I guess we know why they used CFM engines instead if PW engines for the first A321LR since PW equipped A321neos have suspeded all test flights.

I wonder who will come out to see the plane land

I think WOW Air stole the show by operating non-stop KEF-LAX a couple of weeks ago - a longer flight...

keesje wrote:

It seems it just took off.

https://www.flightradar24.com/AIB321/106adfde

Ohhh what I'd do to trade my work desk for theirs right now Wonder what's for lunch? Someone in another thread said it was heading to JFK?

Newbiepilot wrote:

I guess we know why they used CFM engines instead if PW engines for the first A321LR since PW equipped A321neos have suspeded all test flights.

You can't change engine type on such short notice.

Considering the lead time of the pylon, this was planned a long time ago.

The first LR customers have selected the CFM powerplant, hence this variant will be certified first.

So I suppose with comfortable flights from Paris to JFK, JetBlue is almost assuredly going to be using this plane. This is going to be a real danger to the Euro based LCCs that are flying trans Atlantic (Norwegian)

That FR24 track seems to show it out of LBG

But this is not really an A321LR, as it only has two additional center tanks onboard. This is the A321 ACF, the first aircraft with both the new engines and the modified fuselage. The third additional center tank will be installed later.

CobaltScar wrote:

This is going to be a real danger to the Euro based LCCs that are flying trans Atlantic (Norwegian)

Although Norwegian also have plenty of A321LR's on order too.

reidar76 wrote:

But this is not really an A321LR, as it only has two additional center tanks onboard. This is the A321 ACF, the first aircraft with both the new engines and the modified fuselage. The third additional center tank will be installed later.

The aircraft has the 97t MTOW so it is an A321LR, just missing the 3rd ACT.

keesje wrote:

It seems it just took off.

https://www.flightradar24.com/AIB321/106adfde

You might want to change the thread title to LBG - JFK.

And all this is pointless without knowing the payload capability on the sector. You can ferry or fly poor loads (as WOW did) long distances. But that does not bring profits.

reidar76 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

But this is not really an A321LR, as it only has two additional center tanks onboard. This is the A321 ACF, the first aircraft with both the new engines and the modified fuselage. The third additional center tank will be installed later.

The aircraft has the 97t MTOW so it is an A321LR, just missing the 3rd ACT.

The A321neo ACF is the base for the longer range variant known as the A321LR. As I understand it, there will only be one variant of the A321 going forward, with 0, 1, 2, or 3 additional center tanks onboard. All A321 from 2020 will have a MTOW of 97t (or be paper derated)

There is also a benefit of the increased MTOW to 97t going short haul with high payload. The A321 ACF is also necessary for the increase to a maximum of 240 passengers.

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... o-acf.html

I’m aware of all the changes with the ACF configuration l, you said this aircraft isn’t an A321LR because it’s missing the 3rd ACT and that is false.

ikolkyo wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

But this is not really an A321LR, as it only has two additional center tanks onboard. This is the A321 ACF, the first aircraft with both the new engines and the modified fuselage. The third additional center tank will be installed later.

The aircraft has the 97t MTOW so it is an A321LR, just missing the 3rd ACT.

The A321neo ACF is the base for the longer range variant known as the A321LR. As I understand it, there will only be one variant of the A321 going forward, with 0, 1, 2, or 3 additional center tanks onboard. All A321 from 2020 will have a MTOW of 97t (or be paper derated)

There is also a benefit of the increased MTOW to 97t going short haul with high payload. The A321 ACF is also necessary for the increase to a maximum of 240 passengers.

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... o-acf.html

The airspeed is quite a bit slower, around 50-80kn. The 757 seems to have the same speed as the WB.

thepinkmachine wrote:

I think WOW Air stole the show by operating non-stop KEF-LAX a couple of weeks ago - a longer flight...

And that was „only“ their A 321 neo- no LR - and they are still using it nonstop KEF - SFO too! Flightime more than 8 h - Check TF-SKY

I would rather fly a 321NEO/LR across the pond than a wide body. Less people on board, and the A32X family cabin is plenty spacious, and certainly on most airlines who will be operating longer 321LR flights.

Dutchy wrote:

The airspeed is quite a bit slower, around 50-80kn. The 757 seems to have the same speed as the WB.

Yep, even slower than a Norwegian 737. Doing maximum range cruise speed? Winds are bad today going west.

TranscendZac wrote:

Less people on board

..a ~220 seat 767 with two aisles still wins in the "spaciousness" department as far as I'm concerned, though those are mostly on the way out.

arcticcruiser wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The airspeed is quite a bit slower, around 50-80kn. The 757 seems to have the same speed as the WB.

Yep, even slower than a Norwegian 737. Doing maximum range cruise speed? Winds are bad today going west.

I guess, this will hurt it on long runs.

Dutchy wrote:

arcticcruiser wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The airspeed is quite a bit slower, around 50-80kn. The 757 seems to have the same speed as the WB.

Yep, even slower than a Norwegian 737. Doing maximum range cruise speed? Winds are bad today going west.

I guess, this will hurt it on long runs.

It's currently 70 kts slower than the closest Norwegian 737 (352 vs 425 knots). It's like if she was flying on one engine! Are these live ground speeds or the last ones recorded at some point during the crossing? Could it be that it's flying this slow because of landing slot issue? The first flight of the day apparently went back to Paris after a few minutes in flight because of an ESTA issue, so they lost their initial landing slot at JFK.

The altitude is a bit odd as well: it has been shown at 34750 ft for a while (so not in transition between two flight levels), while all the other planes fly at "round" altitude levels (34000, 38000,...).

I’m sure it’s at long range cruise speeds. It’ll cruise between .78-.79 in normal operations.

75kts slower than the MAX8 just south of it? That is very odd.

For those of us not using flighradar can we get a flight number or anything?

The speed is not updated for a long time since its out of receiver range... It was at mach .78 at the last point which is the lrc of the a320 family.

Paris-JFK....Putting it right in JetBlues backyard which is close to finalizing its fleet review..how convenient!

ap305 wrote:

The speed is not updated for a long time since its out of receiver range... It was at mach .78 at the last point which is the lrc of the a320 family.

....except they are being overtaken by everyone around them.

What is the point of this flight? Publicity?

Richard28 wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

This is going to be a real danger to the Euro based LCCs that are flying trans Atlantic (Norwegian)

Although Norwegian also have plenty of A321LR's on order too.

Yes, but Norwegian can only fly Europe to north-east.

Jetblue, by way of having it's main hubs at BOS/JFK can provide one stop service between the entire US and most of europe. And the seats are actually more spacious in economy than the US3 or the European LLC's. And in business they'd have lie-flat mint, potentially the whole journey.

For people paying for business it's much nicer than connecting in LHR or flying domestic first to a connecting point.

AC could also capitalize on this with their YUL hub.

barney captain wrote:

ap305 wrote:

The speed is not updated for a long time since its out of receiver range... It was at mach .78 at the last point which is the lrc of the a320 family.

....except they are being overtaken by everyone around them.

except those are projected by fr24 based on the last recorded ads-b data which was a long time back.

The aircraft is also nowhere near its weight limitations given that they went up straight to fl360... This test probably has more to do with seeing how the cabin systems work on a real long haul operation.

ap305 wrote:

The aircraft is also nowhere near its weight limitations given that they went up straight to fl360... This test probably has more to do with seeing how the cabin systems work on a real long haul operation.

That's a good point - it is a test flight. If you look at their GS graph, there is a steady reduction of speed over the course of an hour or so, it could easily be part of a test.

Interestingly enough, when facing head winds the optimum true airspeed for max range/lowest fuel consumption per distance does in fact increase. And the reverse when facing tail wind. Say max range cruise speed is mach 0,78 in still air. When facing severe head wind the maximum range true airspeed goes up to say mach 0,8 and when facing strong tail wind the max range cruise speed goes down to say mach 0,75.

Dutchy wrote:

arcticcruiser wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The airspeed is quite a bit slower, around 50-80kn. The 757 seems to have the same speed as the WB.

Yep, even slower than a Norwegian 737. Doing maximum range cruise speed? Winds are bad today going west.

I guess, this will hurt it on long runs.

As if the speed of a test flight where we don't know what exactly is being tested, is relevant and comparable to commercial operations

Just got back to live tracking and doing about the same speed as all other aircraft on a similar fly path..

PerVG wrote:

Just got back to live tracking and doing about the same speed as all other aircraft on a similar fly path..

Indeed, and EI137 did not overtake it.
I did not know FR24 was extrapolating (yes, I feel foolish), thanks for the brilliant demonstration.

CobaltScar wrote:

So I suppose with comfortable flights from Paris to JFK, JetBlue is almost assuredly going to be using this plane. This is going to be a real danger to the Euro based LCCs that are flying trans Atlantic (Norwegian)

Not sure if serving Europe is in JetBlue's medium-term plans.

Theseus wrote:

PerVG wrote:

Just got back to live tracking and doing about the same speed as all other aircraft on a similar fly path..

Indeed, and EI137 did not overtake it.
I did not know FR24 was extrapolating (yes, I feel foolish), thanks for the brilliant demonstration.

A320s along with 737s, 757s and 767s are pretty slow going between Mach .78 and .80 compared to 747s, 787s, A350s and A380s going at 0.85. When Delta and United went head to head on SFO-NRT, the Delta 767 was blocked at 55 minutes longer than the United 747. 737s and A320s are some of the slowest ETOPS birds.

CCGPV wrote:

For those of us not using flighradar can we get a flight number or anything?

AIB321 / D-AVZO

Not showing up on Flightaware for some reason.

Looks like it'll go to 22L, and light's fading fast. Beauty shots look doomed.

Not sure if serving Europe is in JetBlue's medium-term plans.[/quote]
Uhhmm..guess you haven’t heard much or been out of the loop but a cursory google search and you’ll see jetblue planning on converting to the LR for Europe a very serious next step which we should hear soon. Even so I’m sure they will also continue deeper into Latam from Mco/fll focus cities with it.

Now looks like setting up for 13R. Coolest approach to JFK.

Changed to 13R, or I didn't hear initial instructions.

Is this the first true trans Atlantic NEO crossing?

It looked as if it was going to land on one of the 22s, but nope. This is extremely unfortunate for me as I happen to live under the path that aircraft take to the 22s, and I was planning on spotting it.

GE90man wrote:

It looked as if it was going to land on one of the 22s, but nope. This is extremely unfortunate for me as I happen to live under the path that aircraft take to the 22s, and I was planning on spotting it.

Dark and cloudy. I saw it through the clouds for a few seconds, and I was too slow to get any kind of shot.

Its parked up near the end of 4L by the looks of it - well out of the way

When does it return to LBG, or continue the next leg of its journey?

Newbiepilot wrote:

Theseus wrote:

PerVG wrote:

Just got back to live tracking and doing about the same speed as all other aircraft on a similar fly path..

Indeed, and EI137 did not overtake it.
I did not know FR24 was extrapolating (yes, I feel foolish), thanks for the brilliant demonstration.

A320s along with 737s, 757s and 767s are pretty slow going between Mach .78 and .80 compared to 747s, 787s, A350s and A380s going at 0.85. When Delta and United went head to head on SFO-NRT, the Delta 767 was blocked at 55 minutes longer than the United 747. 737s and A320s are some of the slowest ETOPS birds.

When QF was still using both the 744 and A380 between SYD and MEL, wasn't the 380 blocked for longer than the 744?