Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:38 From: email@example.com (James Matthew Weber) References: 1 2 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
On 18 Aug 98 01:04:30, jla wrote: >I have discussed this with several friends, all of us UA employees. The >logical assumption we have come to is that the A319/320 aircraft were >purchased to replace some 727-200/737-300/500 and 757 aircraft on specific >routes (in addition to replacing aircraft pulled to make up the Shuttle >fleet). > >The Airbus aircraft are faster than the 737's, very fuel-efficient (much >moreso than the 727), and have a longer range than the 737's or 727's. >However they have less capacity than the 757, making them ideal to use in >markets where lower capacity is needed, or higher frequency (thus leading to >a lower demand for the increased capacity on the larger craft) is desired. >The A319 configuration is the same as the 737-300, while the A320 is almost >identical to the 727-200. With all due respect, this is the proverbial apples and oranges. You are comparing the 737-200/300 and 727-200 to the A320, which is a much later aircraft. The 737-200 was current in the 1960's and 70's, the -300's entered service about 1980. I think the 727 was out of production well before the first A320 flew. If you would like to compare the A320 to the 737-NG, I think you will find the 737-NG actually flies a good faster than the A320, has longer range than the A320, and is probably at least as fuel efficient. The -600 to -900 range covers wider range of capacities than the A319-A321.