User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21239
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:01 pm

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-airlines-lufthansa/lufthansa-ceo-says-considering-a321lr-but-range-not-enough-idUSKCN1GI1O3 says:

“No decision has been taken. They can cross the Atlantic but they don’t manage to go from Germany all the way to the east coast,” Carsten Spohr told journalists on the sidelines of an airlines event in Brussels.

He mentions that LH is "in talks" with Boeing over the NMA/797 but that it's "too early".

He also contradicts IAG's CEO by saying LH won't take more A380s even though they are "available cheaply".
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:30 pm

Spohr is stating the obvious. It's not like A321LR can fly 5,000nm.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8622
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:35 pm

In the end it is interesting that he also mentions the MoM which makes LH the first European airline to do so.
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1878
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:41 pm

Just because LH is "in talks" doesn't mean LH will buy MoM. I won't be surprised a bit if Norwegian ends up being European launch operator of this thing.
Tarriffs are taxes. Taxation is theft. You are not entitled to anything.
If it's a Boeing, I'm not going.
 
oslmgm
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:29 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:46 pm

seahawk wrote:
In the end it is interesting that he also mentions the MoM which makes LH the first European airline to do so.

Well, he said "They (Boeing) are talking to all major airlines".
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21239
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:49 pm

seahawk wrote:
In the end it is interesting that he also mentions the MoM which makes LH the first European airline to do so.

True, but to me it makes sense. The US3 and some LCCs are looking at NMA for US East Coast - mid Europe flights. It only makes sense that LH would look at NMA for flights to the US East Coast.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
FabDiva
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:42 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:50 pm

And talks could mean "Hi, I'm from Boeing and we were wondering if you'd like any input in our proposed MoM model"

As for the A321LR - I'm not surprised, Germany to US using 757s used to be notorious for diversions in the case of strong winds over the Atlantic. If the LR is similar in performance to the 757 when it comes to range then I can understand why LH may not have a use for it.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8622
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
In the end it is interesting that he also mentions the MoM which makes LH the first European airline to do so.

True, but to me it makes sense. The US3 and some LCCs are looking at NMA for US East Coast - mid Europe flights. It only makes sense that LH would look at NMA for flights to the US East Coast.


It is interesting because rumour mill says that there is a difference in the desired cargo capacity between US and Asian airlines when it comes to the MoM. LH´s statement and the context gives some interesting info imho. First they seem to see the MoM on TATL routes and they seem to desire more range than the A321LR has to offer. Now TATL is usually seeing decent belly cargo loads from Germany and back, so maybe it indicates that LH is favouring a more capable MoM than the US3 or QF.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:30 pm

Range is and remains a weak spot. 4000NM wasn't enough for the 757 from Berlin, why would it be for a A321LR?

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1369195
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
columba
Posts: 5231
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:40 pm

I always thought the NMA is the perfect fit for LH
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
GCT64
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:04 pm

keesje wrote:
Range is and remains a weak spot. 4000NM wasn't enough for the 757 from Berlin, why would it be for a A321LR?
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1369195


I don't think anyone expected the A321LR to be reaching deep into Germany from the US East Coast.
Flown in: A21N,A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A359,A388,BA11,BU31,(..55 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
Kikko19
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:07 pm

a321lr is good for TP/BA/IE/SK/DY/IB/AF westward ...eastward would be good for AY/LO/SU/TK/... LH is in the middle so will have to buy a330neos and 797 as Mom...
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5434
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:17 pm

The 321 LR range has always been an issue. Ive said it time and time again. Ive been told im anti-airbus...but im just reporting what flight ops has told us.

You could safely go south from the US. The problem is with Europe and winter winds with a full load and an alternate needed.

How often will it not work? And if that number becomes too high...then what.

Surely, from Germany it’s a problem.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:20 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
The 321 LR range has always been an issue. Ive said it time and time again. Ive been told im anti-airbus...but im just reporting what flight ops has told us.

You could safely go south from the US. The problem is with Europe and winter winds with a full load and an alternate needed.

How often will it not work? And if that number becomes too high...then what.

Surely, from Germany it’s a problem.


A321LR does exactly what it is being designed for. No more, no less. As such:

GCT64 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Range is and remains a weak spot. 4000NM wasn't enough for the 757 from Berlin, why would it be for a A321LR?
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1369195


I don't think anyone expected the A321LR to be reaching deep into Germany from the US East Coast.


Spohr may have as well pointed out that A320 cannot fly 8,000 nm routes.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Obzerva
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:48 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:24 pm

Kikko19 wrote:
a321lr is good for TP/BA/IE/SK/DY/IB/AF westward ...eastward would be good for AY/LO/SU/TK/... LH is in the middle so will have to buy a330neos and 797 as Mom...


Just wondering, would A3 be a chance to open up some new markets
 
holzmann
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:24 pm

FlyRow wrote:
Really great that people say: LH and MoM aircraft would work great... but how can we say that.. The MoM-specs aren't even officially announced.


To you they're not.
DISCLAIMER: Airliners.net is an AIRBUS forum. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, if it has considered doing so in the past, should in no way consider supporting this website.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9426
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:25 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
The 321 LR range has always been an issue. Ive said it time and time again. Ive been told im anti-airbus...but im just reporting what flight ops has told us.

You could safely go south from the US. The problem is with Europe and winter winds with a full load and an alternate needed.

How often will it not work? And if that number becomes too high...then what.

Surely, from Germany it’s a problem.


A321LR does exactly what it is being designed for. No more, no less. As such:

GCT64 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Range is and remains a weak spot. 4000NM wasn't enough for the 757 from Berlin, why would it be for a A321LR?
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1369195


I don't think anyone expected the A321LR to be reaching deep into Germany from the US East Coast.


Spohr may have as well pointed out that A320 cannot fly 8,000 nm routes.

Let’s not be too hyperbolic. MUC-IAD for example is ~3700nm, MUC-ATL is ~4100nm, and you can’t get much deeper into Germany from the US than MUC.

The KEF-LAX flight that WOW operates with the non LR neo that everyone here was going gaga about was ~3,750nm and everyone here was acting like the LR could do that no restrictions in a typical layout.
Last edited by Polot on Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
evank516
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:26 pm

Wonder if this will cause B6 to think again about using this to cross the pond?
 
User avatar
FlyRow
Posts: 697
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:05 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:27 pm

Really great that people say: LH and MoM aircraft would work great... but how can we say that.. The MoM-specs aren't even officially announced.
F70-F100-RJ85-RJ70-E190-319-320-321-733-734-735-737-738-752-753-763-764-772-744-380
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:32 pm

Polot wrote:
Let’s not be too hyperbolic. MUC-IAD for example is ~3700nm, MUC-ATL is ~4100nm.


There is nothing hyperbolic about that argument. Nominal range is meaningless. Once you take ESAD range into account, you go beyond the aircraft's design range of 4,000 nm. As such, the LR simply cannot do MUC-IAD (from an economical point of view).

Which brings us to the next point:

The KEF-LAX flight that WOW operates with the non LR neo that everyone here was going gaga about was ~3,750nm and everyone here was acting like the LR could do that no restrictions in a typical layout.


WOW Air blocks seats. Obviously the aircraft can fly much further with empty seats. The difference is that Lufthansa wants a solid business case for the aircraft.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:35 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
The 321 LR range has always been an issue. Ive said it time and time again. Ive been told im anti-airbus...but im just reporting what flight ops has told us.

You could safely go south from the US. The problem is with Europe and winter winds with a full load and an alternate needed.

How often will it not work? And if that number becomes too high...then what.

Surely, from Germany it’s a problem.

Double standards man...it's the norm here ;)

That being said, just like with the 787, of course Boeing is talking to all the big names out there in hopes of canvassing a sizeable launch order sheet...it's just good business. IF (and that's a big if) LH decides to launch this, and the plane has the advertised range, it could really start to open up their North American network from secondary cities like DUS, HAM and BER/TXL...assuming the infrastructure is there at those airports to support.
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:41 pm

evank516 wrote:
Wonder if this will cause B6 to think again about using this to cross the pond?



It will be fine for going to/from the British Isles, which is all they can handle right now at their size. Also B6 CEO is English so...
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:47 pm

So... how short is the A321LR from going to the East Coast?

5%?
10%?
15%?

If a rewinged A321 (with root plug) can add this much to range, then is that requirement answered at a fraction of the time/cost of MoM?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9426
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:56 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Polot wrote:
Let’s not be too hyperbolic. MUC-IAD for example is ~3700nm, MUC-ATL is ~4100nm.


There is nothing hyperbolic about that argument. Nominal range is meaningless. Once you take ESAD range into account, you go beyond the aircraft's design range of 4,000 nm. As such, the LR simply cannot do MUC-IAD (from an economical point of view).

Which brings us to the next point:

The KEF-LAX flight that WOW operates with the non LR neo that everyone here was going gaga about was ~3,750nm and everyone here was acting like the LR could do that no restrictions in a typical layout.


WOW Air blocks seats. Obviously the aircraft can fly much further with empty seats. The difference is that Lufthansa wants a solid business case for the aircraft.

I know that (and knew that you know that). But you also know as well as I do that there are some members here who get a little too caught up in all the excitement in regards to the LR and start to build up fantasies in regards to it’s capabilities in their head.
 
Noshow
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:13 pm

Not so sure about the A380s fate. Frankfurt get's cramped and has tight night curfews so big planes make sense for LH.
Plus: Lieflat seats waste floorspace and the A380 has plenty of it.
 
pabloeing
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:18 pm

Farnborough will be amazing this year ¡¡¡¡¡¡
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21239
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:25 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
The 321 LR range has always been an issue. Ive said it time and time again. Ive been told im anti-airbus...but im just reporting what flight ops has told us.

You could safely go south from the US. The problem is with Europe and winter winds with a full load and an alternate needed.

How often will it not work? And if that number becomes too high...then what.

Surely, from Germany it’s a problem.

I think a.net has too often categorized A321LR as a TATL plane, without the needed qualification.

Perhaps it's more accurate to refer to A321LR as an "Atlantic rim" plane.

It'll be great for the right city pairs on the edges of the Atlantic, but go much deeper into EU or US or both and restrictions emerge.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
SRQKEF
Posts: 1864
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:10 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:25 pm

seahawk wrote:
In the end it is interesting that he also mentions the MoM which makes LH the first European airline to do so.


Icelandair have talked a bit about it here in Iceland, makes sense as replacing the 757 with the 797 is a no-brainer. If the 797 has the specs that have been referred to both here and in other places, it fits the FI fleet like a custom made glove.
Last edited by SRQKEF on Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing compares to taking off in an empty 757 with full thrust!
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:29 pm

Polot wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
The 321 LR range has always been an issue. Ive said it time and time again. Ive been told im anti-airbus...but im just reporting what flight ops has told us.

You could safely go south from the US. The problem is with Europe and winter winds with a full load and an alternate needed.

How often will it not work? And if that number becomes too high...then what.

Surely, from Germany it’s a problem.


A321LR does exactly what it is being designed for. No more, no less. As such:

GCT64 wrote:

I don't think anyone expected the A321LR to be reaching deep into Germany from the US East Coast.


Spohr may have as well pointed out that A320 cannot fly 8,000 nm routes.

Let’s not be too hyperbolic. MUC-IAD for example is ~3700nm, MUC-ATL is ~4100nm, and you can’t get much deeper into Germany from the US than MUC.

The KEF-LAX flight that WOW operates with the non LR neo that everyone here was going gaga about was ~3,750nm and everyone here was acting like the LR could do that no restrictions in a typical layout.


IMO... KEF-LAX and IAD-MUC are good examples of routes the A321LR "should" from a marketing perspective be able to do. If it takes another PIP then Airbus should be working on that, and probably is.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3111
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:48 pm

Revelation wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
The 321 LR range has always been an issue. Ive said it time and time again. Ive been told im anti-airbus...but im just reporting what flight ops has told us.

You could safely go south from the US. The problem is with Europe and winter winds with a full load and an alternate needed.

How often will it not work? And if that number becomes too high...then what.

Surely, from Germany it’s a problem.

I think a.net has too often categorized A321LR as a TATL plane, without the needed qualification.

Perhaps it's more accurate to refer to A321LR as an "Atlantic rim" plane.

It'll be great for the right city pairs on the edges of the Atlantic, but go much deeper into EU or US or both and restrictions emerge.


737max is an Atlantic rim plane. A321lr should do significantly better. Dy is on record saying they want to operate from lgw to msp. That sounds to me way more than a rim plane.

If Lh wanted to go fra to mco or mia or atl or iAd, that might be too much. But if they just fly to Boston, it’s probably enough.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:49 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Spohr is stating the obvious. It's not like A321LR can fly 5,000nm.



Nope. Frankfort to New York is 3350 nautical miles. Not 5000 nautical miles. There is not flight from Germany to anywhere on the East Coast that comes close to 5000nm. https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/jfk-to-fra/

Airbus claims with a full load the A321 LR can fly 4100nm so that tells me either LH is not telling the truth or Airbus is not telling the truth. My guess is LH is telling the truth and the fact is westbound the A321 LR will struggle to fly anywhere from Germany to the East Coast. It sounds like real world the A321 LR may not even have the legs of a 757 as UA has flown Berlin to Newark for years and that is 3458nm and even the 757 struggles in winter.

The A321 LR is certainly a fine plane and the economics are much, much better than the 757. But as a airline executive said about a year ago...in terms of mission capability it can do about 90-95% of what a 757 can. That statement appears to be true.
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
airbazar
Posts: 9624
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:51 pm

A321LR is a 752 replacement with 25% better economics. No more, no less. How many 752's do you see operating from N.America to Germany? This is not news people. LH's CEO isn't saying anything new. In the TATL market it will be a great airplane for some airlines until a better replacement comes along.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:59 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Spohr is stating the obvious. It's not like A321LR can fly 5,000nm.



Nope. Frankfort to New York is 3350 nautical miles. Not 5000 nautical miles. There is not flight from Germany to anywhere on the East Coast that comes close to 5000nm. https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/jfk-to-fra/


You're missing the point.

Aside from the fact that LH won't make business decisions just on the most optimistic routes (FRA-JFK), one would have to take into account longer routes as well, like MUC-IAD and MUC-ATL. And as pointed out earlier, nominal ranges are meaningless in payload/range debates. One need to look at ESAD range. When we do so, the requirements balloon beyond 4,000 nm. As such, LH would need an aircraft with 5,000 nm design range to cover the entire U.S. east coast. Anyone who believes the A321LR can fly that kind of routes is looking at the wrong aircraft.

To me, Spohr states the obvious.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:02 pm

airbazar wrote:
A321LR is a 752 replacement with 25% better economics. No more, no less. How many 752's do you see operating from N.America to Germany? This is not news people. LH's CEO isn't saying anything new. In the TATL market it will be a great airplane for some airlines until a better replacement comes along.




I completely agree. It can do much of what a 757 can do with much better economics. But the hype among some enthusiasts makes me laugh. Continental Europe deep into South America? Where to people come up with this stuff? It's a 752 in terms of range and even that might be pushing it.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 2746
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:03 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
Airbus claims with a full load the A321 LR can fly 4100nm so that tells me either LH is not telling the truth or Airbus is not telling the truth. My guess is LH is telling the truth and the fact is westbound the A321 LR will struggle to fly anywhere from Germany to the East Coast. It sounds like real world the A321 LR may not even have the legs of a 757 as UA has flown Berlin to Newark for years and that is 3458nm and even the 757 struggles in winter.


The 757 also had problems doing Atlantic legs in the winter months

https://mashable.com/2015/01/09/boeing- ... 84tFjEtmqR

I think its more a case that both the 757 and A321LR would find some of these German routes challenging and LH wants a plane that can do the flying year round, direct, irrespective of weather.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3111
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:03 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Spohr is stating the obvious. It's not like A321LR can fly 5,000nm.



Nope. Frankfort to New York is 3350 nautical miles. Not 5000 nautical miles. There is not flight from Germany to anywhere on the East Coast that comes close to 5000nm. https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/jfk-to-fra/

Airbus claims with a full load the A321 LR can fly 4100nm so that tells me either LH is not telling the truth or Airbus is not telling the truth. My guess is LH is telling the truth and the fact is westbound the A321 LR will struggle to fly anywhere from Germany to the East Coast. It sounds like real world the A321 LR may not even have the legs of a 757 as UA has flown Berlin to Newark for years and that is 3458nm and even the 757 struggles in winter.

The A321 LR is certainly a fine plane and the economics are much, much better than the 757. But as a airline executive said about a year ago...in terms of mission capability it can do about 90-95% of what a 757 can. That statement appears to be true.

Yet dy is on record that they want to fly a321lr from London to Msp, which is 3500 nm.

We don’t know which route lh is saying that a321lr can’t do. I certainly agree that nyc is on borderline in the winter time and iAd is probably too far, but there is a lot of places you can fly to out of Boston.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9426
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:06 pm

tphuang wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Spohr is stating the obvious. It's not like A321LR can fly 5,000nm.



Nope. Frankfort to New York is 3350 nautical miles. Not 5000 nautical miles. There is not flight from Germany to anywhere on the East Coast that comes close to 5000nm. https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/jfk-to-fra/

Airbus claims with a full load the A321 LR can fly 4100nm so that tells me either LH is not telling the truth or Airbus is not telling the truth. My guess is LH is telling the truth and the fact is westbound the A321 LR will struggle to fly anywhere from Germany to the East Coast. It sounds like real world the A321 LR may not even have the legs of a 757 as UA has flown Berlin to Newark for years and that is 3458nm and even the 757 struggles in winter.

The A321 LR is certainly a fine plane and the economics are much, much better than the 757. But as a airline executive said about a year ago...in terms of mission capability it can do about 90-95% of what a 757 can. That statement appears to be true.

Yet dy is on record that they want to fly a321lr from London to Msp, which is 3500 nm.

We don’t know which route lh is saying that a321lr can’t do. I certainly agree that nyc is on borderline in the winter time and iAd is probably too far, but there is a lot of places you can fly to out of Boston.

Yes, but LH is not based out of BOS, they are based out of Germany. LH are not going to have a dedicated A321LR fleet with an international product for only a handful of routes.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21239
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:06 pm

airbazar wrote:
A321LR is a 752 replacement with 25% better economics. No more, no less. How many 752's do you see operating from N.America to Germany? This is not news people. LH's CEO isn't saying anything new. In the TATL market it will be a great airplane for some airlines until a better replacement comes along.

Yes, that's all true.

Thing is, being a more efficient 752 replacement doesn't seem to be enough. It was designed at the tail end of the regulated US market era and was aimed more or less at domestic/intra-continental trunk routes. Now, the market has fragmented. Some pretty interesting city pairs can be served by the likes of LH with a bit more range than 752, and perhaps with same or less capacity if the rest of the economics are good enough.

RalXWB wrote:
I find it amusing that people really think Airbus is just sitting there and doing nothing...

C'mon, man, we have several threads about what Airbus is doing.
Last edited by Revelation on Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:12 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Spohr is stating the obvious. It's not like A321LR can fly 5,000nm.



Nope. Frankfort to New York is 3350 nautical miles. Not 5000 nautical miles. There is not flight from Germany to anywhere on the East Coast that comes close to 5000nm. https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/jfk-to-fra/


You're missing the point.

Aside from the fact that LH won't make business decisions just on the most optimistic routes (FRA-JFK), one would have to take into account longer routes as well, like MUC-IAD and MUC-ATL. And as pointed out earlier, nominal ranges are meaningless in payload/range debates. You need to look at ESAD ranges. When we do so, the requirements balloon beyond 4,000 nm. As such, LH would need an aircraft with 5,000 nm design range to make trips like MUC-ATL etc. Anyone who believes the A321LR can fly that kind of routes is looking at the wrong aircraft.




Fair enough and I agree. I am a fan of the A321 LR as I think it is an outstanding replacement for many TATL routes currently flown by the 757. The economic advantages of the A321 LR are dramatic when compared to the 757, and I don't think that can be argued. I loved the fact Aer Lingus is acquiring the A321 LR because I think it fits there route structure perfectly (i.e a Hub in Dublin at the western edge of Europe that can reach deep into North America).

I guess my point is that many wish the A321 LR was more aircraft and envision it doing missions it is simply not capable of. That is not knock on the A321 LR. As a 757 replacement it is great.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21239
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:22 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Revelation wrote:
True, but to me it makes sense. The US3 and some LCCs are looking at NMA for US East Coast - mid Europe flights. It only makes sense that LH would look at NMA for flights to the US East Coast.

Going back in history, the 757 was used almost exclusively by US airlines on TATL routes. There's a simple reason for that: There is a dozen relevant airports in the US northeast but half of Europe on the other side. Surely you can see why an airline based in JFK and BOS has much more use for it than an airline based in FRA and MUC.

That was one phase of its history, but if you look at its design point in the mid/late 70s, it was really meant to be a better 727-200 and mainly for use in domestic or intra-continental routes. It was given excess thrust to deal with the shorter runways of the era. Over time the extra thrust and PIPs gave it more range, and longer runways became the norm, and cheaper/better short haulers came along, so it was bumped to the TATL routes.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:54 pm

Revelation wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Revelation wrote:
True, but to me it makes sense. The US3 and some LCCs are looking at NMA for US East Coast - mid Europe flights. It only makes sense that LH would look at NMA for flights to the US East Coast.

Going back in history, the 757 was used almost exclusively by US airlines on TATL routes. There's a simple reason for that: There is a dozen relevant airports in the US northeast but half of Europe on the other side. Surely you can see why an airline based in JFK and BOS has much more use for it than an airline based in FRA and MUC.

That was one phase of its history, but if you look at its design point in the mid/late 70s, it was really meant to be a better 727-200 and mainly for use in domestic or intra-continental routes. It was given excess thrust to deal with the shorter runways of the era. Over time the extra thrust and PIPs gave it more range, and longer runways became the norm, and cheaper/better short haulers came along, so it was bumped to the TATL routes.

True but that doesn't invalidate my point that it was mostly US airlines that chose to use it in that role. And certainly the 757's path to TATL flights sounds similar to the A321's history, no?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8766
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:06 pm

mxaxai wrote:
True but that doesn't invalidate my point that it was mostly US airlines that chose to use it in that role. And certainly the 757's path to TATL flights sounds similar to the A321's history, no?


The 757 were displaced in their design role by the 737 and A320 having gained sufficient capabilities.
TATL was the only useful application for fuel guzzling but long paid for 757 frames.

In contrast to the 757 the A321LR is very much up front in fuel economy in the role it has grown into.
Murphy is an optimist
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5638
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:11 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Going back in history, the 757 was used almost exclusively by US airlines on TATL routes. There's a simple reason for that: There is a dozen relevant airports in the US northeast but half of Europe on the other side. Surely you can see why an airline based in JFK and BOS has much more use for it than an airline based in FRA and MUC.


Thanks for the graphic but you're wholly missing the point: LH could look at TATL routes it doesn't presently serve: HAM-XXX, DUS-XXX, and FRA- to second tier N American destinations.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:13 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Going back in history, the 757 was used almost exclusively by US airlines on TATL routes. There's a simple reason for that: There is a dozen relevant airports in the US northeast but half of Europe on the other side. Surely you can see why an airline based in JFK and BOS has much more use for it than an airline based in FRA and MUC.


Thanks for the graphic but you're wholly missing the point: LH could look at TATL routes it doesn't presently serve: HAM-XXX, DUS-XXX, and FRA- to second tier N American destinations.

It could except that there are no LH aircraft based in HAM or DUS or anywhere else but MUC and FRA. All other focus cities are Eurowings bases only but EW doesn't operate the A321. And honestly, how many un(der)served second-tier NA destinations in range of the A321LR are there? Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Halifax. Maybe RDU and BWI? Is it worth it to introduce a new type for maybe 5 routes?
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:19 pm

for LH the MOM would be ideal on ME/Central Asia routes where they used to deploy the A300/310, also equatorial Africa
Last edited by DaufuskieGuy on Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
acreinholz
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:20 pm

FabDiva wrote:
And talks could mean "Hi, I'm from Boeing and we were wondering if you'd like any input in our proposed MoM model"

As for the A321LR - I'm not surprised, Germany to US using 757s used to be notorious for diversions in the case of strong winds over the Atlantic. If the LR is similar in performance to the 757 when it comes to range then I can understand why LH may not have a use for it.


A few numbers:
LIS MCO 3,578 nm
LIS FLL 3,597 nm
LIS IAD 3,121 nm
LIS JFK 2,926 nm
LIS BOS 2,774 nm
LIS ORD 3,484 nm
OPO FLL 3,592 nm
OPO JFK 2,887 nm

Makes a lot of sense to me... But not for LH... For TP, yes...
[threeid][/threeid]A319, A320 A321 A330 A340 B727 B737 B747 B757 B767 B777 DC9 DC10 MD88 MD11 ATR42 ATR72 EMB E175 E190 E195 F100 CRJ700
RG VP KK JJ UA DL AA NW TR AR MJ LH BA AF AL AU AD T4 AZ SC CM G3 FF TW EK O6 TK

"Verba Volant, Scripta Manent"
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21239
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:20 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Revelation wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Going back in history, the 757 was used almost exclusively by US airlines on TATL routes. There's a simple reason for that: There is a dozen relevant airports in the US northeast but half of Europe on the other side. Surely you can see why an airline based in JFK and BOS has much more use for it than an airline based in FRA and MUC.

That was one phase of its history, but if you look at its design point in the mid/late 70s, it was really meant to be a better 727-200 and mainly for use in domestic or intra-continental routes. It was given excess thrust to deal with the shorter runways of the era. Over time the extra thrust and PIPs gave it more range, and longer runways became the norm, and cheaper/better short haulers came along, so it was bumped to the TATL routes.

True but that doesn't invalidate my point that it was mostly US airlines that chose to use it in that role. And certainly the 757's path to TATL flights sounds similar to the A321's history, no?

Yes to both points. A subtle use of the word "relevant", I would say. For instance UK has lots of suitable airports (EK has no problem locating them) and BA was launch customer of 757s but they were focused on the hub/spoke model ("London Airways") whereas US6 (not 3 back then) were not.

WIederling wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
True but that doesn't invalidate my point that it was mostly US airlines that chose to use it in that role. And certainly the 757's path to TATL flights sounds similar to the A321's history, no?

The 757 were displaced in their design role by the 737 and A320 having gained sufficient capabilities.
TATL was the only useful application for fuel guzzling but long paid for 757 frames.

As above, there's a good reason why such a useful application existed and IMHO will be more important world wide over time.

WIederling wrote:
In contrast to the 757 the A321LR is very much up front in fuel economy in the role it has grown into.

It better be, it's had two and a half decades to catch up.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
acreinholz
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:23 pm

acreinholz wrote:
FabDiva wrote:
And talks could mean "Hi, I'm from Boeing and we were wondering if you'd like any input in our proposed MoM model"

As for the A321LR - I'm not surprised, Germany to US using 757s used to be notorious for diversions in the case of strong winds over the Atlantic. If the LR is similar in performance to the 757 when it comes to range then I can understand why LH may not have a use for it.


A few numbers:
LIS MCO 3,578 nm
LIS FLL 3,597 nm
LIS IAD 3,121 nm
LIS JFK 2,926 nm
LIS BOS 2,774 nm
LIS ORD 3,484 nm
OPO FLL 3,592 nm
OPO JFK 2,887 nm

Makes a lot of sense to me... But not for LH... For TP, yes...


They will be able to make it daily and cheaper than a twin aisle TATL.
[threeid][/threeid]A319, A320 A321 A330 A340 B727 B737 B747 B757 B767 B777 DC9 DC10 MD88 MD11 ATR42 ATR72 EMB E175 E190 E195 F100 CRJ700
RG VP KK JJ UA DL AA NW TR AR MJ LH BA AF AL AU AD T4 AZ SC CM G3 FF TW EK O6 TK

"Verba Volant, Scripta Manent"
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5638
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:23 pm

evank516 wrote:
Wonder if this will cause B6 to think again about using this to cross the pond?


I hope Spohr didn't say anything B6 doesn't already know.

I don't see them waiting for a MoM, or getting another new type for TATL service within the next 6-8 years. They might discover that the small (less than 200 sm) difference between BOS and JFK is going to have real relevance. A few routes might be winter-operable reliably xxx-BOS where xxx-JFK is too far. That still leaves them with an easy dozen TATL airport pairs on which they could start service, and I can't imagine a first wave (or the second and third) could be that big: JFK-LON/MAN/EDI/DUB/CDG/BRU/AMS, BOS-LON/DUB/CDG/AMS/HAM/CPH/OSL.
 
columba
Posts: 5231
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:28 pm

DaufuskieGuy wrote:
for LH the MOM would be ideal on ME/Central Asia routes where they used to deploy the A300/310, also equatorial Africa

My thoughts exactly if the MOM indeed becomes more of a 767/A300/A310 successor I definitely can see Lufthansa ordering it. You can also add routes like DUS/TXL/BER-EWR/JFK to that if Lufthansa will not leave that only to Eurowings.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos