UA orders 20 E175s, comments on A321XLR
Jun 21, 2019, 11:45 am
#76
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
Top 50 stations for all UAL E170/E175 ops:
Code:
origin | daily_flights --------+--------------- IAH | 156.9 ORD | 78.4 EWR | 71.2 DEN | 47.5 SFO | 43.4 LAX | 27.1 IAD | 17.0 DTW | 14.5 MSP | 14.2 PIT | 13.9 ATL | 13.8 CLT | 12.8 DCA | 12.8 DFW | 12.8 SLC | 12.4 OKC | 11.7 RDU | 10.4 CMH | 9.9 MCI | 9.8 IND | 9.6 BNA | 9.1 CVG | 8.9 MTY | 8.9 BOI | 7.2 OMA | 7.1 SAT | 7.0 AUS | 6.8 ABQ | 6.1 MAF | 5.3 CHS | 5.1 CLE | 5.0 BJX | 4.9 SDF | 4.9 MKE | 4.8 XNA | 4.5 ELP | 4.5 PAE | 4.5 TUS | 4.3 JAX | 4.2 LGA | 4.1 QRO | 4.0 RIC | 3.8 PHX | 3.8 SMF | 3.7 TUL | 3.3 DSM | 3.3 ORF | 3.3 PNS | 3.2 SAV | 3.1 SAN | 3.1
Jun 21, 2019, 3:18 pm
#77
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
at an extra 14 mph faster, a 4500 flight (about the max what these birds will be used for) on the 757 would be 8.52 hours, on the A321neoLR it would be 8.75 hours. That is an extra 13.8 minutes. Not sure its material.
both are materially slower than e.g. a 77W.787 which has a cruise speed of 560 mph, but its an easy call to take the slightly slower A321neoLR on a flight of that length in Y over the 10x 777 or the 9x 787.
Jun 21, 2019, 4:02 pm
#78
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Programs: MYOB
Posts: 1,292
Well if you run at top speed, yes. But no one does, burns too much fuel. Cruising speed is about 528 mph, on the A321neo its 514 mph. I can't find a cruising speed for the A321neoLR, but assume its the same.
at an extra 14 mph faster, a 4500 flight (about the max what these birds will be used for) on the 757 would be 8.52 hours, on the A321neoLR it would be 8.75 hours. That is an extra 13.8 minutes. Not sure its material.
both are materially slower than e.g. a 77W.787 which has a cruise speed of 560 mph, but its an easy call to take the slightly slower A321neoLR on a flight of that length in Y over the 10x 777 or the 9x 787.
at an extra 14 mph faster, a 4500 flight (about the max what these birds will be used for) on the 757 would be 8.52 hours, on the A321neoLR it would be 8.75 hours. That is an extra 13.8 minutes. Not sure its material.
both are materially slower than e.g. a 77W.787 which has a cruise speed of 560 mph, but its an easy call to take the slightly slower A321neoLR on a flight of that length in Y over the 10x 777 or the 9x 787.
Might be more in line with this thread to see how the E-175 compares to other narrow bodies on a 1000 mi stage length.
Just sayin'
Jun 21, 2019, 4:57 pm
#79
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
Well if you run at top speed, yes. But no one does, burns too much fuel. Cruising speed is about 528 mph, on the A321neo its 514 mph. I can't find a cruising speed for the A321neoLR, but assume its the same.
at an extra 14 mph faster, a 4500 flight (about the max what these birds will be used for) on the 757 would be 8.52 hours, on the A321neoLR it would be 8.75 hours. That is an extra 13.8 minutes. Not sure its material.
both are materially slower than e.g. a 77W.787 which has a cruise speed of 560 mph, but its an easy call to take the slightly slower A321neoLR on a flight of that length in Y over the 10x 777 or the 9x 787.
at an extra 14 mph faster, a 4500 flight (about the max what these birds will be used for) on the 757 would be 8.52 hours, on the A321neoLR it would be 8.75 hours. That is an extra 13.8 minutes. Not sure its material.
both are materially slower than e.g. a 77W.787 which has a cruise speed of 560 mph, but its an easy call to take the slightly slower A321neoLR on a flight of that length in Y over the 10x 777 or the 9x 787.
Looking past the hyperbole, it’s still a narrowbody, quite slow, not revolutionary in any sense, and besides being new metal (which, as an avgeek I admit is always cool), I don’t see any reason to be particularly excited about this airplane.
The bigger deal, IMO, is enabling unserved, thin TATL markets, where the time savings is material. I’m certainly not flying any airplane in economy as a means of comfortable, luxurious conveyance.
Jun 21, 2019, 5:09 pm
#80
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR and back on Van Isle ....... for now
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 14,429
)737 to Hawaii .... um ya, suboptimal in Biz
(despite the one half or much argued over full inch on Airbii) of extra seat width, it's all miserable in coach. 737-10, the announced (IIRC) lie flat would be just fine with me, even without the left turn
Jun 21, 2019, 7:27 pm
#81
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
The numbers are what they are, and there’s no doubt the A321 will be, comparatively, the slowest TATL ride, an issue exacerbated over a longer stage length.
Looking past the hyperbole, it’s still a narrowbody, quite slow, not revolutionary in any sense, and besides being new metal (which, as an avgeek I admit is always cool), I don’t see any reason to be particularly excited about this airplane.
The bigger deal, IMO, is enabling unserved, thin TATL markets, where the time savings is material. I’m certainly not flying any airplane in economy as a means of comfortable, luxurious conveyance.
Jun 21, 2019, 7:50 pm
#82
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,161
Jun 21, 2019, 8:02 pm
#83
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR and back on Van Isle ....... for now
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 14,429
MAX is the same basic tube, but has a different tail, but most important, the engines are not in the same place, while A32Xneo is pretty much the same.except the engines are bigger, but unlike MAX, they did not have to be moved to make sure there would be enough clearance from the ground.
Jun 22, 2019, 12:29 am
#84
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Not exactly @:-)
MAX is the same basic tube, but has a different tail, but most important, the engines are not in the same place, while A32Xneo is pretty much the same.except the engines are bigger, but unlike MAX, they did not have to be moved to make sure there would be enough clearance from the ground.
MAX is the same basic tube, but has a different tail, but most important, the engines are not in the same place, while A32Xneo is pretty much the same.except the engines are bigger, but unlike MAX, they did not have to be moved to make sure there would be enough clearance from the ground.
Bigger, heavier engines change aerodynamics and the behavior of he airplane regardless is where they are placed.
Jun 22, 2019, 1:03 am
#85
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Morris County, NJ
Programs: UA 1K/*G, Avis Pres, Marriott Plat
Posts: 2,305
but to your point - CO opened up a whole bunch of routes in ways unthought of with the 757. Hamburg, Gatwick, Berlin, Dublin, etc - opened up lots of cities in Europe as direct flights never before possible. Very innovative!
Jun 22, 2019, 8:57 am
#87
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA GS 2MM
Posts: 947
The numbers are what they are, and there’s no doubt the A321 will be, comparatively, the slowest TATL ride, an issue exacerbated over a longer stage length.
Looking past the hyperbole, it’s still a narrowbody, quite slow, not revolutionary in any sense, and besides being new metal (which, as an avgeek I admit is always cool), I don’t see any reason to be particularly excited about this airplane.
The bigger deal, IMO, is enabling unserved, thin TATL markets, where the time savings is material. I’m certainly not flying any airplane in economy as a means of comfortable, luxurious conveyance.
Jun 22, 2019, 9:26 am
#88
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR and back on Van Isle ....... for now
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 14,429