Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Delta's first stretched-out Airbus A321 jet debuts in Minneapolis (Photos)
Delta Air Lines Inc.'s first stretched-out Airbus A321 passenger jet will land in the U.S. for the first time at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Thursday night. (www.bizjournals.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Aircraft is not equipped with HF radio so it had to stay in VHF coverage hence it was close to land at all times. It also is not ETOPS certified.
CJ, I'm not sure where you got your information that the jet didn't have HF capability (either in the comm package installed or a temporary unit for the crossing), but having flown above that route in 767 and on it in a privately owned turboprop, you cannot maintain VHF communications. Also, ETOPS applies to that jet operating on a revenue flight for Delta which this wasn't.
My airline has ferried jets over ETOPS routes when needed in compliance with the FAR's. Also, I remember reading over the past year or so that a U.S. carrier's flight crew flew an non-ETOPS jet from the West Coast to Hawaii by mistake (oops! Time for a rug dance with the chief pilot). The airline had to ferry it back to the mainland because it couldn't legally be used in revenue service.
My airline has ferried jets over ETOPS routes when needed in compliance with the FAR's. Also, I remember reading over the past year or so that a U.S. carrier's flight crew flew an non-ETOPS jet from the West Coast to Hawaii by mistake (oops! Time for a rug dance with the chief pilot). The airline had to ferry it back to the mainland because it couldn't legally be used in revenue service.
He got it from the article where it says that (slide 20) "Delta's new Airbus A321 flew to the U.S. via Iceland and Canada because it lacks high-frequency radios for cross-oceanic communications, so it had to fly near shorter-range radio stations to relay messages between the crew and Delta dispatchers."
Good catch, I didn't read all the descriptions under the pics. Thanks.
interesting. But, why land twice en-route?
The A321 may use less gas than a 757, however, it has several shortfalls.
1) It is based on the A320, same engines, wings, with 30,000 more lbs of basic empty weight, limiting its performance both in altitude and cargo hauling. On our flights between Denver and the East Coast, it often is on a weight restriction and limited to FL 290-FL 320. It's not uncommon to see A321's with minor hail damage on the nose, engine nacelles and leading edge of wings.
2) The 757 is a unique airframe onto its own, with wings for it's own design, highly efficient, capable of flying at FL 330 on initial climb on a coast to coast flight. It can carry way more cargo than the A321 and can fly the long thin routes like DEN to REK in Iceland, non-stop. Could the A321 do that? I don't see any planes on routes like that.
1) It is based on the A320, same engines, wings, with 30,000 more lbs of basic empty weight, limiting its performance both in altitude and cargo hauling. On our flights between Denver and the East Coast, it often is on a weight restriction and limited to FL 290-FL 320. It's not uncommon to see A321's with minor hail damage on the nose, engine nacelles and leading edge of wings.
2) The 757 is a unique airframe onto its own, with wings for it's own design, highly efficient, capable of flying at FL 330 on initial climb on a coast to coast flight. It can carry way more cargo than the A321 and can fly the long thin routes like DEN to REK in Iceland, non-stop. Could the A321 do that? I don't see any planes on routes like that.