Max 7/319 neo vs CS, etc.
03-31-2018, 08:17 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
Here's what a A321 NEO (CFM Leap 1A 35K thrust) can do on LAX JFK. At the mid point we were burning 2700/hr per side, slightly more than a regular A319. My only gripe is the same as the old 321, not enough wing = down in the low to mid 30s the whole way. We stayed at FL350 the whole way as I was not willing to endure the east coast chop this week with a 20 knot margin at 370. After the usual tour of NYC we landed with 9K fuel. We had every seat full, 185 pax.
A NEO 319/320 would be hard to beat on trip fuel.
A NEO 319/320 would be hard to beat on trip fuel.
We already missed that boat. In CAL mgmts efforts to kill something they didn’t understand (the Bus), they allowed everyone and their mother to pile in NEO orders ahead of us. Then Znotins and the rest of that brain trust decided the Guppy was the better deal. Couple years later here we are buying every used 319/320 we can get our hands on and deferring guppies. Just like every other desicion that mgmt era made, it was the wrong one.
03-31-2018, 12:56 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 291
Have you seen the E2-195? It's 120 PAX in three-class config. It's really much longer and more efficient than the E190s of today...United could very well unlock more 70+ seat RJs and close a gap in their fleet by bringing on the E2-195.
Then, when Bombardier-Airbus decides to stretch out the C-Series, United can start replacing the smaller Busses and older Guppies with a huge order for the stretched-out C-Series...
[But in the meantime, they will certainly play Bombardier and Embraer against each other as if it were an either-or game.]
Then, when Bombardier-Airbus decides to stretch out the C-Series, United can start replacing the smaller Busses and older Guppies with a huge order for the stretched-out C-Series...
[But in the meantime, they will certainly play Bombardier and Embraer against each other as if it were an either-or game.]
03-31-2018, 06:27 PM
#14
Stuck Mic
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,059
Well at least we get to fly planes that are 2 position tail draggers, and now have a special spoiler function to not rip the nose gear off. Not to mention a bore scope requirement if you manually put the generators on after engine start. Did I say “manually” put the generators on? Yep.....
03-31-2018, 09:55 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 280
Just jumpseated on a Mesa 175 and the F/O mentioned that they're handing out 300% add pay for guys to pick up some trips. If true, where exactly is the cost savings to United for outsourcing vs. in-house staffing?
04-01-2018, 05:43 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
United is paying a flat rate for Mesa so Mesa itself is eating that extra cost our of their profit margin on the contract.
04-01-2018, 05:44 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Well at least we get to fly planes that are 2 position tail draggers, and now have a special spoiler function to not rip the nose gear off. Not to mention a bore scope requirement if you manually put the generators on after engine start. Did I say “manually” put the generators on? Yep.....
04-01-2018, 07:00 AM
#19
Stuck Mic
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,059
Yep, the nosegear on the max has been lengthened. The 737NG has been stretched so much it now has to be flown much faster than required on approach to give a margin for the tail to not scrape. Now the Max has a 2 position tail scraper and a much higher potential for 3 point landings or worse.
Now there is nose gear protection logic incorporated thanks to the larger engines and required clearance for those big fancy motors.
And now those big fancy motors take much longer to start, stabilize, and if the generators are turned on too quickly, the engine shuts down and requires a borescope.
Oh and if you thought you struggled getting down from altitude and making crossing restrictions with the NG, the max is much cleaner and has multiple engine idle speeds and requires an earlier descent or you will basically always be descending with speed brakes out.
Now there is nose gear protection logic incorporated thanks to the larger engines and required clearance for those big fancy motors.
And now those big fancy motors take much longer to start, stabilize, and if the generators are turned on too quickly, the engine shuts down and requires a borescope.
Oh and if you thought you struggled getting down from altitude and making crossing restrictions with the NG, the max is much cleaner and has multiple engine idle speeds and requires an earlier descent or you will basically always be descending with speed brakes out.
04-01-2018, 08:01 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 872
Yep, the nosegear on the max has been lengthened. The 737NG has been stretched so much it now has to be flown much faster than required on approach to give a margin for the tail to not scrape. Now the Max has a 2 position tail scraper and a much higher potential for 3 point landings or worse.
Now there is nose gear protection logic incorporated thanks to the larger engines and required clearance for those big fancy motors.
And now those big fancy motors take much longer to start, stabilize, and if the generators are turned on too quickly, the engine shuts down and requires a borescope.
Oh and if you thought you struggled getting down from altitude and making crossing restrictions with the NG, the max is much cleaner and has multiple engine idle speeds and requires an earlier descent or you will basically always be descending with speed brakes out.
Now there is nose gear protection logic incorporated thanks to the larger engines and required clearance for those big fancy motors.
And now those big fancy motors take much longer to start, stabilize, and if the generators are turned on too quickly, the engine shuts down and requires a borescope.
Oh and if you thought you struggled getting down from altitude and making crossing restrictions with the NG, the max is much cleaner and has multiple engine idle speeds and requires an earlier descent or you will basically always be descending with speed brakes out.
Agreed on what you said but the 900er has a two position tail skid already. T/O and Landing. I read somewhere that the 800sfp has a two position tail skid also but honestly, I read that on the inter webs so... To me it sounds like the max is gonna be a drag. Lol.
Where did you read that engines require a borescope if you put the gens on before “stabilized”?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
