AIR INDIA had a few copies of those double bogie A320s. I believe intended use on rough/unimproved runway and taxiway surfaces and the relative load bearing capabilities necessitated the option, however as I remember it, a not so insignificant weight penalty applied as you alluded to.

New wings, a bit of a[737MAX9 to 737MAX10] stretch and possibly new gear, then you really have a 757 replacement and incidentally also the A321 NEO plus plus, which apparently is really a thing..on paper...

So are Delta's going to be ETOPS? I see this replacing the 757 for thinner Europe routes. That may require Delta One, which may lead to these doing premium transcons.

I was referring to the thrust. They don’t make 35k. Depending on type for the 321NEO they are 32,000 to 33,100. The 757’S used across the pound have between 37,500 and 43,000 depending on variant.

35,000 is what the engine manufacturer says...

https://www.safran-aircraft-engines.com/commercial-engines/single-aisle-commercial-jets/leap/leap-1a

The a321neo also has a oew 16k-20k lbs less than 752.

Even with the weight difference the 757 trounces it on actual performance of short runways or in hot conditions. There is only so much you can do with a 117 foot wing and single axle trucks. I got bumped last week jumpseating on a A321 CEO for weight flying CLT to LAX with good weather. Took 20 paying passengers off also.
It’s amazing that 30 years later nothing matches the 757 in all around performance.

Im guessing the 738 wuda gone out full and made the leg ok.

But its only a 160seat airframe. So maybe more frequency smaller airframes is good for a pilot list? :)

I wud be curious if the wgt limit issue was driven by fuel for winds. Togw ratow limits. Or cargo payload offsets.

Clt-lax is one of the legs piedmonts 727s had problems with. The 767 buy fixed that.

Never made it onboard so don’t know the reason. I did tell the CA I was trying to jumpseat and she just shrugged her shoulders and walked down the jetway.

Sorry to derail the thread but why did you get bumped? JS doesn't count against load. I've ran into this a few times and I was always able to stay on.

I'm guessing she just didn't know the caveat.

Bummer.......

If it’s another airline employee I think the FOM was revised to say they can’t be included in weight

AMR flight maybe...

Yeah, CLT. You're probably right. I was thinking the JS was baked into the empty weight and thus why it didn't count. I've been wrong before.

Most likely its the same 727 piedmont-usair-awa-amr service.....30 years on. :)

You appear to have a continued problem in admitting you are wrong. Now you’re doubling down on the single axle truck thing and refuse to acknowledge you were wrong on the thrust and start up.

The AA 321s are mostly legacy US aircraft with lower thrust engines without the sharklets, thus the weight restriction. Ours do not have those issues.

Yep!:cool:

Well, considering they only sold about 1000 757s and 3700 A321s and the Neo is just getting started. .. I think you can say that the 757 doesn't hold a candle to the 321s where it matters.

I've never had a js issue, and none on these 321 atl to lax or San flights I'm doing.

It is an entertaining thought to calculate what a 757 with a mature 40Klb thrust gtf could be capable of doing. :)

That actually makes a lot of sense. JB's "mint" will need an already priced in hard competitor we can deploy at will.

LOL and it probably would be "better" from a performance standpoint. But at what cost? We like climb perf. Airlines only care about it to the extremely limited extent that the lack of it actually prohibits you from doing a market. That's rare and that's the extent of it. If a GTF 757 made the amount of sense plane loving pilots wish it would they'd build it.

Do you honestly believe the A321neo will have the performance of the 757? Take a look at the approach speeds as a starter. It’s not going to be as capable. It will however be vastly cheaper to operate.

No one currently makes a gearbox that can take that kind of thrust. I am sure one is coming soon but we are not there yet.

Yup....its entertaining in the same of way my winning the lotto and buying a Ford gt40 with a Gurney blister

Keep in mind also that the 321 NEO’s brake system is not that of the 321 CEO. It is an entirely new revamped system and works quite well, this has always been a lackluster system on the CEO. I have landed several times in DCA with the 321 NEO and have never even seen the temps in the orange, this is without brake fans even being on. Its an awesome machine, the NEO will climb right up to 350 with 185 passengers on a transcon and the burn between 2700-2800 Lbs/h per side at cruise. It is so quite that you could go without a headset the entire flight from takeoff to touchdown. We operate the LEAP 1 engine and have been told that it can take up to 5 minuets to start the engine. I have never experienced this, however it does do a lot more motoring though, start times range from 1-3 minuets or so I would say. I wish the “new Alaskan Airways” would get their heads out somewhere and place an order like you guys did. What type engines are you getting with your order?

Pratt GTFs

I've been flying the bus at US and AA for 15 years and don't ever remember taking a weight hit like that, especially to LA. Got a flight number and date?

I don’t know much about the pw gtf engines, but I’ve definitely seen close to 5minutes to start the leap 1-a on a quick turn on a warm day.

aa1876 05jan

Maybe it had an mco?

I guess it's too far back to pull up the flight plan. I'd like to see the reason.

In the last year or so I've seen some strange weight restrictions. The 321 sometimes runs into balance issues with lighter loads, and the load system doesn't allow a restriction for balance(didn't, I haven't seen it in a while), so the load planner would put a weight restriction on it instead. I've had to intervene to let folks know we really didn't have an issue. I recently had a restriction eastbound because the dispatcher was planning way too much fuel.

We rarely have a weight issue on the 321 transcon from CLT. The 320 is the one we have issues with. Sorry you had a problem.

But back to your initial point-the 321 is no 757. It does a lot of what the 757 can do, and much cheaper, but there are compromises. I say that it has a great smooth ride detector, it always seems to be 500' above recommended max alt!

Do you read? Where did anyone claim it has the performance of the 757?

Now can you admit you were wrong earlier in the thread, or will you continue to shift the goal posts when you don't like the results?

I am not sure what part your discussing. It does not have the thrust wing or performance of a 757.

He's not claiming anything of the sort. However you took an "outlier" example to imply that there are serious 321 performance issues, when that's really not the case.

Your example of being denied a JS CLT-west coast due to "performance" was conveniently vague (you did not mention that it wasn't even a DAL flight, thus implying that the 321 is so performance-limited that even DAL sorts can't get the JS on their own metal).

When even a current AA Bus captain chimed in with some doubts, then you shifted the conversation to 757 stuff.

No one is claiming that the 321 or anything else can equal the 757 in all performance realms. Neither are there significant RJ-esque performance and JS limitations, however, especially for the markets we will be serving. You seemed to imply that there were.

Sent from my SM-G900T3 using Tapatalk

Nearly 4x the sales sailing. Money talks doesn't it?

[QUOTE=Herkflyr;2505897]
No one is claiming that the 321 or anything else can equal the 757 in all performance realms./QUOTE]

Except, yes, some are. And let's just put that ridiculous notion to rest. The 40 year old prototype 757 that NASA still operates is a more capable aircraft in every respect than the most pimped-out GTF 321 that exists even on paper. The 321 is a reflection of the economic realism that has replaced the romanticism and adventurous spirit of the early airline industry. The 757 still has some of that cowboy get-the-job-done over-engineering. It was to replace the freaking bullet proof 727 after all. The NEO seems to be a nice jet. The CEO is perfect for ATL. But... I honestly thought we'd be supersonic Jr. astronauts by 2020.. that was the trend. Our uncles played golf on the MFing moon.

Can you find a quote where someone said the 321 will match the 757 in performance? I've looked through the entire thread, and sailingfun seems to be the only one stuck on that... plus continually when he is called out for saying something wrong can't own up to it, but just doubles down further.

What people are saying (correctly) is that the 321NEO is the closest thing to 757 performance that is being produced.

Page 1 of this thread:

Good, the 321 is superior to anything boeing makes in that category. Maybe Southwest will buy some more of those ****ty 737s.

And...
Well, considering they only sold about 1000 757s and 3700 A321s and the Neo is just getting started. .. I think you can say that the 757 doesn't hold a candle to the 321s where it matters.

And:

headrest!!
The A321 can be stretched to cover the MOM segment, with the engine that Delta is now the MRO for. Neither a reissued 757 or 737 can meet takeoff certification requirements, without sacrificing fuel economy in this market, thus requiring a entirely new designed 797. I don't know if it makes financial sense for Delta to buy the 797, when these 100 options can be converted to an A321neo stretch with the volume discount. Obviously, more than just 75 Cseries are coming as well, so it's going to be all Airbii for a while.

The first quote is about what is currently being produced.

The second is not about performance but about units sold (poking fun at sailingfun in his incessant doubling down actually).

Do you agree?

I figured most Delta guys would no that we don’t fly non stops from CLT to the west coast.