A321 to LAS

[AstroLounge]

huh?

A little early to be hitting the Jack- don't you think?

 

[AtlanticBeach]

A little early to be hitting the Jack- don't you think?

Look at the comment below that I placed in quotes.

QUOTE(phasersonstun2 @ Jan 29 2007, 03:04 PM)

All that needs to happen is for the 321 to be made into a two engine aircraft. Then it could take off to the west.

 

[andyperkins]

[/quote]
The Boeing competitor for the A321 (and replacement for the B757) is the B737-900. Anyone out there weigh in on the performance capabilities of that machine vs. the A321?
[/quote]

From Boeing.com

The Boeing 737-900ER is the newest member of the Next-Generation 737 airplane family, the world's best-selling jet airplane family. The higher capacity, longer-range derivative of the 737-900 was launched on July 18, 2005 with an order for 30 airplanes from Indonesia 's Lion Air.
The first delivery to Lion Air is scheduled for the first half of 2007.
The 737-900ER can carry 26 more passengers or fly about 500 nautical miles farther than the 737-900. Aerodynamic and structural design changes such as an additional pair of exit doors, a flat rear pressure bulkhead allow more room for up to 215 passengers. Other changes such as a two-position tailskid, wing strengthening changes, enhancements to the leading and trailing edge flap systems, and optional Blended Winglets and auxiliary fuel tanks increase the range of the 737-900ER to 3,200 nautical miles (5,925 km).
The longer range of the 737-900ER will connect distant city pairs across continents (e.g., Seattle to Orlando, or San Francisco to Boston) in a generous two-class configuration.
Customers also can choose to seat up to 215 passengers for shorter trips while taking advantage of new levels of operating efficiency. The 737-900ER, which is 10,000 pounds (4,535 kgs) lighter than the A321, has 9 percent lower operating costs per trip and 7 percent lower operating costs per seat than the comparable Airbus model.
The 737-900ER shares the same performance attributes of the other models of the Next-Generation 737 family (737-600, 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900) such as reliability, lower maintenance costs, lower operating costs and state-of-the-art flight deck systems such as Head-Up Display (HUD), Global Positioning Landing System and Vertical Situation Display.
The 737-900ER also shares the same advanced-technology wing design that helps increase and fuel capacity and efficiency. The advanced wing airfoil design provides an economical cruise speed of .78 Mach -- compared to .74 Mach for earlier 737 models -- with sprint capability of .82 Mach.
The 737-900ER model is powered by new CFM56-7 engines produced by CFMI, a joint venture of General Electric Co. of the U.S. and Snecma of France. The engines meet strict international noise restrictions.
737-900ER
Passengers
Typical 2-class configuration 180
Typical 1-class configuration 215
Cargo 1,827 cu ft (51.7 cu m)
1,673 cu ft (47.3 cu m) w/aux. tank
1,585 cu ft (44.9 cu m) w/2 aux. tanks
Engines
(maximum thrust) CFMI CFM56-7
27,300 lb
Maximum Fuel Capacity 7,837 U.S. gal (29,660 L)
(2 aux tanks)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 187,700 lb (85,130 kg)
Maximum Range 3,200 nautical miles (5,925 km) - two-class layout, 2 aux. tanks
2,700 nautical miles - one class layout
Typical Cruise Speed
(at 35,000 feet) 0.78 Mach
Basic Dimensions
Wing Span
With Winglets 112 ft 7 in (34.3 m)
117 ft 5 in (35.7 m)
Overall Length 138 ft 2 in (42.1 m)
Tail Height 41 ft 2 in (12.5 m)
Interior Cabin Width 11 ft 7 in (3.53 m)

 

[N924PS]

Andy,

Thanks for the info. Although it seems a capable aircraft, it's no B757. Still can't believe economics forced the demise of that terrific airplane.

The B737 family, who's cockpit is based on the original B707 is not a place one would enoy spending a career flying transcons. A very cramped environment compared to the A320 family and few crew amenities, such as a real crew baggage stowage area, room to stretch out or even stand comfortably (phsiological needs), and noisy.

I'll take an Airbus any day over the B737 for anything more than a 2-3 hour leg! Much more user friendly on both sides of the cockpit door and no girt bars for the F/A's to ruin their manicures!

Andy,

Thanks for the info. Although it seems a capable aircraft, it's no B757. Still can't believe economics forced the demise of that terrific airplane.

The B737 family, who's cockpit is based on the original B707 is not a place one would enoy spending a career flying transcons. A very cramped environment compared to the A320 family and few crew amenities, such as a real crew baggage stowage area, room to stretch out or even stand comfortably (phsiological needs), and noisy.

I'll take an Airbus any day over the B737 for anything more than a 2-3 hour leg! Much more user friendly on both sides of the cockpit door and no girt bars for the F/A's to ruin their manicures!

Also, I wonder what kind of hot/high performance the -900 can have at 187,000 pounds with only 27K thrust per side?

 

[hula-flyguy]

2 engines had me scratching my head too!

 

[soc-hpjester]

924PS -- There is no way a 737-900 or a 321 can beat a 757 on a trans con. The 900 may have the fuel capacity but you may not be able to carry even half the pax.

 

[PHL]

And to think I used to specifically book LAX-PIT and PHL-LAS trips on the 737-400 and actually look FORWARD to them. Does that make me old or just nuts?

 

[BuffaloJoe]

OK another question. Even I can tell the A321 is underpowered as configured now.

Question is when you order and aircraft isn't it kinda like a car in that you can get the V-6 or the V-8?

In mean the B757 is like a rocket compared to the 321, did US buy on price and get a minimum engine configuration?

Why can't they just re-engine the A321? Is it possible? There has to be something they can do, they done it to the DC-8 in the past and they were alot more powerful afterwards.

 

[US1YFARE]

Why can't they just re-engine the A321? Is it possible? There has to be something they can do, they done it to the DC-8 in the past and they were alot more powerful afterwards.

I loved the UA DC-8's..

 

[Travelpro72]

Re-engine the A321? This management is so cheap they'd probably LOVE to use a twisted rubber band like on the toy airplanes years ago for power. I think the 757 should be used on transcon and the shorter/thinner int'l routes. The 757 can be made more comfortable. It's just that our 757's are not kept very well and not modern by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[DHG750R]

The Boeing competitor for the A321 (and replacement for the B757) is the B737-900. Anyone out there weigh in on the performance capabilities of that machine vs. the A321?

here's the Boeing information on the 737-900ER

The 737-900ER can carry 26 more passengers or fly about 500 nautical miles farther than the 737-900. Aerodynamic and structural design changes such as an additional pair of exit doors, a flat rear pressure bulkhead allow more room for up to 215 passengers. Other changes such as a two-position tailskid, wing strengthening changes, enhancements to the leading and trailing edge flap systems, and optional Blended Winglets and auxiliary fuel tanks increase the range of the 737-900ER to 3,200 nautical miles (5,925 km).

The longer range of the 737-900ER will connect distant city pairs across continents (e.g., Seattle to Orlando, or San Francisco to Boston) in a generous two-class configuration.

Customers also can choose to seat up to 215 passengers for shorter trips while taking advantage of new levels of operating efficiency. The 737-900ER, which is 10,000 pounds (4,535 kgs) lighter than the A321, has 9 percent lower operating costs per trip and 7 percent lower operating costs per seat than the comparable Airbus model.

The 737-900ER shares the same performance attributes of the other models of the Next-Generation 737 family (737-600, 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900) such as reliability, lower maintenance costs, lower operating costs and state-of-the-art flight deck systems such as Head-Up Display (HUD), Global Positioning Landing System and Vertical Situation Display.

The 737-900ER also shares the same advanced-technology wing design that helps increase and fuel capacity and efficiency. The advanced wing airfoil design provides an economical cruise speed of .78 Mach -- compared to .74 Mach for earlier 737 models -- with sprint capability of .82 Mach.

 

[Travelpro72]

Can you imagine if they did reengine the 321 or order the new 321's with bigger engines? Hell, they'd try to ETOPS it and send it to europe.

 

[jimcfs]

Re-engine the A321? This management is so cheap they'd probably LOVE to use a twisted rubber band like on the toy airplanes years ago for power. I think the 757 should be used on transcon and the shorter/thinner int'l routes. The 757 can be made more comfortable. It's just that our 757's are not kept very well and not modern by any stretch of the imagination.

Exactly my thoughts as reading all of this, Travelpro... but loved the rubber band analogy!

Back when US (CCY version) got the 757, it used to be THE ride for transcons. I so looked forward to getting the upgrade and the excellent service aboard it.

Now, it's just a ratty bigger seat.

 

[john john]

Management will just overbook the flights and let the agents deal with the weight and balance issues. Management knows the agents will figure it out like always. Reduction of fist class cabin comes to mind

 

[A320 Driver]

Why can't they just re-engine the A321? Is it possible? There has to be something they can do, they done it to the DC-8 in the past and they were alot more powerful afterwards.

That's a really GREAT question BuffaloJoe !!!


I read an engineering letter that stated that when we ordered the A-321s, U specked 32,000 lbs thrust engines for it. CFM, the engine manufacturer raised the RPM limit to acheive most of the thrust increase needed for takeoff, but they never raised the climb thrust limit from the lower thrust engine configuration. After the deliveries started U requested that this change be made and it was refused because U pays for engine maintenance to the manufacturer by the hour and CFM knows it will cost them money it they increase climb thrust. So there we are.

That being said, anyone that flys the A-321 will tell you that it has plenty of thrust at takeoff. It accelerates beautifully on the runway. But when you bring the thrust back to climb, the performance decrease is terrible. She's a homesick angel to 1000 feet, then you select climb thrust and turn her into a pig.

I saw a lawsuit on one of the court dockets during bankruptsy that U had against CFM. Anyone know what that's all about?


A320 Driver B)