halls120

While I am not a big fan of Airbus in general, in this instance I believe the 321NEO is going to clean Boeing's clock if Airbus can produce an aircraft that can match the range of the 757.

LASUA1K

I flew on an AA and US A321, what a difference incomfort compared to the 739.

UA jumped the gun with ordering so many 739's. It's outdated and the new version won't be able to do EWR-Europe.

I'm sure the 321 is in UA's future as the sCO 757's are getting up in age also. It probably makes sense to change the Max order to 738 Max to replace the 737's, 319's and 320's.

EmailKid

I've flown on US and Air China 321s, and found it no big whop. Still don't understand the difference for pax comfort, especially in FC

Boeing was belittling A321neo in press conference - apparently they just don't see that many long range units selling.

IIRC there were just over 1K 757 units sold, and sales really dropped off in the last couple of years.

Now Airbus has it much easier, as they are already committed to 321, so making the longer range version does not call for an entirely new aircraft, which is what Boeing would have to do, as they don't intend to bring back 757, and seem to think 739ER and later 737-9max will be able to compete. Ya, insert here, do not think it's a major enough update, and next generation is not slated till 2020 IIRC.

Sorry, getting longwinded here, back to UA jumping ship:

Those are ALL PMCO orders as UA was NOT buying planes, save A350, BUT post merger some were assigned to sCO and some to sUA. This per OP, IIRC in a different thread.

nikolastojsin

+1000 Could not agree more. Transcon on a 739 is really painful, IMHO. Even in F - I always have a feeling that the seat is about to become detached. The plane feels outdated, even when new, even with the Sky interior... because it is.

This. ^
I know noone should care, but having that reserve power margin on a 757 just-in-case is comforting. Especially compared to 739's need for 8200ft runway... which is A340 territory on a single aisle jet.

Data point: last August, EWR-SEA fully loaded daytime transcon, hot and humid weather, and it felt like 739 takeoff run will end somewhere in the long-term parking lot; a week later, JFK-LAX, 757ps, same hot and humid weather, also fully loaded plane - and it felt like 757 can take off with half the runway on one engine. Usain Bolt against Usain Bolt's (hypothetical!) asthmatic grandfather...

Second this - and, given how long it took Boeing to come up with an ER version, discrepancy in sales vs A321 is not surprising. I think Boeing's plan was to use 787 as a 757 replacement for long-and-thin routes, but it has not panned out that way in the marketplace...

Lastly, one more thing that does not matter: 757 is one of the most beautiful planes (still) around (the most beautiful, IMHO, this side of the Concorde); 737, well, not so much...

Indelaware

I see no logic in a generalrelationship of age-of-technology to comfort. Why is it that a 722 is less comfortable than a 777? A 744 less comfortable than a 739 or a Dash 8 be considered more comfortable than a DC3? Personally, I'm quite comfortable on a Ford Trimotor.

Yes, technology has some play in comfort. Pressurized aircraft are more comfortable than non-pressurized aircraft. Aircraft with toilets are more comfortable than aircraft without toilets. But beyond that it is pretty much like saying that an apple or an orange is a better fruit than the other.

Judging the comfort of an aircraft by the comfort of the first class cabin is, IMO, quite foolish. In comparing aircraft comfort, one should measure the aggregate comfort of all passengers. As most passengers fly coach, one naturally must consider the comfort of the coach cabin significantly; premium cabins is important, but given the small minority of passengers utilizing them, the weight of the comparative premium comfort should play very little into any analysis of overall passenger comfort.

Yes, the 739 requires a longer runway for take off run than some aircraft which does limit where they can operate from. But the need for longer runways make an aircraft "junk" at any airport with such runways. Moreover, long runways aren't all that uncommon. In Nevada alone, where I gather you are based, there are five airfields with runways over 9000ft -- longer than required by the 739 -- four of them 10000ft+. In New York, there are seven such airfields. Even little Delaware has one.

channa

Not all 737-900's are created equal.

The DL ones do not look dated at all. DL chose modern cabin dividers, they installed PTVs, there's a blue WiFi light instead of a No Smoking light, etc. It looks like a new plane.

Only the UA ones look old, with their gray cabin dividers, no PTVs, etc.

lhrsfo

The comfort of the cabin is largely determined by the comfort of the seats, and that's down to UA rather than Boeing or Airbus. Having said that, the extra width of the Airbus is noticeable and makes for a more spacious atmosphere. Otherwise they seem much of a muchness - although it seems that UA's 737s seem to have very faded, or old-fashioned, interior appointments compared with their 320s, and the 320s of competitors. I can't speak for competitors' 737s as I haven't flown with an airline, other than UA, using 737s for years.

LASUA1K

Are you saying the 739 is more comfortable in Y than the 321? It's not even close. From cabin height to width to aisle size, the 321 is superior. If you haven't flown a 321, please try it and come back and let us know. The cabin pressure is also better on the Airbus.

DL 739's are actually less comfortable than UA's. I avoid the 739 on any carrier.

Indelaware

I have flown plenty of 321s - and other Airbus equipment as well. When I fly, I sit so I don't really care about cabin height, width, nor aisle size. Why is bigger better? I'm not saying the 739 is better, just that it is not junk. Both planes are fine. If you want junk, try some Soviet built birds.

nikolastojsin

Haven't ever been on a non-UA 739ER, so cannot really compare; but I can see what you are saying.

However, my real problem with 739ER is that the cabin somehow feels cramped to me, in a way that A32X or 757 do not. I do not know whether it is extra 7" of width (A32X), or higher ceiling (757), but it is noticeable. On a transcon, it matters; also, while I have no problem flying 757 TATL (though I much prefer a wide-body), I would not dream of doing the same in a 739ER. I know - it should not matter, but somehow it does. Arguably, Boeing's Sky Interior is a brilliant - and largely successful - attempt to address these concerns, but that does not make the ceiling higher, or aisle wider.

IMHO, over the years, Boeing did a masterful job of upgrading a 60s-era fuselage; but those extra 20 years Airbus had, or Boeing had with 757, are showing. Inside and outside (just look at the hoops they had to jump through with the engines).

So, like LASUA1K, I try to avoid 739ERs as much as possible, especially on transcons.

walkerci

I hate the 737 and, the 319,320, and 321... Love the ex-CO 757-200! The Ex-CO 757-300 are very good except for red eyes. The ex-UA 757s are better than a 737 or Airbii, but that isn't saying much.

Pi7473000

That is true! The 737s are not comfortable whether it is a 737900 or 800. I loved the airbus until they slimlined coach. The new IFE on the airbus is great though as I can access IFE using my IPAD which is much nicer than the pay direcTV on the 737s. It is too bad these are replacing the customer friendly domestic 757s.

kale73

You can have your Airbii. When given a choice, I always choose a 737 over an Airbus. I don't particularly notice the cathedral-like dimensions of either the 319 or 320 vs the 737 that some here seem to wax rhapsodic about. Maybe I just have an underdeveloped sense of depth perception.

My CPU percentage is much greater on the 737s than the Airbus. I also find the 737's exit rows, with tray tables that fold down instead of the "in-the-atmrest" variety, far more comfortable than those on the Airbus.

LASUA1K

In my opinion it's junk. The thing uses the entire runway, it rattles all the way up to 30K. The 739's have an awful oxygen level, and the brand new 739's rattle and creak. A new 321 is extremely more comfortable than a brand nee 739.

And yes as far as First Class, I can't even put my backpack in front on an aisle seat. The aircraft is just uncomfortable from the minute you step on board.

mgcsinc

This is just all a bunch of nonsense and make-believe.

"The thing uses the entire runway" Why do you care?

"awful oxygen level"

"rattles all the way up to 30K" (I guess you prefer the high-pitched airbus whine?)

"extremely more comfortable"

"And yes as far as First Class, I can't even put my backpack in front on an aisle seat. The aircraft is just uncomfortable from the minute you step on board." What does this have to do with the 737 itself?