ZK-NBT wrote:AKL-DPS is about 9 hrs, way to far for the 321LR, even PER would struggle I think with anywhere near a full load. RAR-SYD would be in the same boat. PPT stays a wide body due to lack of alternates I wonder weather the 321LR would change that?
According to Aviation Week there's a range for weight penalty built in to the A321LR. Airbus is pitching the 4000 nautical mile range with 206 seats - the ULCC version of the A321Ceo usually has 230/240 seats.
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... eo-version
"Airbus initially pitched the aircraft to airlines in a premium 164-seat layout with 20 seats in business class, 30 in premium-economy class, and 114 in economy. But discussions with potential customers showed that many airlines are interested in higher seat counts. In the premium configuration, the A321neo LR range decreases slightly to 3,904 nm because of extreme assumptions in terms of weight per passenger.
The 206-seat configuration assumes 16 seats in business class at a 36-in. pitch and 190 in economy at 30 inches.
Currently, the longest route flown by the Boeing 757 is United’s New York-Berlin service, which at slightly more than 4,000 nm can only be flown with less-than-maximum payload. United has 169 seats on the transatlantic 757s."
This suggests to me that it would be a good aircraft for a thinner route like SYD-RAR, unless the reduction in cargo capacity is a consideration.
So AKL/CHC-PER may be doable - unless the airline actually wants more capacity - but I might raise an eyebrow about the leisure-centric (thus lower yielding?) AKL-DPS, unless that route is getting some decent premium demand.