US and the 321neo

[BoeingBoy]

After several months on not much news, USA Today's "Today in the Sky" blog has picked up the story. If - IF - Airbus makes good on their range claim looks like the 321neo will be suitable for PHX-Hawaii but Europe-PHL except for northern UK and Ireland might be problematic.

Blog

Jim

 

[BuffaloJoe]

After several months on not much news, USA Today's "Today in the Sky" blog has picked up the story. If - IF - Airbus makes good on their range claim looks like the 321neo will be suitable for PHX-Hawaii but Europe-PHL except for northern UK and Ireland might be problematic.

Blog

Jim

Boeing still has the 767-200's on the market. Why not make a deal.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Purely a guess, but they might not want more 767's with more 332's coming in 2013. Small fleets of two types isn't as economical as a bigger fleet of 1 type. Talking about the 321neo sounds like they want a narrow-body and the 321neo will probably have a common type rating/many parts commonality with the rest of the 320 family. If they did look at 762's I'd be surprised if they'd look at new ones. Probably want something they could lease short term. But with about the same capacity, the 762 is less efficient than the 757 or the 321neo promises to be (according to Airbus). Making that bigger hole in the air at 8/10ths the speed of sound burns burns fuel.

Jim

 

[No Land Green]

Small fleets of two types isn't as economical as a bigger fleet of 1 type.

Jim

US Airways Fleet: B-737, B-767/757, A-330, A-321/320/319, E-190.....AND let's not forget the virtual airlines fleet of CRJ's, E-145's, E-170's, Dash 8's, SAAB-340's, did I miss any?.....Southwest must be on to something getting rid of those B-717's and having an all B-737 fleet.......

 

[No Land Green]

But with about the same capacity, the 762 is less efficient than the 757 or the 321neo promises to be (according to Airbus).

Jim

Back in 1999 when I was flying the 767, I remember the CSM in PHL bragging that the Cargo the 767 carried paid for the trip and the passenger revenue was all profit. Now, I don't believe the 757 has the capability to do the same, nor the A-321 on transatlantic flying. Anyone?

 

[A320 Driver]

Purely a guess, but they might not want more 767's with more 332's coming in 2013. Small fleets of two types isn't as economical as a bigger fleet of 1 type. Talking about the 321neo sounds like they want a narrow-body and the 321neo will probably have a common type rating/many parts commonality with the rest of the 320 family. If they did look at 762's I'd be surprised if they'd look at new ones. Probably want something they could lease short term. But with about the same capacity, the 762 is less efficient than the 757 or the 321neo promises to be (according to Airbus). Making that bigger hole in the air at 8/10ths the speed of sound burns burns fuel.

Jim

With the 787s coming on line, it should free up the used/lease market some. Maybe there are some opportunities there.

Driver

 

[dash8roa]

With the 787s coming on line, it should free up the used/lease market some. Maybe there are some opportunities there.

Driver

The 767 is still a good aircraft with life left in them,I am referring to 767's on the market,I don't know how long US 767's have before major overhauls are needed.The airbus 332 has well over 200 seats and may be too much aircraft for some routes,I.E.BRU,LIS,VCE,AMS for example.There must be some used 767 aircraft with still some life left in them and could be had for a fraction of the price of a new airbus 332.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

Back in 1999 when I was flying the 767, I remember the CSM in PHL bragging that the Cargo the 767 carried paid for the trip and the passenger revenue was all profit. Now, I don't believe the 757 has the capability to do the same, nor the A-321 on transatlantic flying. Anyone?

You are correct sir. The 757 and 321 are terrible cargo carriers.

Now the 767 could sell out all available cargo capacity.

Problem: USair historically has never regarded cargo as a profit center. Instead they consider it gravy revenue and treat it as such.

The airline could use some effective cargo yield-management software....

 

[No Land Green]

You are correct sir. The 757 and 321 are terrible cargo carriers.

Now the 767 could sell out all available cargo capacity.

Problem: USair historically has never regarded cargo as a profit center. Instead they consider it gravy revenue and treat it as such.

The airline could use some effective cargo yield-management software....

That would be wishful thinking and I'm sure Tempe has a laundry list of lame excuses for not getting "effective cargo yield-management software". This place should have acquired the B-767-300ER's years ago. I feel that it is a very versatile revenue producing asset......

 

[BoeingBoy]

Back in 1999 when I was flying the 767, I remember the CSM in PHL bragging that the Cargo the 767 carried paid for the trip and the passenger revenue was all profit. Now, I don't believe the 757 has the capability to do the same, nor the A-321 on transatlantic flying. Anyone?

Ditto what "whatkindoffreshell" said:

You are correct sir. The 757 and 321 are terrible cargo carriers.

I was talking about efficiency, not revenue producing capacity (cargo). If you use tha 767's cargo space to produce the revenue it should, it probably makes up for it having less efficiency than the 757. I erred in not saying so, but I was talking about both on the same route - say PHX-HNL. The 767 will burn quite a bit more fuel and have more FA's (even if you just had FC instead of Envoy). The 767 is certainly capable of flying routes that are beyond the 757's range and carrying cargo and passengers that are beyond the 757's capacity. Use those extras and the 767 is a better plane. Don't use them and you're spending more money for the same revenue.

Jim

 

[mikey60]

After several months on not much news, USA Today's "Today in the Sky" blog has picked up the story. If - IF - Airbus makes good on their range claim looks like the 321neo will be suitable for PHX-Hawaii but Europe-PHL except for northern UK and Ireland might be problematic.

Blog

Jim

If it has the same motors the current 321 has it will never make it above fl300 by the time it gets to the track, (returning ) that was on of the reasons the 330 didnt go to Ireland and Scotland.

 

[BoeingBoy]

It's called a "neo" (for "new engine option) because the engines are definitely different.

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

It's called a "neo" (for "new engine option) because the engines are definitely different.

Jim

They really need a new wing on the 321neo, but it looks like they don't want to invest the money. I've had more fuel/weight issues in the 320 because of landing weight than I have on the 321, but you spend a lot of time down low, lower 30 FLs. The last numbers I saw was a 15% reductions in fuel burn, so I guess that puts PHX-LIH in the range, but not CLT-DUB. Have they bumped those numbers up some or are the looking at additional fuel/weight? I couldn't find any newer articles with specifics. Again, that wing seems maxed out at 205,000.

 

[No Land Green]

They really need a new wing on the 321neo, but it looks like they don't want to invest the money. I've had more fuel/weight issues in the 320 because of landing weight than I have on the 321, but you spend a lot of time down low, lower 30 FLs. The last numbers I saw was a 15% reductions in fuel burn, so I guess that puts PHX-LIH in the range, but not CLT-DUB. Have they bumped those numbers up some or are the looking at additional fuel/weight? I couldn't find any newer articles with specifics. Again, that wing seems maxed out at 205,000.

I totally agree, "a new wing" is in order for the 321neo and present version.

 

[Pi brat]

I totally agree, "a new wing" is in order for the 321neo and present version.

Like Mikey said, the 321 would be a hoot on the NAT, huh? I guess it would be random routes, maybe non-RSVM? File to join Track X @ 30W? No problem ;-)