Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2565
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:03 pm

I think the 6000 backlog is less of an issue than it's made out to be. Airbus seems to have the ability to expand plants and production lines fairly rapidly with demand. If the A321XLR would be a sales success, I'm confident that Airbus would be dynamic enough to increase the production output accordingly, within a certain time frame of course.
 
HIA350
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:51 pm

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:09 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
All that weight on that little wing, that thing is gonna struggle to get up to a high altitude.


can you link me to any engineering website or article that can back up your argument?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
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 3:27 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


Boeing seems to be more profitable because they defer their losses, simple. As it is they carry forward 26 USD billion profits for the 787 only, that they have declared, but still have to make. They do not show the deferred amounts carried forward for the 737,747,767 and 777.

In the moment both Airbus and Boeing have problems in their narrow body production, that are not that dissimilar, and Boeing will soon add the next complication, the 737-10.

I assume that if Airbus should launch a A321XLR, they will be able to design and produce it. They have 4 production lines in XFW, apart from the 4 in other sites, and need only to disturb one, if they need need changes to a FAL.
And what if it takes 4 years from launch to EIS if it means extra sales.
 
leghorn
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:51 pm

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4700nm%40MUC
4700NM is just a few hundred nautical miles short of perfect for an airline flying from Europe.
It can't reach west coast north america, can't reach east coast china and can't reach South Africa.

5000 is the magic number
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5000nm%40MUC
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13835
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:52 pm

HIA350 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
All that weight on that little wing, that thing is gonna struggle to get up to a high altitude.


can you link me to any engineering website or article that can back up your argument?


Next, the 757’s 255,000-lb. gross takeoff weight with its large 1,951-sq.-ft. wing, equates to a low wing loading of only 130.7 lb./sq. ft. The A321’s 206,000-lb. gross takeoff weight with 1,320 sq. ft. of wing area, equates to a high wing loading of 156.1 lb./sq. ft., which limits any large increase in weight. This is already about 20% more weight per square foot of wing area than for the 757. The new wing area required to carry the 234,500-lb. gross weight, divided by the 757’s 130.7 lb./sq. ft. wing loading equates to a 1,794-sq.-ft. wing area, which requires at least a 36% larger wing to hold the required fuel. It might have to be even bigger, though, as a bigger A322 wing might be needed to carry the 77,000 lb. of fuel that I envision.


http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/viewpoint-airbus-should-build-truly-long-range-757-replacement
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6964
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:01 pm

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

Not with that huge fly on the vert stab... :biggrin: ...or was it supposed to lift the 'heavy' aft section to avoid tail strikes at rotation? :duck:


keesje wrote:
Assume first delivery any day, for the A321LR, from launch to EIS, was nearly 4 years. So, late 2022?

Airbus may have sorted out their supply chain and NEO engine issues by then, so I'd expect to see plenty of later delivery orders for the A321N converted to the XLR model. :cheerful:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ewt340
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:08 pm

airbazar wrote:
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.


Uhmm, when you have to connect through Frankfurt or Munich (with limited destinations) instead of directly flying to New York. That sounds pretty inefficient for passengers don't you think? Especially for premium passengers.

How about establishing hub in Berlin. The Largest city and the Capital of Germany? Sounds realistic don't you think? and instead of operating A330-300 to boston. They could use A32XLR instead.
No connections between Washington DC and Berlin is shameful for the Flag carrier of Germany.

Just because other countries use the old hub and spoke model, doesn't mean it's efficient. Especially for airlines like LH. Beside, They could use A321XLR for brussels airlines and Austrian for Northeast America operations.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10115
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 5:29 pm

ewt340 wrote:
airbazar wrote:
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.


Uhmm, when you have to connect through Frankfurt or Munich (with limited destinations) instead of directly flying to New York. That sounds pretty inefficient for passengers don't you think? Especially for premium passengers.

How about establishing hub in Berlin. The Largest city and the Capital of Germany? Sounds realistic don't you think? and instead of operating A330-300 to boston. They could use A32XLR instead.
No connections between Washington DC and Berlin is shameful for the Flag carrier of Germany.

Just because other countries use the old hub and spoke model, doesn't mean it's efficient. Especially for airlines like LH. Beside, They could use A321XLR for brussels airlines and Austrian for Northeast America operations.


You're right. Air Berlin is such a tremendous success! Oh wait, nevermind.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:36 pm

airbazar wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
airbazar wrote:
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.


Uhmm, when you have to connect through Frankfurt or Munich (with limited destinations) instead of directly flying to New York. That sounds pretty inefficient for passengers don't you think? Especially for premium passengers.

How about establishing hub in Berlin. The Largest city and the Capital of Germany? Sounds realistic don't you think? and instead of operating A330-300 to boston. They could use A32XLR instead.
No connections between Washington DC and Berlin is shameful for the Flag carrier of Germany.

Just because other countries use the old hub and spoke model, doesn't mean it's efficient. Especially for airlines like LH. Beside, They could use A321XLR for brussels airlines and Austrian for Northeast America operations.


You're right. Air Berlin is such a tremendous success! Oh wait, nevermind.


You're right, I forgot how Air Berlin use the small A321 instead of A330 for the flight to JFK. Oh wait, nevermind....
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:51 pm

If the A321XLR has 4,700nm range without a new wing, imagine what a re-winged, re-engined frame could do...more wing fuel and full pax + cargo capacity to God knows how far out...

MoM’s competition is already sitting there staring it in the eyes from inside its mother’s womb...the only advantage the MoM would then have would be the twin-aisles...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:10 pm

Not that much, as the MTOW limit for the current landing gear configurationhas been reached.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1690
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:30 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
I think the 6000 backlog is less of an issue than it's made out to be. Airbus seems to have the ability to expand plants and production lines fairly rapidly with demand. If the A321XLR would be a sales success, I'm confident that Airbus would be dynamic enough to increase the production output accordingly, within a certain time frame of course.
Is this satire? It seems Airbus, Boeing, PW, and CFM are all having a heck of a time ramping up narrowbody rates.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:38 pm

seahawk wrote:
Not that much, as the MTOW limit for the current landing gear configurationhas been reached.


Airbus has a 4 bogey setup they used on some earlier 320's which they can probably use if they need to.

viewtopic.php?t=250575

Image
What the...?
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2565
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:36 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
I think the 6000 backlog is less of an issue than it's made out to be. Airbus seems to have the ability to expand plants and production lines fairly rapidly with demand. If the A321XLR would be a sales success, I'm confident that Airbus would be dynamic enough to increase the production output accordingly, within a certain time frame of course.
Is this satire? It seems Airbus, Boeing, PW, and CFM are all having a heck of a time ramping up narrowbody rates.


No. One of the reasons Airbus is going for a "moderate" A321XLR is so that they can focus resources on ramping up production. Airbus is also building an A220 series production line in Mobile which will soon be spitting out A220s. This means Airbus is relatively flexible. If they wanted to, they could gear up A320 series production fairly quickly by expanding production lines elsewhere. They have multiple locations available. I did not say anything about Boeing, as I don't see Boeing's production lines being as dynamic as Airbus.
 
TranscendZac
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:50 pm

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:53 pm

Too bad the costs are too high to follow a similar path as the 777-8/9 with a new wing with folding wingtips. Would be great to see an A321 with 41m wingspan extended.
Zac
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

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

Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:06 pm

leghorn wrote:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4700nm%40MUC
4700NM is just a few hundred nautical miles short of perfect for an airline flying from Europe.
It can't reach west coast north america, can't reach east coast china and can't reach South Africa.

5000 is the magic number
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5000nm%40MUC


Dont expect a 321XLR to fly 4.700nm on most possible routes reliably all year ...
The 321XLR will be able to fly the 4.000nm promised by the 321LR reliably, routes like HAM-ATL which is pretty much 4.000nm. I dont think 4.700nm would be doable in real life, maybe in North-South direction, but not East-West against winds etc.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
ewt340
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:01 am

Faro wrote:
If the A321XLR has 4,700nm range without a new wing, imagine what a re-winged, re-engined frame could do...more wing fuel and full pax + cargo capacity to God knows how far out...

MoM’s competition is already sitting there staring it in the eyes from inside its mother’s womb...the only advantage the MoM would then have would be the twin-aisles...


Faro


I think 5,000nm would be the maximum. What we need to look at is Passengers capacity. Can it be efficient enough for 160-180 passengers on 6,000nm flights? Probably not.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:39 am

ewt340 wrote:
I think 5,000nm would be the maximum. What we need to look at is Passengers capacity. Can it be efficient enough for 160-180 passengers on 6,000nm flights? Probably not.


I think maximum flight time allowed for crews is a big factor to consider too.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:06 am

[/img]
flipdewaf wrote:
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


Asking the question slightly differently, and assuming no increase in thrust and the reworked center box holds the equivalent of 4 ACTs while taking the space of 2 ACTs (saving 1 ACT of space, and 2.5 ACTs of weight), how many pax and bags (at 95 kg) can be carried 4700 nm ESAD?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:17 am

Erebus wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
I think 5,000nm would be the maximum. What we need to look at is Passengers capacity. Can it be efficient enough for 160-180 passengers on 6,000nm flights? Probably not.


I think maximum flight time allowed for crews is a big factor to consider too.


4700nm is LAX-NRT or LAX-LHR. I do wonder how many viable routes using a 160 seat plane exist at that distance. Since the A321 flies slow and low, that could be 12 or more hours of duty time for the crew. That seems a bit extreme.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5265
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:34 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Airbus has a 4 bogey setup they used on some earlier 320's which they can probably use if they need to.


That's a persisting A.net myth that I'm surprised you are still (involuntarily) propagating, given you've been on this forum for a while.

These gears were developed for low runway loading operation. They were only designed to spread the aircraft's weight a bit more. They weren't designed to withstand a heavier plane.
They were shelved a long time ago.

I agree that the A320 family could use a bogey gear of the same dimension since it obviously fits (although we don't know what kind of design compromises in the belly fairing they required), but it would have to be designed from the ground up.
And we don't even know if the gear is the restricting design point. For all we know, they might reach a structural limit in the load bearing spars in the wing before they even max out a single axle gear design.
Also, it would be heavy...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2565
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:01 am

Francoflier wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Airbus has a 4 bogey setup they used on some earlier 320's which they can probably use if they need to.


That's a persisting A.net myth that I'm surprised you are still (involuntarily) propagating, given you've been on this forum for a while.

These gears were developed for low runway loading operation. They were only designed to spread the aircraft's weight a bit more. They weren't designed to withstand a heavier plane.
They were shelved a long time ago.

I agree that the A320 family could use a bogey gear of the same dimension since it obviously fits (although we don't know what kind of design compromises in the belly fairing they required), but it would have to be designed from the ground up.
And we don't even know if the gear is the restricting design point. For all we know, they might reach a structural limit in the load bearing spars in the wing before they even max out a single axle gear design.
Also, it would be heavy...


I think the original article mentioned strengthening the main landing gear. Don't know if that means reinforced single bogie gear or designing a double bogie. But like you said, we know it could fit.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:06 am

Francoflier wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Airbus has a 4 bogey setup they used on some earlier 320's which they can probably use if they need to.


That's a persisting A.net myth that I'm surprised you are still (involuntarily) propagating, given you've been on this forum for a while.

These gears were developed for low runway loading operation. They were only designed to spread the aircraft's weight a bit more. They weren't designed to withstand a heavier plane.
They were shelved a long time ago.

I agree that the A320 family could use a bogey gear of the same dimension since it obviously fits (although we don't know what kind of design compromises in the belly fairing they required), but it would have to be designed from the ground up.
And we don't even know if the gear is the restricting design point. For all we know, they might reach a structural limit in the load bearing spars in the wing before they even max out a single axle gear design.
Also, it would be heavy...


It's not a myth since they did actually produce it. My point is that they have developed a 4 bogey gear system for the 320 so they can probably do it again if they needed to.
What the...?
 
jagraham
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:15 am

JetBuddy wrote:
I think the 6000 backlog is less of an issue than it's made out to be. Airbus seems to have the ability to expand plants and production lines fairly rapidly with demand. If the A321XLR would be a sales success, I'm confident that Airbus would be dynamic enough to increase the production output accordingly, within a certain time frame of course.


The real problem is the supply chain. Which is already being seen. A and B don't want to increase prices to do a fast ramp up, so significant ramps take years.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1758
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:55 am

If they did use a (perhaps strengthened) 4-bogey setup, wouldn't that eat to the fuel storage space inside the fuselage? And by much.
 
User avatar
Airbus747
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:18 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:40 pm

Sorry / not sure if anyone has pointed this out before: what about passenger comfort?

I usually fly single aisle within Europe, say max 3-4 hours. Longer than that would feel really really cramped. A bit strange if I need to take a stroll around the tiny aisle every few hours and stretch my limbs.

And perhaps a bit "lonely" to be over the Atlantic in a small yacht rather than the large comfortable cruise ships. But maybe it's just my preference.

I have mixed feelings. I prefer the heavies for anything longer than 3 hours.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4105
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:04 pm

Airbus, at this point, could do nothing more than the ongoing update of current models and sell of much of the backlog. IF production is greatly updated, their war chest would be big enough to do what they had to do, and it will be 5-8 years newer technology. Boeing went on for years with the 737/767 as somewhat underdog players. Didn't hurt them at all.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23945
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:11 pm

jagraham wrote:
[/img]
flipdewaf wrote:
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.

Asking the question slightly differently, and assuming no increase in thrust and the reworked center box holds the equivalent of 4 ACTs while taking the space of 2 ACTs (saving 1 ACT of space, and 2.5 ACTs of weight), how many pax and bags (at 95 kg) can be carried 4700 nm ESAD?

It's not clear how much gain there is to be had.

Earlier I've posted a quote from our previous thread:

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.

Given Ferpe's reputation I think it's safe to say we are talking about adding 2/3rds of an ACT's worth of fuel via creative reuse of existing space, rather than 2.

This picture:

Image

shows that there is already a center tank on A321 which I think we can presume is pretty close to optimal in its use of space.

This thread's article hasn't made it clear if Airbus will be replacing one or two ACTs on the A321XLR with a permanent tank.

I don't think they will go for more that two ACTs, since more would reduce the flexibility of the plane too much (IMHO) and also I don't think many (if any) operators ever go beyond 2 ACTs anyway.

However (see below) perhaps they are going with 3 ACTs to provide as much gain in range as possible.

And you won't be losing all the weight of the ACTs since you need to add one permanent bulkhead, sealant, plumbing, etc.

So I think it's a bit premature to speculate, but I'd say its closer to getting 3 ACTs worth of benefit (more fuel, less weight) in the space of 2 ACTs, rather than the suggested 4 ACTs in the space of 2 ACTs.

Doing the math, that means getting another 2.4t/23.3t = 10% more fuel into the same volume.

However Airbus is suggesting a gain in range of 4700nm/4000nm = 17.5% so maybe I am being too conservative, or maybe they are going with 3 ACTs rather than 2.

JoeCanuck wrote:
My point is that they have developed a 4 bogey gear system for the 320 so they can probably do it again if they needed to.

Right, but in this case they are trying to gain space and weight that can be used for fuel, but adding bogeys reduces space and weight available for fuel.
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
 
jagraham
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:26 pm

Revelation wrote:
jagraham wrote:
[/img]
flipdewaf wrote:
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.

Asking the question slightly differently, and assuming no increase in thrust and the reworked center box holds the equivalent of 4 ACTs while taking the space of 2 ACTs (saving 1 ACT of space, and 2.5 ACTs of weight), how many pax and bags (at 95 kg) can be carried 4700 nm ESAD?

It's not clear how much gain there is to be had.

Earlier I've posted a quote from our previous thread:

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.

Given Ferpe's reputation I think it's safe to say we are talking about adding 2/3rds of an ACT's worth of fuel via creative reuse of existing space, rather than 2.

This picture:

Image

shows that there is already a center tank on A321 which I think we can presume is pretty close to optimal in its use of space.

This thread's article hasn't made it clear if Airbus will be replacing one or two ACTs on the A321XLR with a permanent tank.

I don't think they will go for more that two ACTs, since more would reduce the flexibility of the plane too much (IMHO) and also I don't think many (if any) operators ever go beyond 2 ACTs anyway.

However (see below) perhaps they are going with 3 ACTs to provide as much gain in range as possible.

And you won't be losing all the weight of the ACTs since you need to add one permanent bulkhead, sealant, plumbing, etc.

So I think it's a bit premature to speculate, but I'd say its closer to getting 3 ACTs worth of benefit (more fuel, less weight) in the space of 2 ACTs, rather than the suggested 4 ACTs in the space of 2 ACTs.

Doing the math, that means getting another 2.4t/23.3t = 10% more fuel into the same volume.

However Airbus is suggesting a gain in range of 4700nm/4000nm = 17.5% so maybe I am being too conservative, or maybe they are going with 3 ACTs rather than 2.

JoeCanuck wrote:
My point is that they have developed a 4 bogey gear system for the 320 so they can probably do it again if they needed to.

Right, but in this case they are trying to gain space and weight that can be used for fuel, but adding bogeys reduces space and weight available for fuel.



The point is valid, but the current A321XLR needs 3ACTs to go 4000 nm. It's volume limited, weight limited, bags hand loaded, and carrying full fuel to make 4000 nm.

Airbus has to work at least an extra ACT worth of fuel to get to 4700, and I could say that according to the Leeham analysis, since the 3rd ACT only took the A321LR from 3600 nm to 4000 nm, it really needs 2 ACTs more fuel, or 5 ACTs total.

Even 3 ACTs is quite a bit of wasted space, as the ACT is the shape of an LD3-45. There are some air gaps, and six bulkhead type structures in the tanks in addition to the two sealing the main center tank. But it would not surprise me if Airbus expanded and/or extended the wing glove. Because there is the luggage issue also - no more room to put fuel without evicting luggage (and passengers).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23945
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:57 pm

jagraham wrote:
The point is valid, but the current A321XLR needs 3ACTs to go 4000 nm. It's volume limited, weight limited, bags hand loaded, and carrying full fuel to make 4000 nm.

Airbus has to work at least an extra ACT worth of fuel to get to 4700, and I could say that according to the Leeham analysis, since the 3rd ACT only took the A321LR from 3600 nm to 4000 nm, it really needs 2 ACTs more fuel, or 5 ACTs total.

Even 3 ACTs is quite a bit of wasted space, as the ACT is the shape of an LD3-45. There are some air gaps, and six bulkhead type structures in the tanks in addition to the two sealing the main center tank. But it would not surprise me if Airbus expanded and/or extended the wing glove. Because there is the luggage issue also - no more room to put fuel without evicting luggage (and passengers).

Thanks for the info, it is pretty thought provoking.

I forgot that LR already is so close to the edge with regards to 4000 nm range.

There is a pretty obvious trade off between cargo positions versus fuel storage.

Some customers will not be happy to surrender the cargo positions in favor of fuel, but of course they don't have to buy the A321XLR.

It'll be interesting to see what Airbus ends up presenting, presuming the business case closes.
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
 
leghorn
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:24 pm

people here are saying the range might be limited at full load east-west in winter. Would the airlines care? Most of the winter the plane would not be anywhere near full load and in xmas season they will be making three times as much per passenger as in low season so they could afford a diversion if needed for those few days.
narrowbody prices for a long range plane seems like a good deal to me.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2166
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:29 pm

Each ACT has the weight of 20 passengers at 250 lb roughly, so 2 ACT's could reduce the pax on the plane by 40. Do they increase the pitch then to permanently remove say 30 seats? This seems like the 772LR v the 77W, the W sold great, the 20% extra cost per seat on 77L is just not economic even on routes it was the only one that could do it.

In the NB planes this 20% loss of seats brings the cost per seat up into WB territory.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:32 pm

There is a significant Trans Atlantic need for markets a little longer / bigger than 737-8 Max can serve, but markets too small for the A330 to serve successfully. I wonder if MSP-LHR (at least in winter) is such a market. This is a type of thing A321XLR could cover quite well. If it somehow got to 4700nm rating, it could do many things we consider "widebody missions." And do it cheaper. This is not even a super "niche" situation. I think each of the US3 would need a fleet, just for starters.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1746
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:36 pm

Flighty wrote:
There is a significant Trans Atlantic need for markets a little longer / bigger than 737-8 Max can serve, but markets too small for the A330 to serve successfully. I wonder if MSP-LHR (at least in winter) is such a market. This is a type of thing A321XLR could cover quite well. If it somehow got to 4700nm rating, it could do many things we consider "widebody missions." And do it cheaper. This is not even a super "niche" situation. I think each of the US3 would need a fleet, just for starters.


But that is only if they can fill it with people willing to pay a premium to fly over DTW/ORD/NYC/PHL/BOS/YYZ to get there.

The long and thing routes are where there is premium demand for nonstop.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:22 pm

airzona11 wrote:
Flighty wrote:
There is a significant Trans Atlantic need for markets a little longer / bigger than 737-8 Max can serve, but markets too small for the A330 to serve successfully. I wonder if MSP-LHR (at least in winter) is such a market. This is a type of thing A321XLR could cover quite well. If it somehow got to 4700nm rating, it could do many things we consider "widebody missions." And do it cheaper. This is not even a super "niche" situation. I think each of the US3 would need a fleet, just for starters.


But that is only if they can fill it with people willing to pay a premium to fly over DTW/ORD/NYC/PHL/BOS/YYZ to get there.

The long and thing routes are where there is premium demand for nonstop.


Oh let me clarify more then... I think current 757/767 Trans Atlantic markets (MSP-LHR being one) could save a lot of money by going to A321XLR. The US3 have big 757/767 fleets that will age out in the directly foreseeable future. This isn't news. But just like you say... a lot of routes cannot support A330... but they do support 757 or 763ER today. Just saying the A321XLR probably would get 100, maybe 200 orders just from US carriers, to serve markets they currently serve today.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:18 pm

Would a 100+ tonne MTOW variant appeal to ULCCs who want to carry a full load of ~240 passengers out to farther points? They just don't have to go all the way to 4700 nm. Or perhaps, by putting more fuel into an integral structure, more luggage/cargo can be carried where the ACTs used to take up space in the LR version.
 
tomcat
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:19 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Each ACT has the weight of 20 passengers at 250 lb roughly, so 2 ACT's could reduce the pax on the plane by 40. Do they increase the pitch then to permanently remove say 30 seats? This seems like the 772LR v the 77W, the W sold great, the 20% extra cost per seat on 77L is just not economic even on routes it was the only one that could do it.

In the NB planes this 20% loss of seats brings the cost per seat up into WB territory.


Coud you please elaborate more on your last sentence please? I honestly fail to see how the XLR would reach a cost per seat close to any WB. Considering a very generous fuel burn of 3t/hour spread over 200 passengers for the XLR, it would still beat any small WB fitted in a similar density (say 300 pax in a 787-9, burning about 5.3t/hour on a 4000nm mission), even taking into account that the WB would travel 10% more miles each hour.

In terms of capital costs per pax, the XLR should have the upper hand as well. Crew cost per passenger might be on a par (although how would compare the the rate of the XLR pilots vs the widebody pilots?). In terms of MTOW related fees, the XLR should be competitive as well, unless these fees are far from linear relatively to the MTOW.

Maintenance-wise, I have no idea but an aircraft designed for high flight cycles operations should behave well when operated on a 2 flights per day basis. The only detrimental aspect of the XLR is that the higher MTOW will take its toll on the engines, but only twice per day.

Another advantage of the XLR vs the widebodies is its compacity. It can use cat C gates vs cat-E gates for the WB. I don't know how this translate in terms of competitiveness but it definitely provides a greater flexibility, since it can be accommodated at more gates or at smaller airports. Its turnaround time might also be another advantage cost-wise as well as capacity-wise for airports that are gate-limited (if there are any such airports).

Overall, I realize that I miss first-hand figures to make a detailed comparison but the XLR seems to boast many advantages in terms of cost per seat vs widebodies.
 
tomcat
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:39 pm

Erebus wrote:
Would a 100+ tonne MTOW variant appeal to ULCCs who want to carry a full load of ~240 passengers out to farther points? They just don't have to go all the way to 4700 nm. Or perhaps, by putting more fuel into an integral structure, more luggage/cargo can be carried where the ACTs used to take up space in the LR version.


I would expect that the 100+ t MTOW comes with some limitations in terms of design service goals compared to the lighter A321 vintages. Trading fuel for payload and more flight cycles (than the ones envisioned for an exclusive use on XLR mission profiles) on the 100+ t MTOW XLR might not be achievable. On the other hand, we're only talking about a fuel to payload trade-off of 4 to 5t, this would still allow for fairly long flights. Let's also keep in mind that the XLR will come at a premium vs the LR and the basic NEO. The latter would be the preferred pic for the ULCCs.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:59 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Erebus wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
I think 5,000nm would be the maximum. What we need to look at is Passengers capacity. Can it be efficient enough for 160-180 passengers on 6,000nm flights? Probably not.


I think maximum flight time allowed for crews is a big factor to consider too.


4700nm is LAX-NRT or LAX-LHR. I do wonder how many viable routes using a 160 seat plane exist at that distance. Since the A321 flies slow and low, that could be 12 or more hours of duty time for the crew. That seems a bit extreme.


Oh no, they wouldn't be able to fly that far. The weather gonna be the biggest hurdle. Especially headwinds.
Realistically, when Airbus says up to 4,700nm, the optimal range accounting for all aspects from payloads to the weather, the range should be below 4,000nm. 3,500nm would be the most realistic.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1746
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:25 am

Flighty wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
Flighty wrote:
There is a significant Trans Atlantic need for markets a little longer / bigger than 737-8 Max can serve, but markets too small for the A330 to serve successfully. I wonder if MSP-LHR (at least in winter) is such a market. This is a type of thing A321XLR could cover quite well. If it somehow got to 4700nm rating, it could do many things we consider "widebody missions." And do it cheaper. This is not even a super "niche" situation. I think each of the US3 would need a fleet, just for starters.


But that is only if they can fill it with people willing to pay a premium to fly over DTW/ORD/NYC/PHL/BOS/YYZ to get there.

The long and thing routes are where there is premium demand for nonstop.


Oh let me clarify more then... I think current 757/767 Trans Atlantic markets (MSP-LHR being one) could save a lot of money by going to A321XLR. The US3 have big 757/767 fleets that will age out in the directly foreseeable future. This isn't news. But just like you say... a lot of routes cannot support A330... but they do support 757 or 763ER today. Just saying the A321XLR probably would get 100, maybe 200 orders just from US carriers, to serve markets they currently serve today.


Great points. I think with how large the US3 in particular, they already throw such limited 757 traffic over the Atlantic, to earn a desirable return, I am not sure it will ever be more than the amount of 757s they have flown transatlantic. JVs change the dynamic too. But the beauty of the A321-XLR-NEO you name it, is that it is all in the family, so even a few orders is easy to integrate.
 
nry
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:29 am

Airbus747 wrote:
Sorry / not sure if anyone has pointed this out before: what about passenger comfort?

I usually fly single aisle within Europe, say max 3-4 hours. Longer than that would feel really really cramped. A bit strange if I need to take a stroll around the tiny aisle every few hours and stretch my limbs.

And perhaps a bit "lonely" to be over the Atlantic in a small yacht rather than the large comfortable cruise ships. But maybe it's just my preference.

I have mixed feelings. I prefer the heavies for anything longer than 3 hours.


I prefer flying UA's 752s over the jam-packed 772s between SFO and EWR (5-6+ hours each way). How the plane is configured matters more than NB vs. WB.
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320 (+neo), A321, A330, A340
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
jagraham
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:48 am

Obviously an A321XLR will benefit some situations and capture some market share. But it's not going to wipe out the 797 by itself . . make life a little harder, perhaps.

I am assuming that Airbus worked the numbers and has figured out how to get the extra 3 to 5 tons of fuel over an A321LR or they wouldn't be suggesting it . . but to me it looks like an A322 and a new wing works better for the stated goal.
 
rph99
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 3:27 am

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:21 am

Erebus wrote:
Would a 100+ tonne MTOW variant appeal to ULCCs who want to carry a full load of ~240 passengers out to farther points? They just don't have to go all the way to 4700 nm. Or perhaps, by putting more fuel into an integral structure, more luggage/cargo can be carried where the ACTs used to take up space in the LR version.



This is what I’ve been wondering. How far could an ULCC take this thing if it opperated at max capacity (cargo and pax).

Is 4,000nm feasible?
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1277
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:52 am

rph99 wrote:
Erebus wrote:
Would a 100+ tonne MTOW variant appeal to ULCCs who want to carry a full load of ~240 passengers out to farther points? They just don't have to go all the way to 4700 nm. Or perhaps, by putting more fuel into an integral structure, more luggage/cargo can be carried where the ACTs used to take up space in the LR version.

This is what I’ve been wondering. How far could an ULCC take this thing if it opperated at max capacity (cargo and pax).

Is 4,000nm feasible?

I don't think that is a realistic scenario. If you have longer flights, you need more capacity in the galley too - that will result in slightly fewer seats. Long distance flights also mean uplifting more fuel - so cargo capacity will also be limited.

AFAIK, Airasia's A321Neo's will have 236 seats (seat pitch is about 29"). They don't do flights exceeding 4 hours. I don't think pax can tolerate 6-7 hour flights in that kind of tight seat pitch! Maybe 6-7 hour narrow body aircraft flights need around 31" seat pitch so that pax don't feel so claustrophobic. That might limit capacity to 210-220 pax max.
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:34 am

jagraham wrote:
Obviously an A321XLR will benefit some situations and capture some market share. But it's not going to wipe out the 797 by itself . . make life a little harder, perhaps.

I am assuming that Airbus worked the numbers and has figured out how to get the extra 3 to 5 tons of fuel over an A321LR or they wouldn't be suggesting it . . but to me it looks like an A322 and a new wing works better for the stated goal.


The A322 is definitely going to need updated wing. Most likely the next A32X planes will have carbon wings. That can take on the 797 head on if that were to happen. Although seeing a new A32X won't happen for a decade. The A322 would also need a new landing gear as well
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:04 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Obviously an A321XLR will benefit some situations and capture some market share. But it's not going to wipe out the 797 by itself . . make life a little harder, perhaps.

I am assuming that Airbus worked the numbers and has figured out how to get the extra 3 to 5 tons of fuel over an A321LR or they wouldn't be suggesting it . . but to me it looks like an A322 and a new wing works better for the stated goal.


The A322 is definitely going to need updated wing. Most likely the next A32X planes will have carbon wings. That can take on the 797 head on if that were to happen. Although seeing a new A32X won't happen for a decade. The A322 would also need a new landing gear as well


Airbus will upgrade the A320 family gradually. Next is the A321 XLR, which uses the existing wing with minor structural enforcements. Within 10 years we will have a new carbon wing in production for the A320 family, a wing with foldable wing tip. Airbus is considering a wing span between 40 to 44 meters for the foldable wing.

The Guardian interviewed employees at Airbus's Filton wing design centre this summer:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... stol-wales
(Scroll past all the brexit stuff. The most interested stuff is quoted below.)

With a few clicks of a console he manipulates the image, pulling off panels and zooming in for a detailed look at the smallest components inside the wing, then pans out to reveal another intriguing new feature.

“We’re developing a folding wing tip,” he said. “On a single-aisle jet like the A320, this gives a longer wing and is more aerodynamic, but it will also fit into the airport gate when folded.”

The current wing span for an A320 is 36 metres; Airbus is considering a span of between 40 and 44 metres for the folding wing.

Mark Howard, head of research and technology business development at Airbus UK, noted that the group is introducing more automation with each aircraft programme. He also reckons the new wing will create drag improvements of 12%.

“So that’s pretty important because that means less fuel burn,” he said. “It means that you don’t need as much thrust to push it through the air, which means you can reduce engine weight. It’s a snowball effect in terms of aircraft design.”

When the future wing goes into production – which will be within the next 10 years – Airbus will have to make a huge investment to automate large parts of the manufacturing and assembly process.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13835
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:35 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
Long and thin is still long and thin. That's the role for this airplane. And as the A321 stretches its legs, its economics must take the hit. Airbus may able to pick off some orders here and there, but the market has already told us that demand is limited for this type of airplane.


How so? With a low-risk option to add some extra routes it seems like there should be some good momentum for the plane, it's not the same as previous aircraft in the space.

The argument was more about volume/weight, not density. That's hard to argue against.


Surely something determined more by climate? I think holidaymakers will more likely choose the length of their holiday based on that as well as time off and money rather than how far they're flying. And Weight is still restricted.


Long and thin is still long and thin. It's a narrow role with difficult economics. The demand profile is very narrow. If demand is sufficiently greater, a widebody is more economical and more flexible in a fleet. If the demand falls only slightly below optimum, the economics quickly deteriorate. The A321XLR may fly farther, but it has to burn more fuel to do it. There's not going to be a direct ratio of increased revenue simply because an airplane is flying 700nm farther, meaning a tightening of the already thin A321ULR margins. It's a narrow market to spend millions of dollars on. If a carrier has the A320 family, then I can see some sprinkling in a few here and there. As we've seen so far with the ULR, demand is tepid.

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.


While I agree on most observations, I (and Boeing) believe a capability (capacity, range, unit costs) that isn't there might create change. We have seen similar game changers in the past. A cheap, mass produced long haul NB might also work for legacy network carriers, although their applications might be very different from LCC opportunists.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:57 pm

leghorn wrote:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4700nm%40MUC
4700NM is just a few hundred nautical miles short of perfect for an airline flying from Europe.
It can't reach west coast north america, can't reach east coast china and can't reach South Africa.

5000 is the magic number
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5000nm%40MUC


From MUC you have to deform the range circle to the east.
( prevalent winds. why westward Atlantic crossing was achieved later than the eastward one.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
jagraham
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:22 pm

200 pax is a squeeze in an A321LR; perhaps a DL 757 or UA ps layout at about 180 pax will do. Save a little weight if they are careful and get some lie flat revenue (not the ideal lie flat, but a 200 pax A321 barely has recliners . .)
 
LH707330
Posts: 2317
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

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

Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:03 pm

WIederling wrote:
leghorn wrote:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4700nm%40MUC
4700NM is just a few hundred nautical miles short of perfect for an airline flying from Europe.
It can't reach west coast north america, can't reach east coast china and can't reach South Africa.

5000 is the magic number
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5000nm%40MUC


From MUC you have to deform the range circle to the east.
( prevalent winds. why westward Atlantic crossing was achieved later than the eastward one.)

...but don't deform the eastern edge, because the plane's still gotta get back against the wind. If anything, shrink both ends in that case.

I'm sure there are plenty of people at Boeing who have considered an MTOW/range bump on the 321 like this one, so I doubt many of them were surprised to read this FG article. Ultimately, they've got to decide if they think the remaining range and payload spread between this proposal and the 788 is worth filling. One thing that may be influencing their calculus in a big way is the commonality increases that they did for AA on the 788: now that they're making it more like the 789, they can take advantage of some of those economies of scale, which drives down cost, and makes the 797 business case harder to close if a 788 isn't much more expensive. Assume conservatively that they're looking at $10B in spend, and will sell 1k units, that's $10M of R&D per frame. Lightsaber's points about production scale is likely coming into full focus here at Boeing, the question they've gotta be asking themselves is whether they think they've got enough market here, or if they'd be eating their own lunch on a 788 sale, similar to how they were with the 77W and 748.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

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