Re: UA A321 ?

Date:         25 Aug 98 00:53:25 
From:         Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
References:   1 2 3 4
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1998.1292@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Larry Sakurai <medfordite@email.msn.com> wrote:
>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 ...
>
>>  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 ...
>
>Not only that, even the old 200s cruise faster than the A320s.  They were
>designed at a time when speed was a bigger issue than it is today.  I don't
>know how the fuel economy of the 737 NGs stack up to the A320s, but with
>their newer wings and powerplants, I would imagine they're pretty
>competitive.

I would think so.  However, I was surprised when I read an IAE
(International Aero Engines, maker of the V2500 engines) newsletter
that one of the major factors that A320/V2500 was chosen by LanChile,
TACA and TAM was because even the new generation B737s have serious
take-off weight limitation at high altitudes.