20 More 757's...

[BoeingBoy]

I don't know the answer either, but I suspect it would be less difference than one might think.....

1 - The 321 makes a bigger hole in the air - that 1" of extra seat width everybody loves. Making a bigger hole takes thrust which burns fuel.

2 - The 321 wouldn't come close to FL410 with a full passenger load - probably FL340 or maybe FL360. Lower altitude burns more fuel.

3 - Those nifty winglet thingy's are small - a CRJ has ones as big. The winglets AA & CO are fitting to their 757's supposedly cut fuel burn about 5% - would those on the 321 yield 1%?

4 - The 757 would climb faster - the quicker you get to cruise altitude the less fuel burn.

One thing is pretty sure to be true - the 757 would burn less fuel per seat mile.

Jim

 

[700UW]

Plus the 757s have more cargo capacity then the 321s.

People forget US canceled their 321 orders before because the plane did not have the range to make it coast to coast, then Airbus added extra fuel tanks which cut the cargo capacity then US reordered them.

 

[a320av8r]

Any dispatchers on this board who could run the numbers for fuel burn on a typical PHL/SFO leg. 757 vs. 321 ??? Decide this once and for all.

 

[FCYTravis]

The problem with the 757 is that as configured, it's a joke for elites. 8 or 14F does not cut it, and I actively avoid flying any US Airways East route operated with a 757. They may be a dream to fly and great on fuel, but they suck for those of us who buy the tickets.

 

[700UW]

How can you compare a 321 to a 757 when the 757 has much more cargo capacity then the 321?

More cargo adds more weight and more fuel burn, but also adds more revenue per flight.

 

[twoturnin]

I understand a east pilot has been talking to West about just this sort of thing ----making money with freight----wow neat eh---if we do get more 75's this thing is a load hauling mama---PIA made a bunch of money on freight to London---which the east seemed to give up on or never had freight on their mind as a way to make---shhhh---MONEY !!

 

[PHL]

How can you compare a 321 to a 757 when the 757 has much more cargo capacity then the 321?

More cargo adds more weight and more fuel burn, but also adds more revenue per flight.

True...so how about the fuel burn of a fully loaded A321 PHL-SFO and then the burn of a 757 loaded to only the gross weight of the "control group" A321. Then let us know the delta with to illustrating how much MORE(i.e. revenue) the 757 can carry and with what performance. We know the answer is that the 757 is clearly the performance winner, but let's peel back the onion and get some practical data.

 

[Travelpro72]

I'm not one to throw numbers or stats here. I don't know any of that mumbo jumbo BUT is the Airbus-321 that great of a performer? I mean, considering how many airlines around the world have the airbus family of a/c in their fleet, how many fly the 321? Not that many. Also, the airlines that DO fly the 321 have few except for may LH or BA. I know as a passenger the 321 is a winner hands down for comfort but as a f/a, I'd take the 757 any day. You can fly B in the back and just FEEL the power in that sucker. Loud but LOVE IT! ! !

 

[700UW]

British Midland is getting rid of their A321s, they had eight of them and now they are down to five and those five will be leaving their fleet also.

 

[BoeingBoy]

According to Airbus, there are 344 A321's operating worldwide with US having more than any other operator (28). As would be expected, European carriers are next - Lufthansa (26), Alitalia (23), Iberia (16), and Air France (13).

Jim

 

[700UW]

Turkish Airlines has some also, that is were BMI's went too.

Spirit flies them here in the US.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Airbus says there are 55 carriers worldwide operating the 321. 31 of those operate from 1 to 5 of the type. BMI is showing 8 as of 3/31/06, if that gives you any indication of how up to the minute Airbus' data is.

Jim