capitalflyer wrote:

Will the A321 be able to cover some of the narrowbody East Coast-Europe flights? This could be beneficial for LCCs who want to break in to the transatlantic market.

It seems this market is all mixed up right now, no one way to service. For example, IAD has six flights today to LHR. Every flight uses a different kind of airplane. BA uses 744 and 388, UA uses 757, 777, and 789, and VX uses 333.

JFK seems much more organized. BA uses 747 and 777, DL uses 767, AA uses 777, VX uses 333, 346, and 789.

Primera Air will be using the A321neo from BHX STN and CDG from 2018 to EWR and BOS but the A321ceo doesn't have the range.

Because it's a good airplane. It does a job that airlines want done a price that airlines are willing to pay.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Rising pilot wage rates, causing upgauging in general on domestic flights. Boeing has delivered plenty of 739s to AS, UA and DL over the last five years, too.

Coupled with the improvements in range and field performance and that Sums it up.

The A321NEO has about the same cost per flight as the 738... Why not upgauge?

There is also the demand. I just flew a 738 that could have filled a -10MAX or A321 easy.

The economy is doing well, but the costs of employees have crept up. So productivity, not exclusively pilots, must go up.


Lightsaber

Boeing778X wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

It is simple. The A321 is much more efficient than the 757's it is mostly replacing.

In a domestic environment, perhaps. The 757 is still an excellent TATL hauler.

And no plane has the performance like a 757, mind you!

Soon the A321LR will have more range. We're not there on the A321NEO yet and won't get there on short field, but so what?

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

It is simple. The A321 is much more efficient than the 757's it is mostly replacing.

In a domestic environment, perhaps. The 757 is still an excellent TATL hauler.

And no plane has the performance like a 757, mind you!

Soon the A321LR will have more range. We're not there on the A321NEO yet and won't get there on short field, but so what?

Lightsaber

So what? I will absolutely love to see a fully loaded A321LR try to get in and out of fields like EGE and TGU.

Boeing778X wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

In a domestic environment, perhaps. The 757 is still an excellent TATL hauler.

And no plane has the performance like a 757, mind you!

Soon the A321LR will have more range. We're not there on the A321NEO yet and won't get there on short field, but so what?

Lightsaber

So what? I will absolutely love to see a fully loaded A321LR try to get in and out of fields like EGE and TGU.

Full pax load is surely possible. Do you mean TATL fuel loads from either of those airports? What are you getting at? Services that have never been possible even with the mighty 75?

Jamie514 wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Soon the A321LR will have more range. We're not there on the A321NEO yet and won't get there on short field, but so what?

Lightsaber

So what? I will absolutely love to see a fully loaded A321LR try to get in and out of fields like EGE and TGU.

Full pax load is surely possible. Do you mean TATL fuel loads from either of those airports? What are you getting at? Services that have never been possible even with the mighty 75?

No, No, TATL is fine, I'm more thinking of those higher airports in the Mountain States in the US and South America, where the performance of the 757 is displayed.

The A321 is not JUST a 757 replacement. It is the highest revenue producing narrowbody jet you can buy. Airlines actively replace A320 or 733 with A321 because for the same crew costs and same fuel burn, you get a lot more capacity and lower unit costs. Properly optimized, this makes the entire airline more efficient and resilient, even in a high crew cost / high fuel cost environment. If the A321 is "too big," you readjust your schedule so there is sufficient demand to fill it up. Then you end up ahead.

The A321 is an entire business model.

capitalflyer wrote:

Will the A321 be able to cover some of the narrowbody East Coast-Europe flights? This could be beneficial for LCCs who want to break in to the transatlantic market.

It seems this market is all mixed up right now, no one way to service. For example, IAD has six flights today to LHR. Every flight uses a different kind of airplane. BA uses 744 and 388, UA uses 757, 777, and 789, and VX uses 333.

JFK seems much more organized. BA uses 747 and 777, DL uses 767, AA uses 777, VX uses 333, 346, and 789.

clearly 757 has superior range to 321, british isle and iberian peninsula destinations are within reach for the 321 though from NYC/New England iinm.

Flighty wrote:

The A321 is not JUST a 757 replacement. It is the highest revenue producing narrowbody jet you can buy. Airlines actively replace A320 or 733 with A321 because for the same crew costs and same fuel burn, you get a lot more capacity and lower unit costs. Properly optimized, this makes the entire airline more efficient and resilient, even in a high crew cost / high fuel cost environment. If the A321 is "too big," you readjust your schedule so there is sufficient demand to fill it up. Then you end up ahead.

The A321 is an entire business model.

Why use a plane configured to 180 people on a route where the PDEW is no more than 140 or greater than 200 but not enough 2 warrant more than one flight? You can readjust all you want but it will ultimately come down to 1) buying smaller aircraft to complement the larger ones 2) cutting the route completely or 3) leaving money on the table.

There's a reason why the US3 have much larger domestic networks than WN.

A321 is popular in the US also because fleet planners still don't want A330s on domestic routes. The (too much) focus on keeping yields high is really preventing the guys to make step changes in capacity.

aeromoe wrote:

Just a minor nit...but many are throwing around the term "upgauge" incorrectly. IMHO an upgauge is a change in fuselage diameter: for example narrow body to wide body. A320 to A321 is not an upgauge. E170 to E190 is not an upgauge. Upsize, not upgauge. An E135/145 to E170/190 would be an upgauge. Just an observation.

A search of industry usage would seem to indicate it isn't all about fuselage diameter (we aren't talking about wire gauge here - but capacity). Given that trade publiciations refer to things like Southwest using 737-800 vs -700 as an "upgauge" I don't think you have a case.

lightsaber wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

It is simple. The A321 is much more efficient than the 757's it is mostly replacing.

In a domestic environment, perhaps. The 757 is still an excellent TATL hauler.

And no plane has the performance like a 757, mind you!

Soon the A321LR will have more range. We're not there on the A321NEO yet and won't get there on short field, but so what?

Lightsaber

What is the fuel delta from 757 to A321NEO ( LR or not ) for a similar payload/range task? -30% ??

redroo wrote:

The US is not my home market, but take these comments at face value

The US prefers frequency over capacity. Key routes have been rapidly growing to 739 and A321. United flies many widebodies around domestically. How long before key trunk routes upguage from A321 to more regular widebody service?

Will we have A330/MOM size flights from JFK/LAX every minutes in 5, 10, 15 years time?

This is what I don't understand, at SAA in the 70's to 90's we flew the A300 and these aircraft flew max capacity day in and day out, especially JNB-DUR or JNB-CPT, that was 270 odd seats. Then suddenly the fashion becomes smaller aircraft and they down size. Why airlines don't fly A330's on domestic routes beats me.

Boeing778X wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

In a domestic environment, perhaps. The 757 is still an excellent TATL hauler.

And no plane has the performance like a 757, mind you!

Soon the A321LR will have more range. We're not there on the A321NEO yet and won't get there on short field, but so what?

Lightsaber

So what? I will absolutely love to see a fully loaded A321LR try to get in and out of fields like EGE and TGU.

Your "So what" to Lightsaber's "so what" prompted me to ask the question.

So.
Apart from the fact that in identifying perhaps the only 2 airports out of 200 in the USA that actually have a market big enough to support a 757 for even part of the year, where an A321 might struggle, you implicitly point out that in 99% of cases, the A321 will be just fine, which for me lands on the side of Lightsaber's "so what".

What about the specifics?
EGE appears to have a 2 750m (9000ft) runway at 2 000m (6 600ft) altitude.
Wiki suggests that 757's are typically used during the ski season, which implies EGE might be high, but it's not hot.
Using the manufacturers ACAPs (and adding about 2t to TOW's for the presence of winglets or sharklets, as none of the field length data includes them) I found:-

A 757 cannot get out of EGE at MTOW
It should be able to get out on a TOW of about 106t, 10t short of its MTOW (top thrust P+W)
With a 61t DOW, and 20t payload, that leaves about 25t for fuel, which should be good for about 2 700Nm still air

A standard A321 CEO can actually get out of EGE.
It should be able to get out on a TOW of about 82t, 11t short of its MTOW (standard CFM's)
With a 50t DOW, and 20t payload, that leaves about 12t for fuel, which should be good for about 1 600Nm still air.

On these figures I have made the assumption that at that range the extra efficiency of the NEO is offset by its higher OEW (less fuel - same range)

So if "fully loaded" means with c. 200 pax then, yes, an A321 will do that. Only it will fall 1 100Nm short of the 757.

Advantage 757

Here's the thing though.
An A320 NEO should get out of there within 1t of its MTOW
It should be able to get out on a TOW of about 78t, 1t short of its MTOW
With a 44t DOW, and 18t payload, that leaves about 16t for fuel, which should be good for about 2 700Nm still air.

So yes, you're leaving 20 pax behind out of 200, and only taking 180.
But you can fly them out of EGE the same distance as a 757, with only 60% of the fuel tanked.

So what indeed

Rgds

TWA772LR wrote:

Flighty wrote:

The A321 is not JUST a 757 replacement. It is the highest revenue producing narrowbody jet you can buy. Airlines actively replace A320 or 733 with A321 because for the same crew costs and same fuel burn, you get a lot more capacity and lower unit costs. Properly optimized, this makes the entire airline more efficient and resilient, even in a high crew cost / high fuel cost environment. If the A321 is "too big," you readjust your schedule so there is sufficient demand to fill it up. Then you end up ahead.

The A321 is an entire business model.

Why use a plane configured to 180 people on a route where the PDEW is no more than 140 or greater than 200 but not enough 2 warrant more than one flight? You can readjust all you want but it will ultimately come down to 1) buying smaller aircraft to complement the larger ones 2) cutting the route completely or 3) leaving money on the table.

There's a reason why the US3 have much larger domestic networks than WN.

True, but this is why AA and DL, while they will have (or will have) a lot of 321s, don't only have the 321. Both airlines have 319s which can fit missions like what you subscribe. (DL also has MD-90s, 717s, and soon the CS100).

ty97 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Flighty wrote:

The A321 is not JUST a 757 replacement. It is the highest revenue producing narrowbody jet you can buy. Airlines actively replace A320 or 733 with A321 because for the same crew costs and same fuel burn, you get a lot more capacity and lower unit costs. Properly optimized, this makes the entire airline more efficient and resilient, even in a high crew cost / high fuel cost environment. If the A321 is "too big," you readjust your schedule so there is sufficient demand to fill it up. Then you end up ahead.

The A321 is an entire business model.

Why use a plane configured to 180 people on a route where the PDEW is no more than 140 or greater than 200 but not enough 2 warrant more than one flight? You can readjust all you want but it will ultimately come down to 1) buying smaller aircraft to complement the larger ones 2) cutting the route completely or 3) leaving money on the table.

There's a reason why the US3 have much larger domestic networks than WN.

True, but this is why AA and DL, while they will have (or will have) a lot of 321s, don't only have the 321. Both airlines have 319s which can fit missions like what you subscribe. .

Which is exactly my point.

mjoelnir wrote:

You should rather talk about down gouging, as this fleets of E 175 were to a big part replacing mainline frames on routes.

AS uses the E175 - operated by QX and OO - to OPEN new markets and get them ready for mainline growth, not replace mainline.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

AA is now the largest A321 operator, and will have over 300 in a few years, with a good portion inherited from US, and they've been nothing but miracle workers.

Miracle workers? What Miracles are they working for AA? The study I posted included CASM per operator per fleet type. The AA or US A321s don't have a particularly miraculous CASM compared to AS, DL or B6. The A321 is a great plane and very popular but how is it creating miracles?

Thank you for posting that study, I enjoyed reading it.

The AA 321 is not the US 321. Im not sure why it wasn't on the graphs although it did show a 321 for AA with low CASM but with 126 passengers...(not sure if the typo is for 321 or the number of passengers but that's definitely a miracle worker if you look at that graph where it shows the AA319, US321 and AA321)
Plus as said previously, a 321 configured with 10 F 20 C fully lie flat seats going for $2000-7000 each with narrowbody costs vs the previous 767-200 IS a miracle worker.

Balerit wrote:

redroo wrote:

The US is not my home market, but take these comments at face value

The US prefers frequency over capacity. Key routes have been rapidly growing to 739 and A321. United flies many widebodies around domestically. How long before key trunk routes upguage from A321 to more regular widebody service?

Will we have A330/MOM size flights from JFK/LAX every minutes in 5, 10, 15 years time?

This is what I don't understand, at SAA in the 70's to 90's we flew the A300 and these aircraft flew max capacity day in and day out, especially JNB-DUR or JNB-CPT, that was 270 odd seats. Then suddenly the fashion becomes smaller aircraft and they down size. Why airlines don't fly A330's on domestic routes beats me.

I'm guessing "costs" of a narrow body vs wide body, times have changed where now you have a LOT more options when it comes to matching capacity to demand, gate space usage, cycles, less wasteful use or abuse of an expensive asset when other aircraft (cheaper) are available.
Same crew (including costs) for the narrowbody families now vs in the past.
Even if you ran two 321s, vs one 330, it would cost less. Narrowbody pilot pay vs widebody, less fuel, less maintenance related issues in regards to cycles, less flight attendants per flight

capitalflyer wrote:

Will the A321 be able to cover some of the narrowbody East Coast-Europe flights? This could be beneficial for LCCs who want to break in to the transatlantic market.

It seems this market is all mixed up right now, no one way to service. For example, IAD has six flights today to LHR. Every flight uses a different kind of airplane. BA uses 744 and 388, UA uses 757, 777, and 789, and VX uses 333.

JFK seems much more organized. BA uses 747 and 777, DL uses 767, AA uses 777, VX uses 333, 346, and 789.

Point of order, but VX is Virgin America, who don't fly TATL. Those flights are Virgin Atlantic flights, whose code is VS.

As per Airbus, the max range of the A321neo is 3700nm, the two routes you mention, JFK-LHR and IAD-LHR are comfortably within that range at 3000nm and 3195nm respectively. So yes, flights from the US NE to Western Europe are entirely doable. The limit distance-wise would be about EWR-VIE, at 3696nm.

Bhoy wrote:

capitalflyer wrote:

Will the A321 be able to cover some of the narrowbody East Coast-Europe flights? This could be beneficial for LCCs who want to break in to the transatlantic market.

It seems this market is all mixed up right now, no one way to service. For example, IAD has six flights today to LHR. Every flight uses a different kind of airplane. BA uses 744 and 388, UA uses 757, 777, and 789, and VX uses 333.

JFK seems much more organized. BA uses 747 and 777, DL uses 767, AA uses 777, VX uses 333, 346, and 789.

Point of order, but VX is Virgin America, who don't fly TATL. Those flights are Virgin Atlantic flights, whose code is VS.

As per Airbus, the max range of the A321neo is 3700nm, the two routes you mention, JFK-LHR and IAD-LHR are comfortably within that range at 3000nm and 3195nm respectively. So yes, flights from the US NE to Western Europe are entirely doable. The limit distance-wise would be about EWR-VIE, at 3696nm.

When figuring out which TATL routes are viable for a given aircraft it is important to note that aircraft manufacturers publish still air range for their aircraft, after you look at the flight time needed between a airport in Europe to an airport in North America it is necessary to deduct the estimated effect of the jet stream.
Deducting at least 100 nm for each hour flown should help determine whether a route is viable. If the airline will not accept any fuel diversions for a route increase the distance deducted for each flight hour to 120nm.

Balerit wrote:

This is what I don't understand, at SAA in the 70's to 90's we flew the A300 and these aircraft flew max capacity day in and day out, especially JNB-DUR or JNB-CPT, that was 270 odd seats. Then suddenly the fashion becomes smaller aircraft and they down size. Why airlines don't fly A330's on domestic routes beats me.

There are some widebodies on domestic routes. But they are expensive to operate.
Also look into the phrase "capacity discipline". The US3 have gotten very good at capacity discipline. Basically it means it's more profitable to operate a plane that almost perfectly meets capacity than one that has a bunch of extra capacity, because then it becomes a race to the bottom to fill those unsold seats.

So, on say LAS-LAX the 10pm sunday night flight might have a ton of demand, but if you put an A330 on it, you're going to have a bunch of empty seats mid week, unless you get rid of your 9pm flight, but then you lose some customers to your competitors who want to fly at 9pm (more frequency).

robsaw wrote:

aeromoe wrote:

Just a minor nit...but many are throwing around the term "upgauge" incorrectly. IMHO an upgauge is a change in fuselage diameter: for example narrow body to wide body. A320 to A321 is not an upgauge. E170 to E190 is not an upgauge. Upsize, not upgauge. An E135/145 to E170/190 would be an upgauge. Just an observation.

A search of industry usage would seem to indicate it isn't all about fuselage diameter (we aren't talking about wire gauge here - but capacity). Given that trade publiciations refer to things like Southwest using 737-800 vs -700 as an "upgauge" I don't think you have a case.

He totally does have a case, given the usage taught in dispatch and MX engineering schools.

However, it is only here, and literally so, that that matters. I've worked in dispatch, MX, and and engineering for quite a while, and it has Never been a matter of importance whether one uses 'upsize', 'upgauge', or 'upgrade' when referring to these changes. Never. Only total amatures get caught up in nonsense like that.

In real life, the company only needs to know what tail was swapped for what. Which is why in the real world the term 'tail swap' matters a great deal more than 'upgauge', 'downgrade', etc. I wish folks on a.net knew how silly arguing about that here looks to professionals.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

robsaw wrote:

aeromoe wrote:

Just a minor nit...but many are throwing around the term "upgauge" incorrectly. IMHO an upgauge is a change in fuselage diameter: for example narrow body to wide body. A320 to A321 is not an upgauge. E170 to E190 is not an upgauge. Upsize, not upgauge. An E135/145 to E170/190 would be an upgauge. Just an observation.

A search of industry usage would seem to indicate it isn't all about fuselage diameter (we aren't talking about wire gauge here - but capacity). Given that trade publiciations refer to things like Southwest using 737-800 vs -700 as an "upgauge" I don't think you have a case.

He totally does have a case, given the usage taught in dispatch and MX engineering schools.

However, it is only here, and literally so, that that matters. I've worked in dispatch, MX, and and engineering for quite a while, and it has Never been a matter of importance whether one uses 'upsize', 'upgauge', or 'upgrade' when referring to these changes. Never. Only total amatures get caught up in nonsense like that.

In real life, the company only needs to know what tail was swapped for what. Which is why in the real world the term 'tail swap' matters a great deal more than 'upgauge', 'downgrade', etc. I wish folks on a.net knew how silly arguing about that here looks to professionals.

Yeah well ya learn something new every day. It was/is just my opinion...kinda harkening back to railroad narrow gauge vs. standard gauge thought process where the track gauges are different. The coaches were probably different in width as well though not as extreme a difference between narrowbody / widebody airliners...probably more like the E135/E175 family difference.

Not sure an A330 was designed for domestic use like the DC10 or L1011. Would an A330 handle milk runs like ORD-LGA and LGA-MIA everyday, all day and hit against cycle limits? Not sure even in Regional variant.

astuteman wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Soon the A321LR will have more range. We're not there on the A321NEO yet and won't get there on short field, but so what?

Lightsaber

So what? I will absolutely love to see a fully loaded A321LR try to get in and out of fields like EGE and TGU.

A standard A321 CEO can actually get out of EGE.
It should be able to get out on a TOW of about 82t, 11t short of its MTOW (standard CFM's)
With a 50t DOW, and 20t payload, that leaves about 12t for fuel, which should be good for about 1 600Nm still air.

On these figures I have made the assumption that at that range the extra efficiency of the NEO is offset by its higher OEW (less fuel - same range)

So if "fully loaded" means with c. 200 pax then, yes, an A321 will do that. Only it will fall 1 100Nm short of the 757.

As a point of order, EGE-EWR is 1 500nm, downwind.
1 600nm from EGE pretty much covers the whole of continental USA, Mexico, and the populated parts of Canada.

If my analysis is right, does that then make the 757 overkill, even from EGE?

Rgds

It appears that AA can get them off the runways at both LIH & OGG, so better than a 739.

astuteman wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Soon the A321LR will have more range. We're not there on the A321NEO yet and won't get there on short field, but so what?

Lightsaber

So what? I will absolutely love to see a fully loaded A321LR try to get in and out of fields like EGE and TGU.

Your "So what" to Lightsaber's "so what" prompted me to ask the question.

So.
Apart from the fact that in identifying perhaps the only 2 airports out of 200 in the USA that actually have a market big enough to support a 757 for even part of the year, where an A321 might struggle, you implicitly point out that in 99% of cases, the A321 will be just fine, which for me lands on the side of Lightsaber's "so what".

What about the specifics?
EGE appears to have a 2 750m (9000ft) runway at 2 000m (6 600ft) altitude.
Wiki suggests that 757's are typically used during the ski season, which implies EGE might be high, but it's not hot.
Using the manufacturers ACAPs (and adding about 2t to TOW's for the presence of winglets or sharklets, as none of the field length data includes them) I found:-

A 757 cannot get out of EGE at MTOW
It should be able to get out on a TOW of about 106t, 10t short of its MTOW (top thrust P+W)
With a 61t DOW, and 20t payload, that leaves about 25t for fuel, which should be good for about 2 700Nm still air

A standard A321 CEO can actually get out of EGE.
It should be able to get out on a TOW of about 82t, 11t short of its MTOW (standard CFM's)
With a 50t DOW, and 20t payload, that leaves about 12t for fuel, which should be good for about 1 600Nm still air.

On these figures I have made the assumption that at that range the extra efficiency of the NEO is offset by its higher OEW (less fuel - same range)

So if "fully loaded" means with c. 200 pax then, yes, an A321 will do that. Only it will fall 1 100Nm short of the 757.

Advantage 757

Here's the thing though.
An A320 NEO should get out of there within 1t of its MTOW
It should be able to get out on a TOW of about 78t, 1t short of its MTOW
With a 44t DOW, and 18t payload, that leaves about 16t for fuel, which should be good for about 2 700Nm still air.

So yes, you're leaving 20 pax behind out of 200, and only taking 180.
But you can fly them out of EGE the same distance as a 757, with only 60% of the fuel tanked.

So what indeed

Rgds

OK, I shouldn't have said 'so what.' For that I apologize.

But you put into words what matters. The very few airports that have the economics to support a 757 that cannot support the A321NEO/LR.

Those airports that cannot support the A321LR, will have no problem with the -8MAX or A320NEO with the short field kit. For most flights the A321NEO/LR or -10 MAX will meet the needs.

Lightsaber

william wrote:

Not sure an A330 was designed for domestic use like the DC10 or L1011. Would an A330 handle milk runs like ORD-LGA and LGA-MIA everyday, all day and hit against cycle limits? Not sure even in Regional variant.

They may not be, but qantas fling their A330s domestically around Australia all day, every day. The golden triangle gets them during peak hours (SYD-MEL-BNE) and transcon to PER as well. They even use them to fly cargo around at night without passengers - there is often a MEL-PER leaving after midnight with nothing on board but belly cargo.

Polot wrote:

Off topic but the whole E170/E175 (and CRJ700/CRJ900 for that matter) gets messy because you have to consider how regional planes were configured. F class use to be really rare in regional fleets, and in an all Y layout the E175/CRJ900 is too large for scope, with the E170/CRJ700 being the largest usable aircraft. When airlines decided to extend their F class down into the regional fleet, E175/CRJ900s became attractive as they in a 2 class layout meet scope, while the E170/CRJ700s are just giving up seats while still counting towards the same large RJ fleet caps as their larger sibling.

Which is how we ended up with anomalies like AA's E175s having a larger first class cabin and greater economy seat pitch than their A319s.

Boeing778X wrote:

The aircraft provided as a perfect platform for a few of our services, like the A321 Transcon cabin (previously served by the 767-200) and dedicated Hawaii service. Because they seat almost exactly the same number of people as our domestic 757 fleet, it allowed AA to retire those aging frames.

The product on, particularly the AA bought A321s, is great. I personally look forwards to riding on it when I get to.

Because the fleet is so large, CASM doesn't really seem to be an issue.

The aircraft was really a great investment for AA.

Though it's worth nothing that the F cabin shrunk by a third compared to the domestic 757 fleet. If/when AA starts taking delivery of internationally-configured A321LRs or A321neos, I'd expect to see something along the lines of a C12Y159 configuration with 12 lie-flat beds in business arranged 2x2 and an economy cabin similar to the domestic A321s minus row 8 to make space for the larger business cabin, unless they decide to reduce non-MCE seat pitch to 30" like on the A319 and 737 MAX.

I do wonder what's going to happen to routes like MIA-LPB-VVI and MIA-BSB. The latter frequently maxes out the fuel tanks on a 757.

I agree that the LAA A321s have the best domestic product in the fleet. The newer 737s with AVOD are a nice ride too but there's no way to guarantee one, and the A319 suffers from limited legroom.

mjoelnir wrote:

The nothing else available would have been hard disputed half a year ago. Boeing offered the 737-900ER and the 737-9. And according to Boeing, Airbus would have a lot of work to catch up with those frames. Boeing brought now the 737-10 to the market and now Airbus has to do some more catching up.

The A321 is a more capable aircraft than the 737-900/-900ER. AA seems to agree or they wouldn't have gone through the trouble of incorporating a completely new fleet type in the A321 when they could've reaped the commonality benefits of just adding another 737 variant.

Boeing778X wrote:

So what? I will absolutely love to see a fully loaded A321LR try to get in and out of fields like EGE and TGU.

AA seems to be happy using A319s for these missions.

Balerit wrote:

This is what I don't understand, at SAA in the 70's to 90's we flew the A300 and these aircraft flew max capacity day in and day out, especially JNB-DUR or JNB-CPT, that was 270 odd seats. Then suddenly the fashion becomes smaller aircraft and they down size. Why airlines don't fly A330's on domestic routes beats me.

The aircraft are better utilized on long-distance routes which truly require the capacity and performance. During low season, though, it's not uncommon to see domestic widebody operations; last winter AA was flying an A330 on PHL-BOS, among other routes. MIA-DFW gets two daily 777s year-round because the frequency is pretty much already maxed out and they need the seats.

redroo wrote:

william wrote:

Not sure an A330 was designed for domestic use like the DC10 or L1011. Would an A330 handle milk runs like ORD-LGA and LGA-MIA everyday, all day and hit against cycle limits? Not sure even in Regional variant.

They may not be, but qantas fling their A330s domestically around Australia all day, every day. The golden triangle gets them during peak hours (SYD-MEL-BNE) and transcon to PER as well. They even use them to fly cargo around at night without passengers - there is often a MEL-PER leaving after midnight with nothing on board but belly cargo.

How's many legs do their A330s fly each day? Do not think the A330 R can fly the same amount legs each day an A320 or A321 can. The old tri enginewide-bodies could. So to answer the question posted there is not a suitable widebody built today that can fly domestically in the states.

Didnt someone at Airbus say when the A330neo was being offered that the average A330 flight was something in the 2-3 hour range. While LAX-SFO flights arent going to happen, transcon or even midwest to the coast flights are clearly doable if the airlines want the capacity. The number of A330s plying East Asian routes with 2-3 hours only is incredible. There are multiple carriers almost offering a shuttle service on A330s on eg HKG-TPE which is only an hour and half.

Don't forget about the single type rating for the whole Airbus narrowbody fleet. One trained crew can fly the A318,A319,A320,A321 and all the ceo/neo variants. That's a wide range of aircraft capabilities that leads to route/marketing maximization with very little complication. Not to mention huge training cost savings and efficiency of scheduling. This, of course, is maximized with airlines that have an all Airbus fleet.

trex8 wrote:

Didnt someone at Airbus say when the A330neo was being offered that the average A330 flight was something in the 2-3 hour range. While LAX-SFO flights arent going to happen, transcon or even midwest to the coast flights are clearly doable if the airlines want the capacity. The number of A330s plying East Asian routes with 2-3 hours only is incredible. There are multiple carriers almost offering a shuttle service on A330s on eg HKG-TPE which is only an hour and half.

The QF A330s do 3-4 flights a day, usually some combination of SYD/PER/MEL/PER/BNE, with occasional SYD/MEL/BNE thrown in as well during the peak hours. These flights range from 1.5 to 3 hours to 5 and 6 hours.

The rest of the time is 737.

william wrote:

redroo wrote:

william wrote:

Not sure an A330 was designed for domestic use like the DC10 or L1011. Would an A330 handle milk runs like ORD-LGA and LGA-MIA everyday, all day and hit against cycle limits? Not sure even in Regional variant.

They may not be, but qantas fling their A330s domestically around Australia all day, every day. The golden triangle gets them during peak hours (SYD-MEL-BNE) and transcon to PER as well. They even use them to fly cargo around at night without passengers - there is often a MEL-PER leaving after midnight with nothing on board but belly cargo.

How's many legs do their A330s fly each day? Do not think the A330 R can fly the same amount legs each day an A320 or A321 can. The old tri enginewide-bodies could. So to answer the question posted there is not a suitable widebody built today that can fly domestically in the states.

I think you should try substantiate your statement. The A330 started out as a medium haul airliner growing into long haul later, so I expect it being build for quite a few cycles.

I found this: viewtopic.php?t=772333

mjoelnir wrote:

william wrote:

redroo wrote:

They may not be, but qantas fling their A330s domestically around Australia all day, every day. The golden triangle gets them during peak hours (SYD-MEL-BNE) and transcon to PER as well. They even use them to fly cargo around at night without passengers - there is often a MEL-PER leaving after midnight with nothing on board but belly cargo.

How's many legs do their A330s fly each day? Do not think the A330 R can fly the same amount legs each day an A320 or A321 can. The old tri enginewide-bodies could. So to answer the question posted there is not a suitable widebody built today that can fly domestically in the states.

I think you should try substantiate your statement. The A330 started out as a medium haul airliner growing into long haul later, so I expect it being build for quite a few cycles.

I found this: viewtopic.php?t=772333

If the A330 is able to fly milk runs like a A320/321 then I admit I am wrong. I do mean milk runs not transcon stuff. I would to love a DL A330 to a couple of turns from ATL to Florida and up to DTW then back to ATL and maybe RON in DFW just like the Tristars did. If the A330 can do it day and day out like a Tristar then I am wrong on the A330.