Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PHLspecial
Topic Author
Posts: 884
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:13 pm

Which plane has better fuel burn on longer stage lengths?

AA usual runs A321 for longer flights while DL, UA runs 737-900ER for the longer flights.
It seems like DL order the A321 with a lower MTOW while AA has the higher MTOW?
I would assume the A321 would have worse fuel burn because its heavier.

I assume for the Neo and Max would be the same result from the previous generation.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:30 am

These A vs B fuel burn questions never go well. I hope you are able to get some decent answers.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2439
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:31 am

The 321 is heavier and has slightly better aero, but has engines optimized for longer range, so its relative advantage from a fuel burn standpoint is at longer ranges. If you have the equivalent 737 and 32S, you're generally better off butting the A on the long stage length and the B on the short one. Engine choice likewise plays a role: the CFM has 1 HPT while the IAE has 2; this is part of why the CFM has cheaper mx and the IAE has better burn on longer flights. It's all a series of tradeoffs.

What complicates the matter somewhat is that the 737NG has more voluminous wings, so without the A321 ACTs, the 737 tends to have better payload at range, which makes it more capable, if less efficient. Confused yet?
 
hitower3
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

Tue Apr 27, 2021 8:27 am

Dear all,

May I expand the question towards the next generation of these aircraft: A321N and 737-Max9?
I could guess that the 321N takes a better advantage from the newer engine, since it allows a bigger fan than its counterpart on the Max, but this space issue had been present on the 737 since the classics. Also, the 737 has gotten some aerodynamic refinements in the tail section, whereas the 321 - at least to my knowledge - did not.

So, how is the fuel burn competition going in the current generation of A and B?

Best regards,
Hendric
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pm

Simplified version: 739 burns less total trip fuel. A321ceo has better per-seat burn (sits 2 rows more), meaning the total burn is slightly higher but more than offset by the additional seats. The differences are rather small. Sharklet IAE-powered A321 gets very close on total trip fuel.... older A321 and especially those with CFM's start to show the difference.

As previously mentioned, the A321ceo needs 2-3 aux fuel tanks in the belly in order to be transcon capable. The 737-9 does not. These ACTs give back much of the "savings" from the long routes when they're flown on short routes due to the dead weight. They're also not cheap.

It's a bit more murky on the neo/Max front. A321neo burns slightly less trip fuel >2500nm than Max9, reason being better SFC from the large diameter engines. However, the 7M9 does quite a bit better on short hops as those engines are relatively heavy and draggy. I've heard hearsay as much as 10% better trip burn on the short hops.

The thing is, the fuel burn difference between the two is relatively small and easily offset by other factors.

In the case of Delta, their initial A321ceo's came with CFM56 engines. These are optimal for shorter flights as their per-cycle engine maintenance cost is less. Plus, one has to factor in TechOps capabilities. Delta did not invest in ACTs with these, therefore they are not transcon capable.

I recall the second wave of A321ceo's does have ACTs, but still CFM56 engines. These are transcon capable, although not as efficient as a would-be IAE2500 ceo. However, considering Delta's network, the maintenance savings should surpass the fuel savings on the longer flights.

To the extent possible, which is rather limited, neo's/MAX should, in theory, be routed on the longer stage lengths to maximize their fuel savings. In practice, you'll find that's typically not the case as the network optimization supersedes those possible fuel savings.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10020
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

Sun May 02, 2021 12:36 pm

Wouldn't payload lost for range in the MTOW stretch of the payload/range chart be indicative?
Murphy is an optimist
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

Sun May 02, 2021 3:38 pm

I believe okcflyer's superb post answers it. The two types are so close in efficiency that it probably does not influence any scheduling decisions. The A321 is a heavier gauge airplane, more floor area (?) so that is the factor that dictates where it will be sent. It will be sent on the line of flight that needs more seats.

This also plays into fleet planning. The size difference (and stage length of job) will push airlines either toward Boeing or Airbus. Delta at Atlanta has many short to mid range flights, which seems ideal for the Boeing. NY-LA ends up being more Airbus, because of the passenger counts and stage length. The wider fuselage also yields the most benefit subjectively on longer trips, IMO.
 
Strato2
Posts: 606
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

Sun May 02, 2021 6:05 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
It's a bit more murky on the neo/Max front. A321neo burns slightly less trip fuel >2500nm than Max9, reason being better SFC from the large diameter engines. However, the 7M9 does quite a bit better on short hops as those engines are relatively heavy and draggy. I've heard hearsay as much as 10% better trip burn on the short hops.


Airbus has sold over 3400 A321neos. If those numbers would be real it would not have done so.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

Tue May 04, 2021 2:53 pm

The A321 is larger than the 739. It is also larger than the 73J.

There is a huge difference in number of aircraft sold, and number of aircraft in service, comparing the A321 and 739.

I have also noticed that significant high share of all 739 are in service in the US, while it is a very rare sight elsewhere in the world, with a few exceptions. In the EU, where most flights are very short haul, there is next to none 739 in service, while the A321 and 738 is very common.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14517
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

Wed May 05, 2021 8:11 am

reidar76 wrote:
next to none 739 in service, while the A321 and 738 is very common.


I think that is a combination of all-Y hard product, plenty of airports with 7k feet or less runway getting more than just regional jet service make the -900 with its field performance lack attractiveness.
Charter Airlines would go for high density seating and want range to go to the Canary Islands from those 7k foot runways , which can be a 2600nm trip.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

Wed May 05, 2021 12:28 pm

What is the average trip length in North America? With higher fuel prices and load factors which are never 100% on a consistent basis, aren't airlines paying a premium for the extra capability of the 321 won't use on most of it's flights?

Right now this premium for the extra capability must make sense for the planners, but that would change if Jet A goes to $5 or $6 dollars a gallon (where it might be when it's blended with green fuel in the future).
    300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
     
    tommy1808
    Posts: 14517
    Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

    Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

    Wed May 05, 2021 1:09 pm

    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    aren't airlines paying a premium for the extra capability of the 321 won't use on most of it's flights?


    Not really. Its not like average load factors get higher with smaller aircraft.

    but that would change if Jet A goes to $5 or $6 dollars a gallon (where it might be when it's blended with green fuel in the future).


    it would increase the advantage of the aircraft offering the lower per seat fuel burn, which tends to be the aircraft with more seats. And between the -900 and the A321 the 737 doesn´t have a per seat weight advantage. In the Neo/Max generation the A321 likely has a weight advantage and the more efficient engines, neatly explaining the sales numbers.

    best regards
    Thomas
    Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
     
    MohawkWeekend
    Posts: 565
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

    Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

    Wed May 05, 2021 4:13 pm

    But airliners don't fly full most of the time. In 2019 UA had around a 84% load factor. Wouldn't the load factor naturally increase on a smaller aircraft if for example 170 people want to fly on a certain day - a 737's LF would be higher than the 321's

    I imagine airlines model different scenario's and as you point out the one the industry uses now favors the 321. My point being that if fuel goes to $5 or $6 a gallon, perhaps that scenario changes. That being said the same line of thinking would make the 321 much more attractive to operate than a 757 or 767.

    Good discussion though as IMO right now airlines have a lot on their plates to get back to profitability.. But judging by the prices I see around town for MOGAS and diesel today, that may change quickly.
      300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
       
      WIederling
      Posts: 10020
      Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

      Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

      Wed May 05, 2021 5:47 pm

      MohawkWeekend wrote:
      But airliners don't fly full most of the time. In 2019 UA had around a 84% load factor. Wouldn't the load factor naturally increase on a smaller aircraft if for example 170 people want to fly on a certain day - a 737's LF would be higher than the 321's


      Smaller plane would have incurred a loss of revenue under higher loads.

      you size the plane size and frequency to capture most of the demand ( over all times from high to low demand )

      thus a smaller frame used would show the same contraction in loadfactor.( Afaics )
      Murphy is an optimist
       
      Okcflyer
      Posts: 803
      Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

      Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

      Wed May 05, 2021 7:00 pm

      One cannot compare sales of A321 to B739. The families are very different.

      Image

      Both the 738 and 739 sit between the A320 and A321. The B738 is bigger than A320 by about the same amount that the 739 is compared to the 738.

      There are pretty big operational trade offs to get the small capacity jump between 738 and 739. Three large carriers (DL, UA, AK) have done this, and all run proper first class domestic cabins, and that extra capacity makes a different for that seating mix. They are also in the USA where there are basically no runway limitations to mess with. Pretty much everyone else has said they will take the 738 size and additional operational flexibility, especially considering most of these are jamming 180-190 seats into the 738 anyway.

      Within the A320 family, there is a huge size difference between A321 and A320. A large portion of those airlines using that family have upsized for the additional capacity. The capacity step is large enough to offset the flexibility loss. Also, the A320 can be borderline too small. If it was 2 rows longer, I think the number of A321 sales would have shrunk. The sweet spot is around 180 seats. The A320 is just a tad too small to get to that in all but the most insane layouts.
       
      MohawkWeekend
      Posts: 565
      Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

      Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

      Wed May 05, 2021 7:48 pm

      Lets assume we are in Delta's route planning department and Jet-A goes to $6 a gallon. Flight between ATL and LAX averages 1050 passengers a week. Some days 200 passengers other days 150 passengers.

      Which aircraft in your fleet makes you the most money in a week? Assume $6 a gallon and same revenue from those 1050 passengers regardless of aircraft. Would it be a 757, A321 or 739?
        300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
         
        Okcflyer
        Posts: 803
        Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

        Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

        Thu May 06, 2021 1:19 pm

        Here's a comparison table that may be of interest. As you can see, the A320 and B738 are not the same size. And for smaller fleets that need to keep within one family (either all 737 or A320), this drives different outcomes; i.e. A321 sales have soared whereas 900ER/Max are smaller.

        Image

        This is largely why multiple large airlines have invested in both 738/Max8 and A321ceo/neo. Each covers a critical size range optimally. And allows for diversification in large fleets.

        B738 trip fuel is very close to A320ceo. Slightly less on short hops, slightly more on long flights, although 738 has better payload/range abilities on the edge cases (A dozen of Copa's outstations wouldn't exist if they had A320's instead of B738's).

        It's a similar story on 8Max vs A320neo, except the Max savings are slightly larger on short hops, and the neo savings greater on long hops. For most airlines, if you average across the network (considering a mix of long vs short trips), they're effectively the same. This gives a small CASM advantage to the B738/8M.

        Table is flipped between 739/A321, with A321 getting the CASM advantage, and having the payload/range advantage. However, the Max10 is expected to have CASM advantage on short/medium segments, with neo keeping advantage on longer segments and having better payload/range abilities on the extreme end (especially XLR, that's in a class of it's own).
         
        Sokes
        Posts: 2775
        Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

        Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

        Fri May 07, 2021 4:16 am

        MohawkWeekend wrote:
        What is the average trip length in North America? With higher fuel prices and load factors which are never 100% on a consistent basis, aren't airlines paying a premium for the extra capability of the 321 won't use on most of it's flights?

        The function of price is to distribute limited resources. If 180 seats are available, but 200 people want to fly the price increases to a level where 20 people switch flight or don't fly.
        If the price/ seat is double in times if demand, it's o.k. if seats are empty half the time.
        I have a feeling a lot of flights don't cover cost, a lot of flights are extremely profitable.

        But if there had to be only 160 seats, wouldn't price be consistently high? Yes, until a competitor enters the market. Between popular city pairs the competitors will provide seats anyway.

        I believe airlines keep outdated equipment for occasional flights when demand is extreme, e.g. Christmas or weekend or such stuff.
        Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
         
        MohawkWeekend
        Posts: 565
        Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

        Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

        Fri May 07, 2021 8:09 am

        I think this points out that some airlines (SW and DL) believe having a smaller gauge mainline jet (Max 7 and A220) somewhat mitigates these inefficiencies.

        If fuel costs were to rise appreciably that benefit would grow.
          300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
           
          tommy1808
          Posts: 14517
          Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

          Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

          Fri May 07, 2021 8:22 am

          MohawkWeekend wrote:
          I think this points out that some airlines (SW and DL) believe having a smaller gauge mainline jet (Max 7 and A220) somewhat mitigates these inefficiencies.

          If fuel costs were to rise appreciably that benefit would grow.


          since the smaller frame uses more fuel per passenger than the bigger aircraft from the same family, rising fuel costs have the opposite effect.

          best regards
          Thomas
          Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
           
          tommy1808
          Posts: 14517
          Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

          Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

          Fri May 07, 2021 9:19 am

          MohawkWeekend wrote:
          But airliners don't fly full most of the time. In 2019 UA had around a 84% load factor. Wouldn't the load factor naturally increase on a smaller aircraft if for example 170 people want to fly on a certain day - a 737's LF would be higher than the 321's.


          If the airline is the only airline connecting those two destinations, and there are no other attractive alternatives (car/rail/flying from/to a different airport) using a smaller aircraft may increase load factor, but doesn´t have to in a meaningful way since airlines are in the business of making money, not selling every seat.

          Lets assume an hypothetical airline has to chose between deploying a 199 seat 737-9 and a 220 seat A321 on a given route. That is the same floor space per passenger, so a comparable configuration. Lets further assume cost per seat is the same between the two, in reality the A321 will do slightly better.

          Lets say the A321 would run at 84% LF with 3x flights per day since there is no competition, but demand is too much for only two flights, ~555 passengers/day. Choosing the 737-9 would increase that to 93% LF. Awesome.
          But most people want to get on the morning or the evening flight, so the airline may have no problem to regularly sell all seats on those two flights since few people actually want the mid day flight and are usually guided to chose it via pricing.
          So, the 84% LF turn out to be 220-115-220 seats sold, and out of the 115 passengers on the mid day flight a good chunk just chose that flight because the tickets are cheaper.
          If they deploy the 737-9 they sell 199-115-199 seats, or if they can goat all others passengers to fly mid day via discounts, 199-157-199 seats. In the first case the smaller aircraft would increase load factor, but only to 86%, a mere two percent improvement. In the real world that would easily be overcome by the per seat cost advantage of the bigger A321.
          If the airlines manages to steer all those surplus passengers onto the mid day flight they get the 93% LF mentioned above, but only by heavily discounting those tickets. Those 21 passengers each on the morning and evening flight they needed to turn away would also be the last-minute bookings, likely the passengers willing to pay the highest price for their tickets, and those last 10% of seats may very well represent 1/3rd of the flights revenue once taxes and fees are deducted.
          The airlines just managed to increase load factor to 93%, reduce total daily operating cost by 9.5%, but also reduced revenue by about 19%.

          They should have gone with the bigger aircraft. Of course this example is taken to the extreme, but that is the reason why airlines almost always deploy the biggest type they can fill beyond the next smaller type with sufficient frequency.

          And of course there usually is competition, and if the competition deploys and aircraft with lower cost per seat, they can afford to discount their tickets to siphon off the competitions passengers.

          best regards
          Thomas
          Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
           
          MohawkWeekend
          Posts: 565
          Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

          Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

          Fri May 07, 2021 12:23 pm

          There must be a variable in the airline planning calculations for how much capacity needs to be provided to keep RSM as high as possible (A380 vs A350). If a variable changes (demand or fuel or taxes or labor) then the decision to purchase a certain type may not have been the correct one.

          Lately bigger is losing, That's why IMHO the talk about a new MOM jet makes little sense today. And IMHO that the A220 may turn out to be the aircraft of the 2020's (if they can build it more profitably)
            300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
             
            IADCA
            Posts: 2291
            Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

            Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

            Fri May 07, 2021 1:25 pm

            Strato2 wrote:
            Okcflyer wrote:
            It's a bit more murky on the neo/Max front. A321neo burns slightly less trip fuel >2500nm than Max9, reason being better SFC from the large diameter engines. However, the 7M9 does quite a bit better on short hops as those engines are relatively heavy and draggy. I've heard hearsay as much as 10% better trip burn on the short hops.


            Airbus has sold over 3400 A321neos. If those numbers would be real it would not have done so.


            No, it might well have for numerous other reasons. One being that those planes aren't the same size. The A321N is significantly larger than the -9M. That 10% less trip fuel comes with approximately 10% fewer seats depending on specific config, meaning the 321N is roughly on par with the -9M on a per-seat basis on those numbers for short segments and is significantly better than the -9M on longer segments, again on a per-seat basis.
             
            tommy1808
            Posts: 14517
            Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

            Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

            Fri May 07, 2021 1:58 pm

            MohawkWeekend wrote:
            Lately bigger is losing,


            Where? There are no 788 or 338 orders, the A223 sells better than the 195E2, the A319neo is dead, the 737-7 max is not selling aside of one customer. There is no run to convert A321 orders in A320s or Max9/10 into -8.
            Aside of the very top end of the widebody scale there is no indication that bigger is losing. And those have been struggling for the last 15 years...

            Best regards
            Thomas
            Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
             
            CRJockey
            Posts: 310
            Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

            Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

            Fri May 07, 2021 2:12 pm

            tommy1808 wrote:
            MohawkWeekend wrote:
            Lately bigger is losing,


            Where? There are no 788 or 338 orders, the A223 sells better than the 195E2, the A319neo is dead, the 737-7 max is not selling aside of one customer. There is no run to convert A321 orders in A320s or Max9/10 into -8.
            Aside of the very top end of the widebody scale there is no indication that bigger is losing. And those have been struggling for the last 15 years...

            Best regards
            Thomas


            Yep, and people always expect airlines to come to their decisions as they would in private life, aka short sighted. You don't buy scores of 737-7 or A319neo now because for the next two to four COVID influenced years they might be slightly better. Because then you have 20 normal years flying a plane that was marginal even prior COVID.
             
            MohawkWeekend
            Posts: 565
            Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

            Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

            Fri May 07, 2021 3:24 pm

            I would argue that the next 20 years will be significantly different than what the airlines have ever faced. Perhaps the nature of business travel has changed for good.

            The C suites have gotten used to private aviation - see Dassault adding a new G-V competitor yesterday. The 1% may not want to travel with the passengers who are flying today - note exploding number of air rage incidents. The whole commercial flying experience is awful for a normal person - when you are a high level exec you just don't put up with that. And yucky COVID protocols which may exist for years.

            And all the mid-level grunts - companies now say "Is this trip/convention/boondoogle really necessary" when you can Zoom? In my 40 years of business travel at least a 1/3 of the trips were unnecessary - some boss needed the miles or to get out of town for their sanity. Only the field service and sales people really need to be on the road any more.

            But the area that I see the airlines "whistling past the graveyard" the most is CO2. If the danger of climate change really turns out to be as bad as the Administration says , Kathy bar the door for the one industry (outside of perhaps making cement or steel) least able to turn on a dime. Ethanol doesn't work in Jet fuel and algae aint cutting it so far.
              300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
               
              Okcflyer
              Posts: 803
              Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

              Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

              Fri May 07, 2021 4:03 pm

              tommy1808 wrote:
              MohawkWeekend wrote:
              Lately bigger is losing,


              Where? There are no 788 or 338 orders, the A223 sells better than the 195E2, the A319neo is dead, the 737-7 max is not selling aside of one customer. There is no run to convert A321 orders in A320s or Max9/10 into -8.
              Aside of the very top end of the widebody scale there is no indication that bigger is losing. And those have been struggling for the last 15 years...

              Best regards
              Thomas


              He's confusing the tiny VLA market with the rest of the industry which dwarfs VLA in volume and total dollars.

              That said, there are still 788 orders. AA just did a sizable top-up a couple years ago as one example.

              A35K, 779, and to a lesser extent, 78J have been slow selling.

              In the case of A35K vs A359, the larger K has a rather small per-seat cost advantage (2%?), and rumbling of concerns with engine reliability. It's seat-efficiency advantage isn't large enough to produce enough high enough "gains" to offset the additional costs. Further, in this VLA sector, the number of route pairs that can support that volume is shrinking as fragmentation occurs with smaller airplanes connecting more points directly.

              779 has done pretty well with relative order performance wise against the A35k so far. That said, its total sales prospects are bleak due to the fragmentation significantly shrinking the VLA market.

              In the narrow body sector, A321 is cleaning up and taking names. Many of those operators are able to justify the 10% higher op costs for 27% capacity gain. Those are fantastic odds.

              Within Boeing's NB family, the Max9 is only 8% larger capacity with some pretty serious trade offs on performance. If a network needs / can justify an airliner larger than Max8, they've gone with A321 which is 15% larger than Max8.

              For Boeing operators, the Max10 is trying to change that dynamic as it's very close to A321 size. Switching families makes makes hurts the economics of the larger plane (at least until some min scale)
               
              MohawkWeekend
              Posts: 565
              Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

              Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

              Fri May 07, 2021 7:08 pm

              tommy1808 wrote:
              MohawkWeekend wrote:
              Lately bigger is losing,


              Where? There are no 788 or 338 orders, the A223 sells better than the 195E2, the A319neo is dead, the 737-7 max is not selling aside of one customer. There is no run to convert A321 orders in A320s or Max9/10 into -8.
              Aside of the very top end of the widebody scale there is no indication that bigger is losing. And those have been struggling for the last 15 years...

              Best regards
              Thomas



              I meant more along the retirements and groundings of all 4 engine WB, and certain fleets of 330/757/767.
                300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
                 
                MohawkWeekend
                Posts: 565
                Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

                Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

                Fri May 07, 2021 11:48 pm

                Shouldn't have said ALL 4 engine WB as there are still small fleets out there of A340's, 747-8 and A380.
                That being said no one seems to be lining up for the 777X or the MOM idea.

                I enjoy the debate and I do realize that my scenario (smaller planes and burning less fuel per trip) is just that a guess as to what the future holds if we have significantly higher fuel prices.
                  300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
                   
                  CRJockey
                  Posts: 310
                  Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

                  Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

                  Sat May 08, 2021 7:54 am

                  MohawkWeekend wrote:
                  Shouldn't have said ALL 4 engine WB as there are still small fleets out there of A340's, 747-8 and A380.
                  That being said no one seems to be lining up for the 777X or the MOM idea.

                  I enjoy the debate and I do realize that my scenario (smaller planes and burning less fuel per trip) is just that a guess as to what the future holds if we have significantly higher fuel prices.


                  I suggest that COVID isn’t a seismic shift in aircraft sizes. But rather a strong push in the direction the industry was headed anyway: replacing VLAs with highly efficient twins a size category below and replace lost seats by adding new non-stop destinations ex hub and a frequency or two more.
                   
                  tommy1808
                  Posts: 14517
                  Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

                  Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

                  Sat May 08, 2021 8:26 am

                  MohawkWeekend wrote:
                  tommy1808 wrote:
                  MohawkWeekend wrote:
                  Lately bigger is losing,


                  Where? There are no 788 or 338 orders, the A223 sells better than the 195E2, the A319neo is dead, the 737-7 max is not selling aside of one customer. There is no run to convert A321 orders in A320s or Max9/10 into -8.
                  Aside of the very top end of the widebody scale there is no indication that bigger is losing. And those have been struggling for the last 15 years...

                  Best regards
                  Thomas



                  I meant more along the retirements and groundings of all 4 engine WB, and certain fleets of 330/757/767.


                  Lufthansa for example has most 747-8 flying, but all (smaller) A346 parked. They down gauged one step where possible.
                  Those large wide bodies also largely happen to have older generation engines on them.

                  Best regards
                  Thomas
                  Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
                   
                  LCDFlight
                  Posts: 1002
                  Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

                  Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

                  Sat May 08, 2021 1:27 pm

                  MohawkWeekend wrote:
                  I would argue that the next 20 years will be significantly different than what the airlines have ever faced. Perhaps the nature of business travel has changed for good.

                  The C suites have gotten used to private aviation - see Dassault adding a new G-V competitor yesterday. The 1% may not want to travel with the passengers who are flying today - note exploding number of air rage incidents. The whole commercial flying experience is awful for a normal person - when you are a high level exec you just don't put up with that. And yucky COVID protocols which may exist for years.

                  And all the mid-level grunts - companies now say "Is this trip/convention/boondoogle really necessary" when you can Zoom? In my 40 years of business travel at least a 1/3 of the trips were unnecessary - some boss needed the miles or to get out of town for their sanity. Only the field service and sales people really need to be on the road any more.

                  But the area that I see the airlines "whistling past the graveyard" the most is CO2. If the danger of climate change really turns out to be as bad as the Administration says , Kathy bar the door for the one industry (outside of perhaps making cement or steel) least able to turn on a dime. Ethanol doesn't work in Jet fuel and algae aint cutting it so far.


                  I don't see private jets as a viable alternative to airlines. I think it is a small percentage of airline revenue that is at risk from private.

                  On business travel, I agree, but it has ALWAYS been pretty questionable in recent 20 years. COVID forced a lasting technology change in business, fully agree there. I think business travel will stay down 1/3.

                  Leisure travel I think will remain high. Younger people are eager to see the world. And many people seem to "super-travel," people who fly 50k+ miles a year pure leisure flying. People who go to Iceland for a weekend, Maldives for a few days, Aspen and Jackson hole for a few days in the winter, then Brazil. It's not even that expensive. Any dentist or people like that seem to be living like that if they choose to.

                  It is a lot of carbon. But at the end of the day, airlines can pay for their carbon. They serve affluent clientele (not billionaires, but affluent is a vast category who can pay for carbon offset easily). Airplanes are stunningly fuel efficient now too. 80+ ASM per gallon.
                   
                  User avatar
                  reidar76
                  Posts: 562
                  Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

                  Re: A321 vs B739 Fuel burn

                  Wed May 12, 2021 10:16 pm

                  Okcflyer wrote:
                  Here's a comparison table that may be of interest. As you can see, the A320 and B738 are not the same size. And for smaller fleets that need to keep within one family (either all 737 or A320), this drives different outcomes; i.e. A321 sales have soared whereas 900ER/Max are smaller.

                  Image

                  This is largely why multiple large airlines have invested in both 738/Max8 and A321ceo/neo. Each covers a critical size range optimally. And allows for diversification in large fleets.

                  B738 trip fuel is very close to A320ceo. Slightly less on short hops, slightly more on long flights, although 738 has better payload/range abilities on the edge cases (A dozen of Copa's outstations wouldn't exist if they had A320's instead of B738's).

                  It's a similar story on 8Max vs A320neo, except the Max savings are slightly larger on short hops, and the neo savings greater on long hops. For most airlines, if you average across the network (considering a mix of long vs short trips), they're effectively the same. This gives a small CASM advantage to the B738/8M.

                  Table is flipped between 739/A321, with A321 getting the CASM advantage, and having the payload/range advantage. However, the Max10 is expected to have CASM advantage on short/medium segments, with neo keeping advantage on longer segments and having better payload/range abilities on the extreme end (especially XLR, that's in a class of it's own).


                  How one carrier, that have both the 737 and A320 in service, chooses to configure the cabin doesn't say much about aircraft size. There are a number of factors that influence the choices of an airline. The cabin might be configured differently depending on when the aircraft was brought new, then the aircraft cabin was last refreshed, the type of seats chosen (manufacturer of new slimline seats etc), and on which segments the aircraft is planned to be operated on etc.

                  When comparing cabin lenght, you need to look at the lenght between the front and rear doors. In other words, where we can actually place seats. I have checked with the official Airbus and Boeing aircraft characteristics documentation, where the door positions a listed. The difference is smaller than your numbers suggest.

                  The 737-8 MAX has about 990 inches available cabin length for seats, minus extra space needed for the overwing exits (about 10 inches x 2 in an economy layout). On the right side there is approximately 10 inches more, due to the front door on the right side is closer to the cockpit. Choose your favourite pitch, for example 30 inches, and you will have a single class 737-8 with (990 - 20 / 30) 32 rows. With six seats abreast this is 192 seats, which is over the 737-8 exit limit. Half a row is therefore removed, leaving the 737-8 with 189 seats, probably one of the most common configurations world wide.

                  The A320neo has 930 inches available for seats, minus the extra space needed for the overwing exits. With 30 pitch (930 - 20 / 30) we can have 30 rows. At six abreast this is 180 seats. But we only lack a little bit of space to add another row. Since the A320 cabin is wider and therefore have wider seats, we can reduce pitch (29 inches instead of 30 inches) for just a few rows and thereby get one extra row behind the overwing exits. This would mean we get 186 seats in the A320, a common number world wide for the A320neo. The total available cabin space per passenger, taking cabin width into consideration, would be more on the A320, so this is by no means an unfair comparison. Low cost operator Cebu Pacific have 194 seats in the A320neo.

                  An aircraft is a flying cylinder with wings. The A320 fuselage is slightly wider and slightly shorter than the 737-8. Overall the A320 is actually the larger aircraft by volume. Cabin floor area in square feet/inches/meters is also larger for the A320.

                  When calculating fuel burn per seat, I would assume the same number of seats in the A320 and 737-8. Historically the A320 have, in practice, had fewer seats, but this is changing with the A320neo, even if the fuselage is the same size as the ceo. The change is due to better utilisation of the wider fuselage, including galley and toilets optimalizations.

                  Who is online

                  Users browsing this forum: DFW17L, tb727 and 96 guests

                  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