B757 vs A321
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Over the clouds
Age: 65
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the main difference between them is that the b757 is out of production. I don’t know if there are too many spare parts in the market today, but there are speculative companies specialized on buying big amounts of spare parts to raise the price. The FM computers are old and slow. The A321 use cargo pallets. It doesn’t mean that manual load of the cargo is less efficient than pallets system, but need special machinery different from the rest of airplanes and that means money to a company. B757 may fly ETOPS, the new BA company 757 all business fly that. I have heard from the engineers that flights less than 2 and a half hours the A321 is cheaper in terms of petrol than the B757. Further that time B757 is more efficient, but I have flown the B757 in 1 hour flights and found it is more a question to get the clearance to climb to the optimal, usually 370, 380 or 390.Flying the 757 is easy when you get used to the beast. It permits you almost everything. You can land and TO in very short rwys and I have landed on airports where the A321 were missing the app due to the turbulence. The B757 cockpit is big, ergonomic and very well ventilated.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put SASKATOON9999 spot on, yes the A321 is by far the cheapest to operate, but it has range and performance problem that the B757 does not.
I am told we currently operate the A320 into GIB, have and can in the past the B757, but if we used the A321 we would have to operate half empty to get out.
I am told we currently operate the A320 into GIB, have and can in the past the B757, but if we used the A321 we would have to operate half empty to get out.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: MIDDLE EAST
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A321 was an stretched version of an A320 designed for short sectors with high volume (read Europe only ), if you have this type of market it would be very good.
But if you use it on routes longer than 3 hrs. the altitude capability on a heavy load is poor (310 to 340 the most) so this will have an impact on fuel flow.
757 has the flexibility to be operated on short sectors with a fuel penalty certainly, but will be able to operate in a lot more demanding environtment, longer routes,high altitude etc.... It is a shame that it came at a wrong time a 757 airframe with newer engines would have done a great airplane....
My vote goes to 757 (of course I am a pilot, not an accountant)
But if you use it on routes longer than 3 hrs. the altitude capability on a heavy load is poor (310 to 340 the most) so this will have an impact on fuel flow.
757 has the flexibility to be operated on short sectors with a fuel penalty certainly, but will be able to operate in a lot more demanding environtment, longer routes,high altitude etc.... It is a shame that it came at a wrong time a 757 airframe with newer engines would have done a great airplane....
My vote goes to 757 (of course I am a pilot, not an accountant)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: FRANCE
Age: 55
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company operates both types, and both have their merits. Firstly, we do not use pallets in our A321's so loading is not an issue. In fact the a/c is lower which means that loading can be easier.
There was an addage amongst the 757 pilots " you earn it, we burn it!" The 75's fuel burn to the canaries was the same as our total fuel; ok they took 18 more passengers. I believe Qatar airways have ETOPS clearance foer their A321's.
There are still a lot of old polluting 75's around because they are cheap. Many companies will start looking at; if they are not already, replacing their 75's as carbon charges are introduced.
The 75 was a great aircraft in its hayday, but it is nnow getting a little bit un political in todays greener climate.
There was an addage amongst the 757 pilots " you earn it, we burn it!" The 75's fuel burn to the canaries was the same as our total fuel; ok they took 18 more passengers. I believe Qatar airways have ETOPS clearance foer their A321's.
There are still a lot of old polluting 75's around because they are cheap. Many companies will start looking at; if they are not already, replacing their 75's as carbon charges are introduced.
The 75 was a great aircraft in its hayday, but it is nnow getting a little bit un political in todays greener climate.
What Mach Number does the A321 cruise at? I remember the B757, even with C engines, was faster than the A320 when it first entered service in 1983.
Slightly slower then NVpilot. Depending on C.I. we cruised at between .795 and .815. Must admit we went a bit faster when crossing the Atlantic in the later ETOPS aircraft, but fuel was much cheaper then!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me the '75 was always the best. Not flown the 321 but my fellow 'bus drivers have and do. No power, kept down low in the 30's in the weather. Hot brakes, poor field length performance. And then the '75, ok burns a load of gas, but!! Shed loads of power, great handling, no going south in ACE cause of obsticle limits for the airbus clan. Can do a 6 hour sector, full pax, regardless of temp (ish) Bravo bravo for my old love!!
Times are a changing though, not the type to have when gas is at record levels. Did I just say that?? Bugger....
Times are a changing though, not the type to have when gas is at record levels. Did I just say that?? Bugger....
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flown around the world in a VIP config'd 757 & it's versatility is something the A321 could never compete with. The 757 can make money on a 35 minute sector from (for example) LHR-MAN, then after a turnaround can carry a full load from MAN-YYZ for 7-7:30 across the Atlantic.
Also operated from Umea, Northern Sweden in winter to the Canary Islands DIRECT whilst sub'ing for an A321 operator that had 1,sometimes 2 ,techstops built in to the schedule. Consequently operating direct saved 2 hours & 3,000+ kgs of fuel.
Ironically, I've flown the A332 which I think is something akin to a 'Widebodied' 757 in terms of performance.
I've got 1,500+ hours on A332/A340 & 6,500 hours on B757/767 & the 757 will always be my favourite.
I was at the Boeing factory at Everett a couple of months ago & the Boeing reps' were saying they have enquiries galore from ex-757 customers asking if Boeing regret closing the production line. It's such a pity airline accountants don't consider versatility as an asset.
Also operated from Umea, Northern Sweden in winter to the Canary Islands DIRECT whilst sub'ing for an A321 operator that had 1,sometimes 2 ,techstops built in to the schedule. Consequently operating direct saved 2 hours & 3,000+ kgs of fuel.
Ironically, I've flown the A332 which I think is something akin to a 'Widebodied' 757 in terms of performance.
I've got 1,500+ hours on A332/A340 & 6,500 hours on B757/767 & the 757 will always be my favourite.
I was at the Boeing factory at Everett a couple of months ago & the Boeing reps' were saying they have enquiries galore from ex-757 customers asking if Boeing regret closing the production line. It's such a pity airline accountants don't consider versatility as an asset.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere in the Tropics UTC+7 to 9
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My vote goes to 757 (of course I am a pilot, not an accountant)
Until (maybe already) the margins are eroded completely by the fuel prices, the 757 is still the choice. And finance managers love it, but the accountants hate it.
If only the 757 flies where I am, heaps of possibilities that the 321 couldn't match. But then, the guys giving out the airport expansion tenders are having a nice time because the 757 never made it here.
PK-KAR
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: england
Age: 47
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for bumping this thread back up, but........
Isn't using an A321 compared to a B757 a little unfair?
The A321 was never built to compete with the 757, if anything the A321 is more alighned to the B737-900 (non ER)
Isn't using an A321 compared to a B757 a little unfair?
The A321 was never built to compete with the 757, if anything the A321 is more alighned to the B737-900 (non ER)
the ICON
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread. I wonder if Boeing will come up with a 757-X or similar in the future? Think about it - lots of airlines are now doing or have talked about point to point crossings across the pond with 757's from places like MAN, BRS, LPL, NCL etc. There's not enough demand to fill a 767, 777 or A330on these routes and the 757 is the only one for the job. As these aircraft are retired, they'll be impossible to replace with anything currently in existence.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but my fellow 'bus drivers have and do. No power, kept down low in the 30's in the weather. Hot brakes, poor field length performance.
Had a friend of a friend who once flew an Airbus bla bla bla..
