Airbus quietly announces A321XLR
TOULOUSE, France (Reuters) - Airbus sales chief Christian Scherer said it is selling longer-range versions of its A321, while signaling a shift away from chasing market share at any cost and predicting Boeing will emerge quickly from the grounding of its rival 737 MAX.
Scherer, who took on the top sales role in September, told Reuters that Airbus is seeing more demand for longer-range versions of roughly 200-seat planes previously used for medium-haul routes, blurring boundaries with bigger jets. "We are selling increased range on the A321. People are telling us this is a great module, give me more range. (We say) we will give you the maximum range we can on the A321: how many would you like? That is what we are doing," he said in his first substantial interview in his new role. Scherer's remarks are the strongest indication yet that Airbus has quietly launched the A321XLR, a keenly awaited new version of its single-aisle plane that competes with the 737 MAX and could brush up against a proposed new Boeing mid-market jet. Airbus and Boeing compete ferociously for sales of single aisle jets like the MAX and A320 or A321 and the effort to expand Airbus' lead in the market for its cash cow predates last month's grounding of the 737 MAX following two crashes. |
Originally Posted by Smythe
(Post 10450586)
Scherer's remarks are the strongest indication yet that Airbus has quietly launched the A321XLR, a keenly awaited new version of its single-aisle plane that competes with the 737 MAX and could brush up against a proposed new Boeing mid-market jet.
Whether that's imminent is anyone's guess - with the Max issues distracting Boeing from any early announcement on the MMA/NMA, there's no pressure on Airbus to act particularly quickly. |
Concur, but they keep teasing it. The recent statement by United must have B a bit concerned. 40 ac is not going to launch a B MMA, but is a nice tic for the XLR
Given the current state of engine manufacture, it may be difficult for anyone to add anything at this point. |
The A321XLR is a cheap and easy upgrade for Airbus, it can be done simply by increasing fuel tank capacity at the expense of payload. Carry less passengers farther is a good compromise for many airlines.
An increase in MTOW is also possible but would probably not be large given the existing airframe. The combination of the A321XLR and a small A330 conveniently covers the market gap which Boeing cannot fill without spending billions of dollars and maybe 5 years on the MMA. Interesting times........ |
Does anyone see a new wing on the Airbus family as a future possibility? That’s how Boeing moved the 737 into the new millennium, though I understand the potential there was larger due to the legacy design.
|
A while back, they were talking about a new wing for the 321, dubbed the 322..
Leehanews said today that production for the A321XLR is already sold out until 2023, launch expected at Paris Airshow. |
Does anyone see a new wing on the Airbus family as a future possibility? |
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! |
Originally Posted by er340790
(Post 10450922)
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! |
"quietly announce" what with a press release. Too funny.
|
Originally Posted by er340790
(Post 10450922)
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! Actually, I think the 757 taught us that people like non stop flights It’s worked very well on the N Atlantic going into smaller cities in the UK and Europe from the US Passengers I spoke to regularly told me how much they liked the convenience of not having to connect and departing from where they lived I’d prefer to ride on a 747 everywhere if given a choice but it’s all about economics |
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 10450954)
Actually, I think the 757 taught us that people like non stop flights ..... Passengers I spoke to regularly told me how much they liked the convenience of not having to connect and departing from where they lived However, passengers travelling for their own mainly (more than 95%) prefer cheap prices, whichever the conditions of transport are..... |
Originally Posted by er340790
(Post 10450922)
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.... Four hours in a 737 feels horrible to this old fat man, but in a 320 it's OK--shows a couple of inches can make a big difference. :O |
Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot
(Post 10451067)
I remember 707s feeling quite civilized, in the old days, on eight-hour sectors. Depended on the seating density, of course, but in many ways preferable to being in the middle block of four on a 747.
Four hours in a 737 feels horrible to this old fat man, but in a 320 it's OK--shows a couple of inches can make a big difference. :O |
I had occasion to fly economy from Bahrain to London on a Gulf Air A320ER - 6hrs 45 mins. When I checked-in and found out it was an A320 rather than the usual 787 I was a bit concerned. However, it turned-out to be one of the most relaxing flights I've had to/from this region and was certainly better than economy in a 787.
Digressing, I flew economy on a 350 for the first time the other day and, to me, this was noticeably better than the 787. Health warning - I'm comparing a Qatar 350 against a BA 787. |
I’ve heard rumours that Airbus looked at new wing to the existing airframe but ran in to problems joining the two. As a result, as far as I understand it, airbus has completely scrapped continued work on new wing for existing airframes and that will come only when they launch completely new narrow body aircraft. Question is how long that will be...... CP |
As a result, as far as I understand it, airbus has completely scrapped continued work on new wing for existing airframes and that will come only when they launch completely new narrow body aircraft. (I mean the A220-100 and A220-300!) |
Originally Posted by Alan Baker
(Post 10451108)
A 737 has exactly the same fuselage cross section as a 707. As you say, it depends on the seating layout.
|
Originally Posted by er340790
(Post 10450922)
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.. the world is going backwards |
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.
So if it works replacing 747s with 787/A350s, why not in the single aisle market, so A321XLR replaces A330/B767 where possible? I'll give a Northern UK centric idea on why I'd be happy to fly an Airbus over the Atlantic. I live minutes from Leeds/Bradford, but to go anywhere means traipsing to Manchester. I recently went to Belfast on Ryanair, had to be Manchester. Airfare was £10 each way, time about 60 minutes. But to get to Manchester I had to take the train to/from the airport, cost me £25 and took 2 hours each way! So doubled the cost of the flight and tripled the journey time plus necessitated changing trains etc. No if they went direct from Leeds/Bradford in a Cessna 152 I'd have taken it over all the faff of travelling to a gateway airport. The future is definitely smaller jets doing point to point. G |
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.
|
Originally Posted by groundbum
(Post 10451820)
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 |
Originally Posted by Maxmotor
(Post 10451865)
....which halved capacity and improved their yields.
|
Originally Posted by er340790
(Post 10450922)
If the 757 taught us anything, it was that long haul and narrow-body really don't mix....
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 :confused: 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. |
Originally Posted by Volume
(Post 10454478)
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 :confused: 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. |
Originally Posted by er340790
(Post 10450922)
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! |
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 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. |
Originally Posted by Volume
(Post 10454478)
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 :confused:
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. |
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.
|
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. |
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.
|
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." |
Originally Posted by slfsteve
(Post 10455012)
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.
|
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek
(Post 10455977)
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. My expectation is it'll basically be a plastic 767. |
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. https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0ec99a99ec.jpg No wonder its taking so long to decide. |
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.
|
So how much further will the XLR then?
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:01. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.