Reconfigured A321s

[FutureUScapt]

From this weeks AboutUS:

Q: I've heard from many pilots that when the 321 gets reconfigured the increase in weight will result in many fuel stops while going transcon? Has this issue been thoroughly researched? I hope this is not another knee-jerk reaction like the reconfiguration of the 320 where we will learn after the fact that this is something we should not have done.

A: Yes, with the reconfiguration of the A321s, we should expect an increase in fuel stops and, at a minimum, significant cargo restrictions on our longest transcon missions. This leads to the question, "Why should we make this change?" The answer: to make flights profitable that are currently unprofitable.

Senior VP of planning, scheduling, and alliances Andrew Nocella said: After the reconfiguration, if a mission is beyond the the normal capabilities of a 183-seat A321, we will simply not sell the seats to begin with in most instances by restricting the inventory. On occasion if a plane is overbooked or the winds are above average, a stop may be required. In short, with some preplanning, the number of stops should be minimal.

The critical thing to remember is that these transcons don't make up the majority of the A321 flights. Short-hauls and medium-hauls within the East Coast and to and from Phoenix (that have no restriction) represent a majority of 321 flights and will be better off with the extra seats.
------------

Hopefully, these planes can still be used from CLT to LAX and SFO, because we need the capacity on those routes that the 320 doesn't have.

FFOCUS and CPs members, please start sending some more letters to Tempe now, or forever hold your peace!!!

 

[Itestwell]

From this weeks AboutUS:

Q: I've heard from many pilots that when the 321 gets reconfigured the increase in weight will result in many fuel stops while going transcon? Has this issue been thoroughly researched? I hope this is not another knee-jerk reaction like the reconfiguration of the 320 where we will learn after the fact that this is something we should not have done.

A: Yes, with the reconfiguration of the A321s, we should expect an increase in fuel stops and, at a minimum, significant cargo restrictions on our longest transcon missions. This leads to the question, "Why should we make this change?" The answer: to make flights profitable that are currently unprofitable.

Senior VP of planning, scheduling, and alliances Andrew Nocella said: After the reconfiguration, if a mission is beyond the the normal capabilities of a 183-seat A321, we will simply not sell the seats to begin with in most instances by restricting the inventory. On occasion if a plane is overbooked or the winds are above average, a stop may be required. In short, with some preplanning, the number of stops should be minimal.

The critical thing to remember is that these transcons don't make up the majority of the A321 flights. Short-hauls and medium-hauls within the East Coast and to and from Phoenix (that have no restriction) represent a majority of 321 flights and will be better off with the extra seats.
------------

Hopefully, these planes can still be used from CLT to LAX and SFO, because we need the capacity on those routes that the 320 doesn't have.

FFOCUS and CPs members, please start sending some more letters to Tempe now, or forever hold your peace!!!

Oh, sweet Jesus. Make it stop. Someone forward this to the DOT so they know that we will just plan on leaving some cargo and pax behind on our way to China.

 

[Informed1]

Oh, sweet Jesus. Make it stop. Someone forward this to the DOT so they know that we will just plan on leaving some cargo and pax behind on our way to China.

Okay, that was funny!!!

 

[jimcfs]

Maybe the gameplan is to make all transcons 1-stops via LAS (or PHX). Didn't National do it that way? We also know where they are now. :down:

 

[BuffaloJoe]

From this weeks AboutUS:

Q: I've heard from many pilots that when the 321 gets reconfigured the increase in weight will result in many fuel stops while going transcon? Has this issue been thoroughly researched? I hope this is not another knee-jerk reaction like the reconfiguration of the 320 where we will learn after the fact that this is something we should not have done.

A: Yes, with the reconfiguration of the A321s, we should expect an increase in fuel stops and, at a minimum, significant cargo restrictions on our longest transcon missions. This leads to the question, "Why should we make this change?" The answer: to make flights profitable that are currently unprofitable.

Senior VP of planning, scheduling, and alliances Andrew Nocella said: After the reconfiguration, if a mission is beyond the the normal capabilities of a 183-seat A321, we will simply not sell the seats to begin with in most instances by restricting the inventory. On occasion if a plane is overbooked or the winds are above average, a stop may be required. In short, with some preplanning, the number of stops should be minimal.

The critical thing to remember is that these transcons don't make up the majority of the A321 flights. Short-hauls and medium-hauls within the East Coast and to and from Phoenix (that have no restriction) represent a majority of 321 flights and will be better off with the extra seats.
------------

Hopefully, these planes can still be used from CLT to LAX and SFO, because we need the capacity on those routes that the 320 doesn't have.

FFOCUS and CPs members, please start sending some more letters to Tempe now, or forever hold your peace!!!

NonStop means NonStop. a refueling stop should make them give MONEY back to the customer.

Example
A flight from PHL-LAX DP 8:15a AR 11:15a
Rarely it takes 6 hours.
Plane takes off Philly at 8:25a
Land in Denver for Re-Fuel 10:15a
Refuel
Take OFF Denver at 11:15a
arrive Los Angeles 12:15p

ON TIME RATINGS GONNA BE ZERO

That if the plane takes off almost rightaway and the plane still be 1 Hour late. OK, Here is the CUSTOMER being SCREWED again! There is NO possible way for that flight to be ON TIME. And Customer Happy books the flight cause its a nonstop, and when they get into LAX, That Customer becomes Customer P!ssed off, and rightfully so.

Its all about MONEY, Doug is a DRUNK! Add seats and squeeze people in. 6 Hours PLUS flight being squashed.

Southwest has MORE Seat Pitch and they have 2 Nonstops from PHL to LAX. United has 2 Nonstops and they have a TRUE FIRST CLASS and Economy Plus which is ALOT better than US. US offers CRAP. Southwest gets more gates come fall, more Nonstops to LAX, SFO, SAN, DEN, MCO, FLL and others. UA at times does 3 LAX and 3 SFO flights. I can see AA and DL joining in on the nonstops. US is setting themselves up to be killed.

 

[hp_fa]

Now I don't inderstand how the wunderkiddies can intentionally plan a less reliable "mission". We all know that they are minimizing ground times for all aircraft to increase daily utilization. So, what happens when the 321 needs to make a 60-75 minute fuel stop. They are building problems into the system , when the system is designed to not really have any surplus ability to handle additional. or intentionally created, problems.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Won't the extra passengers pay for the inconvenience.

Don't throw things I am kidding

 

[PHL]

Is it possible there's a longer term plan to put 757's back on those "weight restricted" routes? Sure, they'd need some sprucing up but it could be an option.

At what point during integration would they be allowed to operate West 757's on PHL-LAX/SFO/SEA/SAN transcons? I say West birds because the East ones with 8F is just a joke as it is, let alone on a true transcon route that every other airline alots a reasonable number of seats to.

 

[a320av8r]

Is it possible there's a longer term plan to put 757's back on those "weight restricted" routes? Sure, they'd need some sprucing up but it could be an option.

At what point during integration would they be allowed to operate West 757's on PHL-LAX/SFO/SEA/SAN transcons? I say West birds because the East ones with 8F is just a joke as it is, let alone on a true transcon route that every other airline alots a reasonable number of seats to.

No.
Why would you put a long haul aircraft (757) on a long haul flight and use the 321's in and out of Florida (short range aircraft on a short route)? That would make too much sense.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

No.
Why would you put a long haul aircraft (757) on a long haul flight and use the 321's in and out of Florida (short range aircraft on a short route)? That would make too much sense.

They will make you stop in PHX and connect, no more trans-cons. PHX-LAX will have 319's 5 an hour. Just as the AM PHL-LAS and the Red Eye LAS-PHX , 1 HP 1US leaving 5 minutes apart. Make any sense? Wouldn't it be cheaper to fly a A330 instead of 2 jets in a 5 minute period? I know there are no A330's, and Tempe doesn't plan ahead, order extra wide bodies, some can be used domestically. AA, UA, DL all do that and AA didn't go BK.

Put your applications in now for Southwest, they are beginning to look good.

 

[EMBFA]

Why is US Airways the corniest airline ever. It just doesn't end. Seriously, what a friggin joke.

 

[trvlr64]

I heard a rumor in PIT this week that all the A321's will be used on the PIT to CRW and PHL to ABE routes!

B)

 

[N924PS]

Why is US Airways the corniest airline ever. It just doesn't end. Seriously, what a friggin joke.

Actually, the word "cheesy" comes to mind when describing LCC.

As someone who has spent hundreds if not thousands of hours on US metal transcon since 1991, I can tell you it's not much better now than when they slammed 120/140 bodies in the B737-300/400's at USAir prior to the B757/Airbus entering the fleet.

Seat pitch with new configurations is noticeably tighter. Reconfigured First Class is the talk of the premium customers, and the talk is not good. It almost seems as if the SandCastle is trying to drive customers away with their decisions.

Bottom line is, as always, poor planning decisions will be covered by the front line employees and not the Andrew Nocella's that make these "cheesy" decisions.

I think we should change the call sign from Cactus/USAir to "Velveeta", since that's what were giving the customers these days.

 

[CLT-Douglas]

Management including Doug should be restricted to only be allowed to fly US in the coach cabin, preferably middle seats only. I bet after one long flight when their legs fall asleep and it feels like they are about to give a teeth cleaning to the passenger that reclines their seat all the way back in front of them will they improve anything in coach. I will never fly US on flights longer then 3 hours.

 

[legacy-to-LCC]

Management including Doug should be restricted to only be allowed to fly US in the coach cabin, preferably middle seats only. I bet after one long flight when their legs fall asleep and it feels like they are about to give a teeth cleaning to the passenger that reclines their seat all the way back in front of them will they improve anything in coach. I will never fly US on flights longer then 3 hours.

i'll bet not! particularly for, dp. if he had to fly like that, he would be...drunk. well, i guess that's not saying much, is it??
it's time to make US fly...
now where is my bud lite??