B757 vs A321
 

WHich are the fmain difference and which is more efficient??
Which do you prefer??

Hola

How old is the newest 757?

age was not the point

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.

well ppppilot.. I guess the first point goes to B757.. let see the rest of the crew...

B757=43000 lbs per engine

A321=33000-35000 lbs per engine

...and the winner is????:}

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.

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)

thanks for the replies

but considering fuel

how is the fuel flow between 57 and 321?

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.

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.

We cruise the bus at .79, nice cockpit, very stable, makes you look good on landing, 93 Tonne MTOW.

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!

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....

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.
:ok:

Accountants love the 321 coz its... cheap... so it's good if you're just looking at the cost front... However, revenue is where you get your money. 321 has "unbeatable costs", but the 757's revenue gaining capability is on a different league to the 321... ie: it depends where you want to fly those planes to.

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

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)

Greetings,

and the B757 to replace the very best of Boeing, the B727 :cool: the ICON

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.

Spoken like someone who has never flown an Airbus! :ugh:

Had a friend of a friend who once flew an Airbus bla bla bla..:rolleyes:

I'm on a proper Airbus my friend. A330. I wont stoop to insulting levels.

757 re-engined with GTF - 15% reduction in fuel burn (at least), be a great aircraft. On the other hand, Airbus could do the same with the A321 . . .

757 re-engined with GTF - 15% reduction in fuel burn (at least), be a great aircraft. On the other hand, Airbus could do the same with the A321 .

I think a new center section, wing box wing (CRFP), engines and engines on a stretched A320 ould produce a very potent 757/A310/767-200 replacement..

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1218885995

It could become a sub series with trans continental / trans atlantic capability combined with the wider A320 cabin & cargo container capability. Maybe up to 280 seats..

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1218886159

keesje- I like seeing your designs, but I can tell you that wing is far too small, and the sweepback is not nearly enough. Tailplane also too small. But the idea is good. A stretched A321 with a new large wing (like the 757), or just a root section added, and far more powerful engines- a sort of mini-787. As the 757s are getting so old, it would be a market killer! Unfortunately, the only replacement for a 757 is....a 757. Because of it's power and large wing, it is a strong performer on long range routes that the 321 just can't handle.

From a purely aesthetic point of view, it has to be the 757, especially on the ground. One of the best looking airliners of all time, in my opinion.

In our outfit, A321 v 757, 757 uses ~20% extra fuel for same payload / route, and might save a minute or 2 on timing (up to, say 2:30 legs).

Go further afield, and the 757 starts becoming effective, and the A321 limiting.

Of course the 757 is more fun to fly etc, but the bean counters, Swampy, and the SLF who pay the fares are not really too interested in that :(

NoD

I have been flying the 75 / 67 for the last 11 years and totally agree everything positive already said about the 75 except.. someone mentioned 'well ventilated'

More like, bloody draughty, way too much air blowing around the cockpit (also increasing the noise level substantially)

While I'm on negative characteristics must mention the poor ride in turbulence and the 'dead spot' in pitch during rotation and landing.

Make no mistake, I think it's a great ship, but could have been a little better, more like the...76 !

76 is a lovely machine, my only criticism is that forward trailing landing gear.

Lol it's the only way the gear would fit into the wheel wells!

that wing is far too small, and the sweepback is not nearly enough. Tailplane also too small.

Rainboe, yhnx for yr comments, you could be right. For reference is I showed to following design with a different cockpit section I feel most people would say it has a unrealistic small wing. I would feel so too..

http://www.757.org.uk/spec/images/753doors.gif

its 5 meters longer then the proposed A325..

SIA liked the 757 very much as a performer but dumped it in favour of the A310 because the 757 was only a single aisle machine and the A310 was not only dual aisle but could take containers. Doubt if an A321 could do Bahrain to EGWW non-stop with a full load?

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

A different configuration or just the wrong scale of wing to airframe Rainboe? The two appear, at least without measuring them, to be the same to me. Now where's me glasses!

Regards

The point you are all missing is that Airbus pilots are quality people; those from the B team are so common.

Hmmm Cat meet Pigeons me thinks....!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz

With the right winds, I've twice operated the 757 from Orlando to MAN nonstop. Both times with a full house in charter (233Y) config. Great machine, hope I'm still flying it when I retire.

763 Jock - Very true! Only problem I've had whilst doing the same is taking off at MTOW out of MCO or SFB, planned for the uk, then not getting the winds and being over weight for Goose or Gander to put more gas on. Bugger! Hands tied for a while! That said, yep I love the 75 still...

I also think that 38 m wingspan is unduly restrictive.

Consider the existing big narrowbodies:

Airbus 321: wingspan 34,1 m, area 123 sq. m, MTOW up to 93 t.

Boeing 737-900: wingspan 34,3 m, area 125 sq. m, MTOW up to 79 t.

Boeing 757-300: wingspan 38 m, area 185 sq. m, MTOW up to 122 t.

Tupolev Tu-154M: wingspan 37,6 m, area 202 sq. m, MTOW up to 100 t.

Tupolev Tu-204-220: wingspan 41,8 m, area 182 sq. m, MTOW up to 111 t.

Boeing 707-120B: wingspan 39,9 m, area 226 sq. m, MTOW up to 117 t.

Boeing 707-320B: wingspan 44,4 m, area 283 sq. m, MTOW up to 151 t.

Douglas DC-8-73: wingspan 45,2 m, area 272 sq. m, MTOW up to 162 t.

Vickers VC-10: wingspan 44,6 m, area 272 sq. m, MTOW up to 152 t.

Ilyushin Il-62MK: wingspan 43,2 m, wing area 280 sq. m, MTOW up to 167 t.

For comparison, some small widebodies:

Lockheed Tristar-1: wingspan 47,3 m, wing area 320 sq. m, MTOW up to 195 t.

Airbus A300B2-200: wingspan 44,8 m, wing area 260 sq. m, MTOW 142 t; A300B4-200 MTOW up to 165 t.

Airbus A310-200: wingspan 43,9 m, wing area 219 sq. m, MTOW 142 t; A310-300 MTOW up to 165 t.

Boeing 767-200: wingspan 47,6 m, wing area 283 sq. m, MTOW 136 to 143 t; 767-200ER MTOW up to 176 t.

Ilyushin Il-86: wingspan 48,1 m, wing area 320 sq. m, MTOW 208 t.

So, summing up: what do you think would be the most efficient way to design an airplane with 120...150 t MTOW and 200...250 seats? A short widebody, like A300/A310/B767 non-ER, or a long narrowbody like 757-300/DC-8-61/63?

Greetings,

Nice drawings, however if airbus wants to change the Avionics, i.e., Displays, screens, plus fitting of an EFB class 3, they will have to redesign the Nose :}

FANTOM
I flew Both Boeing and Airbus, Boeing is Practical Pilot oriented, Airbus is unnecesseraly sophisticated Engineers oriented :ok:

Airbus for quality people :confused: I doubt it, if it was the case then why all those Flight protections :ouch: BTW can you sideslip an Airbus in cross wind :confused: No so you are left with one method only Decrab :ouch:
Boeing for Common Pilots :confused: I doubt it, Boeing for practical people YES :ok:BTW can you sideslip a B767 YES ,and if you want you can still use Decrab :rolleyes:
I leaving the A330 fleet after three years and moving to the B777, I tell you what, I am counting the minutes :)

I rest my case and wish you best luck.