User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:35 pm

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


Look, the A321LR brings 752 range to the party, and most importantly does it in a way that shares commonality with thousands of A320 family aircraft in operation, with all the cost reductions that brings. For some airlines bases that extra range will not bring additional viable destinations into play. For some it will. MUC and FRA, not so much, DUB on the other hand - definitely. Clearly for your airline, that isn't the case. But you aren't the only airline in the world.

The persecution complex is unnecessary too.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:49 pm

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


I’m sure they are. It might be good enough for getting their feet wet in Europe with flights to the UK/Ireland, but if they want to make it to FRA and other points deeper in Europe, it’s time for a 330neo or perhaps something more optimal for their needs like a true modern 767 successor that won’t give them more capacity than they really need.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5

AA AI CO CL DE DL EA HA KL LH N7 PA PQ SK RO TW UA YR
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:55 pm

This is all conjecture until the damn plane enters into actual commercial passenger service. I should also be noted that some of those stated routes that Norwegian theorize will likely be summer seasonal and the talk of winter winds will kinda be mute. Flying it out of Dublin or even Shannon drops those bird's down along anywhere on the Mississippi and most anything east of it. That's for the folks that think Ryan and MOL will be picking up the scraps of DY in a year or two's time. If after a year's worth of tweaking and this does stretch it out to 4000 to 4100nm there's going to be some scrambling involved on the majors' part.
 
eaa3
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:49 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:05 pm

On a related subject, can someone provide the fuel burn figures for the A321NEO?
 
JamesCousins
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:09 pm

BlueSky1976 wrote:
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.


I'll be surprised if Norwegian lasts long enough to enter the MOM into service. They need to do something to get that break-even load factor from 96/97% otherwise they're doomed for failure, sadly.
Q400, A320-200, A321-200, 737-500, 737-800, 747-400, 757-200, 787-9 // FCA, TOM, TUI, MON, MT, BA, VS, DL, BE, X9, OLY // Upcoming: EVA 77W, AS A320, VS 787-9, VS A35K, KLM E190, KLM 738
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1670
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:21 pm

This isn't really news, A321LR goes far, but not insanely far. There's a market for a MOM plane that goes further.

The question, of course, is how big is that market between first of all the market for A321/A321LR type of a plane and then true widebodys? I don't have the answer, but that's the crucial question for Boeing. And obviously LH would be an example of an airline who would want to push further. How big is their size of the market? Or would airlines west and north of them handle more of the traffic?
 
airbazar
Posts: 9818
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
Thing is, being a more efficient 752 replacement doesn't seem to be enough.

The A321NEO has sold over 1700 frames so far. Define "not enough". You can't talk about the LR in a vacuum and ignore the non-LR variant especially when in a few year all of them will be LRs.
acreinholz wrote:
Makes a lot of sense to me... But not for LH... For TP, yes...

There's a reason why LH never owned 757's.

The the A321NEO doesn't have enough range for LH shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The big question is whether LH will still order it for SN.
 
DarthLobster
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:40 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:28 pm

holzmann wrote:
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.


Nor anyone else, including you. No public announcements have been made, hence they are not “official”. Doesn’t count if it’s behind closed doors.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21892
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:37 pm

airbazar wrote:
The A321NEO has sold over 1700 frames so far. Define "not enough". You can't talk about the LR in a vacuum and ignore the non-LR variant especially when in a few year all of them will be LRs

I'm defining it in the same way LH's CEO is. You are choosing a different way.

airbazar wrote:
The big question is whether LH will still order it for SN.

By your definition LH already has A321LR on order so they can just move some over to SN, question answered.
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
 
airbazar
Posts: 9818
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
airbazar wrote:
The A321NEO has sold over 1700 frames so far. Define "not enough". You can't talk about the LR in a vacuum and ignore the non-LR variant especially when in a few year all of them will be LRs

I'm defining it in the same way LH's CEO is. You are choosing a different way.


Sorry, I interpreted your post as you referring to the entire A321 family. You statement that "It was designed at the tail end of the regulated US market era" implies that you are refering to the A321, not the LR.

"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."
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21892
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:47 pm

airbazar wrote:
Sorry, I interpreted your post as you referring to the entire A321 family. You statement that "It was designed at the tail end of the regulated US market era" implies that you are refering to the A321, not the LR.

"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."

Sorry, yes, the context for the comment was a tangent that discussed the use of the 752 by US carriers, not really the A321, so we were both addressing different things.

The A321 was developed somewhat later than the end of the US deregulation era and while it was fairly popular in EU early on it took quite a while longer to catch on in the US.

Also the US market tended to have a larger number of smaller hubs whereas the EU market was smaller number of larger hubs. Now things are re-balancing. US market has consolidated more, EU market has fragmented more.

Common thread: A321 (pre-LR and post-LR) is popular pretty much everywhere now.
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
 
QXAS
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:54 pm

For IAG+TP+DY the A321LR is a great airplane for TATL. But once you get to interior Europe, route options would shrink to BOS, NYC, PHL, Baltimore/DC, PIT and maybe a couple others. Airlines aren’t going to use them to NYC because of slot restrictions. So does it make sense to have a subfleet of aircraft in completely different configuration for 4-7 routes? That’s what doesn’t make sense for LH.
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:58 pm

Revelation wrote:
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.

While it is correct that BA or any of the other EU3 could connect those second-tier European cities to NYC or BOS, they mostly only have a minor presence there to begin with. It is obviously cheaper for an airline to base a couple of aircraft in NYC and fly to Europe than it is to base one aircraft each at the many smaller airports there.

For an airline flying XXX-NYC, XXX being a small european town, it also helps to have some kind of hub in NYC.
Conversely, none of the US airlines sees a point in offering flights like CLE-LHR or PIT-FRA. You would need one of the EU3 to come in.

I therefore believe that LH's dismissal does not change the business case for B6.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3273
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:39 am

Suddenly everyone wants the 321LR to perform miracles, and specs the MOM to do the same for everyone... lets be real here, its a great aircraft and has a huge potential, but for example in my flight from MEX-NRT the final 3 hours the speed of the 788 was 477 km/h true ground speed due to strong winds, and great the 788 has great range, in a lesser plane it would have meant a diversion.

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21892
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:48 am

TheRedBaron wrote:
Suddenly everyone wants the 321LR to perform miracles, and specs the MOM to do the same for everyone... lets be real here, its a great aircraft and has a huge potential, but for example in my flight from MEX-NRT the final 3 hours the speed of the 788 was 477 km/h true ground speed due to strong winds, and great the 788 has great range, in a lesser plane it would have meant a diversion.

Do you expect 'MOM' to be
(a) more miraculous
-- or --
(b) less miraculous
than 788?
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
TWA772LR
Posts: 6925
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:59 am

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

Thats the best description I've heard of the plane. It won't be able to hit anything west of the Mississippi (except STL for the hair splitters) even from DUB (KEF yes, but this thread is geared more toward the EU3). The MoM/797 will be able to do that and with a decent load, as well as East coast USA to Eastern Europe comfortably.

Airbus fanboys: Don't get me wrong, the 321L is a fantastic plane, but it will just match the 757 for capability, especially when you consider the potential extra 100 miles or so range doesn't get you realistically farther than any TATL 757 route today.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18404
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:04 am

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

Correct. :yawn:

For LH, the A321LR isn't so great. For airlines with bases in Ireland, UK, Spain, India, China, Iceland, Boston/NYC, and a few other places it is a great plane.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14412
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:06 am

Perhaps the A321LR might be better on 'north-south' routes, not as effected by prevailing winds at certain times of year that limit range - ie: North and South America, Europe and Africa/Middle East/Western Asia, Asia and Australia.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:19 am

Revelation wrote:
airbazar wrote:
The A321NEO has sold over 1700 frames so far. Define "not enough". You can't talk about the LR in a vacuum and ignore the non-LR variant especially when in a few year all of them will be LRs

I'm defining it in the same way LH's CEO is. You are choosing a different way.

Either way, your assertion that "being a more efficient 752 replacement doesn't seem to be enough" based on LH's concerns are frankly ridiculous. We know that the 757 is marginal on Germany-US sectors and from Spohr we can assume that in LH's intended configuration performance A321lr would be unacceptable. But efficiency has no bearing on it - if you can't do the sectors you can't do them. The real test will come with operators for whom the extra range will open up viable new destinations. It's going to take a little while for us to see if that happens - not helped by that fact that some deliveries could be up-sells from other A320 family orders. I'm not even sure why we're obsessing over transatlantic routes either, this isn't 1980. The LR will probably have far more impact in the Asian markets, and I'm intrigued to see its effect in Africa and Latin America.

Also, I don't think you've got quite how much more "efficient" it will be. Fuel burn - sure. You'd expect so. But don't underestimate the benefits of being a member of the A320 family. There's over 8,000 of them out there - when production finishes, probably in the mid to late 2030's, there will be something like 15-20,000 of them delivered. That brings massive benefits that the 757 never had.

One last thing - I know that some people on here view LH's proclamation as proof of the market for the MOM - I'd be careful. This is not the aircraft it will be competing with.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
Jetter330
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:04 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 5:56 am

QXAS wrote:
For IAG+TP+DY the A321LR is a great airplane for TATL. But once you get to interior Europe, route options would shrink to BOS, NYC, PHL, Baltimore/DC, PIT and maybe a couple others. Airlines aren’t going to use them to NYC because of slot restrictions. So does it make sense to have a subfleet of aircraft in completely different configuration for 4-7 routes? That’s what doesn’t make sense for LH.


4-7Routes, an airline like SN won’t be operating more then that number of routes to the US out of BRU.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:29 am

A322LR
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8921
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:35 am

I wonder why LH should use an A321 on FRA-JFK when the route can fill much bigger planes.
 
User avatar
SQ789
Posts: 698
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:51 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:46 am

If they would order A321LR, but cannot do it for Germany-US route, maybe do it to cities like Amman, Tbilisi, Baku or Almaty.
If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:54 am

Time for Airbus to install inflight refuelling probes and get a fleet of commercial MRTT tankers up there ! ;-)
 
RalXWB
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:57 am

There is a world outside of Transatlantic routes. This thread turned into another A321 bashing...smh.
 
PHLCVGAMTK
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:50 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:08 am

Unsurprising. To pivot away from TATL for a moment, LH really doesn't have anywhere it can use a large subfleet of A321LR. Secondary destinations in India was actually my first thought, but it turns out that most of those are in the southern and eastern parts of the country, and the A321LR only has the consistent range for the north and the west (MUC-BLR is GC 3,860nmi). LH already flies, and fills, much larger planes to DEL and BOM. LH could buy smaller planes to fragment existing routes, spreading traffic from FRA to MUC, DUS, ZRH, and VIE, but that would mostly be cannibalizing its own successful routes to little or no purpose. With so many missions that the plane can almost, but not quite, handle, and so very few it is unambiguously suited for, it's best for LH to sit out and wait for a better plane.

Endorse the many above comments saying that the lack of suitability for LH has no bearing on the merits of the A321LR for Atlantic Rim-based carriers.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:18 am

Re above.Totally agree.The A321LR is of no use to LH as a Central European carrier.Fine,so what.Whilst people get excited on the Atlantic rim possibilities it ignores ROW where there are huge opportunities for a 757 style aircraft.Each airline will do their own calculations and decide what opportunities it does or does not offer.
 
brian415
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:27 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
[..] 757 as UA has flown Berlin to Newark for years and that is 3458nm and even the 757 struggles in winter.

During the winter, headwinds flying westbound causes the effective distance to increase from 3458nm to 4000nm, or even 4500nm on a bad day.
 
BHXLOVER
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:20 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:24 am

columba wrote:
I always thought the NMA is the perfect fit for LH


How do you know that? Have Boeing consulted you on the design?

Who knows what LH will need in 2025.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3866
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
He also contradicts IAG's CEO by saying LH won't take more A380s even though they are "available cheaply".

I somehow think he referred to the second hand A380s. I cannot prove it from the article but why should he classify new built A380s as „available cheaply“? It’s not that Airbus has reduced the list price.

That’s why I think he talked about the Dr. Peters A380s, or maybe he somehow knows the price for EK‘s newest tranche of A380s.
 
columba
Posts: 5232
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:17 pm

BHXLOVER wrote:
columba wrote:
I always thought the NMA is the perfect fit for LH


How do you know that? Have Boeing consulted you on the design?

Who knows what LH will need in 2025.


Well, Lufthansa needs a plan to fil the gap between the A321 and the A333. LH A32x fleet has no real business class and also cargo plays a huge roll for LH. Also the A321 is on many routes to less of an aircraft while the A333 is too much. If the NMA is indeed an aircraft that fits that gap I believe it would be an aircraft LH is more than interested in....
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1389
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:30 pm

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

Correct. :yawn:

For LH, the A321LR isn't so great. For airlines with bases in Ireland, UK, Spain, India, China, Iceland, Boston/NYC, and a few other places it is a great plane.

Lightsaber

Correct. A no-brainer for EI and TP. LH not so much as a TATL, but wouldn't it be useful on other routes? There's more to the plane than just TATL, cool as that may be.

But someone should tell Spohr that anything short of total prostration in front of the A321LR is a mortal sin to the a.net fanboys. Worse than dissing Bieber's hair!
 
User avatar
acreinholz
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:30 pm

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

Correct. :yawn:

For LH, the A321LR isn't so great. For airlines with bases in Ireland, UK, Spain, India, China, Iceland, Boston/NYC, and a few other places it is a great plane.

Lightsaber

Correct. A no-brainer for EI and TP. LH not so much as a TATL, but wouldn't it be useful on other routes? There's more to the plane than just TATL, cool as that may be.

But someone should tell Spohr that anything short of total prostration in front of the A321LR is a mortal sin to the a.net fanboys. Worse than dissing Bieber's hair!


I did a quick study and here are some figures:
FLL VCP 3,506 nm
FLL REC 3,338 nm
FLL CNF 3,452 nm
REC LIS 3,153 nm
REC MAD 3,387 nm
AMS SXM 3,747 nm
CDG SXM 3,643 nm
JFK REC 3,623 nm
JFK MEX 1,817 nm
JFK CUN 1,352 nm
JFK BOG 2,150 nm
JFK LIM 3,154 nm
JFK VCP 4,086 nm
JFK CNF 3,970 nm
CDG REC 3,946 nm

These would be some routes that could be appreciated by AD, B6 and TP. Could be an idea even for AF and KL.

TP, B6 and AD already fly these family of aircrafts and also Fly E195. They use the sabe engine as the A321LR.

As for TP and AD, they could have a joint technical center in REC that could handle all their birds.

Huuummmm...
[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"
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4439
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:58 pm

Buying this new airplane would also make sense for LH from a strategic point. They always wanted planes from AB and Boeing, and as such, this could certainly help the dual strategy.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:35 pm

seahawk wrote:
I wonder why LH should use an A321 on FRA-JFK when the route can fill much bigger planes.

I guess the answer is that such a plane is not intended for FRA-JFK (ignoring ops outside main wave/bank hours at FRA/JFK), but perhaps for some of the following:
STR-JFK
TXL-JFK
CGN-JFK
HAM-JFK
HAJ-JFK
NUE-JFK
FRA-BUF
FRA-ALB
FRA-SWF
FRA-ROC
etc.

Question of course is to what extent LH may be interested in such defragmentation - either main line or through (low cost) branch.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3273
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:01 am

Revelation wrote:
Do you expect 'MOM' to be
(a) more miraculous
-- or --
(b) less miraculous
than 788?


If it carries 2 tons of fish on the cargo hold, it will be A. Then again LH can cry all they want but not a or B will invest a few billion just to see of they bite.

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13308
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:54 am

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.


I think it shows an additional hour / 500NM would make a big difference for any aircraft in this segment.
Regardless if a 737, A321, 757 or NMA. TATL will be part of the requirements for US/Euro many airlines.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8921
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:12 am

In the end the A321LR is just a quickfix, by turning a short haul airliner into something with more range by adding fuel tanks in the cargo hold. The wing is not up for it, the cruise speed is too low and cargo revenue is no option. Meanwhile the market is waiting for a product to be designed for the medium range mission and the 797 might just be what the market needs.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:22 am

The A321neoLR is, for all intents and purposes, a 7,5 hour aircraft carrying a full payload. That's not enough for TATL routes out of central Europe, which comes as a big surprise to absolutely nobody with just a smidgen of insight into airline operations. But whilst the TATL market is very large, it is far from the only game in town for either Europe or US based airlines. It will do fantastic across the continental US, and for a lot of European airlines with a keen eye on the fast growing African market, it could well 'do the trick' for them. Quiet a few of the European airlines servicing Africa are doing so on triangular routings, simply because the invididual destinations does not have sufficent traffic to warrent a dedicated widebody service. Furthermore, they are not servicing those African destinations on a daily basis, again due lack of traffic to fill a widebody. What the LR will bring to that table, is the ability to offer direct and daily services both to existing and new destinations in Africa. I therefore see a market evolving for the likes of AF, KL, LH, SN and LX, utilising the LR to offer daily and direct services. Whether or not any of those 5 will employ the LR on TATL services is therefore inconsequential; they may well find a much bigger and more profitable market for them in Africa, including central and Sub-saharan Africa as far as LOS, KGL, ABJ or NBO:

Image
Signature. You just read one.
 
marcelh
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:39 am

seahawk wrote:
In the end the A321LR is just a quickfix, by turning a short haul airliner into something with more range by adding fuel tanks in the cargo hold. The wing is not up for it, the cruise speed is too low and cargo revenue is no option. Meanwhile the market is waiting for a product to be designed for the medium range mission and the 797 might just be what the market needs.


I think Airbus is also waiting for that product.
 
xwb777
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:13 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:14 am

What about MUC - DXB with the A321LR?
 
User avatar
bully707
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:29 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:21 am

JannEejit wrote:
Time for Airbus to install inflight refuelling probes and get a fleet of commercial MRTT tankers up there ! ;-)


Cool idea...but believe me, inflight refuelling isn't much fun when sitting in the back, even when you have an experienced pilot at the controls.
I had my share of that while flying on E-3As from 1994-2000...both from the flightdeck and cabin. :)
"That's the good thing about the 707...it can do anything, but read!" Joe Patroni, Airport '70
 
Geoff1947
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:36 am

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.


Isn’t this another case of the NMA being all things to all people. I thought it was meant to be range limited.

Geoff
 
Kikko19
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:42 am

B777LRF wrote:
The A321neoLR is, for all intents and purposes, a 7,5 hour aircraft carrying a full payload. That's not enough for TATL routes out of central Europe, which comes as a big surprise to absolutely nobody with just a smidgen of insight into airline operations. But whilst the TATL market is very large, it is far from the only game in town for either Europe or US based airlines. It will do fantastic across the continental US, and for a lot of European airlines with a keen eye on the fast growing African market, it could well 'do the trick' for them. Quiet a few of the European airlines servicing Africa are doing so on triangular routings, simply because the invididual destinations does not have sufficent traffic to warrent a dedicated widebody service. Furthermore, they are not servicing those African destinations on a daily basis, again due lack of traffic to fill a widebody. What the LR will bring to that table, is the ability to offer direct and daily services both to existing and new destinations in Africa. I therefore see a market evolving for the likes of AF, KL, LH, SN and LX, utilising the LR to offer daily and direct services. Whether or not any of those 5 will employ the LR on TATL services is therefore inconsequential; they may well find a much bigger and more profitable market for them in Africa, including central and Sub-saharan Africa as far as LOS, KGL, ABJ or NBO:

Image

TP/TK/AZ (or it's successor) are advised... (TP already ordered some LR maybe should increase the order to cover all the bases (NA/AFRICA/SA-CARIBE)
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3285
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:17 am

seahawk wrote:
In the end the A321LR is just a quickfix, by turning a short haul airliner into something with more range by adding fuel tanks in the cargo hold. The wing is not up for it, the cruise speed is too low and cargo revenue is no option. Meanwhile the market is waiting for a product to be designed for the medium range mission and the 797 might just be what the market needs.


Given that no one really knows that Boeing’s MOM airplane will be yet makes all this talk a bit hard to buy into yet.

What people overlook is that Airbus are also likely working on their plans behind the scenes, looking on as the A321Neo controls the market around that space now. It is in a strong position to tap into customer needs too, given it has a significant customer base telling it what they want also.

In reality, Boeing are not the only show in town and, from what it appears anyway, they tend to have drummed up more buzz around such a plane as in many ways as they are falling behind in the MOM segment.

The A321neo/LR were not designed to be anything more than they will deliver, which is a very efficient, capable airplane. All this talk about it failing to somehow deliver more seems very misguided.

Interesting times.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:31 am

I think it will be an aircraft that will spur some creative thinking.Since the 757 has not been available for sale for a decade there has not been an aircraft in this category.
Routes between N and S America will be considered and also across Asia of course.200 pax (2class) is not to be sneezed at.We may see a lot of new routes emerge.Boeing are all too aware of this.
As for TATL.It will suit some destinations but an additional 30 mins flying time (8hrs total) would be handy.But not obvious how that could be achieved.
 
RalXWB
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:33 am

xwb777 wrote:
What about MUC - DXB with the A321LR?


You don´t need a LR for this route, the "regular" NEOs are sufficient...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21892
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:31 pm

PW100 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I wonder why LH should use an A321 on FRA-JFK when the route can fill much bigger planes.

I guess the answer is that such a plane is not intended for FRA-JFK (ignoring ops outside main wave/bank hours at FRA/JFK), but perhaps for some of the following:
STR-JFK
TXL-JFK
CGN-JFK
HAM-JFK
HAJ-JFK
NUE-JFK
FRA-BUF
FRA-ALB
FRA-SWF
FRA-ROC
etc.

Question of course is to what extent LH may be interested in such defragmentation - either main line or through (low cost) branch.

If they aren't, hopefully someone else comes along with the right business case that can make it work, and perhaps NMA is a part of such a plan.

Geoff1947 wrote:
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.


Isn’t this another case of the NMA being all things to all people. I thought it was meant to be range limited.

Geoff

The latest info we have ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... ecided-nma ) is "Boeing has provisionally defined two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm.". That would work pretty well, IMHO.
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
 
WIederling
Posts: 8887
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
The latest info we have ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... ecided-nma ) is "Boeing has provisionally defined two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm.". That would work pretty well, IMHO.


will it have a 221" fuselage .-)
( IMU an A310 style wing with A310 respective A300 fuselage, systems taken from the 787.)

if we leave out the copycat allegation a massively reworked 788.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21892
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: LH CEO: A321LR Range Not Enough

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:15 pm

WIederling wrote:
will it have a 221" fuselage .-)
( IMU an A310 style wing with A310 respective A300 fuselage, systems taken from the 787.)
if we leave out the copycat allegation a massively reworked 788.

I agree it'll largely have 788's systems but probably built in a very different way.
I'm looking forward to learning more about that, rather than what cross section it has.
Manufacturing tech has moved a lot from early 2000s to late 2010s.
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

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