HVFs (just look at what it has done, and continues to do, to Skymiles) and thus has not yet ordered any Neos (or Maxes).

Ahem, and then UA basically copied them?

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 30): Like I said, I don't really see how the A321NEO has any issues. I'm curious, what about his argument do you agree with?

Have you not read any of the other replies in this thread referencing the mission's that UA might want it to do? Perhaps speak to that and then some of us might come around to your way of thinking.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 31): ...and, in case you haven't noticed, I'm quite into the affairs of UA. I read the article, I saw what Rainey said. Therefore, in my opinion, he's being foolish in some regards.

What, pray tell, did he say that was foolish in that article?

-Dave

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 20): It seems that the 77W has the right capacity for United, while the 777-9X might be too much aircraft for them (as of now) and they have no sufficient missions for the 777-8X.

UA may as well just hunker down for the next 36 months. The 777s of Today and Tomorrow are just too much for UA.

I know that sucks to hear, but that's how I see it.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 23): "UA just makes wrong choices", which is patently false.

I guess what's why the merger has gone so smoothly.   

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 36):

I don't really care, I'm not any airlines HVF and likely will not be anytime soon. I just find it amusing when some people here complain about the devaluation of other airlines FF programs, especially when they strongly support an airline that shares its name with a letter in the Greek alphabet.

Devaluing the FF programs (which is 95% of what the 'HVFs' complain about) of the 90s and early 00 is an airline being smart, not stupid.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 34): I don't work in the industry but I was referring to Rainey calling UA's elites overentitled some 2 years ago.

Which has what to do with this thread? I mean, I think that's an asinine thing for him to say, but he's a CFO. They shouldn't let him near a microphone unless he's talking numbers.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 34): 1. He should know at this point that THERE IS NO active and ready replacement for the 757 and will be years before an accurate example is ready to replace the UA 757s on the TATL circuit. And yeah, duh it has a sweet spot in the network.

Who said he doesn't know it? He could just be challenging Airbus to come up with something better, come up with better terms, or some other third thing. Who knows? But it IS a very specific mission, and if there isn't an airframe currently able to meet the mission in an acceptable (financially, operationally, etc.) manner, then it is what it is.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 34): 2. And big sigh here: "adding the Airbus A321neo equivalent had "issues" but did not elaborate." So he makes a lude statement and can't back it up. Another bang up PR job once again Rainey!

I think you are just looking for reasons to be negative about his comments. For those of us without an axe to grind (I couldn't have told you who the guy was before this thread), we can read that any number of ways that have nothing to do with sleeping with models of 737's in your bed at night.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 36): Ahem, and then UA basically copied them?

Welcome to the US aviation scene. Would you prefer grey, grey, or grey?

-Dave

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 28): Calling the A321NEO has issues is another public gaffe

I think the issues compared to the 757 are well documented in this thread. Hot/High and Field performance are issues when are you talking about taking a plane to its limits, especially in the summer months.

UA's dilema is that there is no 757 replacement given how they use their TATL 757s. Once more 787s come into the fleet, we will hopefully see more 763s going onto those routes which will eliminate the issues the 757s experience vis a vie range and payload.

The Max 9 indeed has some big limitations. However, it will be fine for the vast majority of UA's network and its considered cheaper to operate and I'm sure they got a good deal. It's a pig to fly and a crate to get off the runway but UA doesn't care about that. They also don't care about weight restrictions and field restrictions which the Max 9 will almost surely inherit from the -900ER at some of UA's stations. Its a numbers based game and they've run the numbers at the Willis Tower and like how they add up.

I think it would be fair to state however, that UA is right in Boeing's ear whispering sweet nothings about being a launch customer for a 757 replacement. It would solve a lot of dilemmas for UA on their TATL network and provide options for such places as near South America plus provide additional options for equipment rotation to Hawaii when appropriate.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 41):

Welp, I think that proves my point. We shouldn't put him near a microphone, especially when he can't back up his claim.

Oh poor Rainey -- we just need to give him more time to look back into his CO flashcards of buzzwords before he goes back to the press.

Quoting Polot (Reply 40):

I don't think DL is devaluing skymiles. Yes it stinks to have a metric based on fare but DL also has a better ontime rating and a lot less complaints than UA. They are in position to be a leader, yet UA chooses to ride out DL's decisions.

Quoting bgm (Reply 39): Quoting a380787 (Reply 23): "UA just makes wrong choices", which is patently false. I guess what's why the merger has gone so smoothly.

Well said.

Let me ask the all important question. How does the performance of the A321neoLR compare to the 737 MAX-9 and the 757-200?

Clearly, the current 737NG doesn't compare to the 757, since AA decided to replace 757s on flights to the U.S. ski resorts with A319s. AA management descibed the A319 has having outstanding performance to high altitude airports.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 44): Let me ask the all important question. How does the performance of the A321neoLR compare to the 737 MAX-9 and the 757-200?

I believe the 321NEOLR is better than the MAX-9 by quite a bit in terms of performance & likely cargo but its still not a direct replacement for the 757. It's closer than the MAX-9, but still not there.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 43): I don't think DL is devaluing skymiles.

hahaha i'm laughing so hard right now. Wake me up when you know which planet you're breathing from.

Quoting Polot (Reply 35): Delta has long since stopped caring about its HVFs (just look at what it has done, and continues to do, to Skymiles) and thus has not yet ordered any Neos (or Maxes). They had no issue getting 100 of everyone's favorite 737 version that is flying though.

Who are an airline's high value flyers? Are they the customers that make mileage runs on super cheap tickets or the customers who spend the most money? I would suggest they are the customers who spend the most money. Delta has oriented its ff program toward those who spend the most.

I bought a new Lexus eleven years ago. For the first few years the dealer treated me like a prince and is still very nice to me. However, they don't court me to the same extent that they do the guy who buys a new one every other year. That's to be expected. I don't think Anderson has alienated his high value customers nearly as much as his low value/high mileage customers.

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 47):

I agree with you. Many FF, especially the more vocal ones on the web, consider themselves HVFs when in reality they are not though- I was using the term somewhat tongue in cheek. Let's be honest, most actual HVFs could not care less whether UA ordered the Neo or Max, especially as their onboard product (potential) are virtually identical. If anything they would prefer UA buy more wide bodies than A321LRs to replace the 757s. They should be welcoming this news   

[Edited 2015-03-03 11:58:15]

Quoting a380787 (Reply 23): "UA just makes wrong choices", which is patently false.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 33): if you're gonna be an armchair CEO and challenge a real CFO, at least have data to backup your accusations instead of parroting the "keep climbing" brainwash spin from your company's PR department.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 46): hahaha i'm laughing so hard right now. Wake me up when you know which planet you're breathing from.

It is becoming increasingly harder and harder to take you seriously   

Quoting ckfred (Reply 44): Let me ask the all important question. How does the performance of the A321neoLR compare to the 737 MAX-9 and the 757-200?

As marketed, the A321neoLR with the three aux tanks has about 500 miles more range than the 737-MAX-9. With the three aux tanks, it is going to be a little limited on cargo capacity. So far, UA has not had an interest in putting auxiliary tanks on the 737-900ER or MAX9, although that is also an option. Some airlines are using auxiliary tanks on the A321 already Realistically the range difference if equipped with aux tanks puts the airplanes within about 300 miles of each other.

Airbus is using 3 aux tanks in order to market the A321neoLR as having the same marketing range as a 757 (both 4100nm). The 3 aux tanks add 15,000lbs of fuel, however MTOW is only going up by 7,000lbs (some of which will be used by the additional empty weight). The A320 & A321 can be fuel volume limited in some situations, so the extra fuel is beneficial. The problem with the auxiliary tanks is that cargo volume gets limited and weight and balance is even more difficult. There are some center of gravity problems with the auxiliary tanks that affect the cabin and galley configuration.

The airplane is in such a corner of its operating capability to get to the 757 range, that it may not match what United needs. I believe those are the type of issues that United is referring to. It is a bit hard to explain, but near the edge of its range, the 757 has more flexibility when it comes to fuel tank volume, baggage, and cargo capacity than the A321neolr does. We also know how much grief that United gets for the 757 occasional fuel stop, so it may take some further refining for Airbus to get the A321neolr to where United wants it for transatlantic flying.

In general, airplane performance is not black and white. United needs an airplane with a certain capacity and range, but other factors are also important. United knows how much cargo capacity they want/need and how much luggage is being carried. They also know the runway lengths of longer routes and typical summer temperatures vs winter winds. The A321neo is closer to offering what the 757 can do at the same capacity of a 757 than the 737 MAX9. However, there are hidden factors that aren't known to the public that might be limitations. The A321neoLR is a popular airplane to talk about on A.net, but it isn't the only option. If you put an aux tank on a 737 MAX8, it probably can do almost exactly the same routes as the A321neoLR, but there are higher CASM, and other operation difficulties with doing that.

What also has been ignored, is that issues is also a code word for price.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 44): Clearly, the current 737NG doesn't compare to the 757, since AA decided to replace 757s on flights to the U.S. ski resorts with A319s. AA management descibed the A319 has having outstanding performance to high altitude airports.

The 737-700 and A319 both have better performance than the 737-800. AA doesn't have 73Gs and their 737-800s do not have the short field performance package, so the A319 does bring something that the 737s in the current AA fleet don't have. I believe that a 73G and A319 have very similar performance capabilities and do just as well as a 757 for short field or high altitude operations..

[Edited 2015-03-03 12:08:45]

[Edited 2015-03-03 12:16:06]