Re: UA A321 ?

Date:         23 Aug 98 14:33:42 
From:         "Martin Chiew" <martinchiew@one.net.au>
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

James Matthew Weber wrote in message ...
>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.

Sorry to say, but in terms of speed, the 737NG being faster than the A320 is
a load of Rubbish.  The A320 cruises at M0.8 as opposed to the 737NG which
cruises at M0.785.  More closer to the A320's league is the 737-300 which in
Australia cruises at 0.74 as opposed to the A320's M0.8.  On a typical run
to Perth, an Ansett Australia Airbus A320-211 carrying about 144 passengers
can outrun a Qantas Boeing 737-400.  It cruises higher, is much more
comfortable, is faster (0.80 vs 0.74) and consumes less fuel, while carrying
10 or more passengers + cargo.

Even for the A320 to be still comparable with the 737NG and probably be more
efficient is quite an achievement, for an aircraft which is ~9 years older.