Monarch -2
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: luton
Age: 56
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PH, it only makes sense to operate a certain type if that type continues to meets you present and future requirements, if it doesnt do that for whatever reason then you need to think about alternatives and the NG has two big attractions over the bus as far as monarch are concerned...,watch this space
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: stockport uk
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PH, it only makes sense to operate a certain type if that type continues to meets you present and future requirements, if it doesnt do that for whatever reason then you need to think about alternatives and the NG has two big attractions over the bus as far as monarch are concerned...,watch this space
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: With Phileas Phogg
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787's way late on delivery and Boeing offering compensation in the way of 'cheep' B737's ? and I believe they go further than the Airbus so no unscheduled tech stops from SSH. Its a rumor network after all.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just heard from a very reliable source that Monarch will be purchasing to more 757's this winter, their not to impressed with the a321's cos they haven't got the range like the 757 has.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
their not to impressed with the a321's cos they haven't got the range like the 757
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just heard from a very reliable source that Monarch will be purchasing to more 757's this winter
Last edited by TSR2; 19th Oct 2010 at 11:35.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much as I love the 757, it can't be denied that the A321 is more suited to most of MON's routes. The APS weight is about 10 tonnes less and it uses about 20-25% less gas to cart 210ish people down to TFS.
Admittedly, the A321 struggles on anything much longer than that, whereas the 757 will happily carry on to places further afield (34 tonnes of fuel on a 757, 19 on a A321 without ACT).
Depends what you want to do with it!
Admittedly, the A321 struggles on anything much longer than that, whereas the 757 will happily carry on to places further afield (34 tonnes of fuel on a 757, 19 on a A321 without ACT).
Depends what you want to do with it!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 321 seems fine for short haul and can do Israel, Sharm (I think) with a centre tank. I remember when Monarch did Ovda ex LTN they useed to file a tech stop, certainly on the way back I think but often didn't use it. It works and offers single type rating with 319/320/330. - the 757 has lost favour somewhat for long range holiday work, as it is less passenger friendly than wide bodies and doesn't really have the range for the Carribean and Mexico.It is ideal for Canada and Sharm etc, and seems to be making something of a comeback, or at least a stay on with Thomson etc.
Are Monarch doing some kind of deal with Boeing though to compensate for the fact that they won't have 787s.
Are Monarch doing some kind of deal with Boeing though to compensate for the fact that they won't have 787s.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are Monarch doing some kind of deal with Boeing though to compensate for the fact that they won't have 787s