> My understanding was that the new, IGW A321 solved the transcon US > problem. The IGW A321 was supposed to solve the transcon requirement, but as the auto dealers like to say, "your actual mileage my vary." US's A321 do pretty well in transcon operation, but when the summer temperatures exceed 100 degrees F out in LAS they can not always use the usual active runway and must wait (up to 30 mins. sometimes) to use the longest available. I agree with BAHA when he says the JFK-SEA leg is probably too long for the A321, at least during the winter when the head winds can be pretty bad. >The A321 ought to be a capable competitor of the 757 for > use in the 48 states by US airlines. In some respects the A321 is a good competitor, but in terms of takeoff performance, range and payload the 757 is really in a class all by itself.