A321T

[IORFA]

FWAAA, the talk around here is that yes, they do intend for the current generation A321 to go LAX-Hawaii. I will believe it when I see it. Mind you, these are AA planes with all the extra heavy AVOD as well. The last I heard is June or July this year. Again, I'll belive it when I see it. I've even asked up the food chain why we think we can do it when no one else is trying it and Hawaiian even paid more money and is waiting a few years longer to get the NEO? As you can guess, no answer from anyone except awkward stares.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

again, no one is doubting that many of the former AMFA/NW mechanics survived and did well.

I am glad for Q despite the fact that we lock horns on here.

I am opposed to his crap bombing threads which only incites me to reminder that the outcome of Q or any other AMFA member at NW is not the issue.

the issue is and always will be that AMFA made an ENORMOUS strategic mistake that cost 5000 of NW's highest paying ground workers their jobs - and those jobs are now in the hands of DL where mechanics are the least likely group to ever unionize.

when unions make the kind of strategic mistakes that AMFA made at NW, it isn't a surprise the labor movement in the US is in the shape of decline it is in.

and I'll be happy to quit bringing up AMFA's massive strategic failure when Q decides he will grow up and stop crap bombing my posts regarding business issues.

btw, this topic is about the 321T, not about Q, not about me, and not about AMFA.

 
You're clearly ignorant on what really occured at NWA - your lack of understanding of the situation as well as the decisions involved are clearly evident .

 

[LD3]

Bus, Thanx for the explanation of the third main on the DC-10, I always assumed it was a weight issue. Wasn't it mainly used on foreign carriers?

 

[WorldTraveler]

you can drag the issue out but the simple fact is that there were 5000 less mechanic positions at NW when all was said and done. It is hard to spin that reality any other way.

but if you want to do so, open a thread on the DL forum and let's see where it goes.

you will have plenty of support from people like you will do everything possible to eliminate the stain that the AMFA event left on the union's track record but until someone can answer where the win is when 5000 jobs were eliminated and then outsourced and now replaced by an airline whose mechanics are non-union, I clearly have a far better understanding of what happened than you want to admit.

either open the thread on the DL forum or huddle with the others and admit it was a major strategic failure by AMFA that should be brushed into history books and not brought up esp. while there are organization campaigns going on at DL.

---


as for AA's current 321s and Hawaii, I will leave it to the technical experts to say whether the plane can make the US west coast to Hawaii but UA is adding multiple frequencies using the 739 and cutting larger aircraft including the 757.

obviously, there is no room for error on Hawaii flying and AA and UA both know that so I am pretty confident they will get it right.

I still would rather be on a 757 or larger which has the capacity to take enough fuel to hold thru whatever weather can reasonably be dished out by Ma Nature whether it be on transcons or flights to Hawaii.

it's also worth noting that DL's answer to getting the CASM down on the 757 is to decrease the size of the FC cabin to 20 - the max on any domestic narrowbody and remove the mid galley to have a total of 199 seats, about 15 more than current 757 configurations - which should push the aircraft down by 7%.

and even with 199 seats, the 757 is more than capable of any transcon or West coast to Hawaii flight.

and there is alot of economic life left in a good chunk of the US 757 fleet

 

[FWAAA]

however, the 321 does serve LGA, does it not? so normal landings shouldn't be an issue. Rejected takeoffs might be, wouldn't they, if the weight has to be limited by brake performance? and for "non-normal landings" JFK has always been the place to go for any aircraft type.

Looks like US flies them to CLT, 544 miles away. Even with the diversion-margin fuel requirements, that doesn't require much fuel.
 

AA is planning on flying 321s to Hawaii. The 321 is separated in to three subfleets. The 32T, 32H, and 32S. The H being the Hawaii ETOPS version. The 32H is currently flying domestic pending ETOPS approval with the current V2500 engine. Look it up in DECS and also notice the 321 work cards now have notations being added about ETOPS compliance.

 
I stand corrected. I'll believe it when I see it. With full A321s (not AA's lightweight A321Ts) not reliably able to fly westbound transcons in the winter, it would seem foolhardy to schedule them on flights to Hawai'i.

Imagine the passenger anger the first few times an AA A321H (non-neo version) has to turn around and coast back to LAX because the winds threatened to use up all the fuel before landfall in a westerly direction. The press coverage of such a fiasco would be fun to watch.
 

FWAAA, the talk around here is that yes, they do intend for the current generation A321 to go LAX-Hawaii. I will believe it when I see it. Mind you, these are AA planes with all the extra heavy AVOD as well. The last I heard is June or July this year. Again, I'll belive it when I see it. I've even asked up the food chain why we think we can do it when no one else is trying it and Hawaiian even paid more money and is waiting a few years longer to get the NEO? As you can guess, no answer from anyone except awkward stares.

Wow. Like you, I'll believe it when I see it. As far as I know, no other airline flies current-generation A320s or A321s from the lower 48 to Hawai'i. Sometimes staying with the pack and not heading off by yourself makes sense.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

you can drag the issue out but the simple fact is that there were 5000 less mechanic positions at NW when all was said and done. It is hard to spin that reality any other way.

but if you want to do so, open a thread on the DL forum and let's see where it goes.

you will have plenty of support from people like you will do everything possible to eliminate the stain that the AMFA event left on the union's track record but until someone can answer where the win is when 5000 jobs were eliminated and then outsourced and now replaced by an airline whose mechanics are non-union, I clearly have a far better understanding of what happened than you want to admit.

either open the thread on the DL forum or huddle with the others and admit it was a major strategic failure by AMFA that should be brushed into history books and not brought up esp. while there are organization campaigns going on at DL.

---


as for AA's current 321s and Hawaii, I will leave it to the technical experts to say whether the plane can make the US west coast to Hawaii but UA is adding multiple frequencies using the 739 and cutting larger aircraft including the 757.

obviously, there is no room for error on Hawaii flying and AA and UA both know that so I am pretty confident they will get it right.

I still would rather be on a 757 or larger which has the capacity to take enough fuel to hold thru whatever weather can reasonably be dished out by Ma Nature whether it be on transcons or flights to Hawaii.

it's also worth noting that DL's answer to getting the CASM down on the 757 is to decrease the size of the FC cabin to 20 - the max on any domestic narrowbody and remove the mid galley to have a total of 199 seats, about 15 more than current 757 configurations - which should push the aircraft down by 7%.

and even with 199 seats, the 757 is more than capable of any transcon or West coast to Hawaii flight.

 
No need to open anything on a Delta thread - you introduced AMFA into this thread for nothing more than a childish attempt at a petty insult to another poster. You clearly have no real grasp on what happened at NWA, as your continued ignorant posts illustrate - Simply saying "they lost" may fit your anti-union narrative but it doesn't tell the real story, and thats what you obviously know nothing about.

 

[WorldTraveler]

then show me the win.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

then show me the win.

 
Thanks for illustrating my point yet again

 

[Overspeed]

IORFA,
The current understanding is the 32H will start sometime in the August. Heard the FAA is being heavily scrutinizing the mission rules for the aircraft. The range is tight and the current 321 with sharklets can't make PHX to anywhere in Hawaii with the current two class config. I understand the UAL is also looking for a viable 757 ETOPS replacement for West Coast to Hawaii and considers the 737-900ER a better replacement.
 
As far as the LGA perimeter rule lifting, is LGA Transcon that much of a market? The 319 might be the better fit. The feed to JFK and it's Europe and MCLA markets would seem like that would have more revenue potential IMO.

 

[FWAAA]

As far as the LGA perimeter rule lifting, is LGA Transcon that much of a market? The 319 might be the better fit. The feed to JFK and it's Europe and MCLA markets would seem like that would have more revenue potential IMO.

Dunno. In the third quarter of 2014, AA carried an average of 1,178 local passengers each day JFKLAX, or 589 PDEW. Divided across 13 daily flights equals an average of 45 local passengers daily each way (out of the 102 seats).

The assumption, of coourse, is that if LGA were opened to transcons, then many/most of the NYC-LAX local traffic would prefer LGA over JFK. But if AA has 45 local passengers per flight, then AA is carrying another 40-45 connecting passengers per flight, and as you pointed out, many of those connections are unique to JFK.

If AA ran premium-cabin transcons to LGA (to capture its route-leading average fares among its peers), then the remaining seats could be filled with domestic connections, but AA at LGA doesn't have all that many unique markets that are not served via LAX nonstop.

The reality is that getting to JFK isn't quite the struggle that so many say it is. I have friends in New Jersey who are loyal AA customers and manage to get to JFK for their west coast travels. I don't see the LGA perimeter being relaxed in the near-term.

 

[IORFA]

IORFA,
The current understanding is the 32H will start sometime in the August. Heard the FAA is being heavily scrutinizing the mission rules for the aircraft. The range is tight and the current 321 with sharklets can't make PHX to anywhere in Hawaii with the current two class config.

All I know is what AA tells us and what they tell the union. It is conceivable that the timeline has been pushed out further. We haven't been told that,yet. So I go with what I/we have been told last. I still don't think it's going to happen.

 

[topDawg]

IORFA,
The current understanding is the 32H will start sometime in the August. Heard the FAA is being heavily scrutinizing the mission rules for the aircraft. The range is tight and the current 321 with sharklets can't make PHX to anywhere in Hawaii with the current two class config. I understand the UAL is also looking for a viable 757 ETOPS replacement for West Coast to Hawaii and considers the 737-900ER a better replacement.
 
As far as the LGA perimeter rule lifting, is LGA Transcon that much of a market? The 319 might be the better fit. The feed to JFK and it's Europe and MCLA markets would seem like that would have more revenue potential IMO.

I think its so much of a market you would see the JFK-Transcon market cut big time. I think DL/B6 keep most of the markets they have now(probably with less flights though) I also think AA keeps a few key flights to connect to Europe
but I also think you would see a ridiculous amount of capacity shifted to LGA.
IMO if UA could find the slots they would leave JFK completely.  
 

once again, I have never slighted Q for moving on and succeeding.

I have serious problems with anyone who continues to drop into threads onto to spread crap and then thinks that it won't be thrown back at them in spades more than they dished out.

the fastest way to put the epic failure that was AMFA's strike at NW in the history books and leave it there is for Q to either be man enough to contribute to the topic at hand or be mature enough to walk away.
 
 

very good point and I respect your perspective.

one of my last 757 landings at LGA was on DL and I was getting increasingly uncomfortable with how long we were floating ABOVE the runway. in a split second, the mains touched down and the aircraft stopped on a dime... exactly what G3 does at SDU and many other airports in Brazil where the runways are much shorter and with less overrun in the US.

however, the 321 does serve LGA, does it not? so normal landings shouldn't be an issue. Rejected takeoffs might be, wouldn't they, if the weight has to be limited by brake performance? and for "non-normal landings" JFK has always been the place to go for any aircraft type.

Lol..... 
 
So you basically just said you hate yourself. 
 
Get help dude. 
 

 
I'll second that sentiment - the NWA/AMFA naysayers ignorance on the subject is trivial

word
 

 
You're clearly ignorant on what really occured at NWA - your lack of understanding of the situation as well as the decisions involved are clearly evident .

History is stupid to WT. He just makes it up as he goes. 
Its painful how ignorant his posts are about the AMFA strike at NW. 
 

 
No need to open anything on a Delta thread - you introduced AMFA into this thread for nothing more than a childish attempt at a petty insult to another poster. You clearly have no real grasp on what happened at NWA, as your continued ignorant posts illustrate - Simply saying "they lost" may fit your anti-union narrative but it doesn't tell the real story, and thats what you obviously know nothing about.

dude 
 
this! 

 

[usabusdriver]

 
There's a whole lot that would need to be changed.  One factor that is crucial to "balanced field length" (the ability to start the takeoff roll, and stop the airplane on the runway is something really bad causes an aborted takeoff) is the  efficiency of the brakes.  If one could magically add much bigger engines, more fuel tanks and a different wing to the A321T, it would not help a whole lot unless the main gear was changed to put four tires (and therefore FOUR BRAKE ASSEMBLIES) to get it stopped promptly.  Without that, the necessary runway lengths would not change much at all.  I am sure we've all seen those DC-10s with weird landing gear sticking out of the center of the belly of the airplane; it's not there to hold the weight, it is there to give the airplane two more sets of brakes to get it stopped in case of a rejected takeoff.
 
The A321 would need a total redesign (and would likely not even get certified under the same desgination) to ever approach the performance specs of the 757.

 
Additional braking yes, also very important is tire loading.  With the center gear the DC-10 was able to operate with lower gear loading so able to operate on more runways and taxiways.

 

[nycbusdriver]

 
Additional braking yes, also very important is tire loading.  With the center gear the DC-10 was able to operate with lower gear loading so able to operate on more runways and taxiways.

 
Good point.  There are so many factors that play into the LGA-LAX scenario it's amazing.  
 
I really do think the only narrow-body airplane that can consistently do that job today is the 757. 

 

[Kev3188]

There's a whole lot that would need to be changed.  One factor that is crucial to "balanced field length" (the ability to start the takeoff roll, and stop the airplane on the runway is something really bad causes an aborted takeoff) is the  efficiency of the brakes.  If one could magically add much bigger engines, more fuel tanks and a different wing to the A321T, it would not help a whole lot unless the main gear was changed to put four tires (and therefore FOUR BRAKE ASSEMBLIES) to get it stopped promptly.  Without that, the necessary runway lengths would not change much at all.  I am sure we've all seen those DC-10s with weird landing gear sticking out of the center of the belly of the airplane; it's not there to hold the weight, it is there to give the airplane two more sets of brakes to get it stopped in case of a rejected takeoff.
 
The A321 would need a total redesign (and would likely not even get certified under the same desgination) to ever approach the performance specs of the 757.

  

Additional braking yes, also very important is tire loading.  With the center gear the DC-10 was able to operate with lower gear loading so able to operate on more runways and taxiways.

Good info. Thanks to you both!