Hello and welcome to my Burton Flight Attendant review.
In this review I will take a look at the Flight Attendant as a Freeride snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Flight Attendant a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other freeride snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Burton Family Tree Flight Attendant
Price: $609
Style: Freeride
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating Score: 87.5/100
Compared to other Men’s Freeride Boards
Out of the 35 men’s freeride snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Flight Attendant’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Flight Attendant’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | Freeride |
Price: | $609 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Medium-Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Setback 35mm |
Base: | Sintered WFO |
Weight: | Normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
152 | 250 | 120-180 | 54-82 |
156 | 254 | 150-200 | 68-91 |
159 | 256 | 150-200 | 68-91 |
162 | 258 | 180-260 | 82-118 |
168 | 265 | 180-260 | 82-118 |
156W | 262 | 150-200 | 68-91 |
159W | 264 | 150-200 | 68-91 |
162W | 266 | 180-260 | 82-118 |
* Note that all sizes now have a wider waist from the 2022 model and on.
Who is the Flight Attendant Most Suited To?
The Flight Attendant is great for those that like to carve up groomers and also like it steep and deep - but want something that's not ultra stiff - still some amount of forgiveness there.
Also great for those that like to get a little freestyle from time to time (not for learning freestyle for sure, but for advanced riders).
Not a beginner board by any means - too stiff and too much camber to be beginner friendly.
The Flight Attendant in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Flight Attendant is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Burton Flight Attendant 2020, 156cm (248mm waist width)
Date: April 14, 2019
Conditions:
Great vis first thing but started closing in and then snowing 10:30. Then on and off throughout the day. But vis was never terrible – in patches good and in patches OK.
Groomers were quite smooth and fast, especially compared to the day before, which was nice.
Nothing crazy in terms of fresh snow, but 1cm (0.5") overnight and few more than that in the days leading up - some fresh patches still to be found.
Relatively cold with a little wind, but not much - wind not as strong and not quite as cold as the day before. -4 with wind. Still pretty cold for April 14th!
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 560mm (22″)
Stance Setback: Setback 35mm
Width at Inserts: 258mm (10.16") at front insert and 257mm (10.12") at back insert
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 185lbs
Rider Boot Size: US10 Vans Aura
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Powder
From the little bit of fresh I had, it felt like the FA would float really well in powder. And that's not surprising, given the taper, setback, the generous amount of rocker in the nose - and the longer nose.
Carving & Turning
Carving: This board carves like a dream. It's got plenty of camber and spring - and is stiff enough without being oppressively stiff.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: I was riding the 156, where I would ideally be on the 159, so maybe more agile at slower speeds because of that (though I have ridden the 159 in the past), but it was relatively agile at slow speeds, more so than I would expect from this level of stiffness. I think part of that comes down to a relatively narrow waist. But overall prefers speed over going slow.
Skidded Turns: Pretty unforgiving of skidded turns. Feels much better when you're up on edge. That said, I've ridden boards that are harder to skid turns on too.
Speed
Even on the 156 it feels super stable and smooth at speed. The 159 would be even better. That, and based on riding the 159 in the 2017 model, this board rips at speed.
Uneven Terrain
Goes pretty well when things get bumpy or cruddy. Nimble enough for weaving and damp enough going over - and with enough forgiveness. Very consistent over a variety of terrain.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Jumps
Overall a good board for jumping for this category. I always prefer something a little softer and more two-ended, but the FA does a pretty good job here.
Pop: It's got great pop. Some of that pop is fairly easily accessible - but if you load it up, there's more that can be accessed.
Approach: Really stable and whilst not the most agile board you'll ever ride, it's agile enough.
Landing: Really solid/stable with just a hint of forgiveness.
Side-hits: Not the worst for sidehits and not the best either.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Definitely more of a big jump kind of board. Certainly medium jumps fine but L to XL is it's forte. More for straight air than spins.
Switch
It's doable for riding switch. But definitely not ideal. It's tapered, the camber is directional (as in rocker in the nose but not in the tail) and it's setback quite a bit.
Spins
Not ideal for spinning. Felt like it took some effort to get the spin around. Relatively stiff torsionally. And landing and taking off switch not great. It's doable but average for spins, IMO.
Butters
Not that buttery. There is a little bit of flex tip and tail, but not that much. Takes quite a bit of effort to butter on.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.0 | 20/25 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
CARVING | 4.5 | 13.5/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 87.5/100 |
Overall, The Flight Attendant is a great Freeride option - especially for those that want something stiffer than medium, but not ultra-stiff.
It's quite versatile and isn't just a bomb, carve, float board - but those are the areas where it excels the most.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you’re interested in learning more about the Flight Attendant or want to research current prices and availability, check out the links below.
If you want to check out some other freeride options or see how the FA compares to other freeride decks check out the next link.
Hello and welcome to my Burton Flight Attendant review.
Hi there ! First I really appreciate you answering to all those comments. It’s rarely seen. And your website is great.
Anyhow, i’m on a bit of a fence. I’m 180cm (5’11”) tall and around 80g (150lbs) and 12 boots (45-46EU) – yes, huge boots =)
I’ve been riding the 2015 custom 158 wide, but while it was good at the beginning now that I’ve learned to carve there’s too much toe overhang for really carving properly. If I understand correctly, the newer Burton boards are wider than the older ones. Since I’d like to keep the custom for fun things and jumps, I’m now leaning towards Flight Attendant for some powder runs and generally as a second “all-round-quiver”. Would that make sense?
On the other hand I am also thinking of a softer board for the “fun-stuff”, and some powder and have been looking at the Process Flying V. I really don’t know.
But I do like locked-in feeling of camber so am still leaning more towards FA. What’s your take on this? Any recommendations?
Hi Luka
Thanks for your message.
Yeah the Custom (and for most models typically with Burton) has gotten wider. The FA in 159W (which I think is your best bet – though you could ride the 162W as well, if you wanted to go bigger, but I’d be leaning 159W) will have a width at inserts of around 274mm at the back insert and 275mm at the front insert (assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width). The older Customs, like the 2015, 158W is likely around 270mm at the back insert and 268mm at the front insert (again assuming 22″ stance width). So you definitely would be getting a bit more width and whilst it’s only a few mm at the back insert, that can make a big difference to drag. It’s still borderline for 12s though, if you were to be rocking a pretty straight back binding angle and particularly if you have bulky boots, so it could potentially still be too narrow. But with lower profile boots and some angle on your back binding, I think it would be doable.
But yeah, I think the FA makes sense in a quiver with the Custom, if you think the width will work for you. You’d get a bit more leeway going to 162W width-wise – and it would give you more float in powder and more stability at speed, if you wanted to have that bigger size in your quiver. But if you still want it to be nimble and OK at riding slow as well, then 162W might feel a bit big.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi there Nate. Thanks for the quick response!
Yes, I was thinking of going 162W since on the 158 custom, at high speeds it doesn’t seem as stable as it could be. Plus like you said, more width=more float in powder.
Just one more thing – are there any brands that have generally wider boards, since I haven’t found any that are let’s say 158W and are actually wide enough for 12 boots. It’s a shame having to go for a longer board just because of big boots.
I am riding Burton Ions 2022 model, so the size is as slim as it gets I think.
Hi Luka
Yeah the Ions are pretty low profile for sure.
It’s hard to tell just looking at most board’s published specs about how wide boards are at the inserts, because they usually only publish waist width – which doesn’t tell the full story – width at inserts can vary from as little as like 3mm wider than the waist to as much as 18mm wider than the waist, in my experience, so waist width is only useful to a certain extent for predicting overhang and potential boot drag.
I can have a search for you for wider width at inserts boards – but just clarify – would this be something you’d be looking at to replace the Custom – that kind of board in something around a 158W. There are plenty of options that are wide enough in and around that length for 12s, but just wanted to clarify what type of board you’d be looking at. Something freeride, all-mountain or more freestyle.
Hi Nate,
I’m looking at something like deep thinker/flight attendant, around 160W. Although I’ve checked the FA 162W and I think that should be wide enough. Our local store still has one in stock and I think i will go check and take boots with me to measure.
But if you have time to search for some alternatives that would also be appreciated. Thanks again!
Hi Luka
Yeah, I think it will be wide enough too. But here’s some alternatives:
Flagship 159W – around 275mm back insert and 280mm front insert
Capita Black Snowboard of Death 161W – 276.5mm at back insert and 275.5 at front insert
Burton Hometown Hero 160W – 275mm back insert, 276mm front insert
Deep Thinker 160W – 275mm at back insert, 273mm at front insert
Arbor A Frame 159W – 280.5mm at back insert, 282.5mm at front insert
Nidecker Alpha or Alpha APX 162W – 279mm back insert, 278mm front insert
Never Summer Proto FR 161X – 275mm back insert, 276mm front insert
What an incredible website, so informative and helpful. Thank you so much to all involved.
One question for you, I am torn between buying the burton flight attendant or the Jones Flagship board.
I have been boarding for 20 years, love carving, powder and enjoy going pretty fast. That said I also, like riding switch occasionally and being able to do quick nimble turns. After an accident falling from a jump, I dont really hit the park anymore.
Which board out of the two above would you recommend I go with given what I enjoy doing? Any thoughts would be hugely appreciated.
Hi Ryan
Thanks for your message.
Both would be great for what you’re describing, IMO. However, I would be leaning Flagship, mostly because I found it was better at performing quick nimble turns over the FA. If I had to choose, the FA is a little more suited to riding switch, but I found very little difference in them, when actually riding.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate!
Thanks so much for this blog. You answered a ton of my questions on the Slash ATV reply section. I ended up going with Ride Insano 10.5 boots, Cartel X EST, and the Flight Attendant. I was wondering what your thoughts were on model of FA. I absolutely hate the 2022 FA graphics, so I could get a 2021 159cm FA for 400 new, or I could just go for the 2023 FA which looks pretty nice. I wasn’t sure if there was that much of a difference between them and I’ve had a hard time finding information on that. If I went with the 2023 you think 159cm or go up to 162cm?
I ride pretty fast and hard, except for when I’m with my wife and then I’m cruising. I wasn’t sure if I would get toe drag with the Ride Insano and the 159. Thanks again, I couldn’t have done this without you.
Hi Barrett
Glad to hear you’ve sorted your boots and bindings.
In terms of the FA, it’s a tight call size-wise, but I’d be leaning 159. If you were never cruising, then the 162 probably the better bet, but I think the 159 will be the better balance between hard and fast and cruising for you. The 2023 159 should be wide enough for your 10.5s, IMO, but the 2021 FA probably not. The 2022 would be fine as well. The board got a bit wider for the 2022 model, previously was narrower. 2021 FA 159 has a 250mm waist and is around 260mm at the front insert and 259mm at the back insert. Which, IMO, is pushing it for carves in terms of boot drag.
My experience with Insanos is that they have an average footprint (i.e. certainly not bulky, but not super low profile either). The last pair I measured was 3cm longer than the mondo. So with 10.5s, they’re likely to be around 31.5cm in length. So you’d be looking at total overhang of around 5.5cm (roughly 2.7cm per edge), with a 0 degree binding angle. With more angle on your bindings that would come down, but it’d still be risky, if you like to carve fairly deep. The 2022 and 2023 models are noticeably wider – more like 266mm at front insert and 265mm at back insert (256mm waist) for the 159. If you do ride with a flat back binding, then it might still be pushing it with roughly 5cm (2.5cm per edge) of total overhang. But with some angle on your bindings, I think you’d be fine. So, I think it would depend on your binding angles whether you’d get away with it or not, in this case. But the 2021 159, unfortunately, is likely too narrow.
Sick. Thanks a bundle. Is there anyway to pay you besides using your affiliate links? I have learned so much from your site and your answers I would like to.
Last question. Should I look at the 159Wide instead of the 159? I’d probably ride +18 and +3 or something. Maybe flat. Not sure.
Hey Barrett
Yeah with those binding angles, the 159 could be pushing it even in the 22/23 models. So probably 159W. If you could find the 2021 model in the 159W, that would be a good bet as it’s not super wide for a wide. Would be just right, IMO. The 2023 159W would still work too, but it’s borderline too wide, depending on your tolerance for wide boards.
Thanks for asking – you can contribute to snowboarding profiles here – with half of all contributions going to POW.
Hey Nate,
First of all, just want to say that your site is incredibly insightful and I think it’s awesome that you continue to respond to these comments year after year. It’s pretty unique and this community definitely appreciates it.
I’m in the market for a new board and the FA is in contention. I’m generally carving groomers or bombing down them very quickly, but also do glades and side hits as I come across them. I’m almost never in the park. 75% of my boarding is done in the Rockies, but I occasionally spend some time on Vermont slopes. I demoed a Mullair (159W) a few weeks ago and loved it (magne-traction for icy days is a huge plus). I ended up finding a great deal on a 155 Mullair, as well as a good deal on a 159 FA from last year.
I’m worried that the 155 Mullair will be too narrow for me based on what I’ve read though. I’m 5’7″, ~175 lbs and would be pairing it with size 10 Burton Imperial boots and medium Atlas bindings. Would love to hear your thoughts on the Mullair sizing, whether you feel the FA would be a good fit for my riding style and any other suggestions you might have! Not sure how well the FA would handle the icy VT mountains, so that’s a consideration as well. Appreciate your time.
Hi Omar
Thanks for your message.
The 155 Mullair is rather narrow. Even the 159 Mullair is only 258mm at the front insert and 256mm at the back insert. The 155 would be more like 256mm front and 254mm back. And that’s with an almost 23″ stance width. Bring that width narrower, and it would be even narrower. So yeah, in short, if your carving, then I think it’s going to be too narrow.
I think the FA would suit what you’re describing well. It’s not as good in icy conditions as the Mullair, in my experience and that’s probably the biggest consideration. I think the 159 would work size-wise – and your looking more like a 266mm front insert and 265mm back insert, so considerably wider and I think it would be well wide enough. So size-wise, I think it’s a good fit and should be a good fit for how you describe your riding. The biggest question mark is icy conditions. It’s not bad there. But it’s not up there with better icy conditions boards.
If it was between the 155 Mullair and 159 FA, I would go FA for sure – the 155 Mullair is just going to be too narrow – and on the short side too for how you want to ride and your specs.
Hope this helps
Awesome, thanks Nate! Going to pick up the FA tomorrow and will hope for the best on those icy weekends or get a second board at some point to add to the quiver. Appreciate your help here.
You’re very welcome Omar. Happy riding!
Hi, awesome review and love your responses to everyones questions!
But having read through them I am still on the fence with either a 156 or 159 Flight Attendant.
I’m coming from riding my rather ancient 154cm custom but want something a little more stable at speed.
I love riding in powder in the trees here in Finland but also like bombing down the groomed slopes. My current custom doesn’t carve too well but I do like its nimbleness in the trees.
I’m about 5’11 and 150 lbs with a US size 10 boot (got a nice new pair of photons boas).
Was also thinking of getting the cartel x bindings.
Any advice you can give would be appreciated 🙂
Hi Iain
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, I think the Cartel X would pair really well with the Flight Attendant, so that’s a good combo, IMO – and works well with the Photon in that setup.
Size-wise, it’s a close call. I would put you on a 156 as your “standard all-mountain” size, so you could definitely go 156 and I think that’s the most “pure” size for you. But if you’re going to be riding predominantly bombing, powder etc, then you could certainly size up to the 159 – it’s certainly not way out of range, for a freeride board. However, given you like riding in trees, I would be leaning 156, to give you that extra nimbleness in the trees. I think you’ll still find it a little more stable at speed than a 154 Custom (of course not to the same extent as the 159, but you’d still get some increase there, IMO) – and in terms of powder, the FA is more suited to powder than the Custom, so even in the same size, it will float better. I think to keep a balance between trees and speed, I’d be leaning 156, but if you were willing to sacrifice some nimbleness for more stability at speed, the 159 is an option.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Your website is awesome! I’ve been riding for 20 years, am 5’10” 140lbs with size 9 boots. I had last year’s FA in a 159 and loved it! Great in the powder, great in the trees, and ok but not great a high speed on steep hard pack. Unfortunately, that board is gone.
I’m ordering this years model. Burton recommends I get a 156 based on my build, but I’m worried I won’t get as much float or speed. Is it possible the 156 is better or would you recommend just reordering a 159. I love snowboarding, but am terrible at knowing what size gear to get. Thanks for again for running this amazing site.
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
Typically for your specs, I’d say 159 is too long, for sure, and 156 a much better bet. However, given your experience with the 159, I think going 159 again probably makes the most sense. Sounds like you had no issues in trees with the 159, which would probably be my biggest concern with a board that long for your specs. Also going down to the 156 you would loose stability at speed versus the 159, which it doesn’t sound like you’d like to do – also it wouldn’t float as well. I’d almost never recommend a 159 for your spec, but given what you’re describing, I think it’s the best bet.
Cannot thank you enough for the input – gonna stick with the 159. For what it’s worth, your writing style kicks ass.
Thanks Michael! And you’re very welcome. Happy riding!
Wow, you really respond in detail. I feel bad for piling another comment here. I was wondering what your respond to this review would be:
>>Snowboard How Flight Attendant Review
tldr;
FA doesnt excel in any particular area, being just average at everything (freeride, pow, carves) making it a lackluster intermediate board.
Hi Sky
I didn’t read the full review in detail, but everyone has their own opinion of a board – and if he’s honestly reviewing it after riding it, I can’t argue with what he felt from it as it’s his own feeling (though if it was in the wrong size for him, then it might have skewed things – more on that below).
A couple of things I did notice strange in there. Firstly, that he calls the board a directional twin. The FA is far from directional twin. It has 10mm of taper, a 35mm setback stance, directional camber profile, and a longer nose than tail. Not sure what his definition of directional twin is, but that’s not mine. Even Burton label it freeride directional in it’s shape.
Another thing that stood out was that he described the Custom Flying V as a more advanced board. The Flying V profile is very easy to ride – and it tends to lack when it comes to edge hold for carving, particularly in harder conditions. And it’s softer.
The last thing is that I couldn’t find any information about the size of the board the tester rode or the specs of the tester. It’s hard to accurately review a board that’s in a completely wrong size for you. Not that it was necessarily in a wrong size for the tester, but I couldn’t find any info on that, so it could’ve been.
Hi Nate, I’m about 5′ 10″ 170lb and wear a size 8.5 boot. I currently ride an 156 endeavor clout and I feel like it’s not quite as nimble as I’d like in trees. Would I be able to get away with the 152 FA?.
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t typically recommend sizing down quite that much. I would put you at roughly a 158 as your “standard all-mountain” size. Given your boot size versus the width of a typical 158, sizing down certainly makes sense. But going as far as 152 is quite a lot. If there was a 154, I’d be more comfortable. That said, it’s doable, but just note that you’ll feel the board differently than I did. It will likely feel softer, not be as stable at high speed, not as good for big high speed carves and not float quite as well in powder, in comparison to what I felt. But it will be more nimble for sure – and feel a little softer flexing and all round be more mellow and better for freestyle too, in general, unless you’re hitting massive jumps (where a bit of extra size can help).
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m looking to really focus on carving ‘properly’, and in general being more aggressive on the edges, but I also like to hit the trees and a little pow, so thought the FA may be a good fit..
I’m 5″9, weigh 155 lbs and size 9. I’ve read that when you really start to rail the edges that sometimes if the board isn’t wide enough (most standard board sizes) that you risk ‘boot-out’. I’ve been following Ryan Knapton and he has his board ridiculously wide and advises to go wide.
With all this in mind, do you think a 156W would be ok? I currently ride a 155 so I’m thinking not much difference other than the width.
Another alternative I was looking at was the Custom, that comes in a 154W, but I read your review on this and the edge hold put me off 🙁
Any advice on these would be great!
Hi Stuart
Thanks for your message.
I think the FA should work well for what you’re describing.
For carving, I think you’d be good on the 156W. And will provide a bit of extra float, versus going regular width. The hesitation I would have would be for riding in tight spaces – that extra width, with 9s, will likely make the board feel sluggish edge to edge. Not a feeling, I like, but if you’re not concerned with that, then 156W could work. Note though that the new 156 FA is around 263mm at the back insert, which with 9s, should be plenty wide enough, IMO. If you really wanted that extra width and didn’t mind the board feeling slow edge to edge, then the 156W could work, but I’d personally stick with the 156.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, Nate here. I’m 5’9 175lbs and I ordered the 156 FA. I just sold my 152cm Forum Youngblood Chilidog 2011 Park board (4 Flex). I don’t really risk it on rails or XL jumps much anymore so I wanted an all mountain board that is good for tree runs, powder and side hits. I’d say im between intermediate-advanced. I also ordered the Burton Step on bindings (2020/2021) and the Burton Photon Boots (2021/2022). Do you think this is a good setup for me based on my specs and riding preferences? I think the weight is going to be quite a bit heavier on the new board but I couldn’t really find the weight of my old board anywhere. Also my old boots were not stiff at all. I’m sure it will all be worth getting used to. I also like the Capita Super DOA but based on your reviews the FA seems better suited for me. My order hasn’t arrived yet so I can always exchange if you have another recommendation. Thanks!
Hey Nate
Thanks for your message – and great name!
I think the FA should work well for what you’re describing and 156 is a good size. Size-wise, you could argue a case for both 156 and 159, but given that you’ve ridden a 152 for so long, I think the 156 is the right call. And I think it’s a size you’ll prefer for trees and sidehits. Though if you could also let me know your boot size, that would be great – just to confirm the sizing is good.
It will, of course, be a bit of a step up from your old setup and something you’ll need to take a bit of time to get used to, with a completely new setup, but I think it should work well for how you’re describing your riding.
Thanks Nate! I am size 8 so the step on bindings are size small. Let me know if that changes anything please.
Since I posted my initial comment I bought the newer 2021/2022 step on bindings because I read a review that they improved a fair bit since last year. Apparently entry is a bit easier and clicking is elimiated. Figured it was worth the extra $100. Will return the 2020/2021s
Also, do you recommend waxing a brand new snowboard?
Hey Nate
You don’t have to. I don’t usually – mostly being lazy. But I’d say I do my first wax sooner than I would after waxing it myself. It will help to give the best performance. It will make a difference, but a pretty subtle difference. If it’s a past season board and it’s been sitting around on a shelf for a while, then there’s more incentive to wax it then. For more check out this article
Hey Nate.
With 8s, I would definitely go 156 rather than 159. The combination of boot size and the fact you’ve been riding a 152, makes the 156 clearly the best choice, IMO.
Yeah, I’ve heard the same about Step Ons. I’ve only ridden the 21-22 models, so I can’t say from experience, but I’ve heard the same as well.
HI Nate
i am a big guy i am 5.9 and 259LB shoe size 12 us
i am snowboarding for 20 years and have a a very old board ….
i am looking for a board that will be good for my size i tought maybe the flight atandent 162W will be good for me can u advise ?
Hi Omer
Thanks for your message.
Typically I would say to go bigger for your specs, but I think you could get away with the 162W Flight Attendant. But note that it’s likely to take on a different feel than what I got from it. It’s likely to feel a little softer than I felt it – so maybe more medium flex. And you’re probably not going to quite get the same stability at speed or float in powder that I experienced. On the flip side, you’ll likely find it easier to butter than I did and easier to ollie and more nimble at slower speeds and that side of things.
If you’re looking more for something that you can bomb and chase powder with, then I’d look at something bigger. If that’s the case, I’m happy to make some recommendations. Let me know.
Hi Nate,
I stumbled upon your website and it’s fantastic! So much info here.
Looking at getting a new freeride board and was looking at either the Burton Flight Attendant or Jones Flagship.
I’ve been riding for over 30 years, mostly eastern Canada/US (Tremblant, Jay Peak, Whiteface) with the occasional trip out west (Banff, Whistler, etc). Current board is a 2010 Ride Concept UL and before that a Ride Timeless. Both 161cm. I’m 5’10”/185 lbs. Currently have Burton Ion/Step Ons from last year. I love to ride fast, carve groomers, ride glades, and try to find powder (as difficult as it is out here). I’m now too old for the park, but will occasionally go off side hits, drops when my old body cooperates.
Anyways, just wondering which of the above boards you would recommend (or any others for that matter) and in what size.
Thanks,
Ken
Hi Ken
Thanks for your message.
Both boards would certainly work for what you’re describing, so I don’t think there’s a wrong choice between them. Some things that might help you decide:
– Flagship a little better in powder, IMO
– Flagship a little better for Glades, IMO
– Flight Attendant (FA) a little better for big arcing carves
– FA a little better in terms of stability at speed, but very close in that respect
– I preferred the Flagship in uneven terrain, but both are good
– I found the Flagship a little better in hard/icy conditions
I haven’t ridden the Ride Concept, so I can’t compared to it and though I rode the Timeless, it was the 2018 model. Compared to the 2018 Timeless, both the Flagship and Flight Attendant are softer flexing (7/10 FA and 7.5/10 Flagship, by my feel). I felt the Timeless really stiff – like the stiffest I’ve ridden – but not sure how it compares to the older Timeless or the Concept UL.
Size-wise, I’d say:
Flagship: 161 (158 is within your realm as well, but I’d be leaning 161, given that’s a size you’re used to riding, and I’d probably leaning towards it anyway for your specs for this board)
FA: 162 (though you could definitely ride the 159 too. It’s a tight call between them, but since you’re used to a 161, I think I’d be leaning 162 (depending on your boot size)
But if you could also let me know your boot size, to confirm those sizes.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi,
Thank you for your reviews, they are awesome.
I am in doubt between the Flight Attendant, the Ride Berzerker and the K2 Instrument. Maybe the Manifest also, I have found a good sale for it.
I would use it for carving fast in the groomers and also powder, when available.
Which one would you choose? Any other option to be considered?
Thank you!
Hi Pabloconst
Thanks for your message.
My pick of those would be the Flight Attendant. It’s better for powder, IMO, than the Manifest and Berzerker – and for carving. My second choice would be Berzerker, because I felt it was a better carver than the Manifest and better in powder too. I haven’t ridden the Instrument, so can’t really say much there – but I’d say it would be better in powder, just based on specs.
If carving and powder are your main considerations, then the following would be the best to check out (which includes the FA):
>> My Top 10 Freeride Snowboards
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Amazing to see that you response to each single question. Hopefully you will find time for mine 🙂
I am riding my snowboard for around 15 years but only once a year (around a week). After reading all reviews I have decided that FA could be a good board for me. However, I am trying to buy a whole set. Yesterday I bought boots Burton Photon BOA (size 11,5 – 44,5 in Europe).
I am trying now to find last year’s model of FA as the price is much better – here the problem with sizes starts. My questions/dilemmas are:
1) It seems that 159 cm would be a good size for me – do you agree? I think that I should also opt for Wide version, shouldn’t I? My weight is 74 kg. I have 183 cm.
2) As it is difficult to find in Poland exactly this model/size could you try to recommend anything similar to FA? I was thinking about Deep Thinker – but the more I read about this board the more I realize that this board might be a bit too demanding for me. Especially that I don’t go to parks, I don’t jump – just quick riding on and off slopes in deep snow.
3) I was thinking about buying the Cartel bindings, but I can see here that you recommend Cartel X – is it worth in my case to pay more for Cartel X? Will I feel the difference?
Any help from you will be much appreciated. Thanks!
Hi Michal
Thanks for your message.
1) Yes, I agree that you should go for the wide version. The 159W would definitely work, IMO. It’s between that and the 156W. The 159W would give you better float for powder and more stability at speed. The 156W will be a slightly easier ride and be easier to ride at slower speeds, more agile and better for doing freestyle stuff, though it sounds like you don’t do much of that.
2) You might be able to buy directly from Burton in Poland – try here I think they have some of the 21 model left, but may or may not have it in your size.
The Deep Thinker, to me, is not a very freestyle board, so for what you’re describing it could work. It’s a little bit stiffer than the Flight Attendant, by my feel, so that would be maybe the biggest thing to consider – as that makes it a little more demanding, but it’s very much a freeride board by my feel. The 157W would be your best size, IMO.
3) You’ll notice the difference between the Cartel and Cartel X, particularly on a board like the Flight Attendant or Deep Thinker. The Cartel is a little too soft for this board. The Cartel X would be a really good match. The Cartel would work though. But the Cartel X will work better, IMO and you will notice the difference, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I am thinking of buying a 2020 FA but I’m unsure of what size to go for. I’ve been snowboarding for 15 years and I would like a board that’s good for a bit of everything; speed, powder and jumps. I am 180cm and weigh 60kg, and my boot size is 10, do you think the 156 is the right size for me? Slightly hard to tell as there are no height recommendations and 152 sounds quite short. Would really appreciate some help!
Thank you!
Hi Lucas
Thanks for your message.
I actually think the 152 would work for your height/weight specs, quite well. But the 2020 version was narrower, and the 2020 152 will be too narrow for your boots, IMO. You’d probably get away with the 2022 version in the 152, because it got a bit wider.
If you’re going 2020 version, then you’d have to go to 156 to be wide enough for your boots. And even then the 2022 version of the 152 is a little wider than the 2020 or 2021 versions of the 156. Depending on binding angles, how low profile your boots are and how hard you like to carve, you’d likely be OK width-wise with the 156, but it’s at the long end of your range, IMO. It’s doable, particularly if you’re predominantly focused on powder, speed and stability at speed. Not going to be as good for jumps, IMO – and for things like trees might feel a bit big too. Given that it’s really quite narrow, that helps to make it easier to maneuver, but it’s borderline for your weight.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, I love your reviews, I find them very helpful. Just wanted to know if you got to ride the 2021 FA. Wanted to know if there’s a difference between last year’s (2020) and this year’s model. From a production-quality standpoint, I believe the quality of this year’s top sheet is not as good as last year’s. This year FA’s top sheet appears to be mostly glossy and I heard that the top sheet comes off easily compared to last year. What are your thoughts?
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
The last Flight Attendant I tested was the 2020 model. I only re-test a model if there have been relatively significant changes to anything that might affect performance or if I haven’t ridden that board in several years I might re-test it, even if there haven’t been any significant changes. I don’t usually re-test for anything top-sheet related and if I did test the 2021 model, I would only be able to comment on how it appeared/felt, as I don’t have the gear for long enough to properly determine durability issues.
But yeah, from what I could determine from the specs of the board, there weren’t any significant changes between the models. I didn’t see or hear anything about a top sheet change – but of course that doesn’t mean they didn’t change it – certainly some things can get changed without being announced/published.
Hey Nate, thanks for all the helpful information.
I’m looking to get two boards for this coming season. The FA for powder, freeride, carving, trees, chunder, side hits, and m/l jumps in the park. and Kilroy twin for everything park, buttering, and playing around the whole mountain.
I weigh 185lbs, 6’2, and I wear 10.5 vans infuse boots.
I’ve been using 158 proto synthesis (255).With medium Cartel reflex bindings, usually +15/-15. Though I would like to have the ability to experiment different binding angles.
I’m hoping these are good board options for different ends of the spectrum.
The Kilroy for my suggested weight would be the 159.
Not sure what length and width to go with the FA. 159w or 162, 162w. Will be using with medium cartels.
What do you think?
Hi Fred
Thanks for your message.
I think those are good complimentary boards to have in a quiver. Both very different and the purposes you’ve described using them for are right for both boards, IMO.
Size-wise, for the FA, I would be leaning 159W, given that you’re looking to have flexibility with binding angles. Going 159W, as opposed to 162W would give you back some maneuverability that might be lost in going wider. Fortunately the FA isn’t overly wide even in the 159W version, so I don’t think it will feel ultra wide for you or anything with 10.5s. But Given that you’re using it for sidehits and trees, I would be erring 159W over 162W. Certainly there’s an argument for 162 as well. If you were comfortable with it width-wise. For reference versus the Proto Synthesis, I measured that at 264mm at the inserts. I would say the 162 FA would be around 263mm at the back insert. So pretty close – but it’s that back insert that will become tighter width-wise, if you’re going to straighten up that back binding angle. That would be the biggest thing to consider, otherwise the 162 is a very valid option. I think I would be weighing 159W and 162, depending on how comfortable you are width-wise on the 162. 162W getting a little big overall, IMO. If you weren’t doing any trees or anything like that, it would certainly be doable but in this case, I wouldn’t go that big.
Length-wise, since you’re able to specialize in having both boards, I would mix up the lengths, if it makes sense to do so.
For the Kilroy Twin, the 159 is definitely the size that makes the most sense purely on specs and certainly if it was going to be your one board. But as a part of a quiver, you could also consider the 155. Width-wise, I think the 155 would be wide enough too, if you were going to be sticking to a +15/-15 for this board. It’s around 264mm at the inserts on the 155, so very similar to the PS you’re riding now, in terms of width. But 159 is also definitely an option. I think it depends on how playful you want it to be. The 155 will feel softer flexing versus the 159 and be overall a little snappier, more easily maneuvered, easier to butter and all round a little more playful, at the expense of being less stable at speed – so I think it would depend on how soft/playful you want the feel and if you’d prefer to still be able to bomb at times on it. Going 155 versus 159W or 162 on the FA also gives you that size difference in your quiver. The 159 will still be smaller than the 159W or 162, so you’ve certainly still got some difference there, so both are def possibilities, but something to ponder there.
Hope this helps with your decision
Helps a lot!
I got the 159w and I’m waiting for Kilroy 155 to be in stock.
Looking forward to getting back on the mountain 🏔.
Thanks Nate!!
You’re very welcome Fred. Hope the quiver treats you well. Yeah, I’m itching to get back on the mountain already too!
Hey Nate,
Thanks for your great site! I actually just bought a new 2020 Flight Attendant but I’m having trouble deciding what bindings to put on it. I have a Mountain Twin with Ride Rodeos as my daily driver so I want to set this up as my powder/tree/charging board. I’d set the bindings back on deep powder days and then on days when I want to charge I’d center them on side cut. What would you recommend? Thanks again!
Hi Jeff
Thanks for your message.
I would go with something around 7/10 flex or 8/10 flex for the Flight Attendant. Certainly go a little stiffer than the Rodeos. If Burton, then I think the Cartel X would be the best bet – EST for the best performance, but Re:Flex fine too, particularly if you want to be able to use them on other boards now or in the future. For other brands, I would check out:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
And
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Note that I haven’t ridden the Cartel X, which is why it doesn’t appear on any of those. From my experience with the old Genesis X and with the Cartels, they would likely make the list, most likely the first one there, based on flex.
Hi Nate, I’m finally looking to invest in a new board. I’ve been riding a 162 k2 Electra for a little over 20 years. It’s been a blast, but just like anything, technology has definitely improved from the early 2000’s. I’m 6’2” and 220 lbs. with an 11.5 boot. At this point, I’m more free ride and avoiding the park. Been looking at the flight attendant, but am open to other suggestions. Thanks!
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, if you’re more freeride, then the Flight Attendant is definitely an option. Size-wise, I would be looking at the 162W for your specs for this board. If you wanted other options, also check out:
>> My Top 10 Freeride Snowboards
But as you’ll see, the FA is on that list, so definitely a good option, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m almost exact specs as Jason M. on the Flight Attendant. 6,2″ 215, size 12 paws but Burton boots photons size reduction 11.
I use to have a 162 regular width FA and sold it, never booted out. Just too much board, too long and heavy. I knew that I liked the board but wanted a smaller size someday. The longest board I have is a Jones Hovercraft 160. My sweet spot and preference for day to day boards size is 157-159.
Having mentioned all this, could I get away with a Burton FA 159W? I’m 15-20lbs past the weight limit. My riding is mostly midwest…..very little pow. I know my specs point toward 162W but I know I would hate the size..
Thoughts?
Thank you
Chet
Hi Chet
Thanks for your message.
Typically I would say go 162W, but personal preference should always be taken into account and in your case, if you typically prefer to ride 157-159 and you found the 162 regular width FA to feel too big, then I think you could definitely ride the 159W. Overall it’s likely to feel a little smaller than your Jones Hovercraft (slightly narrower, 1cm shorter overall length and less effective edge), but not by a whole lot. I wouldn’t worry too much about being over the weight recommendations in this case. Yeah 159W is on the small side for your specs, but with your personal preferences taken into account, I think that size would be just right for you.
Hope this helps
Appreciate your comments. One more question? Would I be giving up much stability in your opinion going 159W? I do enjoy bombing every now and then. I know going longer I will sacrifice some mobility. That is the main reason I like shorter boards, more maneuverable, less weight but I also understand that can lead to poor board performance.
Thoughts?
Hi Chet
You will definitely give up stability at speed by going shorter. Compared to going 162W, you’ll definitely sacrifice some stability at speed in order to gain that extra maneuverability. But if you’re used to 157-159 and find they feel stable enough for you, then I don’t think you’ll have too many issues with the feel and certainly versus other 159Ws that might be softer flexing or with less camber etc, it will feel more stable than them. More length certainly adds stability, but there are other factors that can make a board feel less or more stable. I think if you’re used to 157-159 and don’t find them super unstable, then I think you’ll be fine with the FA in 159W.
Hi Nate,
Thank you for all the information you gather and post to SP.
I’m an intermediate rider who enjoys mostly riding all mountain, groomed and powder runs and tiny bit of jibbing/small jumps and I hardly ride switch.
The Burton boards I’m looking at are the Custom Flying V in 154 cm or Flight Attendant 156 cm or Skeleton Key in 154 cm. I’m 173 cm, 170 pounds, US 10.5 mens boot. Would love it if you could give me some advice as to which one you think would be better suited for me.
Thanks for your time.
Eric
Hi Eric
I didn’t see this comment when I was answering your other one. I think the Skeleton Key could work well for you out of those and size-wise, I think the 154 would be a really good sizing option for you. You’ve got the camber profile of the FA with the Skeleton Key, an even more directional shape and the flex more like the Custom Flying V (i.e. softer than the FA). Harder to ride switch on than either of the other 2, but since you don’t do that much, that’s not an issue there.
Hi Nate,
I have one more questions that’s more of a generalized question.
I wear size 10.5 boots and I’m having a tough time trying to figure out what my max waist width should be on a board. Most of the boards I’m looking at (like the FA 156) have 248 mm – 252 mm. In your opinion, would I be okay with anything between those measurements?
A lot of sites have me between a M and L size bindings, so I’m also wondering if it’s better to be on the bigger end of the spectrum (M) or the smaller end (L).
Thanks Nate
Eric
Hi Eric
It really depends on a number of factors.
a. the board: Some boards with a 248mm waist width might be as little as 253mm at the inserts (which would certainly be too narrow for you) and others might be as much as 265mm at the inserts which would likely be fine for you. In the case of the FA 156, as mentioned in my previous comment, I would say it’s too narrow. You might get away with it under all the right circumstances, but it would be somewhat risky.
b. Binding angles. The greater the angle, the more leeway you get. This is quite subtle but can make a difference.
c. Stance width. The wider your stance width, the wider you are on the board and the narrower your stance width the opposite.
d. Make/model of your boots: Some boots are more low profile than others.
So it’s hard to really pinpoint a waist width as such. With 10.5s, you’re on the cuff of wide and regular. For a lot of longer boards, you’d likely be fine on the regular, but something around that 155-157 range, you sometimes will sometimes won’t.
But it also depends on how you ride. If you’re quite casual, then you can get away with something narrower, but if you like to really rail your carves, you’ll need something wider.
In terms of bindings, it also depends on the board and boots and the brand of binding (sorry, there’s never an easy answer is there!?). For a binding that’s got quite a short baseplate, then it’s a good idea to go for the longer size (L), to get more leverage on the edges of the board. But that also depends on the board – if it’s a wider board, then an L makes more sense. If you can get into an M with your boots, it is nice to have that snugger feeling, but you’ve got to weight that up with the board too. For example, something like the Union Strata has a long baseplate in the M, so if you could fit your boots in there, you would still have that leverage on the board in that case, the M would make the most sense, but in other cases it might be the other way around.
That’s why I find it’s always best to pick bindings last. Find the board and boot that’s right for you, then look at the bindings. I would be happy to give my opinion on the best size in bindings and recommend any bindings that I think would suit the setup, if you get down to a board/boot you like.
Hi Nate,
Thank you for all the information you gather and post to SP. It’s certainly been a big help in trying to decide which Burton board to get. I don’t ride nearly as much as I used to (around 10-14 days a year), but would like start doing it more often.
My brother, who’s an instructor in Banff, says my riding is between intermediate and advanced. I’d say I’m more on the intermediate side who enjoys mostly riding all mountain, groomed and powder runs and tiny bit of jibbing/small jumps. I also hardly ride switch.
The Burton boards I’m looking at are the Custom Flying V in 154 cm/156 cm or Flight Attendant. I’m 173 cm, 170 pounds, US 10.5 mens boot. Would love it if you could give me some advice as to which one you think would be better suited for me.
Thanks for your time.
Eric
In my previous comment I meant to say that I’d like to start riding MORE than 10-14 days a year, not that I’d like to only ride that amount a year.
Thanks!
Eric
Hi Eric
Thanks for your message.
The FA is going to be better for powder, hard carves and riding fast, for sure. The Custom Flying V will be better for jibs/jumps and all round more playful and easy going to ride. But at a level between intermediate and advanced, I think you could handle the FA fine, it’s just whether or not it suits your riding style more. If you’re more of a playful/casual rider and don’t tend to really bomb it down a slope, then I think I would be leaning Custom Flying V. But if you’re a little more aggressive, then FA. Certainly if you start riding more and plan on becoming better at riding faster etc, then that would be another tick for the FA. Finally, the FA handles icy snow better than the Custom Flying V. If you get that a lot where you are, then that’s worth considering too. But if you don’t get it that much, I wouldn’t use it as a deciding factor.
Size-wise, I would go 156 for Custom Flying V and the same (156) for Flight Attendant. However, width-wise the FA would probably be too narrow in the 156 and maybe even in the 159. The 159W is probably too big for you, IMO – the combination of length/width making it too big for sure, IMO. With 10.5s, you’re on the cuff between wide and regular width and it really depends on the particular board. For the Custom Flying V, you probably get away with 10.5s on it, but it depends on your particular boots, your binding angles and how hard you lean into your carves.
But there are other Burton options that are more similar to FA than they are to Custom Flying V, if you were leaning more towards FA but wanted to look at something similar but with better sizing for you. Let me know and I would be happy to look into some.
Hope this helps
Hey, Nate. Your review was cool and much liked by me.
However, I have a difficulty choosing between snowboards.
My usual longtime going was burton custom flying v 162w 2015/2016 (or so). I used it both @ all-mountain rides and some of the pow-pow.
Now I have to choose between Flight Attendant 162W 2021 or Burton Custom Flying V 166W.
For more aggressive rides I have Custom X sitting @ my rental, but what would you recommend to chill on the slope/freeriding?
As now I have 4 snowboards (doing the rental thing, not a big deal) and I have to choose 2.
Thanks so much for the input. I am 6.3, weight is 200 lbs.
Hi George
Thanks for your message.
The Custom Flying V is certainly more chill than the Flight Attendant (FA). However, the Flight Attendant is in a better size for you, IMO, in the 162W. The 166W is getting on the big side for you, IMO. Also, the FA is more chill than the Custom X, so you would certainly be getting an easy going ride versus that, but not to the same extent as you would with the Custom Flying V. For freeriding the FA is better for bombing, carving and powder, IMO versus the Custom Flying V.
So the FA for more a better size and freeriding, but the Custom Flying V for something more chill. Because of sizing I would be leaning Flight Attendant.
Hope this helps
Nate, thanks a lot of bothering to help. Means a lot to me (from other side of the world, mind you).
Is the size 165+ always bad for me? I used to think it should reach my chin or smth, but 162w doesn’t do that.
Is there any point in keeping both Custom X and FA as they are different behaving @ mountain? Maybe get more versatile board that does both good all-mountain & freeride & is twin? Or am I asking for too much?
Last question is about the bindings for the FA. Should I buy Genesis? I have Burton X EST bindings for Custom X, but they won’t work for FA, right?
Thanks again for your reply!
Hi George
I don’t think 165+ is always bad for you, but for a board like the Custom Flying V, particularly if you want it to be a more chilled ride, I wouldn’t go as long as 166W. Also in terms of the board going to your chin thing, that’s how boards length used to be determined. These days weight is considered a more important factor (and boot size for sizing width). And things like ability level and how you ride come into play as well. Height not as important for length sizing. But for your specs, for a freeride board, if you were using it as something you wanted to really bomb with and/or ride in deep open terrain powder, then yeah definitely you could go 165+. But just in this situation, given you’re looking for a board that’s more chill, sizing shorter than that is a good bet, IMO.
Custom X and FA aren’t the same for sure. The FA is much more freeride oriented – better for powder – and is softer flexing and a little more easy going. The Custom X is more of a bomb hard, carve hard kind of board. The FA does carve well though and can certainly bomb, just not quite to the extent of the Custom X. If you wanted something more freestyle oriented, you could certainly go FA and something like Custom Flying V. Or if you wanted to keep the Custom X, you could pair it with something like the Skeleton Key, which is an easier going, more chill freeride option. Twin and freeride is a contradiction though.
For bindings, the X could work on the FA. I would probably put the X before I put the Genesis – the Genesis a little too soft for the FA, IMO. The FA is still 7/10 flex, by my feel, so not soft by any means. I think something like the Cartel X would be the sweet spot for the FA, but I would go X before I went Genesis on it, personally.
Hope this helps
Once again, thanks for the reply. Finally made my mind to keep both and in case of deep snow day just stick to FA. Other days would go for Custom X. Will just move bindings from one snowboard to another.
Also will change boots to harder ones, but will first try to ride with my Burton Photon BOA. And I know, that they are soft, but they are perfect comfortable ride for me.
Any advices on Burton BOA boots? Or can stick to Photon’s?
Hi George
I would say stick with your Photon’s if they’re comfortable and you feel like they work for you. For me the Phonton’s felt around a 7/10 flex, so not super soft. The Ion Boa is a little stiffer (around 7.5/10, by my feel). In terms of Burton BOA boots, the Ion Boa is the stiffest. The Driver X is a good bit stiffer (like 9.5/10) but only comes in a speed lace version. Boots do get softer over time, so depending on how long you’ve had the Photon, it may be softer than when you first got them. Also boot flex is somewhat dependent on weight. A lighter weight rider will find the same boot stiffer than a heavier weighted rider would. So my feel on the Photon at 7/10 is coming from exerting my 180-ish pounds on them. So, it is somewhat relative too.
Hi Nate,
First of all, love your honest and spot on reviews!
I just bought the 2021 FA and honestly I’m not stoked about the top sheet design cos it looks lame compared to its predecessors. There aren’t so many reviews out yet of this season’s FA and I was wondering if there were improvements at all. The only disappointment I’ve read about the 2020 FA is its edge hold on ice. Now, if 2021 FA didn’t fix that then perhaps I should just get the 2020 version instead. Any thoughts?
Hi Jeff
Thanks for your message.
As far as I know the 2021 FA is the same as the 2020 model. If there are any changes, they are likely subtle – and certainly don’t think they’ve done anything to specifically target edge hold in icy conditions.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate. Your website is awesome. Looking at buying the Flight Attendant. I currently ride the custom flying v 158. I am 5 10, 175lbs size 10 boots and ride 15/-5, what size would you recommend.
Hi Isaac
Thanks for your message.
Assuming you’re an advanced level rider, I would be looking at the 159 for your specs for the Flight Attendant. You could go 156, if you wanted to tone it down a bit, get a bit more agility, kind of thing, but I think overall the 159 would be the best size for you. 159 would give you a bit more float in powder, better for harder carves and more stability at speed. The 156 a little less in those areas, but a little more agile. The other consideration on the 156 is width. I rode the 156 the last time I rode the FA and didn’t have any issues width-wise (size 10 boots too). I did ride with +15/-15 angles and have quite low profile boots. The 159 gives you a bit more leeway there. The 159W is also an option if you think you want something wider, but if you’ve been fine on the 158 Custom Flying V for width, then I think you would be fine on the 159 FA. The Custom Flying V 158 is a little wider than the FA 159, but I still think you should be fine with 10s.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate
Great review of the2020 FT, which I’m thinking of getting.
For the last 10 year ish, Ive been riding the 163 custom Flying V, I’m confused what size FT would suit me best.
I’m 6ft tall, 85kg, uk size 10 burton imperial boots and burton est cartel large bindings, my angles are front 18 and rear 0 to -5. I was going to order the FT 162 as a similar size to the current Flying V but see width is more on the FV than the 162 FT, given my rear angle, would I be better in the extra width of the FT 159 wide or will the Ft 162 be ok.
Any help would really be appreciated
Thanks John
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
With a UK10 boot and those binding angles, I would go for the 159W – and I think that’s a good length for you too, especially given the extra width. You would be dropping some length vs your Custom Flying V, but with the extra stiffness and camber of the FA, I think that will work well for your specs, and again, that extra width allows you to go a little shorter too. I think even if you had more angle on your back foot, I would like the 159W for you anyway with your specs.
Hope this helps with your decision
Also regarding sizing: I know my 156 is probably not the ideal size for me but I tend to go a little shorter in general.
What size would you recommend for the FA or the PYL ?
Flight Attendant 159 and PYL 162 (i´ve never ridden a boad that tall) because of effective edge?
Hi Peter
Please see my other reply below. But yeah, I would say 159 FA or 162 PYL. You could go 159 PYL, but based on what you’re describing, you might miss the effective edge – and you would also be missing that more locked in feel that it sounds like you prefer.
Hi Nate,
thanks for your awesome website. It´s super helpful for finding information regarding Snowboardgear!!!
I currently ride a 2016 Burton Custom 156, being around 180lbs at 5′11″ with 9.5 Boots. Mainly on groomers and a bit side piste or powder from time to time. I love to carve and turn with speed, but plan to go more into powder and off piste in the near future. Not much park or big jumps. Let´s say 70% groomers and 30% powder.
I´m thinking about replacing my Custom with the Flight Attendant or even the Yes Pick Your Line.
I´m interested in the difference between the Custom and the other two especially on groomers. Powder ist obviously going to be way better with both but now I´m used to that locked-in feel of pure camber.
Does the FA feel similar or close to the Custom except for powder? Given its heavy dose of camber?
I read somewhere that it might be a little less agile though. I was thinking about the 156 or 159.
The Yes PYL sounds very interesting as well. But I probably would have to go much bigger for carving than 159 correct?
Once again awesome website and reviews!!
Pete
Hi Pete
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, the FA is quite camber dominant. The only rocker is in the nose. It does make for a different feel to full camber – even on groomers – , but it’s very close to a full camber feel. And then in powder, you get the full benefit of that longer nose and rocker before the nose. But for the closest feel to full camber, but with the powder upside, the FA is pretty close. For that reason, I would be leaning towards this one, based on your comments. The FA is more of a locked in feel vs the PYL.
I would say the 159 is the best way to go. That way you’re not dropping effective edge vs the 156 Custom Camber. With the FA you get more nose, so most of that extra size is outside the contact points. The 159 FA does have a little more effective edge vs the 156 (8mm more) but the 156 FA is 22mm less effective edge vs the Custom Camber 156.
I really like the PYL in the 159 (similar specs to you), but if you were wanting to keep up that effective edge similar to the Custom Camber 156, then you’d need to go up to the 162. And it’s a more “stable” (middle of the road between locked in and loose) feel than a locked in one. So I suspect, based on your comments, that the more locked in feel of the FA is more your kind of thing. Going 156 in FA would be similar, in terms of effective edge as going 159 in the PYL. Effective edge certainly isn’t everything for carving, but it does make a difference.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey Nate, really helpful. As always. This confirms my initial thoughts and I´m definitly leaning towards the Flight Attendant now. I think it might be the upgrade I´m looking for in terms of powder without compromising too much on groomers.
One more question: How quick are the FA and PYL edge to edge? I suspect the narrower waist of the FA helps here?
Oh and one more thing: I left another comment here because I thought something went wrong with my browser the first time. I´m sure you already noticed that. It was a different e-mail address though. Sorry for that!!
Hi Pete
All good.
I found the PYL a little quicker edge-to-edge vs the FA, but both good in that department. But yeah the narrower waist helps with the FA for sure. It’s also a little narrower at the inserts vs the PYL, but not by much.
Nate,
Thanks again for a tremendous site. Last year, you helped advise me on a purchase of a NS West X 160 over a Niche Story. It was a fantastic board but unfortunately was just stolen at a resort. I’m now back in the market sooner than I expected. I really liked the West. It gave me a lot of confidence to turn it loose. In part from owning that board for a bit, which has now been discontinued, I’m thinking about buying a board that is really geared for charging groomers (occasional powder) with maneuverability and some forgiveness. I’ve narrowed down to the FA, Yes PYL, NS Chairman, and Jones Flagship. One question about the FA is that the 159W doesn’t seem to have a large waist at 260. Do you think that will be a problem with 12s? Also, any overall thoughts on how those boards will compare for my purposes? I could possibly try to locate another 2019 West X if you still think that’s a better fit.
I would also appreciate your input on sizing. 6’ 3”, 170 with the size 12 boots. Thanks!
Guess I should maybe also throw the West Bound X into the mix as a possibility. Sorry for the multiple comments!
Hi Stephen
Thanks for your message. And a real bummer that your deck was stolen. So rotten!
You read my mind – after reading your first message, I was going to say you should also consider the West Bound. Given that you really liked the West. It’s certainly different from the West, but has similar characteristics.
Certainly going with any of those options you’re going to get a stiffer, harder charger vs the West, and something that’s not quite as well geared towards riding slower/more casual, but in saying that, the ones you’ve selected do that more subtly than other freeride boards.
I would say, given how you felt about the West, that I would be leaning more West Bound vs Chairman, if you were going to go Never Summer.
If it’s the Flaghip, then I would go 2020 model too. The previous models were quite different, and less forgiving/maneuvearble.
For the FA, there is some risk of boot drag at that size. I would estimate the width at inserts on the 159W to be around 270mm at the front insert and 269mm at the nose on the back insert (based on measuring a different size) and I think that’s pushing it a bit. Doable though for sure, depending on binding angles and how deep you carve. The PYL is a similar width too, in the 160W. That said, the 160X West is around 271mm at the inserts, so really quite similar, and if you had no issues with that, I wouldn’t suspect you would have any issues with those two.
I would be leaning towards the West Bound, just because it will be the most similar to the West – but a little stiffer and more directional. The Flagship (2020 model), PYL & FA would all be good options too, but the West Bound perhaps the safer bet, being how you liked/know the West – or seeing if you can find a 2019 West.
Size-wise, I think you’re about right around that 159-161 mark. For those boards I would go:
West Bound: 161X
PYL: 160W
FA: 159W
Flagship: 159W
Hope this helps with your decision
Super helpful, Nate! Good people like you help make up for the rotten ones.
I think I’ve narrowed to the 2020 Flagship and West Bound. Am hoping to be able to demo a Flagship, but would be interested in your thoughts on relative strengths between those two. Any major drawbacks on one vs the other? Is the Flagship going to be a waste if I’m not seeing a ton of powder? Also, some have suggested that the West Bound might have an auto-spin effect on firmer snow. Can’t say I experienced that with the West, but I do realize the camber profile is different.
Finally, I had Union Stratas on my West X. Would you say those would pair well with these boards or should I firm up to Falcors?
Thanks again!
Hi Stephen
I wouldn’t say the Flagship would be a waste if not seeing tons of powder. It’s still really good in other areas. It is highly suited to riding powder, but it’s good enough elsewhere too.
I didn’t notice any auto spin with the West Bound. I have heard of some people not liking the Fusion Rocker Camber vs the Ripsaw Rocker Camber (but that was in relation to the Shaper Twin). So, yeah something to consider since it is definitely different to the Ripsaw Rocker Camber. But personally I didn’t experience anything like that.
The Stratas would certainly work on those boards, but ideally a little stiffer would be better. The Falcor would be a great choice, IMO. But if you wanted to try the Statas to begin with and see how you like it first, then I’d do that. I rode both the West Bound and Flagship with Malavitas, and they were fine. The Strata are a similar flex. But I would most likely go stiffer if owned either board.
Hi Nate,
Big fan of the site and your reviews! Currently looking to get a FA myself and was wondering if I could get your opinion on the sizing? I’m 5’9, 160lbs (without gear), and wear US8 boots. Planning on taking it to Japan so plenty of deep pow and tree runs.
Hi Ben
Thanks for your message.
I would say it’s a weigh up between the 152 and 156. The 156 probably the best option. The pros of going 152 are that it’s going to be a better width for your boot size (IMO) and that it’ll be more maneuverable for riding trees. The 156 will give you more float in powder and better stability at speed – and it’s the length that more suits your specs. 152 would be sizing down for you, IMO. If you like the sound of going shorter, to get that tree advantage and a narrower option, it’s not like a crazy option for your specs – so it’s doable.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate! I just ordered adidas tacticals in 11.5 and 12 (should be one of those sizes – going to return whichever size fits worse). I’m 6’2” and 180-185 lbs and am planning on adding this board. I was leaning 162W. Is that the way you’d lean too?
Also, looking at your different top 10s nothing popped to meet what I’m going to ask below but figured I’d ask anyway: any board that you think floats as well as the FA, carves as well AND has better pop?
Hi Dan
Yeah I think the 162W would be the size for you for the Flight Attendant.
I can think of a board that has a combination of those factors. I’d say the YES Pick Your Line might just shade it for pop, but very close. But the FA probably just shades it for carving – but again nothing in it. So, I’d say the PYL would be the equal of the FA for those factors, but can’t think of anything that has a combo of equal carving and float but with better pop.
Hey Nate,
I have been leaning toward the Burton FA. But I am slightly concerned it won’t be playful enough for me. I have been reading a lot of your responses.
I am an advanced rider that likes speed, carving and aggressive lines. Powder and groomers. Steep and deep. But I also like to hit natural jumps and get into the trees occasionally. I don’t ride the park too much these days but still enjoy it every once in a while.
I am 6’1″ and 170 lbs. Size 11 boot
Malavita bindings
Look forward to any input/recommendation you might have on board & sizing.
Love the site. Keep up the good work!
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message. Certainly for your speed, carving, aggressive lines and powder, the FA has you covered there, but not as ideal for natural jumps and park. It’s decent for this type of board, but personally I prefer something a little softer more easy going for that kind of thing. And in the trees. The FA isn’t bad in terms of maneuverability at slow speeds, but it’s not awesome in that respect either. There are usually trade offs though – going with something more suited to trees, park etc won’t be as good for carving/speed/powder. So there’s always some trade off there.
For something that’s going to be more forgiving and more of an all-rounder, I would check out:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
This is the category that I consider being the best at doing something of everything. Nothing in there will match the FA for speed, carving and powder, but most will be better for jumps/park. If you wanted to go even more freestyle ended but were happy to sacrifice powder then you could look at:
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
OR
>>Top 5 Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
But if you want something still decent in powder, then that all-mountain list is the one I would check out. Like, the FA can handle some side-hits, and trees etc, just not going to be amazing there. But if carving/speed/powder are your main things and you’re willing to have less for those other things, then it’s certainly an option. I would say 159W would be your best option for this board. With 11s you’re kind of borderline to wide, but for this particular board, I think wide with 11s makes sense.
Hope this helps
Nate,
Thank you for the quick feedback. What are your thoughts between the Yes Standard and Jones Mountain Twin? I read both reviews and a lot of the comments. I have never ridden a YES board. But know they are well respected.
I probably like speed and carving most overall. I also probably hit more natural jumps and trees than the park these days. Not sure if that helps with direction.
Also, what do you think is the best board for my riding with the Channel. I am not opposed to switching bindings but like the Malavita EST.
I know this is a bit of a compounded post.
Look forward to your feedback.
Hi Alex
Between the Standard and Mountain Twin, both are good for carving/speed. Not to the same level as the FA but decent. As good as each other in that regard, IMO.
The Standard is more buttery. It’s softer tip and tail than the Mountain Twin, the MT is a little more challenging to press on. Not sure if that’s a factor for you or not. Overall flex feels about the same. But the Standard is maybe a little stiffer between the feet and softer tip and tail.
The Standard feels a little more snappy/poppy to me. The MT isn’t pop-less but the Standard has a bit more in that regard. So, I would say the Standard I just prefer over the MT for sidehits. But yeah I would prefer both for side-hits over the FA.
In terms of with the Channel, certainly the FA is still an option, given that speed/carving is your main thing – and you can certainly take it on side hits. But if you’re looking for something that’s a little better for sidehits, then you could look at the:
– Burton Custom: This isn’t great in powder, is the biggest downside, but it would give you a little more in terms of carving vs the Standard and Mountain Twin – in between the FA and the other 2 for carving. But below all 3 for powder
– Burton Paramount: Even worse than the Custom for powder, but a sick board for jumps, including natural jumps. Maybe less of an all-rounder, more freestyle oriented, than what you’re looking for, but can lay down a mean carve too
– Burton Skeleton Key: More on the freeride end of the spectrum. Great for carving, good in powder and good at speed. Just a little down in terms of speed vs the FA, but just that little better for jumps, IMO.
– Endeavor Clout: This is what I have categorized as an aggressive all-mtn-freestyle board, but it’s got a longer nose and tail than most in that category – so whilst it’s a centered stance naturally (though you could always set it back a bit as I did when I rode it) it’s a little better in powder than most in that category. Worth checking out as an alternative to Burton, that uses the channel system.
Nate,
You are the man and appreciate all the input you have provided!
Alright, I think I have narrowed it down to 3 boards… lol. I also wanted to mention I mainly ride in Breck, Keystone and Heavenly.
The Custom and back to the FA on the Burton front. I think I am leaning towards the Custom but also don’t want to be let down too much in the powder. I do really enjoy the back bowls, etc. But like the fact that the Custom has more pop and that freestyle/all mountain aspect.
I took a look at the Endeavor Clout and it is definitely intriguing. Seems to be well balanced and can do just about everything I am looking for at least well.
Let me know if you have any final comments that might help me make the decision. I also wanted to confirm on what you thought in term of board size on the Custom & Endeavor.
Again, I really appreciate your help!
Hi Alex
Size-wise for the Custom and Clout, IMO:
Custom: 158W – in some cases with 11s, you might squeeze on the 158, but in your case, if you like to carve, then I think 158W is a good width
Clout: 160W – it has less effective edge vs overall length than the Custom and FA, so you can go a bit longer with it, so I think that would be a good length/width for that board, for you
Yeah, biggest downside with Custom is in powder. I mean you can always set it back a little more and that would help, but it’s still never going to be amazing in powder, OMO. And if you were to go Clout, you might want to give it a bit of a setback too, at least on powder days, but it goes a little better in powder than the Custom overall, IMO.
Hey Nate, thanks for the review.
I’m currently tossing up the FA 162W or the Jones Frontier 164W as a board for this season. I’d say I’m intermediate rider, looking to ride in France and possibly Japan. Love piste bashing, and riding fast. No tricks here, so purely freeriding. Which of the two would you get and what bindings would you partner them up with? Cheers bud.
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your message.
Overall for performance I would say that the FA is the better board – for carving, speed and powder, but I would be leaning towards the Frontier for you. It’s a more easily manageable board. Still far from a beginner board – but less technical and not as stiff as the FA. It’s a really good intermediate to advanced all-mountain going on freeride board. The FA is more of an advanced to expert freeride board. So I think you would get more enjoyment out of the Frontier at this stage. And it’s still really good for riding fast, carving and powder, just not quite to the level of the FA.
Size-wise, it would depend on your specs. If you’re happy with your sizing all good. But I’m happy to give my opinion if you wanted it. I would just need your height, weight and boot size (as I already have your ability and style).
In terms of bindings, I would go minimum 6/10 in terms of flex to match the Frontier and minimum 7/10 in terms of flex for the FA. Probably maximum of 7/10 flex as well though in your case, to match your level. Since you do like to ride fast and not into tricks, then going 7/10 rather than 6/10 (for either board) is perhaps a good idea. In that case – check out the following for some options:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
If you did want to go more like 6/10 for something just a little more easy going, then check out:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I started my snowboarding 5 years ago with a old 156 board, and it cost me a lot to learn how to ride. Now I am using 2017 Burton Custom camber 154 in groomers, it gives me enough support when I am carving. I’d say I am an intermediate, and try to start powers, trees and advanced groomers. What length do you recommend for FA 2019 model for me, I am around 5’8″ and <170lbs. I check the size chart, I should be going either 156 or 159, I know this board will give me a quite different feeling. Really need your suggestions. Thanks, Tim
Hi Tim
Thanks for your message.
For you, I would go 156. I think that would be a really good size for you. You’re looking at about the same effective edge as your ’17 Custom, but with more nose – and a rockered nose. I think 159 would be going a little long for your specs, especially if you’re going to be taking it into the trees. Remember as well that the FA is going to be a bit stiffer than the Custom too.
I recently rode the FA in the 156 (I’m 6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boots) and I actually really enjoyed. If I was to buy it, I would go 159 – and could technically even go 162, but I prefer going a little smaller. But even on the 156 I had a blast – and still felt stable enough too. For you, I think the 156 would be right on.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate, that is really really helpful! I will follow your suggestion.
Actually, I am also thinking to learn how to butter and maybe some small jumps when down hill, but definitely not going to parks. Do you think my 154 Custom is a good board for learning, too stiff? I am looking at two other options under Burton product line, because my bindings are EST. One is 155 cm Name Dropper, which is named to be a light and very flex board, good to learn how to butter? but only 155 cm is available near me, I think the downsize option 151 cm could be a better choice? Another available right away is the 152 cm Burton Descendant. Which one do you recommend for as a good learning board and maybe still workable when acquired? Really appreciate your help!
Hi Tim
The Custom is quite hard to butter, in my experience, so if you’re wanting to learn butters it would be a tough learning curve. The Name Dropper and Descendant certainly much easier to butter. They would be good boards to learn butters and small jumps. Both are kind of lacking when it comes to carves and speed though. If you were going to be using it as a playful ride slow and play around on, kind of board, then one of those could work – and then going for a size around that 151, 152 could work too. But if you want something that can still carve a little and handle a little more speed, then they may not be the best option. The Descendant in that case would be a little better than the Name Dropper, for being slightly more versatile.
You could look at something like the Process Flying V. Not quite as easy to butter but gives you a bit more in terms of carving/speed. Or the Kilroy 3D (new for 2020) – which I haven’t ridden myself, but by specs and what I’ve heard, it’s likely as buttery or close, vs the Name Dropper and Descendant and likely as good or better than Descendant in other areas. But like I say I haven’t ridden it, so I couldn’t say for sure.
Hi Nate, I realise I made a mistake on my height, by converting from metric to feet, I am actually 178cm, so it should be converted to 5’10-11″, the weight is correct, 165-170lbs. I know the weight is more important than the height when deciding the board. Does the new height change any good suggestion you made?
Hi Tim
That makes the case for 159 a little more appealing, and whilst I don’t think the 159 would be a bad option for you at all, I would still be leaning towards the 156 for you.
Hi Nate,
I will follow your recommendation and get 156 cm for Flight Attendant. For the buttery board, if I have to pick one from 152 Descendant 2019 or 155 Name dropper 2019 (151 is sold out everywhere!), which one do you think i should pick, does the 3 cm difference really matter when i learn the buttery and other skills?
Cause I already have the Custom, so the all mountain capability for this park board is not a big deal, it is playful only. I am towards the 155 cm ND, cause i read reviews on this board, it is a very light board good for buttery. Like you said, the Kilroy 3D 2020 is better but also expensive, so it is not an option for me. Thanks, Tim
Hi Tim
I always find shorter boards easy to butter (assuming all else being equal). So whilst the Name Dropper in general is probably slightly more buttery/light, by the time you add those 3cm that would cancel it out probably vs the Descendant, perhaps even the Descendant becomes easier for learning those things. The other thing, is that having your 156 FA and 154 Custom, going 152 Descendant just gives you that smaller playful size, that I thin would compliment your setup well. The 155 Name Dropper would certainly work for what you’re wanting it for, but there’s an argument to go 152 Descendant too.
Hello, I’m an intermediate level boarder, 174 cm and approx 80kg. I ride 90% of the time groomers. I will go for a burton board as I will be buying the step on binding and boots. I have narrowed down my shortlist to the flight attendant and the custom Flying V. What is your recommendation? Thanks
Hi Yannick
Thanks for your message.
Those are two very different boards.
The Custom Flying V is softer, looser feeling and definitely a more playful, easy going ride. It’s a good all-rounder.
The Flight Attendant is more specialized towards powder, carving and speed. Great on the groomers and in powder, but not so good for riding switch, riding freestyle, slowing down and playing around on. It’s also a much more aggressive ride vs the Custom Flying V, and stiffer.
As an intermediate rider, I would be leaning towards the Custom Flying V – the Flight Attendant is really something more for advanced and up. And the Custom Flying V is a very versatile ride. On the looser side, but not like super loose or anything. For your specs, I would be looking at the 156 or 158 (or 158W depending on boot size). The 158 giving more in terms of float in powder, stability at speed and for big carves. The 156 a little more maneuverable (particularly at slower speeds), better for trees, and better for freestyle type riding.
Hope this helps with your decision
Tx Nate for your reply, I appreciate your guidance and will go for the custom FV
Keep up the good work
You’re very welcome Yannick. Hope you have an awesome rest of your season!
Hi Nate.
I own Barracuda and almost absolutely happy while riding it either on groomers or in powder. But when I’m not riding it I often look at FA side. I ride 10-15 days per year, most of the time on groomers and sometimes in powder when it’s available, but next season I’m going to practice serious freeride. Tell me please – is it reasonable to change Cuda to FA and will I feel serious difference between them.
Thanks in advance for your answer.
Alex.
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden the Barracuda, so I couldn’t say for sure, but from what I’ve read the Barracuda was a little softer flexing and a little more powder specialized. At a guess I would say that the FA has the Barracuda for speed and carving but the Barracuda maybe a little better for powder – and a surfier kind of feel – whereas the FA more of a precise/locked in feel.
So, I think you would definitely feel the difference between them, but whether or not you would prefer the feel of the FA would depend. If you feel like you could do with a bit more stiffness and a more locked in rather than surfy feel, then the FA is probably a good bet. Otherwise, sticking with the Barracuda would work. But having not ridden the Barracuda, I can’t really give any details.
Hope this gives you more to go off.
Hi Nate,
I’m trying to decide between the Flight attendant or the skeleton key. I’m 5’7” about 190 pounds with a size 9 boot. My back foot stance angle would probably be 12 or less. Not sure yet in case I have to worry about toe drag.
I want one board for powder, trees, and groomers. I’m planning to ride at whitefish resort and also in Colorado this year. (I’m from MN). I would say I’m an intermediate rider.
Hi Rob
I haven’t ridden the Skeleton Key, but based on specs, and my experience with the Flight Attendant and other Burton boards, I think the Skeleton would be your best bet.
I think it would be better for an intermediate level. And I think it would be better in trees. I would say it’s a semi-short-wide. Something that’s a little wider and ridden a little shorter (which also helps in the trees). For your specs, I’d say the 154 is a good size for the Skeleton Key. If you were to go with the FA, then I would go for the 156 or 159, but probably the 156. But overall, I would say go Skeleton Key, for what you’re describing (noting that I haven’t ridden it though).
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks!
If I’m trying to freeride more would you recommend the flight attendant then?
Hi Rob
The Flight Attendant would be better in terms of stability at speed and for big wide carves. So, if that was going to be your main stay, then you might consider it over the Skeleton Key. I think the Skeleton Key would be better in trees, better in uneven terrain and just as good in powder. And still good for carving and still pretty stable at speed, just not to the level of the FA (I predict – like I say I haven’t ridden the Skeleton Key). The Skeleton Key looks like it’s more of a mid-flex, compared to the FA which is a medium-stiff flex.
The FA would be more difficult to ride as an intermediate, IMO. The Skeleton Key I think would be a great option for an intermediate or advanced level. The FA more just for advanced and up, IMO.
Hi Nate,
Just purchased a FA 2019 156 for Christmas. My previous board is a 2008 160 Custom X, a rocket ship and the burton rebublik before that…another rocket ship.. I had asked my wife for the 156 FA and she delivered. Took it out the first day out this season and realized how awesome it is. I am an advanced rider but wanted a bit of a shorter board as I take my 3 very little girls skiing these days and the shorter board makes things much easier. I do free style in open natural terrain but stay away from the park these days.
But now I see how nice this deck is I’m wondering will it work for me in big open terrain, deep power. I can ride just about anything put in front of me. I am 170 pounds and 5’8″ with a size 8 boot.
Hi Doug
Thanks for your message.
Based on your specs, the 156 is the size I would have recommended for you, so I think you shouldn’t have any problem with it in open terrain. Whilst, you’re used to a bit more length, the FA is more setup to ride powder than the Custom X, so even though the overall length is shorter, it’s better length-for-length, than the Custom X in powder, IMO. So I don’t think you’ll loose much if any in powder compared to the 160 Custom X. It could potentially even be a touch better, despite the reduction in surface area.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m 6′ 165 lbs without gear and a size 11.5. I’m in search of the ultimate two board quiver and one of them is a Never Summer Proto Type Two 155X. It’s fantastic for hard snow and riding switch and a lot of fun. My second board will be for all mountain freestyle, deeper days, and choppy snow/moguls. My two options are the Flight Attendant 159W and the Skeleton Key 158. In your opinion, which one is more fun and will complement the Proto better and offer the most contrast? Thanks in advance!
Hi Giles
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden the Skeleton Key yet, so I can’t say first hand how that would be, but based on specs, I would say the following:
1. The Skeleton Key has a softer flex than the FA – the FA being medium-stiff (7/10 by my feel) and the SK rated as medium. The Proto Type Two is rated medium (5/10 by my feel). So in that sense the FA is more different.
2. The Skeleton Key is more of a short/wide kind of shape. So in that sense it’s more different with the FA and PT2 having a more traditional shape. Though in saying that the FA 159W is actually still wider overall.
3. Both the SK and FA are setback and directional and tapered. Which are things that make both very different to the PT2. The SK is a little more setback than the FA by the looks but both have the same amount of taper (10mm). Overall the SK is a little more different in this sense based on the larger setback but both are quite different to the PT2 in this sense.
4. Both the SK and FA look to have a similar camber profile – which is predominantly camber – and the camber extends back to the tail – with rocker in the nose.
5. Both have a similar sidecut radius and sidecut depth. And both have a similar effective edge (1205mm on the 158 SK and 1210 on the 159W FA). They also look like they have a similar core.
So the main differences that I can see are that the SK has more of a setback and a softer flex. The extra setback makes it more different to the PT2, but the flex is more similar to the PT2.
What that’s likely to mean, IMO, without having actually tested the SK, is that the SK will be slightly more maneuverable/agile, especially at slower speeds. The FA is more powerful and I would imagine a slightly better carver, though the SK still looks like it would be good there – and the FA better stability at speed too. But I think the SK would be a little better in powder and would be better in choppy snow – and likely moguls, if you’re going to need that agility in there.
So, I think they both offer a lot of contrast to the PT2 and it’s hard to say which is most different because they’re both more different in more aspects, but for what you’re describing, based on specs of course, I think the SK would be the more suitable board for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
That helps greatly. Thank you!
You’re very welcome Giles. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate, i bought the fligh attendant. I want a snowboard for practice Freeride. I love powder and i go every time after a storm.
My high is 6.10 feet
My weight 181 lb
I bought the FA 162 cm. And now i thinking that the sizes can be 159.
Always i ride a Burton blunt v rocker 158.
Would do You recomemend me? Cheers from Argentina
I like this webpages! I learn a lot
Hi Bruno
Thanks for your message.
If you are a relatively advanced rider, I would say that the 162 for this board is about right. But you could also ride the 159 for sure.
If you are more of an intermediate rider, then the 159 might be more suitable.
There are pros and cons to going with either.
1. The 162 will have better float in powder, more stability at speed and for wide open carves will be better too, IMO
2. The 159 will be more agile at slower speeds, quicker edge to edge, easier to ride in general and better in trees, IMO
Hope this gives you more info to go off
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the review. I’ve been looking at buying this board for a while now and am going to do it. Currently I have a burton custom flying v (hybrid bend) 156. I’m 6′ and 175-180 without gear. I’m kinda aiming for something more stable at speed but would still like to be able to turn in trees. Im having trouble deciding between the 159cm and 162cm. Would I really notice much difference either way between these boards?
Thanks
Hi SNWbrd
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, IMO you would certainly notice the difference of 3cm. They’re not going to be worlds apart but definitely noticeable. The 162 is not only 3cm longer in overall length, but also has a 3cm longer effective edge – and that’s what you’ll notice the most. And the 162 is also a little wider, so you would notice that too (which is good and bad).
I think I would be leaning towards the 159 for you. You could ride the 162 as well but I think you would enjoy the 159 more – especially given that you’re going to be riding trees. If you were going to be only riding big mountain open faces with lots of powder, then 162, but if you’re going to be riding in the resort at all, and riding trees a fair bit, then 159 would be my call for you.
You’ll get more agility out of the 159. Yes you’ll sacrifice a little in terms of float in powder and stability at speed – but this board is really good at those things anyway, regardless of size – so on balance, I’d say 159. The other reason is that you’re moving from a 156 and going to a 159 will be an easier transition – but even regardless of that I’d say 159.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply. Just to be clear im about 175 without gear, and I read another one of your articles stating that the weight charts are including all your gear which would put me at the upper limit of the 159. Still recommend the 159?
Thanks again
Hi SNWbrd
The weight recommendations for this board have actually been changed (apologies that I hadn’t updated the weight recommendations here, have done now) – but either way, those recommendations are just broad guidelines, IMO. They are usually quite a broad range – and the fact that they’ve been changed even though the board is essentially the same as the 2017 model, shows how those weight recommendations aren’t hard and fast.
So, yeah I would still recommend the 159. Also, weight recommendations, as far as I know, are usually based on your weight without gear these days (I will also have to update that other post for that) – just that it’s easier to recommend for weight without gear as everyone rides with different amounts of gear and are less likely to know their weight with gear. It used to be the other way around but as far as I know, most weight recommendations are without gear now. But again, those recommendations are pretty flexible, IMO. They’re handy as a general guideline, but aren’t hard and fast.
Cool, thanks again
You’re very welcome
Hey Nate,
I narrowed it down to the FA 159, but my boot size are 10.5 with a duck stance of about 12 till 15 on both feet. I prefer to ride to 159 for the faster edge to edge or do you recommend the 159W. I carve hard and deep BTW.
Thanks Neill
Hi Neill
Thanks for your message.
Since you like to carve hard and deep, I think the 159 would be pushing it being a bit narrow. The fact that you have a decent angle on your back foot is in your favor, and ordinarily I would say you could get on something like that, if you weren’t someone who did deep carves – but for the fact, I think that it would be risky and the 159W would be a better bet.
If you have low profile boots (Adidas, Burton, Ride and Vans are the best in the industry that I know of), then that would give you a bit more leeway and also boots with a good toe bevel. If everything was in your favor there, then I think you could push it – but otherwise safer to go with the 159W, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thank you Nate for the super detailed response! How would you say the union contact pro would work with this board?
Hi Shreddy
You’re very welcome.
The Contact Pro would be a bit too soft flexing for this board, IMO. I would go for something that at least matches the flex of the FA – so something around 7/10, 8/10 flex would be better in my opinion. You could go 6/10 if you really prefer your bindings softer (I rode this with the Cartels which I would say are 6/10 and they were fine but ideally 7-8/10). The Contact Pros are more like 4/10, IMO.
Check out the lists below for some binding options in that flex range.
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Hi! I am 5 11 195 lbs with a 10.5 boot running large Cartel bindings. My stance is +18 front foot, and 0 on the back foot. Should I get the 59 wide?
Hi Shreddy
Thanks for you message.
For you, I’d be weighing up between the 159W and the 162W. Given your straight back foot in a 10.5, I would say that at least 258mm waist roughly is a good idea.
I’d put you on about a 161 to 162 for your specs for length. But given that you’re going wider, you could get away with going down to the 159. You would be slightly above the weight recommendations for that length but not far off. This might make the board feel slightly softer than what it’s rated at. I’d say it’s around a 7/10 in terms of flex. You might feel it more around a 6.5/10 or something like that, roughly speaking. If that doesn’t sound like an issue for you, then the 159 comes into play.
In terms of pros and cons for either:
~ The 162W will give you a bit more float in powder and more stability at speed and for big carves (the FA is good at these things anyway – going to the longer size will just make it even better in those areas)
~ The 159W will be more agile at slower speeds, and a little quicker edge-to-edge – both because of the shorter length and being narrower. It will also be better for jibs, trees, and spins/tricks in general (though jibs, tricks etc aren’t really what this board is made for)
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi!
I’m 6,4 tall and wondering should I get the 162W or 168? I also wear size 12 burton ruler snowboard boots.
Thanks for your help!
Hi Samu
Depending on your binding angles, I think you could get on either board in terms of width with size 12s. Which length you went for would depend largely on your weight.
If you could let me know your typical binding angles and your weight, then I could make a more accurate recommendation.
Hi!
My back foot is usually 0 degrees and front foot 14 degrees. I weight around 187 lbs.
Hi Samu
Thanks for the extra info.
With a straight back foot like that, I think you would want to go for the 162W width-wise. The 264mm waist-width is going to accommodate that back foot better. Even at that width, it’s pushing it too narrow for a straight back foot like that.
Also in terms of length, I think the 162W is a slightly better fit. I would put you at a 164, 165 for your height/weight, assuming you’re at an advanced level of riding. The 162W is a little shorter than that, but not far off, and the extra width should make up for that. The 168 would be a little too long for you, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi!
This helps a lot, thank you!
You’re very welcome Samu. Happy riding!
This is a great review and I’m trying to wrap my head around what I want.
As a 5’10” 210 lb size 12 boot rider, my options for a new board are somewhat limited to what is available in wide sizes.
I tend to do all-mountain riding for the most part, but I do like to get into powder when I can. I do no park at all. I’d say I’m a bit past intermediate skill level, but I don’t have a desire to do super steep stuff or go crazy on the mountain. I mostly like to carve and cruise and not charge super fast around the mountain but be able to venture into powder when able.
I ride fairly duck footed because my anatomy sticks both feet out.
I was reading the top all-mountain, all-mountain aggressive and freeride boards and it seems that a lot of the all mountain boards are more park oriented than I would want, and the all-mountain aggressive boards are more aggressive than I would want.
I came across to the Flight Attendant as a free-ride board with powder capabilities, that is available in a wide but also has more flex than the other freeride boards. I think something like the Custom X would be too aggressive and unforgiving from what I have read on your site.
Do you think this would be a viable option for someone like me? Or did I overlook another option somewhere else? I looked at the Capita Mercury but it’s not available in a wide. Would I be better with something like the Jones Explorer or the FA?
Thanks for your help!
Hi Kyle
Thanks for your message.
I think the Flight Attendant would be a good option for the type of riding that you’re describing but is still possibly a bit too much on the advanced/slightly too aggressive side. It’s still got a lot of camber to the tail, with just rocker in the nose and even though it is softer than a lot of other freeride boards it’s still 7/10, so still relatively stiff. I think it would work for sure, but just be aware of that. In terms of size, I’d say that the 162W would be a great size for you as an advanced rider who wanted to bomb. However, if you went for the 159W, which should be wide enough for you, given your duck stance, that would make the board feel a little softer and would be a more easy going ride than the longer size. It won’t be as good for float in powder or stability at speed – but since this board is already great in powder it would still float well.
The Explorer is also another good option, IMO, for what you’re describing. For that I would go for the 161W.
You could also still look at something all-mountain. They do have features which make them work for freestyle riding but you don’t necessarily have to use them for that. But I think the Explorer would be a good option, and the FA too, though I think the 159W might be the better size for you for that board.
Hope this helps
Hey! How would this compare to the Burton Kilroy Custom? From what I see you give up the taper, less rockeres nose with the Kilroy Custom. I want something more carving and groomer oriented, as I have a pow deck for deep days, but still does ok if there is like 6in of fresh or so. Or maybe the Kilroy Custom vs the Jones Flagship? Penny for your thoughts? Thanks!
Hi Eric
I haven’t ridden the Kilroy Custom – but based on the specs, I’d say that it’s going to be similar in terms of carving as the Flight Attendant, but not as good in powder – it’s still got a setback stance of 25mm (not quite as much as the FA but still a good setback) – but it’s camber from tip to tail, so it doesn’t have that rockered nose to help it float. So something that you could ride in around 6in fresh ok. Not going to be in the league of the FLight Attendant for powder but will handle it ok. Also, it’s probably a little easier for riding switch, given that it’s not tapered and slightly less setback.
Overall it looks to be more of a groomer board and if you like traditional camber I imagine it would be a good carver. But again, I haven’t tested it so this is based on specs and other similar boards.
The Flagship is more similar to the FA – if you already have something for deep powder, then the Flagship and FA is probably unnecessary for your quiver. You could also check out the following for some options.
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
~ Top 5 Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I’d appreciate your advice. Your top boards article helped me decide to go with the Burton Flight Attendant board. Was just hoping to get your input on sizing. I’m 190 lbs, 6’1″, and size 11 boots. With those dimensions, would you recommend I go with the 162W? I was also planning on grabbing the Cartel EST’s in large. You think that’d be a good setup or do you have alternative recommendations? One other question: I currently have a 160cm 2014 Jones Mountain Twin with Union Contact Pros, would the Flight Attendant be a nice addition to the quiver considering my current board?
Thanks man.
Hi Ian
Yeah, I think that the 162W would be a good size for you for this board. You could probably squeeze onto the 162 regular width, if you had binding angles like +15/-15 (i.e. with a reasonable angle on the back foot). But with anything straighter than that on the back foot, then 162W is going to be a better option.
Cartels work well with this board, IMO. So I think they’re a good option. You could go with something like the Genesis X if you wanted a little more in terms of stiffness/response – but you also hike the price up significantly going that route, and the Cartels work almost as well on this board, IMO. If you were going to go outside of the Burton brand you could go with something off the following list:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
But I think the Cartels will be fine.
I think the FA would be a good compliment to the Mountain Twin. Especially if you end up going with the 162W. You’d have something longer and wider to compliment your smaller, softer flexing, more twinned out Mountain Twin. The Mountain Twin certainly isn’t at the end of the scale by any means – but it is softer, and more freestyle oriented than the FA. With the FA you get a step up in terms of powder, carving and speed. Which the Mountain Twin isn’t bad at but not at the FAs level – it is more versatile – so you could definitely use your Mountain Twin for days when you want to have a more casual day on the groomers, want to ride more switch, jumps, tricks, in the park, if you go there – but even just for more casual days when you don’t feel like bombing it or if you’re riding with others who are slower. The FA would be the tool to use for bombing days and powder days.
So yeah, I think they’re different enough for sure to be part of the same quiver.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Very informative website. Thanks for all your help! I’ve been riding for about 15 years, usually making it out to the slopes 1-2 weeks per year. Probably advanced but not expert category. I love backcountry, treelines, powder runs, carving on groomers. Not big into park, though I do like smaller jumps and natural features. I think the FA would probably be a reasonable fit for me. I’ve been on a Custom 158cm for several years, looking to upgrade. Like one of the posters above, I looked into other board companies as well but I have ESTs so it may be easiest to stick with Burton. I have Cartel ESTs and K2 Maysis boots (size 10). Stats: 5’9, 150lbs. Wondering if I should go for the 156 or 159? I wonder if the 156 would give me more maneuveribility with my weight being on the lower end. Thanks so much for your help! – Matt
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
First of all, I think the FA, no matter which size you choose is a good choice for what you’re describing and will pair well with Cartels and the Maysis.
There are definitely reasons to go 156 and reasons to go 159. I think 156 would be the size I would usually recommend for your spces – but the board you are coming from influences that decision too.
This is what I think:
The 156 is going to be the better size for trees. The 156 suits your height/weight the best. It will be more maneuverable at slower speeds.
The 159 is going to give you more float in powder, be more stable at speed and is going to be more similar to your current board (based on the 2013 model, which hasn’t changed too much since then, but not sure if your board is older or newer than that – just took a guess, but it hasn’t changed too much over the years in terms of size) in terms of effective edge, and in terms of width (in the tip and waist anyway, the FAs tail is narrower as it’s a tapered board).
The other thing is that, with size 10s, the 248mm waist on the FA is potentially getting too narrow, which might make the 159 the better choice overall. If you use binding angles with something like 15 or 12 degrees on the back foot, then you should be fine on the width of the 156. However, if you use a straigher back foot, then you would either need to go 159 or 159W. If you’ve quite a straight back foot like 0 or 3 degrees, then even the 159 is probably too narrow. In that case 159W. If you were to go 159W, then you are going to be going wider than your current board in terms of waist, tail and particularly tip. This extra surface area would be great for riding deep powder, but less desirable in situations (like trees) where you want that extra maneuverability.
I know that’s a lot of info to take in! But hopefully that gives you more to go off for your decision.
Thanks so much for your help! I think based on everything you’ve said the 159 may be the better way to go overall. Really appreciate your thoughtful comments. Your site is extremely helpful! -Matt
You’re very welcome Matt. Hope you have an awesome season and enjoy your new board!
Nate great review. I was looking into purchasing this board just for pow pow days. I’m 5 11” 210 lbs. size 11. You think I should go straight after 168 or lean towards 159W? Thanks
Hi Clint
Unless you know that you like a really long board, then I wouldn’t go for the 168. That’s getting too long for you, IMO.
But I think you should also go longer than 159W, particularly since you are looking to use it as your pow board. I think the 162 or 162W would be your best bet. If you ride with binding angles something like +15/-15, then you should be able to get on the 162. But if you’re back foot tends to be straighter – 12 degrees or less – then you’re safer going for the 162W. The advantage of going 162W as well, is that you’re getting more surface area in there, which will help with float in powder too.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, I’m looking for a new board. I pretty much stick to free riding with tree runs and powder wherever I can find it. I’m 6’4” 195 pounds w/o gear, size 13 boot. I’ve been riding a Burton Custom 165w for a few years now. Do you think the Burton FA 162w would fit me well? I have Cartel EST’s, which is why I’m looking at another burton board so I don’t have to buy new bindings, but I’ve also been looking at the Never Summer West and Jones Ultra Mountain Twin. I wouldn’t mind cutting down on board length for my next board for more maneuverability. It looks like the waist width is pretty equal for these two boards. As far as my skill level goes, I can ride pretty much anything (in bounds). Any help is much appreciated!
Thanks!
Hi Ben
I think the Flight Attendant could be a good option for you, especially if you’re looking to size down a bit – that sizing down is going to help in the trees – and also, the Flight Attendant will be a much more fun board in powder than the Custom camber. I think this board would suit you better.
The width on the 162W FA should be fine for 13s. It’s the minimum I would recommend – but if your Custom is a 165 I’m guessing it’s circa 2010, and probably has a 262mm waist width – the FA has a 264mm waist – so you should be fine there – especially if you have Burton boots.
The West and Ultra Mountain Twin will also be an improvement over your Custom in powder – but I think if you want to stick with Burton and if you’re not fussed about freestyle stuff, then the FA is a good choice – will outshine the Mountain Twin and West in terms of powder, carving and speed.
It will be a little stiffer than your Custom, whereas the West and Mountain Twin will be a similar flex to your custom. But as long as you’re ok with that, you should be fine. And for a freeride board, it’s actually a bit softer flexing than most.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Dear Nate,
I.m 1,68m, 67-68kg, and I want to replace my agressive Custom X 156 board for the slightly more forgiving Flight attendant. The Custom’s float in powder isn’t great, at the end off the day it’s working hard on piste. I hope the Flight attendant wil do better under those circumstances. I’m boarding for 20 years, 1-2 weeks per year, intermediate-advanced, not an expert. I like speed, I like carving, most of the time I will be on piste. I don’t do freestyle at all.
What board size do you recommend? The 152 Flight Attendant, or te 156? Other recommendations?
Hi Marc
You will definitely see a marked improvement in powder on the Flight Attendant over the Custom X. And by the sounds of how you like to ride, the Flight Attendant fits all of your requirements.
In terms of size it’s a tough one. I would put you at around a 153cm “all-mountain/standard length” so 152cm sounds appealing as it’s pretty close to that and also it looks a better fit for Burton’s weight recommendations. But I do see those recommendations as guidelines and not hard and fast rules.
Overall I’m leaning towards the 156 a. because for a freeride board it’s often a good idea to add a couple of cms to your all-mountain length b. given that you’re into speed, carving and powder and not into anything freestyle and c. because you’re already used to a 156 – and given that the Flight Attendant is slightly more forgiving and has a rockered nose and the overall effective edge on the FA 156 is 1180mm compared to the Custom X 156’s effective edge of 1195mm.
I don’t think that 152 would be a bad option – but on balance I would be leaning towards 156 for you.
Hope this helps
Dear Nate,
Thank you so much, I’ve opted for the 156cm FA and it feels great in the indoor snow hall :-).
I’m looking forward to fight the Austrian Alps with it in februari!
Marc
Hey Marc
Thanks for the update. Stoked that you’re enjoying the FA! – have an awesome time in the Alps!
Hi Nate, I just ordered a 163W Flight Attendant. I am 6’4″ 220 lbs without gear on. I ride on the east coast except for one trip west a year. I really want a board that can charge hard through anything but also need to have a board that works well in powder since thats all I search for. I can handle a large board and was debating the custom X in 166 but opted for a better powder board. My question is this, will my 162W Flight be on the small side for me when charging through crud or at Tuckermans Ravine type conditions?
Hi PJ
I would usually say something around a 167cm for your specs and assuming you’re an advanced rider, which it sounds like you are.
The 168 would perhaps be a better fit – if the width was wide enough. What’s your boot size?
But with the 162W, you do at least get a bit of extra width, which helps with that extra surface area for powder. I don’t think it’s completely wrong but yeah, I’d usually say a little longer for you. Though, if you like to ride the trees a lot too, then shortening that length can help in there – though it sounds like you’re usually in more open terrain.
I am glad I found this site. Hours of great reading!! Thank you.
I am looking to upgrade my gear. And the 2018 flight attendant is a serious contender. I am, however, struggling with the sizing. I am 6 foot, 180 pounds and a size 11. My main focus is carving. I ride +27/+12. Hitting groomers all day. No park. I am coming from a 161 2008/2009 Ride Prophet. My riding is limited to east coast (NY/VT). Based on my weight I would fall in to the 159 or 159W. But, after reading your article on board width I am concerned the 159 is not wide enough and the 159W may be too wide….Curious what your recommendation would be for this board and if you had any other Burton boards you would recommend over this one (Custom X, Custom, Skeleton Key). I would like to stick with Burton. Any advice you can offer is appreciated. Thank you,
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
I think a good length range for you would be anywhere from 159 to 162 (base on your height, weight and how you like to ride). The Flight Attendant (FA) 159 has a 250mm waist – it looks like your Prophet has a 251mm waist? So it wouldn’t be too much narrower – that said, I still think it’s too narrow for size 11s. The 159W has a 260mm waist width. This is within a good range for 11s in my opinion. And the fact that you’d be taking off a couple of cms from your last board, a bit of extra width is probably a good to have. I think the 159W would be the perfect size for you for this board. Also, think of it this way. The 161 Prophet had a 1234mm effective edge on the 161, the 159W FA has a 1210mm effective edge. So you’re sizing down a little in terms of both length an effective edge. This isn’t a bad thing necessarily but that little bit of extra width compared to your last board balances things out, IMO.
You could also look at Custom and Custom X – the biggest thing you’d sacrifice their, compared with the Flight Attendant is performance in powder. The Custom and Custom X aren’t great in powder. If you don’t see a lot of powder or ride in it much, then this wouldn’t be an issue. They are both good carvers. Note that the Custom X is quite stiff and a very aggressive ride. Not one that’s easy to ride slow. They both have a traditional camber profile (as does your Prophet so you’d be used to that) but the Custom has a softer flex (medium) so it’s a bit more easy going.
The Skeleton Key is more powder oriented in my opinion. Still a good carver but I don’t think it would be as good an option as the Flight Attendant.
Another option is the Burton Deep Thinker – but this is new this season and I haven’t had a chance to ride for it, so I can’t vouch for it’s performance but I would categorize it as a freeride board, based on its specs.
Hope this helps. If you decide not to go with the Flight Attendant (though I do think it’s a good option) and want any opinions on sizing of other options, let me know.
I realize this is a dumb question but I’m new to snowboarding but love it. I bought the Burton FA and am excited for this winter but I’m worried that everything I’ve read says advanced/expert. Is Carving riding on the edge of the board vs “skidding” the turns? I’ve only ridden rental boards and I’m wondering if I’m in over my head with this board. I think I probably skid more than carve.
Great review, thanks
Hi Brad
Yeah unfortunately I wouldn’t recommend the Flight Attendant for beginners. It’s a little bit too stiff and a bit unforgiving. For a freeride board it’s on the easier going side compared to some other freeride boards – but it’s still not a great choice for a beginner.
Yeah carving is where you get up on the edges of the snowboard and essentially let the sidecut of the snowboard do your turning and it’s more about weight transfer than actually initiating turns. If you are a beginner, then it’s likely that you will still be doing skidded turns.
It’s a great board but I would say a bit beyond a beginner and my fear would be that you wouldn’t enjoy riding it or that it would slow your progress.
Sorry, this probably isn’t the answer you wanted! I know it’s not necessarily affordable but if you were able to grab another more beginner friendly board and build your way up to the FA – or if you were able to return the FA and get something else if that’s not affordable for you.
hi Nate ..
Love the graphic on this board. I used to ride over a decade ago, but would class myself as a novice – intermediate now. Would this board be suitable for me ? it’s a bit stiffer than I used to ride back in the day from what I can tell.
Hi Panos
It’s not the stiffest board in the world – but it’s still reasonably stiff. Stiffer than the average board. Also, I would say that it’s more of an advanced and up kind of board.
For a more intermediate level and up kind of board I would check out one of the following:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
thanks a lot for your careful review! I learned carving on a raceboard (F2, Beamer, 155cm), but realized only recently how much easier and more playfully the more recent boards are to ride. The raceboard has definitely been too stiff for me. Now, I’m drawn to the Burton Flight attendant (152 cm, 244mm waist), but also excited about the Nitro Mountain (157 cm, 251 mm waist). I’m as much into carving as into poweder. Pipe and park don’t interst me. Living the interior of British Columbia (since 2014), I can count on quite a few powder and non-icy days per year. Here are my stats: 177cm/ 63 kg/ 8.5 or 9 US boot size.
Do you have any advice as to which board would be a better fit? Do you know whether the Nitro Mountain is actually stiffer than the flight attendant? I’m a little bit concerned as to whether the Nitro is too stiff for me to ride it easily. A 157 cm Nitro might flaot better in the powder, though. But do I need such a big board for the powder, given my weight?
Thank you so much for a brief reply!
Holger
Hi Holger
I think ideally you would be on something around 153cm to 155cm, in my opinion. But it depends on the board as well. Also it depends on your ability level. If you ‘re at a quite advanced level and predominantly riding in powder, then a 157cm wouldn’t be too long for you. I wouldn’t personally go much longer than that at your weight but I think that it’s within your range if you are advanced and ride a lot of powder.
If you are more of an intermediate level rider bordering on advanced, then going with something like a 152cm wouldn’t be a bad bet.
Note that I haven’t ridden the Nitro Mountain so any comments on this are based on its specs alone.
In terms of riding in powder, the Nitro Mountain will definitely have more surface area which will help for powder in that respect. But the Flight Attendant has a longer more rockered nose and a larger setback (35mm setback compared to the 15mm setback on the Mountain) both of which help with float in powder.
I would say that the Mountain and the Flight Attendant are similar in terms of flex from what I can tell (again I haven’t ridden the Mountain) but the Mountain will likely feel a little bit stiffer on snow. One of the reasons for this is that the Mountain is mostly camber (traditional camber or mostly camber boards tend to feel a little stiffer when actually riding them). That said, the flight attendant is predominantly camber apart from that rockered nose – so that may not make that much difference in feel. But the size will. The 157cm will most likely feel stiffer than the 152cm.
In terms of the manufacturers weight recommendations you fit in well with both (FA 152cm 57kg-75kg and Mountain 55kg-75kg) so no problems there.
I don’t think you necessarily need a 157cm for the powder. Not at your weight – especially if you go for a board that’s designed to be good in the powder. Whilst you’ll get better float from a longer/wider board I don’t know how noticeable it will be for you. You’re right in the middle of the weight recommendations for both boards and with the Flight Attendant having that big scooped nose and the 35mm setback I don’t think you’d have any issues with float in powder on that.
The 244mm waist width on the FA is on the narrow side for you. I think you’d get away with it on US8.5s. A little tighter on US9s but I think you’d be ok. But if you wanted to be safe in terms of width then the Mountain would be a safer fit. If you get really up on edge for your carves – like if you get really low on your carves, then I would be more concerned about the width on the FA being too narrow – but if your carving isn’t that extreme, then I think you’d be ok.
Hope this gives you more info to go off for your decision
Hi Nate, I just was reading this string of comments. I’m very interested in the Burton FA. I’m upgrading from a Salomon 156 550 that’s about 15+ years old. I guess I like to keep using what works. But this board has seen better days, so I’m looking for a new all mountain board. I’m older and I don’t get into anything too crazy, but I’m still looking for a little rush. That said, I’ve been fixated on the FA and I was wondering size wise what to use. I’m 5’10” and around 195lbs and have been boarding since the 90s, but I’m certainly no expert.
So height wise charts say I would be a 156/157 but weight wise I’m up in the 162/163 range. I feel making a big jump to a 163 would be a bit much coming from a 156. What are your thought on me using a 159 maybe vs a 162/163?
Also, I see you matched bindings, you note the Cartel ESTs. Is that still your rec?
Anyway, I appreciate your comments.
Thanks,
Lew
Hi Lew
Thanks for your message.
Since you have been riding a 156cm for 15 years I would be wary about sizing up too much. The FA does have a long nose – so that adds to the length of the board without adding to the amount of edge your riding. So, sizing up shouldn’t be an issue, I woudn’t think – especially from a 15 year old board – as it was probably all camber.
So I think sizing up is no problem but you still wouldn’t want to go too drastically up. I would say that the 159cm would be the best size for you. You’re a little bit over the weight recommendations for that board – but all that will really mean is that the board will feel a little bit softer than what it’s flex rating is – but only subtly – and I think on balance, this is a good size up without being too much of an adjustment from what you’re used to.
I think that the Cartels are a good match with this board. That’s the bindings I rode on it and I feel they work well with the board. But really anything with decent response and a flex that’s just a bit above medium up to medium-stiff would work well with this board. Anything from either of the following lists would be my recommendations.
~ My top 5 all-mountain bindings
~ MY top 5 all-mountain freeride bindings
But I can say for sure that the Cartels work well as that’s what I rode the board with.
Hope this helps
Thank you Nate! I really do appreciate it, and all your comments and reviews are great, and very honest. Thanks for confirming what I was thinking as well, but it’s great to hear it from an expert… Dare I ask on boots? I know not the right forum here… But now you know my board n bindings…and these lace up salmons tear my hands up!! Thanks again, Lew
You’re very welcome Lew.
In terms of boots, it sounds like boa boots would be a good way to go for you. The other option is speed lace – which is quicker than boa and probably still easier than traditional laces on the hands – but boa is the easiest to wind down tight. But I would definitely go double boa so that you’ve got some upper and lower boot adjustment and also they tend to have the best heel hold (on average better heel hold than traditional lace, speed lace and single boa systems).
For other factors for boots I would say going with something that’s mid flex or mid-stiff flex would suit you/your other gear the best.
So anything from the following lists that are double boa would be good bets, in my opinion.
>>My Top 5 Freestyle Snowboard Boots (these are all around medium flex)
>>My Top 5 All Mountain Boots (these are all around medium-stiff flex)
So from the 1st list, I think the Vans Aura, 32 Binary Boa or DC Control and from the 2nd list the K2 Maysis +. You could also go trident but that’s getting into stiffer territory.
Some other options not on that list would be:
>>Burton Photon Boa (medium-stiff)
>>32 Focus Boa (medium-stiff)
>>Burton Concord Boa (medium)
Ideally you want to be able to try on boots before you buy as different foot shapes work better in different brands/models of boots – but if you can’t then try to make sure you order from an online store that will let you return them if they don’t fit.
Hope this gives you some options.
Nate, I can’t thank you enough for your help! I appreciate it and always refer friends to your reviews!
Best regards, Lew
You’re very welcome Lew. Thanks for the referrals! Appreciate that.
Hi Nate, I saw you rode the 159. Can I ask what size are you and what size you would suggest getting?
I’m in the 162 range (suggested), but the board I have now is a 161 W and it feels like I’m riding a boat. I want to get something slightly smaller and easier to rip turns on when I get on a steep double black run, but don’t want to sacrifice the way the board is supposed to work.
What do you suggest? Thanks!
Hi Tyler
I am probably more in the 162 range for this type of board too – but I would personally go for the 159cm. But I like to size down a little bit, I just prefer it. For example I’m probably 160 or 161 for an all-mountain board but I prefer around 158-159 for an all-mountain board. For a freeride board, I’m probably more like 161cm to 163cm generally but I prefer 159-161.
I am 6’0″ and around 180lbs (without gear).
I think personal preference certainly comes into it. Some people have a personal preference the other way around – they like to go longer than what would be typically recommended for them. It sounds like you have a bias to a slightly shorter length – in that case I wouldn’t see a problem with going 159 in the Flight Attendant.
But if you can let me know your height/weight and rough ability level, I can recommend what size I think would be typical for you and if you want to take a couple of centimeters off from that for personal preference then go for it.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks for the thorough review and awesome site! I was hoping you can help me out.
I just bought a Flight Attendant 159W (2017) and am thinking of new boots and bindings as mine are starting to show signs of age. Additionally, my current bindings are non-EST and I’ve heard you should really get the EST if you want to get the most out of this board.
I’m an expert all-mountain/freestyle-all mountain rider with a current setup of 162 Lib Tech T. Rice (2011), k2 UFO’s (size 9.5), and 2011 Burton Cartels (M).
I’d like to get softer boots while most likely staying with the Cartels, but am open to suggestions. As far as boots go, I’m liking what I see in the K2 Maysis + and Burton Imperials. I’ve previously owned Burton Ions and would ride them exclusively for the rest of my life, but they’re just too damn expensive.
Let me know what you think!
Micah
Hi Micah
If you have a Burton board with the channel system, then I think the ESTs are the best bet.
I actually rode the FLight Attendant with the Cartel ESTs in the spring and I felt they were definitely a good match, so I don’t think you can go wrong there. I think they’re a good match.
In terms of boots if you want something a bit softer, you could check out the following links. All of the boots in the first list (except for the Tridents) would be slightly softer than the UFOs but just by a little bit. If you wanted to go a little softer again, then check out the boots in the 2nd list – they’re more around that 5/10 flex rating – the UFOs are about an 8/10 – though they probably feel a bit softer than that if you’ve ridden them for a few years.
~My Top 5 All-Mountain Boots
~My Top 5 Freestyle Boots
The Maysis is in that first link (as are the Burton Ions but you’ve already said they’re too pricey for you). The Imperials are a bit softer than the Maysis – they were close to making the list in the 2nd link above. They rated highly and weren’t far off. I think both of those are good options. It would depend whether you wanted to go just slightly softer than the UFOs (Maysis) or softer again for the Imperials.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the review. I see the 162 has a 254mm waist width…is that too wide for size 9 boots?
Hi Kasr
It’s on the wide size for size 9s but It’s not excessively wide by any means. It’s not ideal but it’s definitely doable.
Hi Nate,
I am just about to buy a 2017 Flight Attendant, but am a little unsure about the length. I am 5,6″ and 175, intermediate driver and my current board is a Custom Flying V 154. Should I go with 156 or 159? I guess I am in the weight range for both, but a bit worried that the 159 will be too long?
Hi Hans
I’d say the 159cm normally. You fit better in the weight range for that length and also the Flight Attendant is a Freeride board and freeride boards are made to ride longer for better stability at speed and better float in powder.
However, you should also weight that up with the fact that you are used to a 154 Custom Flying V. Not only is that a shorter board but it’s also softer flexing and less aggressive. The Flight Attendant is an advanced level board and medium-stiff flex (as opposed to the Custom Flying V which is medium flex) – so even changing to that board in the same size will take some getting used to.
I think in the short term the 156 will be easier to transition to (but will still take a bit of getting used to so you’ll need to give it some time) but the 159 would be the better size in the long run – but it will feel seriously different (and more difficult) to ride than your current board.
Hope this helps with your decision.
For a novice like myself, the review graphs and rating system really does make it a whole lot easier to make a pick! I’m curious – what’s your top 5 destinations you’ve done snowboarding? And do you recommend a first timer get some professional help/lessons from the start or would you tell beginners just to try it out for themselves on beginner slopes to see how they go and if they like it?
Hey Harry – some great questions and I’m glad you like the layout.
In terms of my top 5 destinations, that’s a tough one – your putting me on the spot here :-). I’ll get back to you on that one. Will take a bit of thought.
In terms of getting lessons I’d definitely recommend it. I think it’s the same with anything, if you learn good technique from the beginning you make faster progress and you minimize the bad habits you might pick up. Maybe one day on the baby slope to get your balance a bit – but after that getting lessons as early as possible is your best bet, I reckon.
Hey Nate, what’s the difference between directional and tapered directional?
Hi Dan – thanks for checking out the review.
The directional shape is where the snowboard has a different length nose compared to the tail, a different flex in the nose and tail, the stance is setback as opposed to centred and the side cut is often different – but the width will be the same in the nose and the tail.
The tapered directional shape differs from the directional shape in that it also has a nose that is wider than the tail. Hence the term tapered – it tapers from the nose to the tail.
Check out this post for a more detailed explanation and diagrams
Been looking for a good board as a giveaway (haven’t done it myself in years, unfortunately), and will check out the Burton FA, based on your recommendations. Of course the snow’s starting to disappear where I’m at, but me and the gang are planning a trip in the coming weeks, and this was just great timing!
Awesome rating system you’ve got there – site bookmarked for future use! Keep on carvin’…
Hey Jae – thanks for your comments. If you’re looking for a give away I’m pretty sure any rider would love to get the Flight Attendant free! Snow is still not really falling here – hoping winter is just late and not not dead! Some small amounts in the forecast but what we need is a blizzard of epic proportions. Glad you like the rating system – hope you have an awesome trip