A-320 vs. A-220
07-18-2020, 02:19 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 331
A-320 vs. A-220
I was just curious how pilots who have flown both planes feel about how they compare to each other.
Obviously the 220 will be more regional style flying and newer equipment. Is there any other major differences in terms of the operational workload/comfort/system usage? Thanks for any feedback.
-Pan
Obviously the 220 will be more regional style flying and newer equipment. Is there any other major differences in terms of the operational workload/comfort/system usage? Thanks for any feedback.
-Pan
07-18-2020, 04:13 PM
#5
New Hire
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 7
I've done a recent 320 to 220 conversion. Here are my thoughts:
220 wins:
- 220 seats are more comfortable (especially compared with the older 320/319s)
- 220 has the 320 beat in avionics by a long shot. Although it has some minor annoyances, the FMS on the 220 is a generational improvement. While I think many boomers will struggle, younger pilots will appreciate the interface
- Performance seems better with better climb rates, and shorter landings (although it's a wash now with the low weights)
- Smaller loads = faster pax offloads. No more 45 minutes of pax offloads like in the 321 (although n/a with current loads)
- Even though the fly-by-wire system is awkward (see below), I think the 220 is more fun to hand fly
- Automation has much more capability in the 220. One example is that you can fly the windshield escape maneuver entirely on autopilot (although not particularly recommended). Another example is working the bleeds. You start the engine by flipping a switch, regardless of what bleed power you're on. The jet figures out the rest (i.e., you don't mess with bleed switches of cross valves).
- Electronic checklist is nice. The jet knows the status of most switch positions. The engine shutdown checklist sounds like this: CA: "Shutdown checklist." FO: "shutdown checklist complete."
- The 220 is the proverbial "Burger King Jet." Many different ways to do things (e.g., three ways to change a frequency), and the training department has been good in encouraging pilots use whatever techniques work best for them
- Both traditional and Airbus headset plugs
- Improved pax comfort. More space between seats, 2/3 seating, lavs in front and back
- Great brakes; very seldom will you need fans
320 wins:
- Sushi tray on the 220 sucks, although it is supposed to be in redesign
- Sun visors took a generational leap backwards on the 220; however, you can keep them up while parked without risking window overheat (you turn the window heat off)
- The fly-by-wire on the 220 takes some getting used to. You fly for speed in the 220 (as opposed for pitch angle in the 320); and because the system is speed based, you have to trim when hand flying the 220. Weird, but not a huge issue once you get the hang of it
- The 220 has more random limitations than the 320. Most of this is because it is a new airplane. However, these are minor impacts, and many will go away over the next few years
Wash:
- 220 cockpit is smaller, but doesn't make a whole lot of difference when sitting. There is an annoying bulge where the HUD system is supposed to be that is easy to knock your head on, but otherwise the 220 cockpit is well designed
- The 220 is a seems bit noisier than the newer 321, although quieter than the old 319/320 with the annoying cabin fans
- Trips: The 220 is getting more variety in length, and there is now a healthy mix of 1-4 day trips (a few months ago it was all 4 day trips). More diversity in the 320, but more predictability in the 220 (can be a plus or minus). The vast majority of 220 layovers are along the west coast and Texas. But that will change - I wouldn't chase trip mix either way. The 220 certainly does not experience the 717/MD88 pain of frequent 4+ legs a day. Seems to me that the leg mix is similar to the 320 fleet (although probably fewer of the longer trans-cons). Not because of range, but rather due to current route structure. I would expect this to change as well.
- Currently a healthy AVL in the 220, since none of the jets are parked. Currently more GS than you would expect, but less excess RES coverage than in the 320. Again, can be a plus or minus, depending on what you're looking for. And again, that will change.
220 wins:
- 220 seats are more comfortable (especially compared with the older 320/319s)
- 220 has the 320 beat in avionics by a long shot. Although it has some minor annoyances, the FMS on the 220 is a generational improvement. While I think many boomers will struggle, younger pilots will appreciate the interface
- Performance seems better with better climb rates, and shorter landings (although it's a wash now with the low weights)
- Smaller loads = faster pax offloads. No more 45 minutes of pax offloads like in the 321 (although n/a with current loads)
- Even though the fly-by-wire system is awkward (see below), I think the 220 is more fun to hand fly
- Automation has much more capability in the 220. One example is that you can fly the windshield escape maneuver entirely on autopilot (although not particularly recommended). Another example is working the bleeds. You start the engine by flipping a switch, regardless of what bleed power you're on. The jet figures out the rest (i.e., you don't mess with bleed switches of cross valves).
- Electronic checklist is nice. The jet knows the status of most switch positions. The engine shutdown checklist sounds like this: CA: "Shutdown checklist." FO: "shutdown checklist complete."
- The 220 is the proverbial "Burger King Jet." Many different ways to do things (e.g., three ways to change a frequency), and the training department has been good in encouraging pilots use whatever techniques work best for them
- Both traditional and Airbus headset plugs
- Improved pax comfort. More space between seats, 2/3 seating, lavs in front and back
- Great brakes; very seldom will you need fans
320 wins:
- Sushi tray on the 220 sucks, although it is supposed to be in redesign
- Sun visors took a generational leap backwards on the 220; however, you can keep them up while parked without risking window overheat (you turn the window heat off)
- The fly-by-wire on the 220 takes some getting used to. You fly for speed in the 220 (as opposed for pitch angle in the 320); and because the system is speed based, you have to trim when hand flying the 220. Weird, but not a huge issue once you get the hang of it
- The 220 has more random limitations than the 320. Most of this is because it is a new airplane. However, these are minor impacts, and many will go away over the next few years
Wash:
- 220 cockpit is smaller, but doesn't make a whole lot of difference when sitting. There is an annoying bulge where the HUD system is supposed to be that is easy to knock your head on, but otherwise the 220 cockpit is well designed
- The 220 is a seems bit noisier than the newer 321, although quieter than the old 319/320 with the annoying cabin fans
- Trips: The 220 is getting more variety in length, and there is now a healthy mix of 1-4 day trips (a few months ago it was all 4 day trips). More diversity in the 320, but more predictability in the 220 (can be a plus or minus). The vast majority of 220 layovers are along the west coast and Texas. But that will change - I wouldn't chase trip mix either way. The 220 certainly does not experience the 717/MD88 pain of frequent 4+ legs a day. Seems to me that the leg mix is similar to the 320 fleet (although probably fewer of the longer trans-cons). Not because of range, but rather due to current route structure. I would expect this to change as well.
- Currently a healthy AVL in the 220, since none of the jets are parked. Currently more GS than you would expect, but less excess RES coverage than in the 320. Again, can be a plus or minus, depending on what you're looking for. And again, that will change.
07-18-2020, 04:52 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by PrimalPilot
I've done a recent 320 to 220 conversion. Here are my thoughts:
220 wins:
- 220 seats are more comfortable (especially compared with the older 320/319s)
- 220 has the 320 beat in avionics by a long shot. Although it has some minor annoyances, the FMS on the 220 is a generational improvement. While I think many boomers will struggle, younger pilots will appreciate the interface
- Performance seems better with better climb rates, and shorter landings (although it's a wash now with the low weights)
- Smaller loads = faster pax offloads. No more 45 minutes of pax offloads like in the 321 (although n/a with current loads)
- Even though the fly-by-wire system is awkward (see below), I think the 220 is more fun to hand fly
- Automation has much more capability in the 220. One example is that you can fly the windshield escape maneuver entirely on autopilot (although not particularly recommended). Another example is working the bleeds. You start the engine by flipping a switch, regardless of what bleed power you're on. The jet figures out the rest (i.e., you don't mess with bleed switches of cross valves).
- Electronic checklist is nice. The jet knows the status of most switch positions. The engine shutdown checklist sounds like this: CA: "Shutdown checklist." FO: "shutdown checklist complete."
- The 220 is the proverbial "Burger King Jet." Many different ways to do things (e.g., three ways to change a frequency), and the training department has been good in encouraging pilots use whatever techniques work best for them
- Both traditional and Airbus headset plugs
- Improved pax comfort. More space between seats, 2/3 seating, lavs in front and back
- Great brakes; very seldom will you need fans
320 wins:
- Sushi tray on the 220 sucks, although it is supposed to be in redesign
- Sun visors took a generational leap backwards on the 220; however, you can keep them up while parked without risking window overheat (you turn the window heat off)
- The fly-by-wire on the 220 takes some getting used to. You fly for speed in the 220 (as opposed for pitch angle in the 320); and because the system is speed based, you have to trim when hand flying the 220. Weird, but not a huge issue once you get the hang of it
- The 220 has more random limitations than the 320. Most of this is because it is a new airplane. However, these are minor impacts, and many will go away over the next few years
Wash:
- 220 cockpit is smaller, but doesn't make a whole lot of difference when sitting. There is an annoying bulge where the HUD system is supposed to be that is easy to knock your head on, but otherwise the 220 cockpit is well designed
- The 220 is a seems bit noisier than the newer 321, although quieter than the old 319/320 with the annoying cabin fans
- Trips: The 220 is getting more variety in length, and there is now a healthy mix of 1-4 day trips (a few months ago it was all 4 day trips). More diversity in the 320, but more predictability in the 220 (can be a plus or minus). The vast majority of 220 layovers are along the west coast and Texas. But that will change - I wouldn't chase trip mix either way. The 220 certainly does not experience the 717/MD88 pain of frequent 4+ legs a day. Seems to me that the leg mix is similar to the 320 fleet (although probably fewer of the longer trans-cons). Not because of range, but rather due to current route structure. I would expect this to change as well.
- Currently a healthy AVL in the 220, since none of the jets are parked. Currently more GS than you would expect, but less excess RES coverage than in the 320. Again, can be a plus or minus, depending on what you're looking for. And again, that will change.
220 wins:
- 220 seats are more comfortable (especially compared with the older 320/319s)
- 220 has the 320 beat in avionics by a long shot. Although it has some minor annoyances, the FMS on the 220 is a generational improvement. While I think many boomers will struggle, younger pilots will appreciate the interface
- Performance seems better with better climb rates, and shorter landings (although it's a wash now with the low weights)
- Smaller loads = faster pax offloads. No more 45 minutes of pax offloads like in the 321 (although n/a with current loads)
- Even though the fly-by-wire system is awkward (see below), I think the 220 is more fun to hand fly
- Automation has much more capability in the 220. One example is that you can fly the windshield escape maneuver entirely on autopilot (although not particularly recommended). Another example is working the bleeds. You start the engine by flipping a switch, regardless of what bleed power you're on. The jet figures out the rest (i.e., you don't mess with bleed switches of cross valves).
- Electronic checklist is nice. The jet knows the status of most switch positions. The engine shutdown checklist sounds like this: CA: "Shutdown checklist." FO: "shutdown checklist complete."
- The 220 is the proverbial "Burger King Jet." Many different ways to do things (e.g., three ways to change a frequency), and the training department has been good in encouraging pilots use whatever techniques work best for them
- Both traditional and Airbus headset plugs
- Improved pax comfort. More space between seats, 2/3 seating, lavs in front and back
- Great brakes; very seldom will you need fans
320 wins:
- Sushi tray on the 220 sucks, although it is supposed to be in redesign
- Sun visors took a generational leap backwards on the 220; however, you can keep them up while parked without risking window overheat (you turn the window heat off)
- The fly-by-wire on the 220 takes some getting used to. You fly for speed in the 220 (as opposed for pitch angle in the 320); and because the system is speed based, you have to trim when hand flying the 220. Weird, but not a huge issue once you get the hang of it
- The 220 has more random limitations than the 320. Most of this is because it is a new airplane. However, these are minor impacts, and many will go away over the next few years
Wash:
- 220 cockpit is smaller, but doesn't make a whole lot of difference when sitting. There is an annoying bulge where the HUD system is supposed to be that is easy to knock your head on, but otherwise the 220 cockpit is well designed
- The 220 is a seems bit noisier than the newer 321, although quieter than the old 319/320 with the annoying cabin fans
- Trips: The 220 is getting more variety in length, and there is now a healthy mix of 1-4 day trips (a few months ago it was all 4 day trips). More diversity in the 320, but more predictability in the 220 (can be a plus or minus). The vast majority of 220 layovers are along the west coast and Texas. But that will change - I wouldn't chase trip mix either way. The 220 certainly does not experience the 717/MD88 pain of frequent 4+ legs a day. Seems to me that the leg mix is similar to the 320 fleet (although probably fewer of the longer trans-cons). Not because of range, but rather due to current route structure. I would expect this to change as well.
- Currently a healthy AVL in the 220, since none of the jets are parked. Currently more GS than you would expect, but less excess RES coverage than in the 320. Again, can be a plus or minus, depending on what you're looking for. And again, that will change.
07-18-2020, 05:08 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by deltabound
Gotta ask....is this question from a JetBlue pilot?
Rather odd question for a Delta pilot right now. Fits for JB and their fleet plans.
Rather odd question for a Delta pilot right now. Fits for JB and their fleet plans.
Thanks for that detailed summary, was looking for some info as well.
- A Jetblue pilot
07-18-2020, 05:19 PM
#10
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: The Beginnings
Posts: 1,317
Originally Posted by Xtreme87
Are Jetblue pilots not allowed to post in holy Delta forums?
Thanks for that detailed summary, was looking for some info as well.
- A Jetblue pilot
Thanks for that detailed summary, was looking for some info as well.
- A Jetblue pilot
The zeitgeist today on the Delta APC has been narrowly focused on company/ALPA wrangling over contact stuff. “F” word level contract stuff...nothing focuses the pilot mind like the possibility of a “F” in the morning.
Odd to see a post about the merits of this plane vs that plane. I don’t know anyone at Delta who’s thinking about that stuff right now. Survival mode, and all that.
It was odd enough that I was wondering who’d ask that. Thought I’d take a stab at it knowing JB is taking delivery of the A220 next year. In fact, plenty of us Delta pilots are rumored to be going to one of your rented out A220 sims soon enough, myself included.
if you want to LARP as a Delta APC poster (and why would you?j, hijack the thread and start ranting about masks, the CDC, and/or Trump. Par for the course.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
