A321 NEO cert to 7400 km by EASA and FAA
30 years of ETOPS
Thankfully in 30 years of ETOPS across the pond that has never happened - which shows the reliability of the operations, aircraft and engines.
I think Monarch were the first UK operator to get approval in 1988 for the Orlando's (via Bangor) with the 757. (223 pax)
I think Monarch were the first UK operator to get approval in 1988 for the Orlando's (via Bangor) with the 757. (223 pax)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every airline manager not buying this marvel should be called an amateur, the same "Sir" Tim Clark of EK called all those who did not fall for the A380.
How long is a long haul that you can squeeze it in a night-park-cycle? Typically such parking occurs between 10pm and 6am, meaning 8 hours. Take away two to prepare out and inbound LH flight, that leaves 6 hours and two whooping 3 hour legs. Then back to the daily 6 to 8 milk run legs.
Dream on.
Such a product will have to be tailored to the desired 6 to 8 hour flights, catering and interior equipment etc. It will then not be well suited to do the 25 minutes turn-arounds of LC ops. Meaning that it must deliver on this LH segment only, which has been tried before and most failed. Even on LOCO-LH you need support for any small event and it will not be a handy 25 minutes away. Only operators that can count on a big sister (like Edelweiss with Lufthansa) will be able to guarantee this. A small strike, a unspectacular in-flight engine shut down on ETOPS, a medical diversion can quickly ruin the whole operation. Quod erat demonstrandum ad nauseam.
There is certainly a market for such an aircraft, although a small one. Didn't we hear that before somewhere?
Last edited by glofish; 7th Oct 2018 at 09:00.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This rather neatly crimps Boeing's options for the MMA. Airbus have the market segment nicely covered between the A321LR and the A330neo and this is a small niche market so a clean sheet design from Boeing is going to be prohibitively expensive. The 737 cannot take another stretch so Boeing's only sensible option will be a re-engined 767.
In the longer term the long rumoured 737 replacement would probably have some answers.
In the longer term the long rumoured 737 replacement would probably have some answers.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mind you, Transat got pretty close to a 'plop'. Although not due to engine failures
Both engines did fail. They failed because there was no fuel left! The issue with the certification standard is that it looks at an engine failure as an issue with the individual engine and an isolated event. However, this incident shows that not all engine failures are in isolation. There may be a common fault. In this case, it was a system common to both engines and an associated procedure issue. It could equally be a design or an engineering problem common to both engines.
pardon my appalling ignorance, but I naively thought the Boeing MMA was the Multimission Maritime Aircraft, the P-8; could someone please correct me?
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Both engines did fail. They failed because there was no fuel left! The issue with the certification standard is that it looks at an engine failure as an issue with the individual engine and an isolated event. However, this incident shows that not all engine failures are in isolation. There may be a common fault. In this case, it was a system common to both engines and an associated procedure issue. It could equally be a design or an engineering problem common to both engines.
Both engines did fail. They failed because there was no fuel left! The issue with the certification standard is that it looks at an engine failure as an issue with the individual engine and an isolated event. However, this incident shows that not all engine failures are in isolation. There may be a common fault. In this case, it was a system common to both engines and an associated procedure issue. It could equally be a design or an engineering problem common to both engines.
How long is a long haul that you can squeeze it in a night-park-cycle? Typically such parking occurs between 10pm and 6am, meaning 8 hours. Take away two to prepare out and inbound LH flight, that leaves 6 hours and two whooping 3 hour legs. Then back to the daily 6 to 8 milk run legs.
In flight entertainment can easily be provided via video streaming to a passengers iPad instead of seat back units, saving on cost and weight. Lower density seating might be needed to allow for increased fuel loads so a premium cabin class could be offered to offset this.
I'm sure airline planning departments have an idea of which routes they could make it work on. Replacing an old A321 which is due for retirement with an new LR version instead of a new standard version isn't like trying to make a new fleet of A380s work.
Boeing need to come out with a single isle, 190 seat version of the B787 for short to medium haul. The B737 is essentially the same 1950s technology as the B707 but tarted up, like a granny in a mini skirt and high heals.
Dave, we need to inject a few more facts it seems: You were wrong about the ability of the A321 to load all bags, and you're wrong here too.
B757-200 cabin dimensions: 353 x 3607 (cm) = 127,32 sqm
A321 cabin dimensions: 370 x 3440 (cm) = 127,28 sqm
B757-200 range, ISA, 113T MTOW, PW engines, 200 pax: 3915NM
A321NLR range, ISA, 97T MTOW, 200 pax: 4000NM
You're right on the payload, which effectively means the A321 can't carry the 5 tons of cargo a 757 could on the same 7-hour sector. The price for that, however, as a fuel burn roughly 20% higher. In other words, you're better off financially leaving the cargo behind, as the lost revenue is more than made up for by the reduced fuel burn.
So unless you're runway limited, the A321N LR is indeed the perfect 757 replacement, including the relatively small niche that's 3000NM+ missions. Thing is, it might just be profitable launching new 3000NM+ services on the A321, where it wouldn't make sense on the 757 - purely because of the vastly reduced operational costs.
B757-200 cabin dimensions: 353 x 3607 (cm) = 127,32 sqm
A321 cabin dimensions: 370 x 3440 (cm) = 127,28 sqm
B757-200 range, ISA, 113T MTOW, PW engines, 200 pax: 3915NM
A321NLR range, ISA, 97T MTOW, 200 pax: 4000NM
You're right on the payload, which effectively means the A321 can't carry the 5 tons of cargo a 757 could on the same 7-hour sector. The price for that, however, as a fuel burn roughly 20% higher. In other words, you're better off financially leaving the cargo behind, as the lost revenue is more than made up for by the reduced fuel burn.
So unless you're runway limited, the A321N LR is indeed the perfect 757 replacement, including the relatively small niche that's 3000NM+ missions. Thing is, it might just be profitable launching new 3000NM+ services on the A321, where it wouldn't make sense on the 757 - purely because of the vastly reduced operational costs.
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.
Airbus formally launches A321LR; we look behind the “LR” to see what’s there
One source reckons that nine LD3-45s would be required for 206 (longhaul) pax worth of baggage and that the only alternative with 3 ACTs would be to dispense with AKHs entirely and bulk-load everything, which of course would be operationally impractical.
Airbus formally launches A321LR; we look behind the “LR” to see what’s there
Airbus formally launches A321LR; we look behind the “LR” to see what’s there
AKH: 3,7 cum, industry standard 35 bags. 0,095 cum for each bag. 35 x 7 = 245 bags. Even at 30 bags each, you'll be covered in a 206 seat 'low cost' configuration. It's mainly academic, however, as the vast majority of operators elect to go with loose loaded compartments.
Leeham news is mainly in the business of attempting to make Boeing look good, and Airbus look bad.
Dave, we need to inject a few more facts it seems: You were wrong about the ability of the A321 to load all bags, and you're wrong here too.
B757-200 cabin dimensions: 353 x 3607 (cm) = 127,32 sqm
A321 cabin dimensions: 370 x 3440 (cm) = 127,28 sqm
B757-200 range, ISA, 113T MTOW, PW engines, 200 pax: 3915NM
A321NLR range, ISA, 97T MTOW, 200 pax: 4000NM
You're right on the payload, which effectively means the A321 can't carry the 5 tons of cargo a 757 could on the same 7-hour sector. The price for that, however, as a fuel burn roughly 20% higher. In other words, you're better off financially leaving the cargo behind, as the lost revenue is more than made up for by the reduced fuel burn.
So unless you're runway limited, the A321N LR is indeed the perfect 757 replacement, including the relatively small niche that's 3000NM+ missions. Thing is, it might just be profitable launching new 3000NM+ services on the A321, where it wouldn't make sense on the 757 - purely because of the vastly reduced operational costs.
B757-200 cabin dimensions: 353 x 3607 (cm) = 127,32 sqm
A321 cabin dimensions: 370 x 3440 (cm) = 127,28 sqm
B757-200 range, ISA, 113T MTOW, PW engines, 200 pax: 3915NM
A321NLR range, ISA, 97T MTOW, 200 pax: 4000NM
You're right on the payload, which effectively means the A321 can't carry the 5 tons of cargo a 757 could on the same 7-hour sector. The price for that, however, as a fuel burn roughly 20% higher. In other words, you're better off financially leaving the cargo behind, as the lost revenue is more than made up for by the reduced fuel burn.
So unless you're runway limited, the A321N LR is indeed the perfect 757 replacement, including the relatively small niche that's 3000NM+ missions. Thing is, it might just be profitable launching new 3000NM+ services on the A321, where it wouldn't make sense on the 757 - purely because of the vastly reduced operational costs.
This is a common fallacy, but the LCCs have moved on from 0800 departures and back early evening, they now do substantial fleet departures right after 0600 (look at the Stansted departure board), with final returns close to midnight. Delays often are coming in after that time.
With the aircraft on minimal turnrounds during the day, the remaining overnight hours are taken up with daily maintenance tasks, and the contingency necessary to ensure you start the next day on time. Those who recall the delays of the 1970s-80s UK IT operators who put three summer Mediterranean rotations in with no contingency departing at 0700, 1500 and 2300 for Friday, Saturday and Sunday, ending up not infrequently 12 hours down and stories in the press, will know what not to do. There isn't even scope to slot in an extra Palma in this, let alone long haul.
For the more mainstream operators, they need a more optimised cabin fit even for medium haul. Short haul has pretty much done away with mainstream galley provision nowadays, and stuck in seats there instead, and likewise the premium/economy seating balance required is different.
MMA
Sorry i'm out of the loop with the new spin on MMA....I Googled MMA again but came with up Conor's big scrap in Vegas...
Unlike the A380 which was built for the specific purpose of moving large numbers of passengers between major hub airports, cost a fortune to develop and only works for certain airlines on certain routes, the A321LR simply expands the capabilities of an existing and well proven type whose development costs have already been recouped.
The airlines know their markets and can specify their aircraft configuration accordingly. A 7400km radius from London takes in half of India, much of central Africa and a large chunk of China. The B787 concept of bypassing hubs in favour of point to point routing has proven successful, in some ways the A321LR is a poor mans B787 offering a fair amount of the Boeing’s performance at a fraction of its price. Whilst obviously not a direct competitor it could enable a smaller airline to offer longish haul services without breaking the bank.
The B747SP was a specialised niche aircraft designed for long routes with low pax loads and wasn’t good for much else as it was too big to use in place of a B737 and too small to replace a normal Jumbo.
A mixed fleet of A320 single class and A321LR dual class could easily be operated by a small country’s national airline.
I see the A321LR as offering increased utilisation and opening new city pairs. If it is a flop then at least there isn’t that much money involved.
The airlines know their markets and can specify their aircraft configuration accordingly. A 7400km radius from London takes in half of India, much of central Africa and a large chunk of China. The B787 concept of bypassing hubs in favour of point to point routing has proven successful, in some ways the A321LR is a poor mans B787 offering a fair amount of the Boeing’s performance at a fraction of its price. Whilst obviously not a direct competitor it could enable a smaller airline to offer longish haul services without breaking the bank.
The B747SP was a specialised niche aircraft designed for long routes with low pax loads and wasn’t good for much else as it was too big to use in place of a B737 and too small to replace a normal Jumbo.
A mixed fleet of A320 single class and A321LR dual class could easily be operated by a small country’s national airline.
I see the A321LR as offering increased utilisation and opening new city pairs. If it is a flop then at least there isn’t that much money involved.