Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR to have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:58 pm

CARST wrote:
That's huge. Whatever I said in the past, now that is the new 757-200. Amazing what they made out of the early/first A321...

If airlines will really need this thing, that remains to be seen. I think the regular A321neo can do like 85% of the missions of the 757s. The A321LR can do like 95% of the 757 missions. Now comes the XLR, it will be really heavy compared to the regular A321neo. So will airlines go for a subfleet of them just for the extra 5% of missions not already covered by the LR? Or will the LR just go away and large airlines might have an A321neo + A321XLRneo subfleet? Possible...

Crazy development. Boeing needs to hurry now with their Midmarket/MOM project...


I don't see why the 321XLR will be substantially heavier than the A321. Airbus says it will need only "local" structural reinforcements, so that's not a huge weight gain. And the fuel tanks are removable if not needed (if you're not flying long range this season). So it should be very close in weight to a normal A321.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:19 pm

Apart from technical implications, US - Eur opportunities would grow significantly over the A321LR.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
StTim
Posts: 3692
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:24 pm

I am not sure that the key tanks will be removable making them hold more fuel for much less added weight. This is how they get the range.

Not to say it won’t still need one or maybe two ACT for max range.
 
rph99
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 3:27 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:28 pm

What’s the highest seat capacity you could get out of this and not lose range?

Curious of ULCCs could use this plane to enter new markets...I know it’s not ideal...but what are we thinking in terms of max capacity in a single class environment.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4157
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR to have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:50 pm

Carlos01 wrote:
But seriously people, more and more weight, and still the same wing? That can't be ideal anymore, especially if they want to get maximum range out of that thing, then the fuel burn should be a top priority. No?

I think one of the thing here is that, as Airbus is supposed to have a new NSA in 2030s, then whatever wing they develop for A321XLR/NPP will only be used for less than a decade. Why do that when you can just design a new wing for the upcoming new aircraft series that probably can last 1/3 century?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4157
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR to have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:52 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
CARST wrote:
That's huge. Whatever I said in the past, now that is the new 757-200. Amazing what they made out of the early/first A321...

If airlines will really need this thing, that remains to be seen. I think the regular A321neo can do like 85% of the missions of the 757s. The A321LR can do like 95% of the 757 missions. Now comes the XLR, it will be really heavy compared to the regular A321neo. So will airlines go for a subfleet of them just for the extra 5% of missions not already covered by the LR? Or will the LR just go away and large airlines might have an A321neo + A321XLRneo subfleet? Possible...

Crazy development. Boeing needs to hurry now with their Midmarket/MOM project...


I don't see why the 321XLR will be substantially heavier than the A321. Airbus says it will need only "local" structural reinforcements, so that's not a huge weight gain. And the fuel tanks are removable if not needed (if you're not flying long range this season). So it should be very close in weight to a normal A321.

I thought part of the XLR fuel capacity increase was supposed to be from integrating ACT into the aircraft making them non-removable and thus saved some extra volume for fuel?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23959
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:49 pm

I think this thread is introducing a few new numbers, but there's a lot of overlap with the stuff from two months ago:

viewtopic.php?t=1396119

It was based on:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1JE0ZE

And there also was a tech-ops thread:

viewtopic.php?t=1400225

c933103 wrote:
I thought part of the XLR fuel capacity increase was supposed to be from integrating ACT into the aircraft making them non-removable and thus saved some extra volume for fuel?

viewtopic.php?t=1400225#p20646945 gave us:

tealnz wrote:
Just spotted a piece on Leeham from a year ago that offers another clue to how they might do it. Fehrm refers to space between the main landing gear bay and the rear cargo compartment worth two-thirds of an ACT which should be about two tonnes. Presumably there's still more available from replacing ACTs with an integrated tank using the full hold volume back to the cargo door.

The main idea seems to be that you combine that unused space with one or more ACT's volume to make an expanded permanent internal fuel tank.

Again, as per this thread starter's article, this is currently still being developed, but it sounds like a promising approach for the long range market.
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
GCT64
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR to have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:26 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
A length of stay is affected by how far away a destination is. Not many people are taking a long weekend trip for fun between the US and Europe. On the other hand, you might if the destination is a shorter flight away. That's the dynamic at play. I don't know anyone who doesn't take distance into account for the length (and subsequent weight) of their trip. I don't think it's a large factor here, but it is in play when you have limited cargo capability. Of course the airline can impose restrictions, but that also reduces the revenue potential.


I would dispute this. Almost everyone I know from the UK has done a weekend trip to New York or elsewhere on the East Coast at some point in the last couple of years.
Also worth noting, while we are talking about bags and luggage, that a lot of TATL business travellers only take modest hand baggage even for 4-5 day trips.
Flown in: A20N,A21N,A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A359,A388,BA11,BU31,(..56 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:37 pm

It could become the 777-200LR of the narrow bodies. Great on paper, can fly to cities no competitor could fly.

It really shook up the market, it took a big 3.8% of the total 777 orders.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think this thread is introducing a few new numbers, but there's a lot of overlap with the stuff from two months ago:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1396119

It was based on:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1JE0ZE

And there also was a tech-ops thread:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1400225

c933103 wrote:
I thought part of the XLR fuel capacity increase was supposed to be from integrating ACT into the aircraft making them non-removable and thus saved some extra volume for fuel?

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... #p20646945 gave us:

tealnz wrote:
Just spotted a piece on Leeham from a year ago that offers another clue to how they might do it. Fehrm refers to space between the main landing gear bay and the rear cargo compartment worth two-thirds of an ACT which should be about two tonnes. Presumably there's still more available from replacing ACTs with an integrated tank using the full hold volume back to the cargo door.

The main idea seems to be that you combine that unused space with one or more ACT's volume to make an expanded permanent internal fuel tank.

Again, as per this thread starter's article, this is currently still being developed, but it sounds like a promising approach for the long range market.

So use unused volume and make an ACT fixed (semi permanent?). That should save 0.5 tons (wuick estimate, expect me to refine, allow perhaps 250kg of trapped (unusable) fuel to be used... Plus add fuel volume. Ok... Now the math starts working... With an engine PIP. ;)
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10120
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR to have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:52 pm

GCT64 wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
A length of stay is affected by how far away a destination is. Not many people are taking a long weekend trip for fun between the US and Europe.

I would dispute this.

So would I. That might not be true in the Summer but in the off-season I'd venture a guess that the majority of travelers are indeed on "short 2,3-night stays. This of course includes business travelers. People forget how close the northeast U.S. really is to western Europe and underestimate how much VFR takes place on short weekend trips.
And the biggest deterrent is price. Before DY started flying BOS-LGW and BOS-CDG ticket prices were relatively expensive. Now you can fly to London or Paris for $300+ in the off-season and the market is still growing.
Last edited by airbazar on Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR to have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:53 pm

c933103 wrote:
Carlos01 wrote:
But seriously people, more and more weight, and still the same wing? That can't be ideal anymore, especially if they want to get maximum range out of that thing, then the fuel burn should be a top priority. No?

I think one of the thing here is that, as Airbus is supposed to have a new NSA in 2030s, then whatever wing they develop for A321XLR/NPP will only be used for less than a decade. Why do that when you can just design a new wing for the upcoming new aircraft series that probably can last 1/3 century?

Airbus must compete with the 797.

Short term, this A321. Long term, a new design. Due to the need to have the supply chain accelerate, they are stuck with the A320 cross section for 6,000+ units. A classy problem.

There just isn't enough tech to launch new at this time.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23959
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:54 pm

lightsaber wrote:
So use unused volume and make an ACT fixed (semi permanent?). That should save 0.5 tons (wuick estimate, expect me to refine, allow perhaps 250kg of trapped (unusable) fuel to be used... Plus add fuel volume. Ok... Now the math starts working... With an engine PIP. ;)

I think the idea is to not have an ACT, but to use the area where one (or more) ACTs would normally be found, along with unused space next to the main landing gear bay and whatever other adjacent unused area they can find, to construct a permanent tank.

I think one PIP will come with LR.

Maybe another will come with XLR.
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
 
Speedalive
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR to have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:12 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Since TS has clearly expressed interest for it, here's, more or less, where they could send it from YUL.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4700nm%40YUL

I wonder if this would be the plane that would allow them to dabble in the South American market (eg: Brazil). It’s probably a little less risk going with 321’s vs a 330. I recall reading somewhere that they were interested in South America.

EDIT: turns out they already fly to at least one market in SA (Colombia).
 
tphuang
Posts: 5076
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Airbus A321XLR to have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:21 pm

airbazar wrote:
GCT64 wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
A length of stay is affected by how far away a destination is. Not many people are taking a long weekend trip for fun between the US and Europe.

I would dispute this.

So would I. That might not be true in the Summer but in the off-season I'd venture a guess that the majority of travelers are indeed on "short 2,3-night stays. This of course includes business travelers. People forget how close the northeast U.S. really is to western Europe and underestimate how much VFR takes place on short weekend trips.
And the biggest deterrent is price. Before DY started flying BOS-LGW and BOS-CDG ticket prices were relatively expensive. Now you can fly to London or Paris for $300+ in the off-season and the market is still growing.

Yep, a lot of people do it. For me, it’s only an hour longer flight on the way over.

And I have done plenty of trips to Asia for 2 or 3 weeks without checked in luggage. Not just the cost but the hassle of having to drag more stuff around and wait to pick up luggage.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR to have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:52 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Since TS has clearly expressed interest for it, here's, more or less, where they could send it from YUL.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4700nm%40YUL


So in the real world the XLR will be able to fly the 4.000nm routes promised by the 321LR. I doubt that the Standard LR will be able to fly a 4.000nm transatlantic route westbound in winter, not even close to this. The XLR maybe could really do this, and I think it does the job when it flies 4.000nm reliable all year against Winds. Then it really beat the 757 (not Payload wise of course).

I really want to know where they want to stow the passenger luggage on the XLR.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:18 pm

why not bite the bullet and develop a new wing? you'd be able to use it for an a322 as well. Would Still be much cheaper than a clean sheet.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:02 pm

musman9853 wrote:
why not bite the bullet and develop a new wing? you'd be able to use it for an a322 as well. Would Still be much cheaper than a clean sheet.


They could do both...just not at the same time. The XLR can happen a lot quicker, cheaper and easier than doing an all new wing...but they could work on a new wing for down the road a bit.

It's not always one or the other.

On a slightly different note; would it be possible to stuff more luggage/cargo into the baggage area by not using containers, ala the 737?
What the...?
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6978
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:58 pm

Suddenly, a nonstop MNL-AKL-MNL sector on the A321N is not so risible anymore...or is it still? Considering the block time, more comfortable crew rest areas are a must. The less dense configuration would allow these to be met...as well as lessen the amount of luggage. This in turn leads to a question of economics vs the A330s -- which of the two will be more cost efficient and profitable over time? The verdict will determine its prospects with PR (who already operates ACT equipped A321Ns down under) and other carriers.

The XLR also opens up opportunities for 5J too.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6978
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:22 am

BTW, the more telling passages are these.....

Quote:
"But he also stresses that the proposal still amounts to a study, and there is no timeline for any firm decision.

'We’re not under pressure,' he says, pointing out that Airbus has 'options' for the aircraft.

Airbus single-aisle family product marketing director Franck Navallon says the airframer is 'looking at many things'.

'As soon as the market is asking, we’re studying,' he says, adding that different airlines have different range objectives.

Navallon says the A321neo wing is 'fine for supporting more improvements', although the airframer has yet to determine the details.

He also reiterates that the proposals are 'studies', and that studies are not the only part of the thought process. 'We need to go for the business case,' he says."


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ow-453590/


Are Airbus merely biding their time until Boeing come out with the definitive 797 :?:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4157
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:47 am

Devilfish wrote:
BTW, the more telling passages are these.....

Quote:
"But he also stresses that the proposal still amounts to a study, and there is no timeline for any firm decision.

'We’re not under pressure,' he says, pointing out that Airbus has 'options' for the aircraft.

Airbus single-aisle family product marketing director Franck Navallon says the airframer is 'looking at many things'.

'As soon as the market is asking, we’re studying,' he says, adding that different airlines have different range objectives.

Navallon says the A321neo wing is 'fine for supporting more improvements', although the airframer has yet to determine the details.

He also reiterates that the proposals are 'studies', and that studies are not the only part of the thought process. 'We need to go for the business case,' he says."


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ow-453590/


Are Airbus merely biding their time until Boeing come out with the definitive 797 :?:

Alternative options they have are the neo plus or neo plus plus that come with even more improvement
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1142
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:50 am

I think it is fair to say that they already have a good idea of the range of possibilities on modifications needed to be done for an XLR. It is just that they are waiting to see what trigger Boeing pulls on the MoM and then decide to what extent they should pursue the modifications and how much to invest. Just my two cents.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:29 am

I expect the XLR to be done in the near future, unconnected to if and when Boeing does a 797. The hole in the market is there, the XLR can be done with little investment. Airbus can still react to a hypothetical 797 with the plus or plus plus or if needed a small wide body.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:30 am

I think the fixation on TATL is misleading. For an airline like Lufthansa the an A321 with 4300nm effective range does a lot more than opening TATL routes. From FRA it opens the northern 2/3rd of Africa, the western 2/3rd of China and all of India.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4300nm%40FRA&MS=wls&DU=mi

That is a lot of routes that would be new and interesting.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:43 am

seahawk wrote:
I think the fixation on TATL is misleading. For an airline like Lufthansa the an A321 with 4300nm effective range does a lot more than opening TATL routes. From FRA it opens the northern 2/3rd of Africa, the western 2/3rd of China and all of India.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4300nm%40FRA&MS=wls&DU=mi

That is a lot of routes that would be new and interesting.


Is LH even interested in operating NB's TATL? Just doesn't seem like their m.o.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:24 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I think the fixation on TATL is misleading. For an airline like Lufthansa the an A321 with 4300nm effective range does a lot more than opening TATL routes. From FRA it opens the northern 2/3rd of Africa, the western 2/3rd of China and all of India.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4300nm%40FRA&MS=wls&DU=mi

That is a lot of routes that would be new and interesting.


Is LH even interested in operating NB's TATL? Just doesn't seem like their m.o.


I think for legacy's like LH, this aircraft could be a way to open up additional spokes from their big hubs, that do not justify a 787/330. Or defensively flying into a competing hub with attractive pricing. LH has to Hamburg / Berlin / Dusseldorf issue. Far away from FRA and MUC but still representing significant TATL markets other airlines tap into. Those airports have 4-5 feeder flights to LHR, AMS and CDG + US carriers flying in.

Image
2020..

The same way the 757/767 became popular. The 757 "4000NM" range was ok for flying to/from the UK & Ireland from the US, but problematic to/from Europe mainland. This range modification could make it viable mainland. For legacy's in a 3 class layout (incl M+) seatcounts would probably be 170-180 at most.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23959
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:34 pm

Erebus wrote:
I think it is fair to say that they already have a good idea of the range of possibilities on modifications needed to be done for an XLR. It is just that they are waiting to see what trigger Boeing pulls on the MoM and then decide to what extent they should pursue the modifications and how much to invest. Just my two cents.

I agree, and it's also worth considering if they would pre-empt the NMA announcement too.

Pros: Undermines NMA market, emphasizes family continuity, enhances/extends product line

Cons: Line sold out for years anyway so limited early availability, model swapping will cause churn, adds costs which may not be recoverable, adds more complexity to the production line(s)
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: 10120
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:34 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I think the fixation on TATL is misleading. For an airline like Lufthansa the an A321 with 4300nm effective range does a lot more than opening TATL routes. From FRA it opens the northern 2/3rd of Africa, the western 2/3rd of China and all of India.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4300nm%40FRA&MS=wls&DU=mi

That is a lot of routes that would be new and interesting.


Is LH even interested in operating NB's TATL? Just doesn't seem like their m.o.


I don't think they are but SN, LX, and OS might. Not just TATL but Africa and Asia as well.
 
brindabella
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Airbus A321XLR to have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:43 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The A321LR just with fewer or no ACT will become the standard and the XLR the long range. You take today's LR and remove an ACT or two and have the payload and belly space for normal operations. If it is to heavy you derate it. We can stop talking about the comparison with the 757-200WL. That bird did only 90% of what the XLR will be able to do.

I assume that Lufthansa is the driving force, they called for such a frame.

I could even imagine Icelandair could be persuaded to get of their Boeing trip. KEF -LAX is possible even in winter. The whole of the USA and Canada in reach. No need for pesky wide bodies.



Be careful what you wish for!

:D

You might just get it!


:angel:

cheers
Billy
 
ewt340
Posts: 1251
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:57 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I think the fixation on TATL is misleading. For an airline like Lufthansa the an A321 with 4300nm effective range does a lot more than opening TATL routes. From FRA it opens the northern 2/3rd of Africa, the western 2/3rd of China and all of India.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4300nm%40FRA&MS=wls&DU=mi

That is a lot of routes that would be new and interesting.


Is LH even interested in operating NB's TATL? Just doesn't seem like their m.o.


Many major cities in Germany doesn't have much connections to the Continental US and Canada. Berlin, Dusseldorf, Hamburg, Cologne and Stuttgart. Lufthansa have no direct flights to US and Canada at all.
All of them have to connect to Frankfurt or Munich, which is inefficient.

But with A321XLR, they could reach East Coast US pretty easily. To JFK, the distance for all these cities is around 3,200nm - 3,400nm. Flights to Washington DC, Montreal, Toronto, Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Detroit, Philadelphia and Baltimore are between 3,500nm - 4,000nm.

Whilst Atlanta or Miami and Orlando are bellow 4,700nm with restrictions.

Also, I could see Lufthansa go light with their A321XLR. 20 diamond business class seats in 2-2 configs with 2 lavatory dedicated to them. And the rest is economy class in 31" seat pitch in 3-3 and 127Y with 3 lavatory for them.
Last edited by ewt340 on Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:05 pm

keesje wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I think the fixation on TATL is misleading. For an airline like Lufthansa the an A321 with 4300nm effective range does a lot more than opening TATL routes. From FRA it opens the northern 2/3rd of Africa, the western 2/3rd of China and all of India.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4300nm%40FRA&MS=wls&DU=mi

That is a lot of routes that would be new and interesting.


Is LH even interested in operating NB's TATL? Just doesn't seem like their m.o.


I think for legacy's like LH, this aircraft could be a way to open up additional spokes from their big hubs, that do not justify a 787/330. Or defensively flying into a competing hub with attractive pricing. LH has to Hamburg / Berlin / Dusseldorf issue. Far away from FRA and MUC but still representing significant TATL markets other airlines tap into. Those airports have 4-5 feeder flights to LHR, AMS and CDG + US carriers flying in.

Image
2020..

The same way the 757/767 became popular. The 757 "4000NM" range was ok for flying to/from the UK & Ireland from the US, but problematic to/from Europe mainland. This range modification could make it viable mainland. For legacy's in a 3 class layout (incl M+) seatcounts would probably be 170-180 at most.

Image


Perhaps the additional range of the A321XLR will spawn hubs where they didn’t exist before and move the giant Middle East transfer hubs to new places like Kazakhstan
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:24 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Perhaps the additional range of the A321XLR will spawn hubs where they didn’t exist before and move the giant Middle East transfer hubs to new places like Kazakhstan


You are probably referring to this : https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1349419
Astana could be the Reykjavik for Eur-Asia. :wink2:

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=CDG-TSE,TSE-HKG,+AMS-TSE,+TSE-PEK,MAD-TSE,+TSE-BKK,+LHR-TSE,+TSE-SIN,+FRA-TSE,+TSE-NRT,+CPH-TSE,+TSE-KUL,+++&MS=wls&MP=rect&MR=900&MX=720x360&PM=*

I guess Kazakhstan is one of those countries that theoretically checks all the boxes (education, location, natural resources, tourist opportunities) but still makes sure they create enough mess /corruption to prevent a flourishing economy & a happy population.

Image

Same League as e.g. South Africa, Venezuela, Iran, Sri Lanka & Myanmar. :worried: OK for a clean hub transfer, but what if you are stopped at security for a vague reason..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:22 pm

I was really just honing in on LH+TATL+A321. I get the capabilities of what it can do. I was just wondering if LH - the carrier - is actually desiring to add TATL on narrowbodies. Perhaps they've mentioned it before?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:32 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I was really just honing in on LH+TATL+A321. I get the capabilities of what it can do. I was just wondering if LH - the carrier - is actually desiring to add TATL on narrowbodies. Perhaps they've mentioned it before?


LH declared the 321LR not having enough range to be interesting. IMO they think about TATL, but they could also think about some other routes of course.
Last edited by mjoelnir on Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23959
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:34 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I was really just honing in on LH+TATL+A321. I get the capabilities of what it can do. I was just wondering if LH - the carrier - is actually desiring to add TATL on narrowbodies. Perhaps they've mentioned it before?

Yes, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-euro ... SKCN1GI1O3 tells us they are considering it, but felt the A321LR did not have enough range for its missions. Perhaps A321XLR will fix that problem.
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
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I was really just honing in on LH+TATL+A321. I get the capabilities of what it can do. I was just wondering if LH - the carrier - is actually desiring to add TATL on narrowbodies. Perhaps they've mentioned it before?

Yes, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-euro ... SKCN1GI1O3 tells us they are considering it, but felt the A321LR did not have enough range for its missions. Perhaps A321XLR will fix that problem.


Got it - thanks. :thumbsup:
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1251
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:10 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I was really just honing in on LH+TATL+A321. I get the capabilities of what it can do. I was just wondering if LH - the carrier - is actually desiring to add TATL on narrowbodies. Perhaps they've mentioned it before?


Well, this could be free Experiment for them to do so. Since they already use A320neo/A321neo. They could probably do JFK to few German cities to see if it would work for them.
 
raylee67
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:20 pm

This will open up many trans-Atlantic city pairs, especially (1) from Midwest and deep-south to Western Europe and (2) from East Coast to Eastern Europe.

When will Airbus actually announce it?
319/20/21 332/33 342/43/45 359/51 388 707 717 732/36/3G/38/39 74R/42/43/44/4E/48 757 762/63 772/7L/73/7W 788/89 D10 M80 135/40/45 175/90 DH1/4 CRJ/R7 L10
AY LH OU SR BA FI
AA DL UA NW AC CP WS FL NK PD
CI NH SQ KA CX JL BR OZ TG KE CA CZ NZ JQ RS
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
Erebus wrote:
I think it is fair to say that they already have a good idea of the range of possibilities on modifications needed to be done for an XLR. It is just that they are waiting to see what trigger Boeing pulls on the MoM and then decide to what extent they should pursue the modifications and how much to invest. Just my two cents.

I agree, and it's also worth considering if they would pre-empt the NMA announcement too.

Pros: Undermines NMA market, emphasizes family continuity, enhances/extends product line

Cons: Line sold out for years anyway so limited early availability, model swapping will cause churn, adds costs which may not be recoverable, adds more complexity to the production line(s)

This. I think if Airbus pulled the trigger on the XLR, like it did with the A320neo, it could be in a strong position vs. Boeing. An XLR, if it EIS'd in 2021-2023, would be at least two years earlier to the market than the NMA. For airlines that need the lift by then, it could be an attractive alternative. I also don't see a reason why the A321XLR and the NMA couldn't exist in a large carrier's fleet side by side, for example, DL or LH. They will have economies of scale and technical expertise to operate sub fleets of both, especially if you add in commonality with existing A320(neo) family aircraft at both carriers. For carriers like EI, TP, DY - it might be one or the other.

The cons as you list, I see them as good cons to have, or as Lightsaber calls it, classy problems. They represent teething problems, and while the ongoing teething problems with the A321neo/ ACF worry be, things should get resolved in the medium-term. Also, the XLR *still* represents low-hanging fruit to me, if the changes are limited to conformal fuel tanks. A radical redesign could be a new wing/wingbox once Boeing launches the NMA, perhaps then paving the way for a (modest) A321 stretch at that point. You had the CEO of Arkia tell reporters yesterday during the first delivery of its A321LR that it finally has an aircraft that is able to compete with the economics of the 757-300. Imagine what a stretched A321 could do, especially with a wing that it optimized for it! :bouncy:

On another note, what also excites be about the XLR is that it helps the vanilla A321neo and the LR as well. Since most A321s today are delivered with at least one ACT, having conformal fuel tanks would increase the range of the A321neo and the A321LR *without* ACTs. That's great from a payload, range, and cost perspective! I expect to see a halo effect on the normal A321 with this modification as well. I guess I'd think of it as a "sharklet-effect" for the fuel tanks.
 
nry
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:38 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Well, this could be free Experiment for them to do so. Since they already use A320neo/A321neo. They could probably do JFK to few German cities to see if it would work for them.


And a Eurowings division that could house it.
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320 (+neo), A321, A330, A340
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:10 am

If a 4700NM, 100t A321 version is possible, trading capacity for range, a 4-5 row stretch 3500NM variant seems feasible too.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:04 pm

If airlines start to defer deliveries of the A321LR because they want the A321XLR instead, Airbus will have to launch it soon, so customers won't have to wait too many years and maybe go for something else.

Slightly off-topic, but interesting to read that Arkia has 220 seats in their A321LR ACF with only one pair of overwing exits... I thought 195 seats was maximum with this config. Plugging one pair of overwing exits will probably save a few kiloes too...
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4157
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:50 pm

So 4700nm, seems like it can be used to launch routes like from Fiji or Hawaii to Japan, China, Australia? Seems like even Papeete to California would be doable
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3511
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Fri Nov 16, 2018 1:00 pm

Seems to me that to get 4700nm out of the A321NEO needs about 101.5tMTOW, maybe a bit less if the weight of ACTs is negated somewhat.

Fred
Image
 
brindabella
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Fri Nov 16, 2018 1:40 pm

Revelation wrote:
Erebus wrote:
I think it is fair to say that they already have a good idea of the range of possibilities on modifications needed to be done for an XLR. It is just that they are waiting to see what trigger Boeing pulls on the MoM and then decide to what extent they should pursue the modifications and how much to invest. Just my two cents.

I agree, and it's also worth considering if they would pre-empt the NMA announcement too.

Pros: Undermines NMA market, emphasizes family continuity, enhances/extends product line

Cons: Line sold out for years anyway so limited early availability, model swapping will cause churn, adds costs which may not be recoverable, adds more complexity to the production line(s)


Pulled the lid off a biggie, M. Revelation!

Often called here on a.net a "classy problem".


6000 frames in backlog. How could that POSSIBLY be any sort of problem?


Well, here it is.


It is impossible to screw-around with the models being offered.
(the problem with the "space-flex" (hope I have that right) shows exactly the danger).

So how to offer YET ANOTHER new variant/model without:

1) screwing-up the delivery pattern, or
2) having instead to offer completely unrealistic delivery-timeframes?

Of course it is possible to move it all around. But then I have to wonder - a respected poster here has (plaintively; fruitlessly) appealed to anyone who can explain why AB is so much less profitable than BA.
One possibility he has countenanced is rock-bottom AB selling prices - like the "miraculous" 430-frame A320neo order after closing-time last year.

Problem I see with all that is that such uber-cheap pricing will come initially with a lot of flexibility for AB to maximise the most profitable frames to be delivered; but, finally, the customer will have some rights; and finally the more AB sends them back and back in the delivery-stream; then the stronger those rights will become.


So now we have yet another 320meo-family variant.

Exactly what can AB offer for a delivery-date?


cheers
Billy
 
airbazar
Posts: 10120
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:06 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Many major cities in Germany doesn't have much connections to the Continental US and Canada. Berlin, Dusseldorf, Hamburg, Cologne and Stuttgart. Lufthansa have no direct flights to US and Canada at all.
All of them have to connect to Frankfurt or Munich, which is inefficient.

Inefficient? So 99% of the World's airlines operate the hub and spoke model because it's inefficient? :rotfl:
You could say the same thing about France, Spain, Italy. Heck, many major cities in the U.S. don't have many connections to Continental Europe. St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc.
LH is not a P2P airline. I don't see them having any interest in flying long haul from cities outside of their hubs. They already have 5 hubs in Europe, they don't need to venture into P2P flying.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:13 pm

brindabella wrote:
So now we have yet another 320meo-family variant.

Exactly what can AB offer for a delivery-date?

cheers


Assume first delivery any day, for the A321LR, from launch to EIS, was nearly 4 years.

So, late 2022?

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:16 pm

CRJ900 wrote:
If airlines start to defer deliveries of the A321LR because they want the A321XLR instead, Airbus will have to launch it soon, so customers won't have to wait too many years and maybe go for something else.

Slightly off-topic, but interesting to read that Arkia has 220 seats in their A321LR ACF with only one pair of overwing exits... I thought 195 seats was maximum with this config. Plugging one pair of overwing exits will probably save a few kiloes too...


The good point with the LR you can always remove the ACT and use it for shorter distance, if you have bought a few and want to move to the XLR.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10120
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:44 pm

keesje wrote:
brindabella wrote:
So now we have yet another 320meo-family variant.

Exactly what can AB offer for a delivery-date?

cheers


Assume first delivery any day, for the A321LR, from launch to EIS, was nearly 4 years.

So, late 2022?

It has to be a lot less than 4 years. How big of a leap is it from the LR to the XLR?
Around 2015 Airbus was juggling the A320 NEO, A350, A400, A380-Plus, and A330NEO. What else to they have going on right now?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15089
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Flightglobal: Airbus A321XLR would have over 100t MTOW, range of 4700 nm

Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:51 pm

brindabella wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Erebus wrote:
I think it is fair to say that they already have a good idea of the range of possibilities on modifications needed to be done for an XLR. It is just that they are waiting to see what trigger Boeing pulls on the MoM and then decide to what extent they should pursue the modifications and how much to invest. Just my two cents.

I agree, and it's also worth considering if they would pre-empt the NMA announcement too.

Pros: Undermines NMA market, emphasizes family continuity, enhances/extends product line

Cons: Line sold out for years anyway so limited early availability, model swapping will cause churn, adds costs which may not be recoverable, adds more complexity to the production line(s)


Pulled the lid off a biggie, M. Revelation!

Often called here on a.net a "classy problem".


6000 frames in backlog. How could that POSSIBLY be any sort of problem?


Well, here it is.


It is impossible to screw-around with the models being offered.
(the problem with the "space-flex" (hope I have that right) shows exactly the danger).

So how to offer YET ANOTHER new variant/model without:

1) screwing-up the delivery pattern, or
2) having instead to offer completely unrealistic delivery-timeframes?

Of course it is possible to move it all around. But then I have to wonder - a respected poster here has (plaintively; fruitlessly) appealed to anyone who can explain why AB is so much less profitable than BA.
One possibility he has countenanced is rock-bottom AB selling prices - like the "miraculous" 430-frame A320neo order after closing-time last year.

Problem I see with all that is that such uber-cheap pricing will come initially with a lot of flexibility for AB to maximise the most profitable frames to be delivered; but, finally, the customer will have some rights; and finally the more AB sends them back and back in the delivery-stream; then the stronger those rights will become.


So now we have yet another 320meo-family variant.

Exactly what can AB offer for a delivery-date?


cheers

Kinda sounds like Tesla and the Model 3 problem. Huge backlog, delaying production of the least profitable versions sold, at some point either the economy will tank and their order book will shrink, or customers will demand their cars on threat of cancel and then Tesla has to produce cars that make them no money per unit.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Who is online

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