A321T

[nycbusdriver]

Was making the point that 321s are certified to fly from a runway length 7,000 feet on an over 5 hour flight. AA is planning to fly the 321 with the existing V2500-A5 on that route.
 
A 737 doesn't have to be dropped to some low density config to make that distance either. UA flies SNA to EWR with a 737 non-stop now. SNA is less than 6,000 feet with severe takeoff restrictions on departure. A 737 or 321 with winglets will make the LGA to West Coast run.

 
You don't understand the logistics of the problem.  A shorter runway on the west coast is inconsequential, since it takes less fuel to fly west-to-east, and therefore west coast runways can be shorter.  Put that same airplane, with a winter-winds fuel load on the east coast with a 6,000 foot runway with SNA as a destination, and the game is over.

 

[FWAAA]

You don't understand the logistics of the problem.  A shorter runway on the west coast is inconsequential, since it takes less fuel to fly west-to-east, and therefore west coast runways can be shorter.  Put that same airplane, with a winter-winds fuel load on the east coast with a 6,000 foot runway with SNA as a destination, and the game is over.

Thanks, Captain. I had drafted a similar response, but you wrote it much more clearly and concisely than I could have.

 

[Overspeed]

So then it looks like the 737-800 would make it but not at MTOW based on this chart. At a 6,000 foot runway the aircraft would be restricted to 153,000 MTOW. Based on similar stage lengths MTOW on a 737-800 for AA is averaging 165,000. It would be a 12,000 weight restriction if I understand the winds aloft issue. I stand corrected.
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

not sure if those are AA or Boeing charts, but Boeing's charts show that the 757-200 and 767-300ER should be able to both operate without problems and still respect the pavement limits at LGA.

the 737-700 with the most powerful engines could make it to Europe.

 

[topDawg]

Was making the point that 321s are certified to fly from a runway length 7,000 feet on an over 5 hour flight. AA is planning to fly the 321 with the existing V2500-A5 on that route.
 
A 737 doesn't have to be dropped to some low density config to make that distance either. UA flies SNA to EWR with a 737 non-stop now. SNA is less than 6,000 feet with severe takeoff restrictions on departure. A 737 or 321 with winglets will make the LGA to West Coast run.

FWIW EWR-SNA is operated with a 737-700 
 
huge difference between that an a 800 or 900ER. the 700 has the T/O performance of a 757. 

 

[Overspeed]

Can't believe DC10s and L1011s operated out of LGA and 737-800s can't. I'd like to see how the airlines deal with the dropping of restrictions.

http://www.nycaviation.com/2014/08/heavies-lga-1970s-little-airport/

 

[nycbusdriver]

You just don't get it.  DC-10s and L-1011s have the performance to do the job that they did flying out of LGA (as did the A300s and B767s that have also served LGA.)  But they NEVER flew them to the west coast, either.
 
The size of the airplane has nothing at all to do with its performance and range.  If the taxiways and runways were stressed for the weight, one could fly C-5s, B-747s and A-380s out of LGA.  They just could not go as far as they are designed to go.
 
So, then....believe it.  737-800s can't fly off the relatively short LGA runways AND GO ALL THE WAY TO THE WEST COAST.
 
And, I bet the DC-10 and L1011 couldn't, either, with a full load of passengers and luggage.
 
 
(I came back to add another point)
I think folks are under the impression that airliners land and fill up their fuel tanks and go.  That almost never happens.  The amount of fuel is carefully calculated based on stage length, anticipated delays, winds aloft and many other factors.  When it (rarely) happens that an airplane needs to fill its tanks to meet those requirements for a particular flight, then there are usually restrictions on passenger loads (blocked seats) and cargo.  If the takeoff runway is also short, then even more restrictions are placed.  The 737-800 might be able to go to LAX out of LGA (I don't fly it, so I don't really know for sure...and I have no real reason to research it because the principle is the same for all airplanes).  But if one loaded enough fuel and given the runway length, it would probably have so many seats blocked that it would never be profitable.
 
The B757 is probably the only airliner flying that can actually fill its tank (and thereby have the necessary range for transcon) and still carry a respectable load of passengers and cargo.  Some say the 737-700 can do it, but I can't verify that since I have never operated one.

 

[robbedagain]

i heard a story some yrs ago about a UAL DC10 that made a landing at DCA  and it couldn't take any pax out the next day due to the short runway at DCA   I don't know if that's a true story just what I had heard

 

[Overspeed]

There is a 12'000lb limit to taking off out of LGA below MTOW. You are making the assumption the aircraft will go out with max pax and bags and then loaded max fuel. The aircraft is only flying coast to coast. You can run weight restricted and make it easily.

When restrictions get dropped we will see what flights show up.

Why the focus on the 321? The 319 will make it easily

 

[WorldTraveler]

robbed,
DL has regularly sent domestic 767-300s (not the higher powered ERs) to DCA but to busdriver's point, they fly to ATL, not across the country.

and the 737-800 can indeed be used on very short runways as well. Santos Dumont airport in Rio De Janeiro (SDU) is only 4300 feet long and sits on an island close to central Rio. There are virtually no overrun areas. Gol Brazilian Airlines is a big 737 customer but ordered their 738s with the highest thrust engines and a short takeoff package which allows Gol to operate from SDU with 150 passengers, about 30 less than max capacity on Gol's 738s on flights to CGH (São Paulo Congonhas, SP's close-in airport analogous to LGA). SDU-CGH (225 miles) is the equivalent of the NE Shuttles in the US except that there is no train service between Rio and São Paulo. Only captains are allowed to land or takeoff with Gol at SDU and flights are almost always cancelled or diverted to GIG if there is rain. A takeoff or landing at SDU is the closest thing to being on an aircraft carrier that you will get on a commercial flight. and there are a whole lot of passengers who make the sign of the cross on those flights.

TAM, Gol's primary competitor on the route, uses 319s.

there are youtube videos of operations at SDU.

So, yes, the 737-800 can operate from very short runways but not with the range necessary to go very far.

it is rather certain that the 321T won't show up at LGA because it simply doesn't have the performance.

it is absolutely correct that the 757 can do wonders- but that is what Boeing designed it to do. the best hope we can have is that Boeing will finally wake up and build a 757/767 replacement that focuses on shorter TATL flights as well as have the takeoff performance that the 757 had but only the 737-700 comes close to replicating.

 

[autofixer]

Coming soon: A321 NEO ER.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

unless the wing and thrust to weight ratio are comparable to the 757 or 737-700, it won't change much other than having a lower fuel burn which will improve short field performance some.

 

[700UW]

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/airbus-launches-long-range-a321neo-version
 

 
The aircraft will be equipped with a third auxiliary center fuel tank and could fly around 500-nm farther than the A321ceo with a regular 93.5 MTOW (and only two additional fuel tanks). For the aircraft, Airbus now assumes a standard cabin layout for 206 passengers. Airbus claims the calculated 4,000-nm range even exceeds the 3,850 nm of the winglet-equipped Boeing 757-200W.
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

again, range and short field performance are two very different things.

 

[LD3]

With a proven track record, why is Boeing reluctant to re-engine the 757?