From: glockner-gregory@CS.YALE.EDU (Gregory Glockner)
Subject: Re: United drops 737-400 in favor of A-320
Followup-To: myself
Summary: Just the facts, ma'am
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:42:11 GMT

I don't like being corrected when I am not in error.  Rather than argue this
back and forth, I went upstairs to the FAA library and got facts about the
A320/B727/B737.

rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>glockner-gregory@CS.YALE.EDU (Gregory Glockner) writes:
>
>>2. Range.  The A320 can fly longer routes than any of the 737
>
>Not really.  It appears to be able to fly them cheaper, though.

Wrong.  The A320 has both better range and better costs.

Aircraft	Range			Source	Page
A319		2000 nm, 2800 nm	1	37
A320		2870 nm			2	116
A321		2390 nm			2	116

B737-300	1563 nm, 2457 nm	2	374
B737-400	2160 nm, 2500 nm	2	375
B737-500	(*)

(*) I could not find data for the 737-500; it has a very small entry in 
    Jane's.

Sources: 

1: Aviation Week and Space Technology, July 13, 1992
2: _Jane's_All_the_World's_Aircraft_1990-91_ (81st Ed.)

Clearly, the A320 series has better range.  The souble numbers indicate that
some models are available with different engine or fuel tank configurations.

As for the costs, well, these vary by airline, but AW&ST writes:
  "According to Airbus Industrie's calculations, the A319 direct operating 
   costs (DOC) should be eight percent above those of the larger A320, but 
   slightly below those of the Boeing 737-300 .... The consortium's 
   management claims that the McDonnell Douglas MD-87's DOCs are 15% higher
   than those of the A319."  (AW&ST, op cit.)

>>3. Capacity.  I've heard that UAL wants to use the A320s to replace their
>>   large fleet of 727s.  727s, like A320s, have much greater capacity than
>>   any of the 737 family, including 737-300, -400.
>
>Nope.  The -400 approaches the 727; the A320 approaches the -500 (i.e.,
>a -200 :-)).  The A320 is a 100-140-seater, the 727-200 a 180-seater.  Now, 
>the A321, maybe...  Or maybe an A320 against a 727-100.

Again, wrong.  The A320 family is clearly larger than the B737 family.

Two Class Seating Capacities

Aircraft	Total		Source		Page
A319		124		1		37
A320		150		1		37
A321		186		1		37

B727-100	108 (12/96)	3		B34
B727-200	147 (12/135)	3		B34

B737-300	128 (8/120)	3		B34
B737-400	146 (8/138)	3		B38 (*)
B737-500	108 (8/100)	3		B35

Sources: 

1: Aviation Week and Space Technology, July 13, 1992
3: Official Airline Guide Desktop Flight Guide, North American Edition, 
   July 1992

For the Boeing airplanes, I looked up the capacities for United's planes (e.g.
United's configuration).  Since United does not currently fly the 737-300,
that figure represents USAir's planes.  The small number is first class, the 
larger number is coach.

In effect, the capacities are as follows:

        v                                 v
100              120              140              160              180
        ^              | ^                ^ |                               |

        v: 727 family
        ^: 737 family
        |: A320 family

Since United is concerned with replacing their 727's (mostly -200's), the A320
remains a very good choice.


As for the A321 and A319, they are not yet in production, but I'm sure Airbus
will be ready to deliver A319's and A321's by the time United's order is to be
filled.

For those that don't know, the A319 is a shortened version of the A320, and
the A321 is a lengthened version.  The A321 is lengthened via fuselage plugs;
it is otherwise very similar.


Finally, the A320 has one other benefit over the 737: they share a common crew
configuration with the A330 and A340; crews may be retrained for these jumbo
jets very quickly.  Thus, every A320 sale is even more more important to
Airbus in that it means a possibility of future sales of A330/A340.

(Boeing did the same thing with the 757/767)


Okay, with all that jabbering out of the way, I think it is important to
stress that, while Airbus is making excellent planes, there is a very touchy
issue here for the American aircraft manufaturers.  Boeing is America's
largest exporter, and advances by Airbus hurt both Boeing and Douglas.
Meanwhile, there is great controversy about the huge European government
subsidies to the Airbus Industrie consortium.

I'm hardly a protectionist, but I think that the U.S. government should play
hardball with Airbus... Airbus is clearly a viable company now and no longer
needs the subsidies; remove them or else!

(Of course, the Europeans counter that the U.S. Defense industry is really a
subsidy for the commercial aircraft manufacturers.  I think that is more true
with Douglas than with Boeing).
-- 
Gregory Glockner				Work: 202-267-3924
 Past:     Yale, '92				Home: 202-333-2454
 Present:  FAA, AOR-200		    	   On second thought, let's not go to
 Future:   ISyE, Georgia Tech (Phd 97)	   Camelot ... it's a silly place!