Airbus quietly announces A321XLR

[Smythe]

TOULOUSE, France (Reuters) - Airbus sales chief Christian Scherer said it is selling longer-range versions of its A321, while signaling a shift away from chasing market share at any cost and predicting Boeing will emerge quickly from the grounding of its rival 737 MAX.

Scherer, who took on the top sales role in September, told Reuters that Airbus is seeing more demand for longer-range versions of roughly 200-seat planes previously used for medium-haul routes, blurring boundaries with bigger jets.

"We are selling increased range on the A321. People are telling us this is a great module, give me more range. (We say) we will give you the maximum range we can on the A321: how many would you like? That is what we are doing," he said in his first substantial interview in his new role.

Scherer's remarks are the strongest indication yet that Airbus has quietly launched the A321XLR, a keenly awaited new version of its single-aisle plane that competes with the 737 MAX and could brush up against a proposed new Boeing mid-market jet.

Airbus and Boeing compete ferociously for sales of single aisle jets like the MAX and A320 or A321 and the effort to expand Airbus' lead in the market for its cash cow predates last month's grounding of the 737 MAX following two crashes.

[DaveReidUK]

Scherer's remarks are the strongest indication yet that Airbus has quietly launched the A321XLR, a keenly awaited new version of its single-aisle plane that competes with the 737 MAX and could brush up against a proposed new Boeing mid-market jet.

Notwithstanding what Reuters say, I'd suggest that if and when Airbus go ahead with the A321XLR, it will be anything but a quiet launch.

Whether that's imminent is anyone's guess - with the Max issues distracting Boeing from any early announcement on the MMA/NMA, there's no pressure on Airbus to act particularly quickly.

[Smythe]

Concur, but they keep teasing it. The recent statement by United must have B a bit concerned. 40 ac is not going to launch a B MMA, but is a nice tic for the XLR

Given the current state of engine manufacture, it may be difficult for anyone to add anything at this point.

[The Ancient Geek]

The A321XLR is a cheap and easy upgrade for Airbus, it can be done simply by increasing fuel tank capacity at the expense of payload. Carry less passengers farther is a good compromise for many airlines.
An increase in MTOW is also possible but would probably not be large given the existing airframe.
The combination of the A321XLR and a small A330 conveniently covers the market gap which Boeing cannot fill without spending billions of dollars and maybe 5 years on the MMA.
Interesting times........

[FlightDetent]

Does anyone see a new wing on the Airbus family as a future possibility? That’s how Boeing moved the 737 into the new millennium, though I understand the potential there was larger due to the legacy design.

[Smythe]

A while back, they were talking about a new wing for the 321, dubbed the 322..

Leehanews said today that production for the A321XLR is already sold out until 2023, launch expected at Paris Airshow.

[MCDU2]

Does anyone see a new wing on the Airbus family as a future possibility?

I hope so. That way altitude capability will be increased as well as cruising mach no. From what I have heard of the Max it is invariably bumping around the tops of the weather on the NA tracks. I expect the same from the A321LR based on what our trainers are saying about it ahead of its arrival into our fleet.

[er340790]

Sorry - and I may be alone here - but for anyone who first travelled long-haul in the 70s and 80s when long haul meant 747s, DC-10s and L1011s, the idea of an XLR A321 feels like yet another retrograde step in aviation, akin to stepping back into the 707s or DC-8s narrowbody long-haul era....

If the 757 taught us anything, it was that long haul and narrow-body really don't mix.... with the possible exception of Donald Trump's Biz-Jet(!)

There has to be a better way!

[SRM]

Sorry - and I may be alone here - but for anyone who first travelled long-haul in the 70s and 80s when long haul meant 747s, DC-10s and L1011s, the idea of an XLR A321 feels like yet another retrograde step in aviation, akin to stepping back into the 707s or DC-8s narrowbody long-haul era....

If the 757 taught us anything, it was that long haul and narrow-body really don't mix.... with the possible exception of Donald Trump's Biz-Jet(!)

There has to be a better way! Love to see a Re-engined 757 though.

[Icarus2001]

"quietly announce" what with a press release. Too funny.

[stilton]

Sorry - and I may be alone here - but for anyone who first travelled long-haul in the 70s and 80s when long haul meant 747s, DC-10s and L1011s, the idea of an XLR A321 feels like yet another retrograde step in aviation, akin to stepping back into the 707s or DC-8s narrowbody long-haul era....

If the 757 taught us anything, it was that long haul and narrow-body really don't mix.... with the possible exception of Donald Trump's Biz-Jet(!)

There has to be a better way!


Actually, I think the 757 taught us that people
like non stop flights


It’s worked very well on the N Atlantic going into smaller cities in the UK and Europe from the US


Passengers I spoke to regularly told me how much they liked the convenience of not having to connect and departing from where they lived


I’d prefer to ride on a 747 everywhere if given a choice but it’s all about economics

[Bidule]

Actually, I think the 757 taught us that people
like non stop flights
.....
Passengers I spoke to regularly told me how much they liked the convenience of not having to connect and departing from where they lived

True for business passengers (and even not for all of them).
However, passengers travelling for their own mainly (more than 95%) prefer cheap prices, whichever the conditions of transport are.....

[FlightlessParrot]

Sorry - and I may be alone here - but for anyone who first travelled long-haul in the 70s and 80s when long haul meant 747s, DC-10s and L1011s, the idea of an XLR A321 feels like yet another retrograde step in aviation, akin to stepping back into the 707s or DC-8s narrowbody long-haul era....


I remember 707s feeling quite civilized, in the old days, on eight-hour sectors. Depended on the seating density, of course, but in many ways preferable to being in the middle block of four on a 747.

Four hours in a 737 feels horrible to this old fat man, but in a 320 it's OK--shows a couple of inches can make a big difference. :O

[Alan Baker]

I remember 707s feeling quite civilized, in the old days, on eight-hour sectors. Depended on the seating density, of course, but in many ways preferable to being in the middle block of four on a 747.

Four hours in a 737 feels horrible to this old fat man, but in a 320 it's OK--shows a couple of inches can make a big difference. :O

A 737 has exactly the same fuselage cross section as a 707. As you say, it depends on the seating layout.

[Cows getting bigger]

I had occasion to fly economy from Bahrain to London on a Gulf Air A320ER - 6hrs 45 mins. When I checked-in and found out it was an A320 rather than the usual 787 I was a bit concerned. However, it turned-out to be one of the most relaxing flights I've had to/from this region and was certainly better than economy in a 787.

Digressing, I flew economy on a 350 for the first time the other day and, to me, this was noticeably better than the 787. Health warning - I'm comparing a Qatar 350 against a BA 787.

[CaptainProp]

I’ve heard rumours that Airbus looked at new wing to the existing airframe but ran in to problems joining the two. As a result, as far as I understand it, airbus has completely scrapped continued work on new wing for existing airframes and that will come only when they launch completely new narrow body aircraft. Question is how long that will be......

CP

[Smythe]

As a result, as far as I understand it, airbus has completely scrapped continued work on new wing for existing airframes and that will come only when they launch completely new narrow body aircraft.

Queue CS100/300! :}

(I mean the A220-100 and A220-300!)

[FlightlessParrot]

A 737 has exactly the same fuselage cross section as a 707. As you say, it depends on the seating layout.

Yes, I know, but I don't have the same cross-section as I did when the 707 was flying, nor do a lot of other passengers. Single aisle doesn't have to mean the same fuselage dimensions as the aircraft of the 1950s.

[mommus]

Sorry - and I may be alone here - but for anyone who first travelled long-haul in the 70s and 80s when long haul meant 747s, DC-10s and L1011s, the idea of an XLR A321 feels like yet another retrograde step in aviation, akin to stepping back into the 707s or DC-8s narrowbody long-haul era..

100%

the world is going backwards

[groundbum]

The 787 showed us that smaller aircraft going point to point is a winner. Qantas are supposed to be loving the yield on theirs, much less capacity than the 747 it replaces but this seat scarcity drives up yields massively.

So if it works replacing 747s with 787/A350s, why not in the single aisle market, so A321XLR replaces A330/B767 where possible?

I'll give a Northern UK centric idea on why I'd be happy to fly an Airbus over the Atlantic. I live minutes from Leeds/Bradford, but to go anywhere means traipsing to Manchester. I recently went to Belfast on Ryanair, had to be Manchester. Airfare was £10 each way, time about 60 minutes. But to get to Manchester I had to take the train to/from the airport, cost me £25 and took 2 hours each way! So doubled the cost of the flight and tripled the journey time plus necessitated changing trains etc. No if they went direct from Leeds/Bradford in a Cessna 152 I'd have taken it over all the faff of travelling to a gateway airport.

The future is definitely smaller jets doing point to point.

G

[Smooth Airperator]

So what do you want? Gas guzzling, noisy, polluting 3/4 engine aircraft burning almost 3 x as much fuel? I had the chance to fly an A321 Neo across the ocean and it was a pretty nice experience due to the seats and legroom.

[Maxmotor]

The 787 showed us that smaller aircraft going point to point is a winner. Qantas are supposed to be loving the yield on theirs, much less capacity than the 747 it replaces but this seat scarcity drives up yields massively.

G

It was the A380 that was removed from the Mel -Lhr route and replaced with the 787 which halved capacity and improved their yields.

[mommus]

....which halved capacity and improved their yields.

They should have replaced it with a TBM850. Think of the yields!

[Volume]

If the 757 taught us anything, it was that long haul and narrow-body really don't mix....
At that time, the alternatives (767, 747, L1011, DC-10/MD-11...) offered more space for the passengers.
Today with 10 abreast 777, 9 abreast 787 and A330neo the A321XLR actually offers wider seats than their widebody competitors, so passengers will love to fly long range in "not that narrow"-body aircraft, which still allows 18 inch wide seats

What still puzzles me is why an 1980s short range aircraft becomes more economic on the transatlantic routes than a 2010s long range aircraft by simply adding additional fuel tanks :confused:
Did the modern engineers f*** up the A350/787 design so badly, that an old low sweep all metal wing with a larger engine more disturbing it can beat them ?

If the GTF makes all the difference, why not putting 4 of them on the A340s ? They are available in the required thrust range.

[FRogge]

At that time, the alternatives (767, 747, L1011, DC-10/MD-11...) offered more space for the passengers.
Today with 10 abreast 777, 9 abreast 787 and A330neo the A321XLR actually offers wider seats than their widebody competitors, so passengers will love to fly long range in "not that narrow"-body aircraft, which still allows 18 inch wide seats

What still puzzles me is why an 1980s short range aircraft becomes more economic on the transatlantic routes than a 2010s long range aircraft by simply adding additional fuel tanks :confused:
Did the modern engineers f*** up the A350/787 design so badly, that an old low sweep all metal wing with a larger engine more disturbing it can beat them ?

If the GTF makes all the difference, why not putting 4 of them on the A340s ? They are available in the required thrust range.

The A350 has a 3x heavier empty weight than the 321NEO, but it doesn't fit 3x more pax.

[cooperplace]

Sorry - and I may be alone here - but for anyone who first travelled long-haul in the 70s and 80s when long haul meant 747s, DC-10s and L1011s, the idea of an XLR A321 feels like yet another retrograde step in aviation, akin to stepping back into the 707s or DC-8s narrowbody long-haul era....

If the 757 taught us anything, it was that long haul and narrow-body really don't mix.... with the possible exception of Donald Trump's Biz-Jet(!)

There has to be a better way!

You're not alone, I 100% agree. The 737 is my least favorite plane as pax, and I fly on them a lot. Not so many 757s around anymore, but they were even worse.

[The Ancient Geek]

The number of available seats is irrelevant, what matters for any specific route is the available bums to put on the seats.
Economy is driven by occupancy, running a small aircraft full of passengers will always make more money than a larger aircraft with too many empty seats.
The market is evolving towards tthe centre, small aircraft are getting bigger to cope with more traffic and at the same time large aircraft are getting smaller to cope with more secondary destinations and less big hubs.

[Doors to Automatic]

The A321XLR fills a niche economically and it seems more comfortably. Larger aircraft are heavier but can fly a lot further and carry a lot more lucrative cargo.

At slot constrained airports if you can fill a 300 seat plane on a 7 hour sector you will still likely fly that over a 180 seat A321 but the latter might open up markets from the regions where a larger aircraft would struggle to fill.

[wiedehopf]

What still puzzles me is why an 1980s short range aircraft becomes more economic on the transatlantic routes than a 2010s long range aircraft by simply adding additional fuel tanks :confused:
Did the modern engineers f*** up the A350/787 design so badly, that an old low sweep all metal wing with a larger engine more disturbing it can beat them ?


6 abreast seating should create a more streamlined hull than 9/10 abreast seating as the fuselage cross section grows as the diameter squared.
(It's a bit flattened but still)
You also have one aisle for 6 rows, not 2 aisles for 9/10 rows.
I'm not sure how bending moments on the longer fuselage affect the weight but that could also be a factor.

The modern widebodies are all designed to fly 12 to 18 hours, not 6-8 hours.

Isn't it also much cheaper per seat to buy and service an A320 compared to an A350?

I'm mostly guessing, maybe someone can elaborate or refute the points i made.

[slfsteve]

My worst flight ever was on a Monarch 757 to the US, if i decide to fly long haul again i would much prefer a wide body.

[EDML]

A strechted aircraft is always the most efficient one.

That is one of the problems of the A380 - it was overdesigned to be strechted later but that never happened.

[Less Hair]

It was even made to be double stretched. The A380-800 is sized like the small A319 of the possible family. Imagine the A321's A380 equivalent.

[Lord Bracken]

Have flown across the pond many many times in BA's A318, 32 pax, flat beds, takes 5 minutes for everyone to board or get off - perfect. A little bit bumpy in winter on the eastbound though.

Flew a CO 757 GLA-EWR back in the day in Y which was less pleasant, CO handed out burgers for lunch, lady next to me asked for a vegetarian option and was told "just eat the bread."

[oceancrosser]

My worst flight ever was on a Monarch 757 to the US, if i decide to fly long haul again i would much prefer a wide body.

Probably had more to do with Monarchs seat pitch than the aircraft type. 28 in. is a killer configuration. An airline I flew for dryleased a Monarch 757 a long time ago. Took out 6 rows before they started operating it.

[tdracer]

It's not just the seat width - 'narrow body' aircraft simply feel small and claustrophobic - especially that long tube when they get long enough for over 200 passengers. Plus, loading/unloading over 200 people with a single aisle takes a long time which hurts turn times. I personally hate flying coach in a 757 (and I worked on the thing) - if I can't end up in first class I avoid flying 757s (same thing with 737/A320 when the flight is over a few hours). A cabin wide enough for twin aisle hurts drag and weight, but it opens up the cabin and makes for a generally more pleasant passenger experience (even with the same seat width/pitch). It also allows far more cargo room and even makes many maintenance tasks easier (I've spent time crawling around in the 757 avionics bay - and I mean literally crawling - by comparison I can stand upright in a 767 avionics bay).
That's why Boeing is probably going to go with a twin aisle one the MMA.

[The Ancient Geek]

That's why Boeing is probably going to go with a twin aisle one the MMA.

I think it is more likely to be a single aisle replacement for both the 737 and the 757.
Boeing has reached the end of the line on stretching the 737 which is their big cash cow so a replacement must be high on the urgency list.

[tdracer]

I think it is more likely to be a single aisle replacement for both the 737 and the 757.
Boeing has reached the end of the line on stretching the 737 which is their big cash cow so a replacement must be high on the urgency list.

That's not what my buddies still on the inside are telling me - 90% chance it'll be a twin aisle - it'll cover the passenger count range from the higher capacity 737s to the lower range of the 787.
My expectation is it'll basically be a plastic 767.

[Smythe]

Has to be a twin aisle 2-3-2 design, anything bigger like 2-4-2 would compete with they already have.
Singles aisle are already stretched too far, and especially with a brand new design, a waste of a single aisle.
The issue with a 2-3-2 is the fuselage would be ovum, (aka 767) too heavy with aluminum, unlikely with composites to be cheap/easy to make.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/984x798/767_797_e61032428f70ad0ea46c98b382af3e0ec99a99ec.jpg


No wonder its taking so long to decide.

[FlightDetent]

Maybe the dilemma is exactly what you point out. 2 Isles for only one extra seat (2-3-2) is not enough of a competitive advantage, and fuselage for 2-4-2 becomes heavy and/or expensive to build.

[crewmeal]

So how much further will the XLR then?

[DaveReidUK]

I'll be amazed if Boeing reinvent the 767.

[CaptainProp]

So how much further will the XLR then?

The XLR has (unconfirmed) range of 4700NM and increase MTOM to just over 100 tones.

CP

[Less Hair]

So another 787-3 2.0?

[SeenItAll]

Has to be a twin aisle 2-3-2 design, anything bigger like 2-4-2 would compete with they already have.
Singles aisle are already stretched too far, and especially with a brand new design, a waste of a single aisle.
The issue with a 2-3-2 is the fuselage would be ovum, (aka 767) too heavy with aluminum, unlikely with composites to be cheap/easy to make.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/984x798/767_797_e61032428f70ad0ea46c98b382af3e0ec99a99ec.jpg


No wonder its taking so long to decide.

My understanding is that the MMA would not have a circular cross-section, but an oval one with the longer axis being the horizontal one. This gives the extra seating width without the total bulk. The sacrifice is that the cargo area would not be tall enough to accommodate LD2s.

[skwdenyer]

The issue with a 2-3-2 is the fuselage would be ovum, (aka 767) too heavy with aluminum, unlikely with composites to be cheap/easy to make.

Assuming the composite fuselage is filament wound, it doesn't matter whether the fuselage is ovum or circular.

[Smythe]

Someone was postulating today about putting the CS500 wings on the A320....no idea of the validity, or if the 500 even got that far in design.

[DaveReidUK]

Someone was postulating today about putting the CS500 wings on the A320....no idea of the validity, or if the 500 even got that far in design.

The A321 would struggle with the CSeries wing. The A320 might just about be OK, but then there would be no production commonality.