![]() |
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
(Post 3686490)
Do you mean we didn’t get the dual cooling on the NEOs or the leap engines in the max don’t have it?
No idea on the -Max |
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 3686541)
Our 321 NEO's have dual cooling. The NEO engines add at most about 2.5-3 minutes to get started in total, at least in my experience.
No idea on the -Max thanks for the info fangs. |
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
(Post 3686490)
Do you mean we didn’t get the dual cooling on the NEOs or the leap engines in the max don’t have it?
and if start times are a problem, better boot the 717 out |
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
(Post 3686556)
man, I thought the ER engines (P&W) took awhile to start.
thanks for the info fangs. |
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
(Post 3686595)
NEO start (if cooling required) is only marginally longer than a 757 start. ATL can make it work.
|
Originally Posted by PilotBases
(Post 3686611)
Yeah I think it’s less of an issue than people make it out to be. Not to mention ATL movements are down compared to peak RJ days I believe. Easy enough to play the left side right side shuffle all the way home.
|
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3686444)
Don't the 321 NEOs also have long engine start times?
|
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3686476)
yep. And our coming 737max orders will, too. Even longer without dual cooling. Better keep them out of ATL
|
Originally Posted by Avgeek7248
(Post 3689643)
The start times can be pretty lengthy upwards of 2-4 minutes a motor depending on how long it sat and how warm it is internally. Luckily with the MAX 9’s at least you have plenty of thrust so we’ll usually SET out of the alley so we’re not sitting there blocking all the NG’s in and then spin 1 once we start our taxi out. It’s not horrible until you’re stuck behind one that insists on spinning both.
|
Originally Posted by Wolf424
(Post 3689707)
Pratts on the 757 take right about 2 minutes to start. Pratts on the 767 can take even longer. It’s not going to be a big deal.
|
Originally Posted by Avgeek7248
(Post 3689733)
It won't. I am referencing "long" in comparison to the CFM's on the NG.
…. |
But wait - who flies the A220?
I thought this was a regional plane owned by Delta but flown by any number of Regionals?
is this a Delta mainline-flown airplane? if not, then which airline flies the A220 for them? |
Originally Posted by IntheBiz
(Post 3706168)
I thought this was a regional plane owned by Delta but flown by any number of Regionals?
is this a Delta mainline-flown airplane? if not, then which airline flies the A220 for them? |
Originally Posted by IntheBiz
(Post 3706168)
I thought this was a regional plane owned by Delta but flown by any number of Regionals?
is this a Delta mainline-flown airplane? if not, then which airline flies the A220 for them? |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 3706218)
Screen name does not check out.
|
Originally Posted by IntheBiz
(Post 3706168)
if not, then which airline flies the A220 for them?
|
Originally Posted by Iceberg
(Post 3683375)
I kind of get that reasoning, but I’m stuck on something. If a 220 is going to fly 5 hours and a 319 is going to fly 5 hours, does it really matter what location the fuel is saved at? I guess cost of fuel at an individual airport could play into that, but for this it would only matter if ATL was cheap vs all other destinations. Am I missing something?
Youll be hard pressed to find a 5 hour route on an A319 out of ATL too. Whenever I fly through ATL, it’s almost always a 321, maybe a 320. And I know 319’s do fly in and out of ATL but it isn’t anything longer than a 30-45 minute flight, I’d bet. |
Originally Posted by Big E 757
(Post 3707480)
Youll be hard pressed to find a 5 hour route on an A319 out of ATL too. Whenever I fly through ATL, it’s almost always a 321, maybe a 320. And I know 319’s do fly in and out of ATL but it isn’t anything longer than a 30-45 minute flight, I’d bet.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:45 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands