New A321s Ordered

[etops1]

we need more wide bodies not narrow bodies. period.

 

[US1YFARE]

Be happy US isn't just all 1 class.

actually, i wish they were because it would make flying a different carrier so much easier...that's one of the reasons I have never flown southwest...that and having to stand in the boarding lines when you get to the airport.

we need more wide bodies not narrow bodies. period.

That's for sure. Why would they buy these planes? Did Airbus give them away because they suck?

 

[flyingcat]

I'm trying to understand the numbers, it seems like this order is a restructuring of the old HP order.

US east had 6 320s and 13 321s supposedly deferred but not cancelled.

Would that make the number of 321s now on order 28?!

 

[twoturnin]

With the split contracts guess the East will be stuck with 321's--just like the 330--no engines or brakes.

 

[sharktooth]

No way will an A321 make it off the ground on some of those short runways in the islands. In my experience, a B757 seems to use every INCH of runway getting out of STT. A321 uses almost the whole runway in CLT (much longer) to get to PHX. I'm not a pilot, but looking out the window and saying "ok, now, rotate" on A321 flights to PHX from CLT's nice long runway, I don't see how an A321 could do the same in STT.

I am certain your comments are heartfelt and therefore I can respect your comments, as wrong as they are.

The four hour flight STT to PHL is fine on a fully loaded 321, the runway length is great. A four hour flight is pretty optimal for a 321.

CLT-PHX is close to five hours and taxes the 321 as CLT is not an optimal airport, too high and generally too hot. It is not that much further south than PHL and is somewhat further west than PHL, we gain little by flying south out of CLT than PHL. Frankly, CLT is a thorn in DAL side and little else other than a fuel stop.

If a B757 uses "all" the runway, it is because, to reduce stress on the engines, reduced thrust is the norm, reduced enough to still stay legal for a given runway length. I have taken off STT in a 757 and both pilots are arseholes and elbows trying to keep from busting the 3000 ft level-off, max gross weight.

The main reason the 321 is not used is because it has no hf radios and no life rafts, which would require a meandering path down to FLA, then, heading off for STT, adding some 20 to 30 minutes each way, not that our pilot group has not tried, six times, idiots, one of which was a union F/O rep highly "decorated" by our company. Jerry Glass gave the dude, on retirement, a job with the Mediation Board. Always looking to violate FARs. Miserable union rep., also. Piece of doo-doo. Got his address if you want to express your feelings.

 

[ClueByFour]

:down: to 16F.

Also, jamming those extra bodies in there is going to make for an even more interesting time going transcon-west in the winter. I love bouncing thru all the garbage weather until somewhere west of ORD in the high 20s because the guys up front cannot coax the beast any higher.

I love the comfort of the 320 but the old (pre 8F) 757s were the way to fly to the coast on US.

 

[US1YFARE]

:down: to 16F.

I was thinking about that and it may not be so bad. If they are adding more PHX flights from cities that would otherwise connect through PHL, the larger F cabin may not be necessary because people may connect through PHX or LAS rather than PHL.

UA only has 8 FC seats on transcons out of PHL.

 

[carl71]

Gee, just what they need, more flying bowling lanes, and no one to roll the bags. Don't it figure.

 

[N924PS]

:down: to 16F.

Also, jamming those extra bodies in there is going to make for an even more interesting time going transcon-west in the winter. I love bouncing thru all the garbage weather until somewhere west of ORD in the high 20s because the guys up front cannot coax the beast any higher.

I love the comfort of the 320 but the old (pre 8F) 757s were the way to fly to the coast on US.

It was splendid when the B757 was used on the transcon. Especially when the USAirways First Class really was. Linens to cover the tray tables, glassware, good food and ice cream sundaes.

Even an occasional B767 to LAX.

USAirways: "The Global Carrier of Choice!"

Ooops that was then and this is now. "LCC" and "Business Casual".

 

[traderjake]

It was splendid when the B757 was used on the transcon. Especially when the USAirways First Class really was. Linens to cover the tray tables, glassware, good food and ice cream sundaes.

Trancon in coach on the B757 is a miserable experience.

I'll take the couch seat in the 321 over the 757 any day.

 

[ClueByFour]

Trancon in coach on the B757 is a miserable experience.

I'll take the couch seat in the 321 over the 757 any day.

In coach, I absolutely agree.

The 757 used to be the bomb in front. Then they wasted the cabin (to 8F) and wasted the service in F (regardless of aircraft).

The 767 to the coast was a rare treat. I seem to recall doing that out of CLT (and maybe even PIT, waaay back when) once or twice.

 

[PHX-F/A]

It'll be interesting to see who's config they use to complete the order. Around 1999, or 2000, Airbus and AWA signed to allow AWA convert any order to any type in the 320 family. That was around the time they decided to walk away from the 318.

 

[Dog Wonder]

The main reason the 321 is not used is because it has no hf radios and no life rafts.

Maybe some one will see the light and make these 321's EOW.

 

[slipnutwrench]

Ok, now heres the twenty million dollar question: Will the NEW ordered A320 / A321's be powered by the CFM's or will it be the V2500's $$$$$$$
This will be the first opportunity for the merged company to make a decision on which powerplant will power the new 'bus. BTW, there are A321's out there at other carriers powered by V2500's.

 

[pilot]

Makes no difference. The 321 performance problems are because of the wing. Performance is irrelevant to the pax however. And the Airbus is a much more comfortable pax jet than the Boeing.

pilot