Airbus quietly announces A321XLR
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Coast to Coast...
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was the A380 that was removed from the Mel -Lhr route and replaced with the 787 which halved capacity and improved their yields.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Never home
Age: 36
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: EGNX
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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 ?
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 ?
(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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
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."
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Age: 62
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
That's why Boeing is probably going to go with a twin aisle one the MMA.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why Boeing is probably going to go with a twin aisle one the MMA.
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.
My expectation is it'll basically be a plastic 767.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
No wonder its taking so long to decide.
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.
No wonder its taking so long to decide.
Only half a speed-brake
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.
