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: $549 (USD recommended retail)
Style: Freeride
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating Score: 89.1/100
Compared to other Men’s Freeride Boards
Out of the 32 Men’s Freeride snowboards that I rated:
- The average price was $585 (USD)
- The average score was 81.5/100
- The highest score was 91.8/100
- The lowest score was 57.1/100
- The Flight Attendant ranked 2nd out of 32
Overview of the Flight Attendant’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Flight Attendant’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
| Style | Freeride | Flex | Medium-Stiff |
| Ability Level | Advanced to Expert | Feel | Semi Locked-In |
| Weight | Normal | Turn Initiation | Fast & Responsive |
| Camber Profile | Hybrid Camber (mostly Camber with Rocker in the Nose) | Shape | Tapered Directional |
| Stance Setback | Setback 35mm | Edge-hold | Medium-Hard snow |
| Price | $549 (USD) | Base | Sintered |
Sizing (2018 & 2019)
| Size (Length) | 152 | 156 | 159 | 162 | 168 | 159W | 162W |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waist Width (mm) | 244 | 248 | 250 | 254 | 260 | 260 | 264 |
| Weight Range (kgs) | 54-82 | 68-91 | 68-91 | 82-118 | 82-118 | 68-91 | 82-118 |
| Weight Range (lbs) | 120-180 | 150-200 | 150-200 | 180-260 | 180-260 | 150-200 | 180-260 |
Note that the 2017 model sizing was the same except that Burton had different weight recommendations.
2017 Sizing
| Size (Length) | 152 | 156 | 159 | 162 | 168 | 159W | 162W |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waist Width (mm) | 244 | 248 | 250 | 254 | 260 | 260 | 264 |
| Weight Range (kgs) | 57-75 | 61-79 | 66-84 | 75-93 | 79-98 | 66-84 | 75-93 |
| Weight Range (lbs) | 125-165 | 135-175 | 145-185 | 165-205 | 175-215 | 145-185 | 165-205 |
Who is the Flight Attendant Most Suited to?
The Flight Attendant is ideal for anyone looking for a hard charging freeride board that has just a little bit more forgiveness in flex than your average freeride deck.
It’s still awesome when riding at speed, floating over powder and for carving. But if you want to be able to do a bit of freestyle when in the backcountry and simply just want a bit more forgiveness in the flex than your super-stiff freeride deck, then the FA might be the best choice for you.
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 Family Tree Flight Attendant 2017, 159cm (waist width 250mm)
Date: April 9th, 2016
Conditions: Icy snow to start the day, but softened up in the afternoon. Not a cloud in the sky! It was the ideal day – in terms of the weather – apart from leaving my sunscreen in the car!
Powder
There wasn’t a lot of it on the day I rode the FA, but in the softer afternoon snow you could a feel for what this board would be like over powder. It was a teaser and I want to give this thing a proper test in some really deep powder.
With a 35mm setback and a scoopy nose with a bit of rocker, and based on previous year’s models, there’s no doubt that this thing can float with the best of them.
Carving
Was, simply put, awesome to carve on this thing.
And that wasn’t surprising, given it’s largely camber profile (apart from that rocker in the nose), and the medium-stiff flex – but there was something else going on with this board that just made it extra nice on a carve.
Pretty quick edge-to-edge too.
Not the most grip in hard/icy conditions but not too bad either.
Speed
The FA is fast! And more importantly it’s stable at speed and stable when carving at speed. No fear of washing out at all and could really bomb with minimal chatter and feeling very stable.
Learn more about the FA in the Video below
Uneven Terrain
The FA has a flex that is softer than a lot of freeride boards. It’s still medium-stiff (7/10), so you still good all the response, stability and edge-hold you want from a stiffer board but it’s just that little bit more forgiving.
That really helped this thing to ride out any bumpy terrain I came across. It handles the uneven terrain pretty well.
Jumps
Not the FA’s forte, but you can definitely jump on it. Not so much for taking through the jump line in the park but it’s good for dropping off lips or popping off rollers etc, when you need/want to.
Switch
Not the worst freeride board to ride switch. But it’s still a tapered directional shape with a 35mm setback stance. So it’s not going to feel the most natural to ride switch either.
Changes from the 2018 Model
Apart from the graphic, the 2019 Flight Attendant is pretty much the same board as the 2018 model, as far as I can tell.
Changes from the 2017 Model
The 2018 is the same great ride as it was for the 2017 model.
Changes from the 2016 Model
Apart from the graphic, this is the same great board that it was in the 2016 model.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| FACTOR | RATING (OUT OF 5) | CONTRIBUTION TO FINAL SCORE |
|---|---|---|
| Carving: | 4.5 | 27/30 |
| Powder: | 4.5 | 18/20 |
| Speed: | 4.5 | 18/20 |
| Uneven Terrain: | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
| Jumps: | 3.0 | 6/10 |
| Switch: | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
| TOTAL after normalizing | 89.1/100 |
Overall, the FA is a super fun, fast carving machine that can handle anything from the deepest snow to hard pack. It has a slightly more forgiving flex than some super-stiff freeride boards and it can handle uneven terrain well.
So it’s no wonder it’s #2 in my Top 5 Freeride boards this year.
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.
- Burton Flight Attendant at PRFO.com (CANADA)
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.
>>My Top 5 Men’s Freeride Snowboards
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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,
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 ..
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
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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
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!
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! 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
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
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!
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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 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.
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.