Maybe 9ER better than the old -800's, but the new 800's with the short field performance package come in slower.

Yes, Boeing redesigned the nose gear so they wouldn't have to move the support structure and pressure bulkhead, which they were not willing to do, but they managed to fit it in, so no bulge.

As for the mains, those are easy, they compress the struts as it retracts, thus no redesign of the main gear wells either. So, the whole thing sits a little higher. That might actually improve the tail clearance problems. Republic did this same trick way back on the straight wing F-80, in the early 50's?

Maybe they should adopt the hydro pneumatic suspension that old Citroen cars had. When the motor cranked, it raised itself like a turtle that had just decided to go somewhere. :D

Maybe they should scrap the 737 POS line and retool for an updated 757.

t h i s !!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:)

A321neo is a significant threat to Boeing.

If they added just a smidge of wing, it would be a really good 757-200 equivalent.

But, as I understand it (possibly even with the new winglets), they often have to fly in the high 20s when heavy...just not enough wing.

Heard the same about 321, NEO has new power plant however. Same initial cruise issues with the 739ER and 773ER when loaded down.

High 20's is a bit of an exaggeration. Low 30's yes. FL320/330 to start. Maybe up to 370 at the end of a transcon.

I used to fly a lot of Hawaii. Last year, I heard twice (I think it was AA and VA) putting in Flight Level requests headed eastbound.

Both times, they asked for something in the high 20s. When told "Unavailable, how about 310?", they said "No, we're too heavy."

That and my prior experience in the 320 made me think a heavier version with the same wing might get a small window between Mach buffet and low-speed buffet.