Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   100 321 NEO Order (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/109862-100-321-neo-order.html)

BigHitterLlama 01-27-2018 04:32 PM


Originally Posted by NoDeskJob (Post 2513240)
How would that be any more miserable than a 757?

Equally? I assumed the pitch in our 75 would be better than an ULCC 321 - could easily be wrong.

Baradium 01-27-2018 04:50 PM


Originally Posted by BigHitterLlama (Post 2513329)
Equally? I assumed the pitch in our 75 would be better than an ULCC 321 - could easily be wrong.

I presumed the same airline's 321 vs their own 757 (if they had any) is what he was getting at.

BigHitterLlama 01-28-2018 06:47 AM


Originally Posted by Baradium (Post 2513345)
I presumed the same airline's 321 vs their own 757 (if they had any) is what he was getting at.

Got it. Not familiar with WOW’s fleet. Just saw they normally fly that route with a 330.

forgot to bid 01-29-2018 09:59 AM


Originally Posted by BigHitterLlama (Post 2513329)
Equally? I assumed the pitch in our 75 would be better than an ULCC 321 - could easily be wrong.

Seatguru puts wow at 30-31 inches and our 757 at 31-33 and our 321 at 31.... That kind of blows. Because you're right about the ulcc part of Wow.

sailingfun 01-29-2018 10:11 AM


Originally Posted by NoDeskJob (Post 2512805)
Wow. I had no idea the plane was THAT capable. I’d be curious to know how many pax were on board.
And to think that’s not the LR.....

No bags or cargo apparently. Bags had to go on another flight.

forgot to bid 01-29-2018 11:17 AM


Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 2514467)
No bags or cargo apparently. Bags had to go on another flight.

Source?

....

Vincent Chase 01-29-2018 01:44 PM


Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 2514524)
Source?

....

The usual...

( . )


Or it could have been tongue in cheek, but that would be so far out of character for sailingfun. So I stand by the above.

sailingfun 01-29-2018 02:57 PM


Originally Posted by Vincent Chase (Post 2514701)
The usual...

( . )


Or it could have been tongue in cheek, but that would be so far out of character for sailingfun. So I stand by the above.

If you look at the fuel burn the aircraft had to have gone with full fuel for 8:40 minutes. Using the lightest operating empty weight airbus publishes that leaves about 37,000 lbs of payload. The article I saw said aircraft was full. FAA winter weights are 195lbs per passenger. If it was full they had 225 onboard with crew. No matter how you slice the pie the numbers don’t allow much if anything in the belly.

80ktsClamp 01-29-2018 02:58 PM


Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 2514793)
If you look at the fuel burn the aircraft had to have gone with full fuel for 8:40 minutes. Using the lightest operating empty weight airbus publishes that leaves about 37,000 lbs of payload. The article I saw said aircraft was full. FAA winter weights are 195lbs per passenger. If it was full they had 225 onboard with crew. No matter how you slice the pie the numbers don’t allow much if anything in the belly.

Ooh... now we've gone to "not much."

He's shifting!

sailingfun 01-29-2018 03:05 PM


Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 2514794)
Ooh... now we've gone to "not much."

He's shifting!

Actually the payload number I posted is wrong. I used a CEO weight. Should be around 50,000 with full fuel so the numbers are better. With 225 people they would have had between 3000 to 6000 lbs available in the belly or about 26lbs per passenger using best case. If the OEW is 3000 lbs heavier like most aircraft end up that drops in half. With their config it’s likely well above 107,000.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:16 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands