I fly the Bus, it is really nice to pilot. But the 321 is a pig when loaded up. I do mean a PIG to fly. It climbs SO S L O W..... And range? What range? :(

Rode on a fully loaded 321 before and although surprisingly comfortable, agree shot the performance.

Puke an engine and it's a seneca with the gear down.

Took off behind the a380 from Singapore to Narita recently (the 380, a 320 then us on the 76) caught up to it in the mid 20s during the climb and passed it while in Manila's airspace, as we were getting off at the gate (after passenger deplaning) is when they were parking at the gate in Narita, the performance on that contraption is as ugly as its looks.

It is under-powered, but new, more powerful engines will address that problem. And the winglets, as previously stated will increase the aspect ratio, improving performance across the board.

The 321 will not be "fixed" with new engines and winglets alone. I fly the Bus. It is very comfy and the 320 has nice performance, but is marginal on the wing. A 737 will outclimb and top out higher and faster. Now having said that, I will take the 320 over the 737 anyday. It is more comfortable and the front end is quiet. But the wing is really sized for the 319. By the time you get to the 321 you are just loading the bird way too much. It is very slow to climb, struggles to get on top and the range is just sad. Again, it is roomy, but dog slow. You could never do West Coast to Hawaii like the 75 or even the 738. I just dont see the winglets improving enough on the lift because you need more fuel, which is more weight, which is less performance. The 321 is just a stretch too far on the smallish 320 wing.

Are you talking about the 380 or 320? I didnt know the 380 was doggy as well..... But it wouldnt surprise me, given the 321 and the 340.

Damn you're good!!! But I think it's a little early to judge, having not flown it yet. More thrust and winglets will likely be an improvement. How much of an improvement?
...gotta ask an airbus engineer at this point.

Given that the distance from Singapore to Tokyo equates to a flight from Quito, Ecuador to Toronto. Which one you would guess that I'm referring to?

Sure. I brain farted on that one :D

It seems to me that Boeing plans for growth by putting on a bigger wing than required for the initial models, which costs them a bit in efficiency on cruise. But Airbus tends to go with small efficient wings that limit growth. I know the 321 has a trailing edge "kink" to increase surface area, but it just isnt enough.

Having never flown a 737 without and than with winglets, I wonder the gain achieved? Anyone have comments on this?

Regarding AA buying the Bus, I thought after the 300 in New York, that AA was pretty unhappy with how Airbus pointed to AA training. My recollection was that AA and Airbus were pretty much "enemies" after that. Of course a low price on some new narrows might fix the hard feelings in rapid fashion.....