A321 NEO cert to 7400 km by EASA and FAA
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 321 maximum is normally 230 seats but this is reduced in part as using the fuel needed for the longer routes reaches MTOW. Logically the LR range further reduced this again so losing the seats means more cabin room for the Pax instead of seats which would have to otherwise be empty anyway. On max range flights there will no doubt need to be 10+ empty seats anyway, even in the LR configuration, as the aircraft will still be hitting its MTOW when carrying required fuel.
Last edited by gurumike; 6th Oct 2018 at 17:37.
The Airbus infographic in my previous post suggests 244 (which is also the figure in the TC).
That assumes the 5-door configuration: (from front to rear) Type C+ (no, I don't know what they are, either), two Type III overwing, Type C, Type C+.
With the standard A321 Type C door (ahead of the wing) instead of the Type III overwing exits, the limit is 230, or 200/220 (with 4/5 cabin crew, respectively) if all 4 doors are Type C.
That assumes the 5-door configuration: (from front to rear) Type C+ (no, I don't know what they are, either), two Type III overwing, Type C, Type C+.
With the standard A321 Type C door (ahead of the wing) instead of the Type III overwing exits, the limit is 230, or 200/220 (with 4/5 cabin crew, respectively) if all 4 doors are Type C.
thanks Dave - I think C+ door type is a double lane slide?
This enables AB to max (sic) the A321neo load to be almost 250 as you say - with the new arrangement of exits and bigger overwing window exits too plus double slides at main doors they can manage the evacuation time limits.
Another Poster mentions Loco's now dawdling across the pond.
Flying at 0.75 on economy minimum fuel, with chaps upfront who (not their fault) are not yet that familiar with TA Ops, RT and Nav - plus at least an extra hours flight time for the pax.
Seems Primera Air found out that this type of flying gobbles up monthly crew hours, takes more hours if a tech stop is needed, leaves crew fatigued after too many quick turnround TA's a month, crew then calling in sick.
Company has then found out that no pilot hours left to roster at the end of the month - has to call in Overtime = ŁŁŁŁ
Last edited by rog747; 6th Oct 2018 at 16:17.
They had a crew prep the flight and board the pax - Then the operating crew boarded and they all set off.
The ''setting up'' crew then did something short like a Palma and back.
- didn't last long
Britannia planned a winter sun series on the 757 LGW-Dakar and that was def rostered as a there and back for all the crew - it was cancelled before it started
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
I seem to recall someone in the early 90's (Britannia or Excalibur) doing Gatwick to Banjul there and back in a day
Absolutely, with room to spare, whether containerised* or bulk loaded. Worth keeping in mind, it'll be the low-cost brigade fitting 200ish seats in the things and flog them across the ocean, catering to a clientele who are used to packing light and going for short breaks. If/when the US network carriers pension off their 757s, and given they'll replace them, they'd deploy the aircraft in 170-185 seat configurations. They are liable to see more in the way of bags due their fare policy in premium classes, but that won't be an issue either.
*There are 10 positions on an A321. With 3 occupied by ACTs, the remaining 7 will need to hold approx 30 bags each for a total of 210 pax. Standard load for an AKH is around 30-35 bags. And you still got the bulk compartment for overspill, strollers, wheelchairs and the odd mailbag. Bulk load all compartments, and you've got even more room to spare.
*There are 10 positions on an A321. With 3 occupied by ACTs, the remaining 7 will need to hold approx 30 bags each for a total of 210 pax. Standard load for an AKH is around 30-35 bags. And you still got the bulk compartment for overspill, strollers, wheelchairs and the odd mailbag. Bulk load all compartments, and you've got even more room to spare.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone like to comment on the runway requirements for a maximum hop? Would this aircraft open up possibilities for long distance travel from some of the UK's smaller runway airports?
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are some of the qualities of a slot-in 752 replacement that are missing from the 321LR?
The 757 will have much better short runway performance. The wing on the A321 is to small and the single axle trucks limit stopping performance. I have heard Airbus is looking at a bigger wing and dual axles in a future version.
Last edited by Sailvi767; 7th Oct 2018 at 00:51.
As for the LR, TAP and Aer Lingus are the first carriers with proper premium cabins flogging then across the Atlantic. It’ll be interesting to see what they do with them route and capacity wise.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is, the 757 is basically gone, it is not produced anymore and won't be, the tools don't exist anymore. That said, the A320 family can use dual axle bogies from the very first version. Due to low demand it is not sold since a few years after, but it was designed that way, there is enough space in the wheel wells. But stopping is actually not that much of an issue, take off might be, however the NEO engines are actually not bad for that, nor are the winglets. As it stands, the wingspan is right at the limit where it can be without requiring a higher category gate position, enabling it to use all single aisle stands and taxi ways (many are limited to 36m, the 35,8m do allow that). It will be interesting to see how that turns out in the next few years. Boeings MMA might actually have a point, as it will allow faster boarding, deboarding and supposedly support single aisle cost on similar or slightly longer sector lengths than the A321NEO LR (quite a mouth full), boarding a 235 seat single aisle plane via one door will be torturous and not allow the short turn arounds LCCs need.
This aircraft enables a current A320 operator spread its wings and expand its radius without the substantial commitment of introducing a new wide body type. New routes can be trialled and easily cut if they don’t perform as expected. New city pairs can be flown which would previously have required wide body range but not have provided wide body load factors.
Airlines which were previously put off longish haul by the need to acquire A330 or B787 size aircraft can easily add the A321LR into their current A320 operation as it can still do the A320 routes as well. A B787 running around half empty drains cash and needs to find a money making route quickly, which it is unlikely to do on a typical narrow body flight.
Utilisation can be maximised as short haul routes are generally daytime and leave the A320s parked at night where as the A321LR can do an overnight long haul and be back to do the milk runs next morning.
Most likely a game changer but even if it doesn’t work neither the manufacturer or operators will be out of pocket by very much because they stuck a couple of extra fuel tanks in a current type and experimented with a few new routes.
Airlines which were previously put off longish haul by the need to acquire A330 or B787 size aircraft can easily add the A321LR into their current A320 operation as it can still do the A320 routes as well. A B787 running around half empty drains cash and needs to find a money making route quickly, which it is unlikely to do on a typical narrow body flight.
Utilisation can be maximised as short haul routes are generally daytime and leave the A320s parked at night where as the A321LR can do an overnight long haul and be back to do the milk runs next morning.
Most likely a game changer but even if it doesn’t work neither the manufacturer or operators will be out of pocket by very much because they stuck a couple of extra fuel tanks in a current type and experimented with a few new routes.