A321 NEO cert to 7400 km by EASA and FAA
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any narrow body with real world transatlantic range certainly is a game changer.
However I would not overestimate the value. It's a small plane with creature comfort and space sized for shorter routes. It will be great for low cost airlines by seat cost but it's so fashionable that high leasing rates maybe let you better upgrade to some used A330 instead. Then you get cargo volume as well and room for both seat numbers and some serious business class.
It's not like LRs would fly both short and long sectors. They are meant for long sectors.
However I would not overestimate the value. It's a small plane with creature comfort and space sized for shorter routes. It will be great for low cost airlines by seat cost but it's so fashionable that high leasing rates maybe let you better upgrade to some used A330 instead. Then you get cargo volume as well and room for both seat numbers and some serious business class.
It's not like LRs would fly both short and long sectors. They are meant for long sectors.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have been flying regularly across the pond in BA's A318 for the last ten years (from the second day of ops in fact) - 2-2 config, flat bed seats, 32 pax - and it's great. Maybe slightly bumpier than a Jumbo on eastbound services in the winter, but other than that it's an excellent way to fly and far preferable than being amongst 300 other pax. Why would the premium cabin of a 321 LR be any different?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe because no operator so far plans to offer premium seating in this aircraft. Such luxury could even be offered in a Tupolev and would be appreciated. But economic??
It's all about the cost, stupid, for both sides. Therein lies the Gordian knot.
It's all about the cost, stupid, for both sides. Therein lies the Gordian knot.
Not so, the vast majority are working out of hubs. In fact apart from a few (not all) of Norwegian's operations, I can't think of a single carrier not using them from its hub. Not only that, a notable number have actually downsized 777 routes. Furthermore, the 787-8, the original medium-sized one, is virtually out of production already, purchases have moved on to the significantly larger 787-9 and 787-10 models.
I think Aer Lingus is mooting a premium type cabin in theirs for LR TA Ops.
Air Canada has a premium Y on the 737Max to St John's from London (no champagne)
Not so, the vast majority are working out of hubs.
A B737 replacement is long overdue, Boeing could downsize the B787 into a family of single isle variants to compete with Airbus narrow bodies. Retain as much commonality as possible so that converting is a simple CCQ course like going from an A320 to an A330. A new narrow body range could include a 180 seat A320 competitor up to a longer range, higher capacity, middle market aircraft similar to the B757 if they get the basic fuselage design right. Modern high bypass engines weren't even thought of in the 1950s when the B707 fuselage was designed and this has limited the B737 past the -200 series as it is simply too close to the ground for big engines and extended bodies.
The B777X is effectively an A380/A350 competitor, a twin engined replacement for the B747.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Primera Air 321 had a premium cabin (decent W offering not J) - not a bad seat or product by all accounts for the fare - pax liked it
I think Aer Lingus is mooting a premium type cabin in theirs for LR TA Ops. Air Canada has a premium Y on the 737Max to St John's from London (no champagne)
I think Aer Lingus is mooting a premium type cabin in theirs for LR TA Ops. Air Canada has a premium Y on the 737Max to St John's from London (no champagne)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both TP and EI will operate a J cabin with flat beds on their 321LR. EI will use the same seat as JetBlue use on their ‘Mint’ transcon services (that they have on their 330.)
Ads
A middle of the market aircraft could be an all new design which may be prohibitively expensive if it only sells in limited numbers, where as an A320/B737 replacement has a huge market and can justify significant investment as it’s going to sell.
The B727 sold in large numbers because at the time it filled a specific role which was to open up shorter runways, which had previously been built with propeller aircraft in mind, to jet services. These days most places which can justify an airline service have a runway of sufficient length to accommodate a jet so the B727s STOL performance isn’t needed.
A m.o.m aircraft could also be either be a bigger version of a small aircraft, or a smaller version of a big aircraft. Given that around 78% of the world airline fleet is narrow body, baseing a m.o.m around these makes sense. A downsized B787 still retains the higher operating costs of its larger siblings but carries fewer passengers. An A321LR could replace an A330 during a routes low season, and replace an A320 during a routes high season, enabling them to be used on optimum routes instead.
The B737 has reached the end of the road in terms of its development, where as the A320 series still has some upgrade potential. Boeing need to either take the risk of developing a specific m.o.m aircraft, or introduce an entire B737 replacement family which incorporates different sizes and roles similar to the A318-A321 series and covers the market in this manner.
For the moment, Airbus have this niche to themselves, which could prove highly profitable as their entry costs are very low.
The B727 sold in large numbers because at the time it filled a specific role which was to open up shorter runways, which had previously been built with propeller aircraft in mind, to jet services. These days most places which can justify an airline service have a runway of sufficient length to accommodate a jet so the B727s STOL performance isn’t needed.
A m.o.m aircraft could also be either be a bigger version of a small aircraft, or a smaller version of a big aircraft. Given that around 78% of the world airline fleet is narrow body, baseing a m.o.m around these makes sense. A downsized B787 still retains the higher operating costs of its larger siblings but carries fewer passengers. An A321LR could replace an A330 during a routes low season, and replace an A320 during a routes high season, enabling them to be used on optimum routes instead.
The B737 has reached the end of the road in terms of its development, where as the A320 series still has some upgrade potential. Boeing need to either take the risk of developing a specific m.o.m aircraft, or introduce an entire B737 replacement family which incorporates different sizes and roles similar to the A318-A321 series and covers the market in this manner.
For the moment, Airbus have this niche to themselves, which could prove highly profitable as their entry costs are very low.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They will probably build a re-engined 767 as a gap filler, a clean sheet 737 replacement would take around 8 years to enter service if (big if) all goes well.
A limiting factor is the width of a standard narrow body stand at most airports, the A321 wing is already close to the limit of what will fit on a stand.
A limiting factor is the width of a standard narrow body stand at most airports, the A321 wing is already close to the limit of what will fit on a stand.
They will probably build a re-engined 767 as a gap filler, a clean sheet 737 replacement would take around 8 years to enter service if (big if) all goes well.
A limiting factor is the width of a standard narrow body stand at most airports, the A321 wing is already close to the limit of what will fit on a stand.
A limiting factor is the width of a standard narrow body stand at most airports, the A321 wing is already close to the limit of what will fit on a stand.
While it's tough to beat single aisle for fuel burn due to the lower fuselage drag, loading/unloading a single aisle with much more than 200 seats is nightmare. That's one reason why the 757-300 was such a flop (I've been in a 757-300 near the rear - 10 minutes after they started unloading we still couldn't even see any movement ahead).
A middle of the market aircraft could be an all new design which may be prohibitively expensive if it only sells in limited numbers, where as an A320/B737 replacement has a huge market and can justify significant investment as it’s going to sell.
The B727 sold in large numbers because at the time it filled a specific role which was to open up shorter runways, which had previously been built with propeller aircraft in mind, to jet services. These days most places which can justify an airline service have a runway of sufficient length to accommodate a jet so the B727s STOL performance isn’t needed.
A m.o.m aircraft could also be either be a bigger version of a small aircraft, or a smaller version of a big aircraft. Given that around 78% of the world airline fleet is narrow body, baseing a m.o.m around these makes sense. A downsized B787 still retains the higher operating costs of its larger siblings but carries fewer passengers. An A321LR could replace an A330 during a routes low season, and replace an A320 during a routes high season, enabling them to be used on optimum routes instead.
The B737 has reached the end of the road in terms of its development, where as the A320 series still has some upgrade potential. Boeing need to either take the risk of developing a specific m.o.m aircraft, or introduce an entire B737 replacement family which incorporates different sizes and roles similar to the A318-A321 series and covers the market in this manner.
For the moment, Airbus have this niche to themselves, which could prove highly profitable as their entry costs are very low.
The B727 sold in large numbers because at the time it filled a specific role which was to open up shorter runways, which had previously been built with propeller aircraft in mind, to jet services. These days most places which can justify an airline service have a runway of sufficient length to accommodate a jet so the B727s STOL performance isn’t needed.
A m.o.m aircraft could also be either be a bigger version of a small aircraft, or a smaller version of a big aircraft. Given that around 78% of the world airline fleet is narrow body, baseing a m.o.m around these makes sense. A downsized B787 still retains the higher operating costs of its larger siblings but carries fewer passengers. An A321LR could replace an A330 during a routes low season, and replace an A320 during a routes high season, enabling them to be used on optimum routes instead.
The B737 has reached the end of the road in terms of its development, where as the A320 series still has some upgrade potential. Boeing need to either take the risk of developing a specific m.o.m aircraft, or introduce an entire B737 replacement family which incorporates different sizes and roles similar to the A318-A321 series and covers the market in this manner.
For the moment, Airbus have this niche to themselves, which could prove highly profitable as their entry costs are very low.
Hubris is expensive.
150
The festering disaster that Boeing created out of the Bombardier C Series still makes me smile - They could have secured a tailor made 737 replacement for pennies on the dollar. Instead, their competitor has it. Boeing now has a decade of development, and billions of dollars ahead of them to replace the 73.
Hubris is expensive.
