Why A320 over 737 for LCC?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Skylab
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like QF may be going Airbus long term anyway Home Brew. A330, A380, A320 - don't think QF will have as varied a fleet as AN in five years.
VTM- it is a big selling point that Airbus have a CCQ and keep everything similar (apart from the amount of thrust levers) right from A319 to A340 and above.
At the Paris airshow this year, just look at how many Airbuse's were sold compared to Boeing?
I just hope that whoever ends up flying them, QF realise that there are experienced AN guys around and that the Nopulse way of desperation is seen as the gutter selling of ones soul that it is.
VTM- it is a big selling point that Airbus have a CCQ and keep everything similar (apart from the amount of thrust levers) right from A319 to A340 and above.
At the Paris airshow this year, just look at how many Airbuse's were sold compared to Boeing?
I just hope that whoever ends up flying them, QF realise that there are experienced AN guys around and that the Nopulse way of desperation is seen as the gutter selling of ones soul that it is.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Von mises,
I agree. Using a non QF type makes it much easier to crew externally.
SWH,
Not sure what relevance there is in the climb perf A320 vs 737. Who cares.
Also, the V2500 can power all narrow busses and the CFM is still avail on new aircraft.
737 NG is fully capable of GPS NPA but CASA are the stumbling block, not the aircraft. CASA still think DC3 mentallity. Idiots.
Home brew,
You don’t get it do you. The new type will not be added to the QF fleet at all. And more importantly, some of the most successful carriers in the world have many types – eg BA.
I agree. Using a non QF type makes it much easier to crew externally.
SWH,
Not sure what relevance there is in the climb perf A320 vs 737. Who cares.
Also, the V2500 can power all narrow busses and the CFM is still avail on new aircraft.
737 NG is fully capable of GPS NPA but CASA are the stumbling block, not the aircraft. CASA still think DC3 mentallity. Idiots.
Home brew,
You don’t get it do you. The new type will not be added to the QF fleet at all. And more importantly, some of the most successful carriers in the world have many types – eg BA.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Next door
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply Superior
If you want the truth, visit both the Boeing and Airbus websites.
The NG has only one advantage, higher service ceiling. Apart from that and with reference to the two websites, the Airbus is by far superior.
Climb performance is irrelevant when you are climbing at a constant mach number (i.e. crz speed).
Apart from all the other advantages already mentioned (lower cost IS an advantage), the cockpit is sensational and the systems are designed for professional pilots, not farmers.
Finally, have you ever heard of a pilot, who has flown the Airbus, say anything other than they "love it"?
The NG has only one advantage, higher service ceiling. Apart from that and with reference to the two websites, the Airbus is by far superior.
Climb performance is irrelevant when you are climbing at a constant mach number (i.e. crz speed).
Apart from all the other advantages already mentioned (lower cost IS an advantage), the cockpit is sensational and the systems are designed for professional pilots, not farmers.
Finally, have you ever heard of a pilot, who has flown the Airbus, say anything other than they "love it"?
Boomerang,
The A319,320,321 first
Max cruise = 487,487,487
Altitude=33000,28000,28000
Fuel consumption(kg/hr)=3160,3200,3550
LRC=446,448,450
Altitude=37000,37000,37000
Fuel consumption(kg/hr)=1980,2100,2100
Range
Max payload=1355, 1637,1955
Max fuel =4158,3672,2602 (hence 319 is better for long overwater)
Fuel/pax/nm (kg)=0.0553,0.0443,0.0465
V2=133,143,143
Vapp=131,134,138
Max. seats (single class)=153,179,220
Two class seating=124,150,186
Max takoff wt=64000,73500,89000
Max payload =17390,19190,22780
Max fuel payload=15360,13500,19060
Hold volume(m^3)=27.00,38.76,51.76
B733,734,738
Note the the 738 is basically a 734 with new wing and engine, similar with the 700 and 733.
Max cruise = 491,492,?
Altitude=26000,26000,?
Fuel consumption(kg/hr)=3890,3307,?
LRC=429, 430, 452
Altitude=35000,35000,39000
Fuel consumption(kg/hr)=2250,2377,2186
Range
Max payload=1578,1950,?
Max fuel =3187,2830, 2927
Fuel/pax/nm (kg)=0.0341,0.0395,0.0465
V2=148,159,?
Vapp=133,138,?
Max. seats (single class)=149, 170, 189
Two class seating=128, 146, 160
Max takoff wt=56470, 62820, 78220
Max payload =16030,17740, 14690
Max fuel payload=8705, 13366, 15921
Hold volume(m^3)=30.20, 38.90, 47.1
Sorry dont have all the numbers, have not had a play with a 737NG.
The Fuel/pax/nm figure, the higher the better, and as you can see the 737NG is about as efficent as a A321. 737NG 189 pax, A321 220 pax.
The airbus has a lower takeoff weight for the number of pax/payload, this gives lower airways and landing charges for a similar sector.
The airbus numbers I have are for the older engines, newer engines are now available which has reduced fuel burns. Also the 321 has mod available for IGW which gives to more range again.
SWH
The A319,320,321 first
Max cruise = 487,487,487
Altitude=33000,28000,28000
Fuel consumption(kg/hr)=3160,3200,3550
LRC=446,448,450
Altitude=37000,37000,37000
Fuel consumption(kg/hr)=1980,2100,2100
Range
Max payload=1355, 1637,1955
Max fuel =4158,3672,2602 (hence 319 is better for long overwater)
Fuel/pax/nm (kg)=0.0553,0.0443,0.0465
V2=133,143,143
Vapp=131,134,138
Max. seats (single class)=153,179,220
Two class seating=124,150,186
Max takoff wt=64000,73500,89000
Max payload =17390,19190,22780
Max fuel payload=15360,13500,19060
Hold volume(m^3)=27.00,38.76,51.76
B733,734,738
Note the the 738 is basically a 734 with new wing and engine, similar with the 700 and 733.
Max cruise = 491,492,?
Altitude=26000,26000,?
Fuel consumption(kg/hr)=3890,3307,?
LRC=429, 430, 452
Altitude=35000,35000,39000
Fuel consumption(kg/hr)=2250,2377,2186
Range
Max payload=1578,1950,?
Max fuel =3187,2830, 2927
Fuel/pax/nm (kg)=0.0341,0.0395,0.0465
V2=148,159,?
Vapp=133,138,?
Max. seats (single class)=149, 170, 189
Two class seating=128, 146, 160
Max takoff wt=56470, 62820, 78220
Max payload =16030,17740, 14690
Max fuel payload=8705, 13366, 15921
Hold volume(m^3)=30.20, 38.90, 47.1
Sorry dont have all the numbers, have not had a play with a 737NG.
The Fuel/pax/nm figure, the higher the better, and as you can see the 737NG is about as efficent as a A321. 737NG 189 pax, A321 220 pax.
The airbus has a lower takeoff weight for the number of pax/payload, this gives lower airways and landing charges for a similar sector.
The airbus numbers I have are for the older engines, newer engines are now available which has reduced fuel burns. Also the 321 has mod available for IGW which gives to more range again.
SWH
Congrats to whoever does end up crewing them!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh,
I've been flying 320s now for 5 years with V2500s. Have I been missing something? Also beg to differ on the T/O wieghts. Having flown about the same time on both types, the T/O weights are typically signicantly higher (comparing 734 to 320) on the 320.
I've been flying 320s now for 5 years with V2500s. Have I been missing something? Also beg to differ on the T/O wieghts. Having flown about the same time on both types, the T/O weights are typically signicantly higher (comparing 734 to 320) on the 320.
I've flown both types and have to say the economics of the A320/321 makes a compelling argument in favour......
Most pilot's enjoy flying the 320, and yes you can disengage the A/P & A/THR and poll the thing, but it'll be in Boeings CWS mode.
Making every pilot a smooth operator , if he/she understands the FBW consept.
At the end of the day accountants don't care, if it's cheap to buy and operate it's the best A/C .
Most pilot's enjoy flying the 320, and yes you can disengage the A/P & A/THR and poll the thing, but it'll be in Boeings CWS mode.
Making every pilot a smooth operator , if he/she understands the FBW consept.
At the end of the day accountants don't care, if it's cheap to buy and operate it's the best A/C .
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those fuel figures look like kg to me ....
propaganda & knackeredII
The MTOW for the busses swh used look like the -100 (basic unmodified) ones to me.
Different buses have different weights, eg
basic 319-100 MTOW is 64t, including mod 27112 gives you 75.5
basic 320-100 MTOW is 68t, for the 320-200 it varies between 73.9t-77.4 t (007,010,and 012)
basic 321-100 83t but varies to 85t (mod 24899), 321-200 81t-93t (mod 28960)
Knackered if your on the V2500 bus, you would have higher MTOWs.
Z
propaganda & knackeredII
The MTOW for the busses swh used look like the -100 (basic unmodified) ones to me.
Different buses have different weights, eg
basic 319-100 MTOW is 64t, including mod 27112 gives you 75.5
basic 320-100 MTOW is 68t, for the 320-200 it varies between 73.9t-77.4 t (007,010,and 012)
basic 321-100 83t but varies to 85t (mod 24899), 321-200 81t-93t (mod 28960)
Knackered if your on the V2500 bus, you would have higher MTOWs.
Z
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the points they made in the meeting over the preferring A320 to 737s are:
* lots of A320 endorsed pilots out there waiting for work
* 737 tapers in at back (?) resulting in it being cramped or smaller at back of a/c..
* Obviously DJ fly 737 so this is something different
* A320 has larger lockers, is an extra foot bigger (widthways) and has the option to have a huge aisle (2 cart size) and small seats (good for really quick turnarounds in terms of boarding etc) or a smaller aisle and bigger seats (comfort for long flights)
there was something else but i cant remember. looks like we will have to wait and see!
* lots of A320 endorsed pilots out there waiting for work
* 737 tapers in at back (?) resulting in it being cramped or smaller at back of a/c..
* Obviously DJ fly 737 so this is something different
* A320 has larger lockers, is an extra foot bigger (widthways) and has the option to have a huge aisle (2 cart size) and small seats (good for really quick turnarounds in terms of boarding etc) or a smaller aisle and bigger seats (comfort for long flights)
there was something else but i cant remember. looks like we will have to wait and see!
swh,
With no offence intended I feel you may have too much time on your hands !!
With no offence intended I feel you may have too much time on your hands !!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously DJ fly 737 so this is something different
The only people interested in the type of aircraft are the accountants and the Pilots.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cairns
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the main reasons they will be going for the A320 is there isnt the risk of the pilots jumping ship to Virgin since Virgin pay suddenly looks great after what the LCC are going to offer. It is a sad day when Virgin pilots are considered highly payed and on a good thing!! Guess the days of good check and training are gone, and the days of paying for your own endorsement are here. Sound familar!
Somehow I dont think you will find ex-pat A320 drivers busting to get home for the money on offer.
Somehow I dont think you will find ex-pat A320 drivers busting to get home for the money on offer.
Engine choice will be very intersting - CFM already long established in QF fleet but the V2500 selected for ANZ's new busses.
BTW - both engine choices available for A321's contrary to earlier post.
BTW - both engine choices available for A321's contrary to earlier post.