Back to Squawk list
  • 3

Viewpoint: Airbus Should Build A Truly Long-Range 757 Replacement

제출됨
 
As a pilot for US Airways, I always believed there had to be a better way for single-aisle aircraft to fly long distances. I used to fly the Airbus A321 from Philadelphia (PHL) to Los Angeles (LAX) and San Francisco (SFO), but even with two auxiliary center tanks, the A321's advertised range of 3,000 nm (2,400 nm useful range) limited it to only transcontinental flights. I also flew the Boeing 757 from Brussels (BRU) to PHL many times, taking off with a full load of fuel, passengers and… (aviationweek.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


preacher1
As much as I like the 757 in the looks and power department, as with any aircraft of it's time, the long haul market has pretty much navigated away from single aisle. Domestic routes will stretch the limits, but whether time is about the same or not between many points, there is something about going across the pond in a single aisle that turns people off. You can get by with it JFK to LAX but though it will make it in fine style, JFK to LHR will eventually bite you in the butt.I think this is evidenced by the 767 and now it's looming retirement and the market takeover of the 777 and it's airbus competitor.
WtfWtf
WtfWtf 1
Lack of Lavs, room to pass people and stretch your legs are reasons why only wide body planes should be used for anything over 6 hours.

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료