Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
236-Seat High-Density A321NEO Launched  
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2633 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23078 times:

As previously rumored, and now confirmed:

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...of-a321neo-with-new-cabin-options/

The current 220 seat limit is raised by the addition of an overwing exit and the SpaceFlex aft galley. EIS in 2017.

I assume this will only be achieved with slim seats and LCC-style 28-29" pitch. This is likely aimed at European holiday carriers currently using 757's such as Thomson, and other similar operations.
Note that this is not a stretch as misunderstood in previous discussions, but a new high-density config.

Previous rumor thread for reference purposes:
Airbus Considers 235 Seat A321 NEO (by lostsound Dec 14 2012 in Civil Aviation)

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 621 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 22932 times:

Thank you r2ho

So the A321NEO will be in a class of its own ? the 737MAX9 has 21 less seats in high density (10% less)

- High density short haul / charter will be interested
- Legacies 2 class low density will be happy with the deactived door2 opportunity... with should also raise the 2 class seat count
It's no small upgrade in my opinion

However that leaves a widening gap between the A320 and A321 in high density configuration (and a nice sweet spot for the 737-MAX8 : Z wall / optmised toilets ...)


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 22831 times:

Quoting r2rho (Thread starter):
This is likely aimed at European holiday carriers currently using 757's such as Thomson, and other similar operations.

Quite a good market there, clearly some serious effort gone into attracting these customers.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 1):
However that leaves a widening gap between the A320 and A321 in high density configuration (and a nice sweet spot for the 737-MAX8 : Z wall / optmised toilets ...)

good point, although maybe with the economics of A321neo, a bigger aircraft with more flexibility might be favoured by some operators.


User currently offlinecv990coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 22551 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Good news for Airbus. Will they issue free shoe horns to get everyone in their seats ?. I will give this one a miss, thank you. Where possible I never turn right it can get very dark, crowded and uncomfortable.


SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22198 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting r2rho (Thread starter):
The current 220 seat limit is raised by the addition of an overwing exit and the SpaceFlex aft galley. EIS in 2017.

Will the extra overwing exit be standard on the A321NEO? I suspect it will boost resale value more than it costs in maintenance...

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 2):
Quite a good market there, clearly some serious effort gone into attracting these customers.

Have any ordered the NEO? IIRC Thomson, but anyone else?

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 1):
However that leaves a widening gap between the A320 and A321 in high density configuration (and a nice sweet spot for the 737-MAX8 : Z wall / optmised toilets ...)

Size doesn't matter, it is cost per flight and there isn't that much of a difference between the -8MAX and A321NEO's cost per flight. So fly the extra seats and when they pay for themselves, enjoy!

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 1):
- Legacies 2 class low density will be happy with the deactived door2 opportunity... with should also raise the 2 class seat count

I missed that detail, thank you. It does present better economics for 2-class opperators with moderate pitch Y.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 21864 times:

My guess is the range will take a big hit for the new A-321CATTLECAR. Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 21810 times:

I seriously doubt most of the enthusiasts on this site will ever want to be shoved into this thing. No thanks, Airbus, you can keep the flying sardine can.

One can only imagine how uncomfortable this aircraft will be.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

My guess is the range will take a big hit for the new A-321CATTLECAR. Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

Something's gotta give.


User currently offlinespeedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 21783 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 1):
- Legacies 2 class low density will be happy with the deactived door2 opportunity... with should also raise the 2 class seat count

Does anyone know what the exit limit will be in this config? It should be greater than 189, since it has larger door capacity than a 737-800, unless there is limitations due to the distance between door 1 and the overwing exit.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
Will the extra overwing exit be standard on the A321NEO? I suspect it will boost resale value more than it costs in maintenance...

I will probably be popular as it adds flexibility. With the overwing exit you can have up to 236 seats with all exits activated, 220 with overwing deactivated and 189-200 somewhere (I'm guessing) with door 2 deactivated. Without it you are stuck with one exit config.



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlinePacific From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21729 times:

Funny how the aircraft is getting the flak, instead of the airline who chooses the actual configuration. Good on Airbus, hope air travel remains affordable as a result in this age of rising costs.

Anyone remember how an extra exit on the 737-900ER led to highly valuable sales to Lion Air? May Airbus have the same fortune.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4993 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21678 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

As noted in another A321 thread, the biggest range restriction is not what the aircraft can lift, but what the aircraft can carry. With its small efficient wings, fuel capacity is limited, even with the main centre tank.

Basic fuel tankage is 18,605 Kgs, which can be increased to 23,302 Kgs with two ACTs.

So with our present A321s, it is possible to load full fuel, and carry full passengers and still be 8000 Kgs below MTOW. Now our A321s carry 174 passengers, if you added another 6448 Kgs for the additional 62 passengers and baggage, you would still be roughly 1500 Kgs below MTOW.

The A321neo would be very similar, but with the added range of the more efficient engines and sharklets.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21677 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
My guess is the range will take a big hit for the new A-321CATTLECAR. Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

I suspect the airlines that will buy it fully understand the concept of a payload/range curve.   

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 6):
One can only imagine how uncomfortable this aircraft will be.

No more uncomfortable than any "pack 'em in" airline flying today.

If, as I suspect, neither of you actually read the PR, the modifications present the airlines with a much more flexible cabin in both 2-class and all economy configurations. But hey, why miss an Airbus-bashing opportunity?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 621 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21606 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

Hello

High density "real life" A321CEO should be able to fill more than 90% of wing and center tank with a 22.4 t payload (236 PAX)
NEO should be the same (or better in case of MTOw increase)
We can assume 2300-2500 Nm in the real life (and I think I take conservative estimates)

Is it that bad ?


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21581 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
No more uncomfortable than any "pack 'em in" airline flying today.

If, as I suspect, neither of you actually read the PR, the modifications present the airlines with a much more flexible cabin in both 2-class and all economy configurations. But hey, why miss an Airbus-bashing opportunity?

Errmm..no. How about taking a breath, and have a seat before you reflexively defend "anything that remotely appears to bash Airbus"?

And, unfortunately, I did read the release, and I read the original configuration on AW&ST a couple of months ago. And I don't care what airplane manufacturer builds a sardine can; Boeing or Airbus, I will avoid any airline that uses that high-density, utterly uncomfortable configuration. So don't make an ass our yourself jumping to conclusions. Last I checked, this was a thread on the A321; I didn't see any thread or mention of some ridiculous high-density 737 sardine can.

But please, continue to imagine this as an Airbus bashing thread when it wasn't in the first place.

.


User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 583 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21526 times:

The aditional emergency exits are also necessary to opt for the A321 /236 planes also for a lower density configuration with alarger premium class in the front and still enough Y pax behind.

In this case the over wing exits are used and the front side emergency exits can be closed and used for premium class cabins accoring to airbus.

Regards
Flyglobal

[Edited 2013-01-17 08:01:14]

User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21427 times:

This is not only a high density solution.

For low density, high J, configurations, the new over wing exits allow the door 2 exits just forward of the wing to be deactivated, for more seats to be fitted.

Quote: "In conjunction with the additional over-wing exit door, a second new option is available whereby the forward exit is de-activated. This creates a seamless, undivided forward cabin allowing additional seats and even more flexibility in multi-class seat arrangements. This option will be of particular use in longer range markets where high comfort standards are needed in Premium class."

As a result, the 321neo will address both 757 replacement markets - short haul "cattle class" leisure with 236 seats, and long haul low density including J seats.


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 621 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21358 times:

Quoting Pacific (Reply 8):
Anyone remember how an extra exit on the 737-900ER led to highly valuable sales to Lion Air? May Airbus have the same fortune.

Yes I think it's almost the same move (spaceflex, new exists), just missing the MTOW increase, unless you consider that going NEO is almost the same

So airbus almost launched an A321NEO-ER !

Waiting for the MTOW increase now (for PAS maybe ?)

Quoting longhauler (Reply 9):
As noted in another A321 thread, the biggest range restriction is not what the aircraft can lift, but what the aircraft can carry. With its small efficient wings, fuel capacity is limited, even with the main centre tank.

Basic fuel tankage is 18,605 Kgs, which can be increased to 23,302 Kgs with two ACTs.

So with our present A321s, it is possible to load full fuel, and carry full passengers and still be 8000 Kgs below MTOW. Now our A321s carry 174 passengers, if you added another 6448 Kgs for the additional 62 passengers and baggage, you would still be roughly 1500 Kgs below MTOW.

The A321neo would be very similar, but with the added range of the more efficient engines and sharklets.

Might not forget the weight of the seat also...
Your A321 seems lighter than the one I found on the net (THY and RJ )


User currently offlinePhen From Ireland, joined Oct 2007, 317 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21283 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 14):
For low density, high J, configurations, the new over wing exits allow the door 2 exits just forward of the wing to be deactivated, for more seats to be fitted.

I assume this means that the fuselage is fabricated with no door at all in the Door 2 position and with regular cabin windows instead, or is the door frame simply plugged with a fixed fuselage panel?


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4993 posts, RR: 42
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21193 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 15):
Might not forget the weight of the seat also...
Your A321 seems lighter than the one I found on the net (THY and RJ )

I think it would be a tough one to forecast. I was only using our present aircraft, and our present weights, for a rough guideline.

As you note, there are a lot of other factors to consider, among them being the 62 additional seats. But also, we would be removing the 20 heavy J class seats, with their powered controls, etc. Also, the forward galley on our A321s is huge ... able to serve 20 J passengers an elaborate J service, twice. I keep thinking of all the china, crystal, linen and silverware that would be unnecessary and not carried.

But until you work the numbers, as I am sure Airbus and potential Customers have, you wouldn't know for sure.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21185 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
My guess is the range will take a big hit for the new A-321CATTLECAR. Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

There are masses of short range holiday routes in Europe so range is not an issue for many carriers.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21134 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 11):
We can assume 2300-2500 Nm in the real life (and I think I take conservative estimates)

Is it that bad ?

Depends on where the airplane needs to fly. For US TRANSCON, it is bad. For shorter routes in the EU, it works perfectly. I can see this being an airplane custom built for FR.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 20966 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
My guess is the range will take a big hit for the new A-321CATTLECAR. Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

A realistic DOW for a 230 seat A321neo is around 53t, that includes weight for neo mods, extra seats etc. Add catering and 230 pax which brings you some 24t, now you are at 77t. MTOW is 93.5t so you have some 16.5t fuel, at 2.6t average fuel consumption the endurance will be 6.3 hours, that is including your reserves.

Now I don't want to sit in a SA more then 5 hours and I don't think others would at 230 seats below 30'' pitch. Most holiday destinations would be found within that endurance me thinks.

[Edited 2013-01-17 09:05:23]


Non French in France
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6669 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 20815 times:

Quoting Pacific (Reply 8):
Anyone remember how an extra exit on the 737-900ER led to highly valuable sales to Lion Air? May Airbus have the same fortune.

Airbus did it before when they added an overwing exit to the A319 for Easyjet, who dumped the 737 for it in return.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineMACDADDY From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 20814 times:

It seems many people on here are not familiar with the "old 757's in Euro-Charter Airlines. The basic config on a B757 was 235Y, and latterly 229Y. People like Jet2 and Thomson could be interested in such a plane, flying at 28" pitch, full loads from the North of Europe to The Med. However that model is outdated and being fast replaced / overtaken by LCCs. So it remins to be seen if anyone "bites" in this market.

MAC



www.plane-sight-images.photoshelter.com
User currently offlinewingnutmn From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 643 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 20535 times:

I know that everyone keeps saying Euro charter airlines, but this sounds like a perfect airplane for Spirit too. It doesn't need the range, but the capacity. This A321Neo is perfect for FLL to anywhere in the Carrabbean. It also could fly from FLL to most cities in their system. Trans-cons may not happen, but how many of those flights do they currently fly? I would not be shocked to see an announcement that NK is a launch for this new varriant of the A321.

Wingnut



Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 19557 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
the modifications present the airlines with a much more flexible cabin in both 2-class and all economy configurations.

That is the most exciting detail. The flexibility as noted by:

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 7):
I will probably be popular as it adds flexibility. With the overwing exit you can have up to 236 seats with all exits activated, 220 with overwing deactivated and 189-200 somewhere (I'm guessing) with door 2 deactivated. Without it you are stuck with one exit config.

Thank you for the explination.

Quoting Pacific (Reply 8):
Anyone remember how an extra exit on the 737-900ER led to highly valuable sales to Lion Air? May Airbus have the same fortune.

   This will sell planes.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
I suspect the airlines that will buy it fully understand the concept of a payload/range curve.

Na, we armchair CEOs no better.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 12):
And I don't care what airplane manufacturer builds a sardine can; Boeing or Airbus, I will avoid any airline that uses that high-density, utterly uncomfortable configuration.

Then you are not a customer of the charter airlines. Every mature market will eventually break down into at least 5-identifiable sub-markets. For airlines, we have charter/first class, business class, Y+, coach (with legroom), and ULCC coach and then variations with and without luggage. This change means that a standard 2-class A321 will have a better layout and then a charter/ULCC configuration is an option. Why not celebrate Airbus selling more planes instead of bashing how you don't like the market?

Are you against the 757 because so many are used by charters? Or the infamous 8-across narrow pitch 767s?
Boeing 767 - Charter Configuration (by CTFLYER May 8 2001 in Civil Aviation)

Every can use seatguru, so there shouldn't be any surprises.

Quoting wingnutmn (Reply 23):
but this sounds like a perfect airplane for Spirit too.

   I think B6 will benefit from the flexibility too.

Quoting Phen (Reply 16):
or is the door frame simply plugged with a fixed fuselage panel?

There are standard door plugs with an interior panel to hide the door opening from the passengers (so they don't try to use it in an emergency).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10042 posts, RR: 96
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 19784 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
My guess is the range will take a big hit for the new A-321CATTLECAR. Is it going to have the same MTOW as the A-321NEO? If it does, that means it must carry LESS fuel, another hit to its range.

Very little. As others have said, the A321 is predominantly fuel volume limited

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 6):
I seriously doubt most of the enthusiasts on this site will ever want to be shoved into this thing. No thanks, Airbus, you can keep the flying sardine can.

The 215 seat arrangement on the 737-900ER is 28" pitch. *shrug*

Quoting longhauler (Reply 9):
So with our present A321s, it is possible to load full fuel, and carry full passengers and still be 8000 Kgs below MTOW. Now our A321s carry 174 passengers, if you added another 6448 Kgs for the additional 62 passengers and baggage, you would still be roughly 1500 Kgs below MTOW.

  

Quoting scbriml (Reply 10):
I suspect the airlines that will buy it fully understand the concept of a payload/range curve

But they haven't flown tankers

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 12):
I didn't see any thread or mention of some ridiculous high-density 737 sardine can.

By definition, the 215 seat arrangement for the 737-900ER in Boeing's own ACAP document is at least as ridiculous

Rgds


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 19077 times:

I always wondered why Airbus did not try this. This 236 A321 will be the same density as 186 seater B737-800 or 180 seater A320. If you fly in such planes on a trip of 60-180 minutes is your choice, of course. Frankfurt-Palma as example is 100 minutes, and this is the ideal plane for that mission.

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 19166 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 25):
The 215 seat arrangement on the 737-900ER is 28" pitch. *shrug*

Don't let facts spoil an incorrect statement here on A-net.      .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 25):
By definition, the 215 seat arrangement for the 737-900ER in Boeing's own ACAP document is at least as ridiculous

It is, only if it is really ridiculous.  


User currently offlineairboe From San Marino, joined Jan 2011, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18894 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 20):

Now I don't want to sit in a SA more then 5 hours and I don't think others would at 230 seats below 30'' pitch. Most holiday destinations would be found within that endurance me thinks


You are Rights Ferpe, from ex. Denmark to the Canaria Islands is aprox. 5 hours

Kr



keep it free of the propellers
User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17857 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
Are you against the 757 because so many are used by charters? Or the infamous 8-across narrow pitch 767s?
Quoting astuteman (Reply 25):
The 215 seat arrangement on the 737-900ER is 28" pitch. *shrug
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
Don't let facts spoil an incorrect statement here on A-net

Reading comprehension is REALLY HARD HERE.

Ahem: from my post above: "And I don't care what airplane manufacturer builds a sardine can; Boeing or Airbus, I will avoid any airline that uses that high-density, utterly uncomfortable configuration."

A or B. If it is high density, I will do my best to avoid it. Just like that World Airways MD-11 they chartered for us to get to Afghanistan...atrocious. Unfortunately, I couldn't avoid or choose a different seating configuration (for obvious reasons)

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
Then you are not a customer of the charter airlines.

You are right. I'm not.


User currently offlineBoeing74741R From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 1164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17170 times:

Quoting MACDADDY (Reply 22):

It seems many people on here are not familiar with the "old 757's in Euro-Charter Airlines. The basic config on a B757 was 235Y, and latterly 229Y. People like Jet2 and Thomson could be interested in such a plane, flying at 28" pitch, full loads from the North of Europe to The Med. However that model is outdated and being fast replaced / overtaken by LCCs. So it remins to be seen if anyone "bites" in this market.

MAC

Don't forget Thomas Cook and Monarch, the former with a decent size 757 fleet (including aircraft from the days of Flying Colours!) and the latter with a large A321ceo fleet. Although you're right in saying that the old "package holiday" market with chartered planes of 200+ passengers is in decline, there are flights to these destinations that could still load 200+ passengers in the height of summer and Monarch don't exclusively use their A321s on holiday routes.

A major issue for some time is that there has been no true 757 replacement. The 739ER and A321ceo are the closest aircraft to that, but with the announcement from Airbus for a 236-seat A321neo option, I think for those airlines still using 757s on the European short-haul holiday routes, this is the aircraft that can finally replace 757s with and avoid taking a hit on capacity.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 34
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16577 times:

Quoting Pacific (Reply 8):
Funny how the aircraft is getting the flak, instead of the airline who chooses the actual configuration.

  

Quote:
Airbus is offering airlines brand new options for configuring the generous floor space offered by the A321neo. These allow more flexibility and thus increase the number of seats at the same comfort standard.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinevoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 15566 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 15):
Waiting for the MTOW increase now (for PAS maybe ?)

Would they then be starting to think of resurrecting a bogie main gear along the lines of the original A320s delivered to Indian Airlines way back when?



` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14219 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
Will the extra overwing exit be standard on the A321NEO? I suspect it will boost resale value more than it costs in maintenance...

I don't see airlines ordering these based on resale value. It should be totally based on their own operational expectation. So I don't envision an airline adding optional doors/exits they are not required to have or intend to use, as doors/exits add extra weight with the mechanics of the device itself and the weight of the extra framing and mechanisms, compared to normal cabin frames and skin. Look at the little R1 service doors on a DC9/MD80/MD90 ... they were made small to meet requirements but minimize the weight. Paneling over an unnecessary door just adds more weight.



Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8383 posts, RR: 10
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13889 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 29):

A or B. If it is high density, I will do my best to avoid it. Just like that World Airways MD-11 they chartered for us to get to Afghanistan...atrocious. Unfortunately, I couldn't avoid or choose a different seating configuration (for obvious reasons)

And I have a feeling that pretty soon you won't have much of a choice above 30 inches in short haul flying as more and more airlines deploy more Y+ seats as an alternative to the so called sardine can class.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12813 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 25):
The 215 seat arrangement on the 737-900ER is 28" pitch. *shrug*

Don't let facts spoil an incorrect statement here on A-net.

But then again, said arguments are fun.      
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 25):
By definition, the 215 seat arrangement for the 737-900ER in Boeing's own ACAP document is at least as ridiculous

It is, only if it is really ridiculous.

I prefer ludicrous.  
Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 29):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
Then you are not a customer of the charter airlines.

You are right. I'm not.

Then why worry? They're already there and have a market. Airbus has made an offering that improves comfort for 2-class airlines but allowing better seat layouts by plugging a door or to displace those 757s that were in charter operation. Don't worry about it. I avoid a number of airlines due to my own preferences. The difference is I see the marketability of this configuration and therefor will cheer it on.

Might I fly in such a configuration? Maybe. Money is tight for me right now and to fly with my two daughters who need nothing more than a minuscule pitch (oldest isn't even yet 4 feet tall), I would be willing to be packed in for the right savings. Would I prefer more room? Sure. But I'm glad when there is that cost/benefit decision to be made.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25289 posts, RR: 85
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12706 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 35):
I avoid a number of airlines due to my own preferences.

Oh, I'm such a whore about airlines and aircraft - I'll fly anyone. And have flown some quite unusual ones. LOL.

I'll fly on these, see what they're like.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 9948 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 1):
So the A321NEO will be in a class of its own ? the 737MAX9 has 21 less seats in high density (10% less)

Very interesting; to what extent would the 236-seat A321NEO impair the 737MAX9's business model? Would it be flagrant or subtle? Advantage with LCC/charter operators or with all relevant markets?


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1587 posts, RR: 10
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 9362 times:

Re Above.

Then why worry? They're already there and have a market. Airbus has made an offering that improves comfort for 2-class airlines but allowing better seat layouts by plugging a door or to displace those 757s that were in charter operation. Don't worry about it. I avoid a number of airlines due to my own preferences. The difference is I see the marketability of this configuration and therefor will cheer it on.

Might I fly in such a configuration? Maybe. Money is tight for me right now and to fly with my two daughters who need nothing more than a minuscule pitch (oldest isn't even yet 4 feet tall), I would be willing to be packed in for the right savings. Would I prefer more room? Sure. But I'm glad when there is that cost/benefit decision to be made.

Lightsaber

I have just come back from a skiing holiday with Wife and 2 kids.Thompson stretched 757 with BW's. High densiet seating with new slim seats (well thats how it looked to me).

London to Barcelona. Short flight. I am tallest 5'11". No problem what so ever. In fact perfectly comfortable. Might be different if I was going tran atlantic. I once went "cheap" to New Zealand on a 767 that was high density (and 3 stops) now that did become hellish due the massive amount of time sitting down. But for 2-3 hours it is fine.

This aircraft is surely just a replacement for 757's no? God knows what the fuel savings are going to be relative to the 757 with it's old cropped fan RB211 compared to a NEO with Geared fan. I am no expert but I would have thought it would be massive! (Anyone have a guess on comparitive SFC?)


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 8293 times:

Gosh you're all acting like this will be the only A321 config available! The standard A321 NEO will still be available .. this is just a variant!


Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-CPH (320-BA), VXO-BMA (S20-TF), ARN-CPH (738-SK), CPH-LHR (320-BA)
User currently offlineAAMDanny From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7543 times:

I would be interested to see the seat map/cabin config and see the location and sizes of galleys, lavs and other cabin fixtures

Having worked on 220Y config A321's in the past as Crew I would be really interested so see Airbus' plan to fit Y236 in the A321 fuselage.

I can imagine Galley 4 becoming a half galley anda LAV being relocated AFT of the R4/L4 door station.


User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2191 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7211 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AAMDanny (Reply 40):
I would be interested to see the seat map/cabin config and see the location and sizes of galleys, lavs and other cabin fixtures

Having worked on 220Y config A321's in the past as Crew I would be really interested so see Airbus' plan to fit Y236 in the A321 fuselage.

I can imagine Galley 4 becoming a half galley anda LAV being relocated AFT of the R4/L4 door station.

Agree! A full-size aft galley can be cramped enough on the A32x and B737 when 2-3 FAs are setting up their carts. With a lav back there too and people waiting in line it is damn annoying. We have one aircraft in our fleet with this config and most of us find it bothersome. You also realise that pax crap like there is no tomorrow when they fly... must be the cabin pressure (or the German sausages  )



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8383 posts, RR: 10
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 6741 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 35):
Might I fly in such a configuration? Maybe. Money is tight for me right now and to fly with my two daughters who need nothing more than a minuscule pitch (oldest isn't even yet 4 feet tall), I would be willing to be packed in for the right savings. Would I prefer more room? Sure. But I'm glad when there is that cost/benefit decision to be made.

Bingo. Most people buy tickets based on price not seat pitch. That's why I think that in the near future all short haul flying will be 30" or less. Last year I flew to LIS with SATA on their A310's. Seat pitch is 18" I think. I'm 5'11" and had no problem with it. It saved me $200/pp on the ticket which was well worth it. I would have no problem flying a short haul segment with the same 18" pitch.


User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 6544 times:

Good on Airbus for having the flexibility to build this variant. Should make good sales in the EU holiday market.

I have to join in with those who say they will not fly any planes in this sort of config no matter if they are made by A or B. I have no interest in 28" seat pitch, nor 2-4-2 767's or 3-3-3 A330's. I have flown on a 3-3-3 A310 before and wow 16.5" seat width!! Thankfully I got an exit row.

I'm 6'7", 201cm tall. I really don't think I could even sit down at 28" seat pitch. I don't know you EU citizens do it. I guess the winter weather in the UK is just really that dreary.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineEuroWings From UK - England, joined Sep 2011, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6380 times:

Quoting MACDADDY (Reply 22):
It seems many people on here are not familiar with the "old 757's in Euro-Charter Airlines. The basic config on a B757 was 235Y, and latterly 229Y. People like Jet2 and Thomson could be interested in such a plane, flying at 28" pitch, full loads from the North of Europe to The Med. However that model is outdated and being fast replaced / overtaken by LCCs. So it remins to be seen if anyone "bites" in this market.

The UK charters have been moving towards the LCC business model anyway. Jet2 was actually founded as a traditional 'Euro-LCC' (albeit one with older aircraft and other activities such as cargo), which has decided to focus on holiday traffic in recent years. It has been very successful doing this and has been able to compete with relative ease against EZY and FR out of several regional UK airports.

Monarch is now focusing on short-haul scheduled services as its primary source of revenue. They operate a sizable fleet of A321s and are retiring their reminaing 752s and A300s within the next few years. Their scheduled services also go head-to-head against EZY on many leisure routes out of LGW and MAN.

I could also see Thomson (as well as the TUI group) and Thomas Cook (as well as Condor and TCX Scandinavia/Belgium) interested, the UK variants are essentially the only true UK-based "leisure charter airlines" left. However, they both have a large flight-only offering, which can be competitive against the LCCs.

[Edited 2013-01-18 09:47:03]

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 34
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 6256 times:

For reference, here are a few existing layouts...

AC




SWISS



BA




Thomson




Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25356 posts, RR: 22
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5969 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 25):
The 215 seat arrangement on the 737-900ER is 28" pitch. *shrug*

With the current lightweight, thin-back seats, 28" is comparable in terms of effective passenger space to 30" with older seats.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 42):
Last year I flew to LIS with SATA on their A310's. Seat pitch is 18" I think.

18" seat pitch is not physically possible.

[Edited 2013-01-18 12:16:53]

User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2633 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5790 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 1):
- Legacies 2 class low density will be happy with the deactived door2 opportunity... with should also raise the 2 class seat count

Thanks, I missed that on my initial post. They are therefore addressing both the high-density charter market as well as the premium-heavy, giving more cabin configuration flexibility to everyone = more sales. I have said in other threads that the A321 stands to gain the most from "NEO" improvements, and here we have another example.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):

Will the extra overwing exit be standard on the A321NEO? I suspect it will boost resale value more than it costs in maintenance...

According to press releas, both (overwing and deactivated door2) will be an option.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 13):
In this case the over wing exits are used and the front side emergency exits can be closed and used for premium class cabins accoring to airbus.

This suggestion may even have come from AA with their premium-heavy A321 transcontinental...  
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
My guess is the range will take a big hit

Range is not a huge concern to the holiday carriers flying between Northern Europe and the Mediterranean, the A321NEO will do it fine even in this config. Some US sun&beach routes etc could also be a candidate market.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 15):
Waiting for the MTOW increase now

The A321 is vuel volume limited, so a MTOW increase won't help I'm afraid.   

Quoting AAMDanny (Reply 40):

Having worked on 220Y config A321's in the past as Crew I would be really interested so see Airbus' plan to fit Y236 in the A321 fuselage.

If Airbus says it, they'll fit   Turn-around times will be horrible, but charter carriers don't mind that so much.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 45):
For reference, here are a few existing layouts...

Thank you. It's a good selection of how different airlines configure their A321's, and useful for the discussion.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5727 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mariner (Reply 36):
Oh, I'm such a whore about airlines and aircraft - I'll fly anyone. And have flown some quite unusual ones. LOL.

Your attitude is very healthy! However, for flights of more than 3 hours, I start to become picky.  
Quoting parapente (Reply 38):
London to Barcelona. Short flight. I am tallest 5'11". No problem what so ever. In fact perfectly comfortable.

That sounds like a perfect mission for a high density configuration. Why pay for more room on that short a flight.

Quoting parapente (Reply 38):
God knows what the fuel savings are going to be relative to the 757 with it's old cropped fan RB211 compared to a NEO with Geared fan.

Per this link, a mere 17% per passenger:
http://beatofhawaii.com/what-hawaiia...nes-huge-plane-order-means-to-you/

However, there is a substantial maintenance savings with the A321NEO vs. the 757.

Here is an older ICAO document based on 2000 fuel prices:
http://legacy.icao.int/icao/en/ro/allpirg/allpirg4/wp28app.pdf

That has a mere4 $162/hour lower cost for the A321. The neo should have about a 3% to 5% lower cost per flight hour than the A321, so the cost savings is about 10%+ per passenger.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10042 posts, RR: 96
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5724 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 46):
With the current lightweight, thin-back seats, 28" is comparable in terms of effective passenger space to 30" with older seats.

Unless these seats are restricted to the 737-900ER only, it wouldn't seem to me to alter the comparison with the A321....

Rgds


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 621 posts, RR: 8
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5716 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 47):
The A321 is vuel volume limited, so a MTOW increase won't help I'm afraid.

At 236 PAX it is not fuel volume limited I think ... if you can still put 1 or 2 ACT underbelly


User currently offlinelucce From Finland, joined Jun 2011, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 5678 times:

Quoting AAMDanny (Reply 40):

I would be interested to see the seat map/cabin config and see the location and sizes of galleys, lavs and other cabin fixtures

Here's a photo of the spaceflex galley. Doesn't look too user friendly
http://fly-news.es/aviones/aviones-c...el-a321neo/attachment/spaceflex01/
http://www.noticiaslatamsales.com/en...r-for-A320-Space-Flex-cabin-option


User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2191 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4995 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lucce (Reply 51):
Here's a photo of the spaceflex galley. Doesn't look too user friendly
http://fly-news.es/aviones/aviones-c...el-a321neo/attachment/spaceflex01/
http://www.noticiaslatamsales.com/en...ption

Hey, they have been very creative here, makes it look like the aft section of a widebody. And TAM and LAN have ordered it alredy?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8383 posts, RR: 10
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4599 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 46):
Quoting airbazar (Reply 42):
Last year I flew to LIS with SATA on their A310's. Seat pitch is 18" I think.

18" seat pitch is not physically possible.

Oops, good catch. I meant to say 28" althought I can't find official confirmation. SeatGuru has is at 32". There's no way it's 32". Or maybe the pitch is 32" but because of the old style bulky seats it feels a lot more cramped. Either way I would have no problem flying TATL in such a tight space if it saves me $200 per ticket.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Where Does AF Send It's High Density 77W? posted Fri Aug 20 2010 00:43:10 by 76er
Japanese People Prefer High-Density , Over Freq.? posted Tue Jan 26 2010 17:19:39 by Shaq
High Density Seating Configuration On The A380 posted Fri Oct 12 2007 18:24:07 by John
Low Density BA 763 On High Density Routes posted Wed Dec 27 2006 17:18:34 by Spetouss
Embraer Offers High-density E-jets posted Thu Jul 20 2006 01:04:51 by PPVRA
High Density A380's Would They Suit Hawaiian? posted Sat Dec 17 2005 02:52:45 by RichardJF
High Density 747s: Who Flies Them, How Many Seats? posted Mon Jul 18 2005 02:46:35 by Targowski
Why Not More 744's/High Density Aircraft In US? posted Fri Oct 15 2004 22:16:22 by Ual747
Q On High-density Layout Of 762s. posted Tue Jul 3 2001 06:16:17 by FlagshipAZ
Will There Be A High Density A346? posted Thu May 3 2001 23:15:38 by AA767400