Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Airbus quietly announces A321XLR

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Airbus quietly announces A321XLR

Old 20th Apr 2019, 09:50
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Coast to Coast...
Posts: 97
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.
Smooth Airperator is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2019, 10:56
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by groundbum View Post
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.
Maxmotor is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2019, 13:21
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London
Age: 39
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Maxmotor View Post
....which halved capacity and improved their yields.
They should have replaced it with a TBM850. Think of the yields!
mommus is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 10:18
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by er340790 View Post
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
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.
Volume is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 10:27
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Never home
Age: 32
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by Volume View Post
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.
The A350 has a 3x heavier empty weight than the 321NEO, but it doesn't fit 3x more pax.
FRogge is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 11:10
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by er340790 View Post
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.
cooperplace is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 11:16
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 1,045
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.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 15:46
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: EGNX
Posts: 1,139
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.
Doors to Automatic is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 16:10
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Volume View Post
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 ?
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.
wiedehopf is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 21:39
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: stamford
Posts: 7
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.
slfsteve is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 21:44
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 30
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.
EDML is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2019, 12:55
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 534
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.
Less Hair is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2019, 16:25
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 162
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."
Lord Bracken is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2019, 16:36
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Age: 58
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by slfsteve View Post
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.
oceancrosser is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2019, 18:26
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,323
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.
tdracer is online now  
Old 26th Apr 2019, 00:13
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 1,045
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.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2019, 01:23
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek View Post
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.
tdracer is online now  
Old 26th Apr 2019, 06:01
  #38 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 383
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.
Smythe is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2019, 06:28
  #39 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 41
Posts: 2,480
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.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2019, 06:47
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: BHX LXR ASW
Posts: 2,134
So how much further will the XLR then?
crewmeal is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.