Reuters: Airbus pencils in orders for new A321XLR jet.

Checklist787 · Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:58 pm

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:

A range boost of 500-700NM over the A321LR (4000NM), revised fuel system, MTOW of 101t.

Capability for 200 seats on 3500-4000NM flights, year round reliably, at NB cost levels, opens up a string of TATL city pairs.

For LCC's, smaller airlines as well as legacy net work carriers.

For half the airlines it opens up opportunity's, for the other half it's threathening too..

Flying for a 4-5 hour mission with 200 single-class seats is scary. I do not like the A321neoLR.
Really it scares me ...
It's a bad Airbus joke?

Reactions like this are what i dont understand, as how is this different than 6 or 7 hrs TA on a 757?

its not like they are reducing seat sizes and squeezing in 7 abreast!

i would actually rather fly 320LR over a 10 abreast 777 anyday across the pond!

what am i missing here?

Well,
you may forget that in a 777 you have room in the luggage storage. The opportunity to offer at least Premium and Business seats.
Like in an A330.

Recently I flew in an A320 single class one way and then A330-200 2-class return for a mission of only 2 hours! The first was a hell! Your A321neo LR is indefensible in this typical journey. It looks like a bad Airbus joke

I much prefer a double aisle than a narrowbody 737/757 / A32X in a single-class.

I wish Airbus and Boeing change that. But it's Boeing who opens the ball with his NMA ....

aerolimani · Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:59 pm

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:

A range boost of 500-700NM over the A321LR (4000NM), revised fuel system, MTOW of 101t.

Capability for 200 seats on 3500-4000NM flights, year round reliably, at NB cost levels, opens up a string of TATL city pairs.

For LCC's, smaller airlines as well as legacy net work carriers.

For half the airlines it opens up opportunity's, for the other half it's threathening too..

Flying for a 4-5 hour mission with 200 single-class seats is scary. I do not like the A321neoLR.
Really it scares me ...
It's a bad Airbus joke?

Reactions like this are what i dont understand, as how is this different than 6 or 7 hrs TA on a 757?

its not like they are reducing seat sizes and squeezing in 7 abreast!

i would actually rather fly 320LR over a 10 abreast 777 anyday across the pond!

what am i missing here?

If one is sufficiently claustrophobic, then a widebody makes a difference. I'm not like that, but I know some people are.

The other concern people have is the lack of mobility. With only one aisle available, you more likely to get blocked into your seat more frequently, due to drink/food/duty-free service, versus a twin-aisle.

As a Canadian, I'm often on long, narrowbody flights. Maybe a twin-aisle would be better in some ways, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. Nor for many others, I'm sure.

gatibosgru · Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:23 am

Checklist787 wrote:
ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

Flying for a 4-5 hour mission with 200 single-class seats is scary. I do not like the A321neoLR.
Really it scares me ...
It's a bad Airbus joke?

Reactions like this are what i dont understand, as how is this different than 6 or 7 hrs TA on a 757?

its not like they are reducing seat sizes and squeezing in 7 abreast!

i would actually rather fly 320LR over a 10 abreast 777 anyday across the pond!

what am i missing here?

Well,
you may forget that in a 777 you have room in the luggage storage. The opportunity to offer at least Premium and Business seats.
Like in an A330.

Recently I flew in an A320 single class one way and then A330-200 2-class return for a mission of only 2 hours! The first was a hell! Your A321neo LR is indefensible in this typical journey. It looks like a bad Airbus joke

I much prefer a double aisle than a narrowbody 737/757 / A32X in a single-class.

I wish Airbus and Boeing change that. But it's Boeing who opens the ball with his NMA ....

Plenty of 757s/a321s/737s have premium and business seats. If you fly a LCC that packs in all Y it has nothing to do with Airbus or any manufacturer. I think the joke here are your posts.

shamrock350 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:38 am

Checklist787 wrote:
Flying for a 4-5 hour mission with 200 single-class seats is scary. I do not like the A321neoLR.
Really it scares me ...
It's a bad Airbus joke?

I think 200 seats is still relatively spacious for the A321 these days, the likes of easyJet and Wizz have almost 240 on flights of up to four hours within Europe so 200 for an hour or so more is hardly going to be that noticeable.

Most carriers opting for the XLR will be those in search of a 757 replacement and will likely continue to seat around 180 or less in order to provide 2 or even 3 class cabins in line with their transatlantic or mid-haul products.

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:26 am

Checklist787 wrote:
ShamrockBoi330 wrote:

Reactions like this are what i dont understand, as how is this different than 6 or 7 hrs TA on a 757?

its not like they are reducing seat sizes and squeezing in 7 abreast!

i would actually rather fly 320LR over a 10 abreast 777 anyday across the pond!

what am i missing here?

Well,
you may forget that in a 777 you have room in the luggage storage. The opportunity to offer at least Premium and Business seats.
Like in an A330.

Recently I flew in an A320 single class one way and then A330-200 2-class return for a mission of only 2 hours! The first was a hell! Your A321neo LR is indefensible in this typical journey. It looks like a bad Airbus joke

I much prefer a double aisle than a narrowbody 737/757 / A32X in a single-class.

I wish Airbus and Boeing change that. But it's Boeing who opens the ball with his NMA ....

gatibosgru wrote:
lenty of 757s/a321s/737s have premium and business seats.

No kidding is true??
I was talking about my personal experience. I have never said that narrowbody do not have business and Premium seat .

You understand what you want to understand
:banghead:

gatibosgru wrote:
If you fly a LCC that packs in all Y it has nothing to do with Airbus or any manufacturer.

I flew in a two-hour LCC mission flight in A330-200 and the experience was different. What's your problem ?

gatibosgru wrote:
I think the joke here are your posts.

Watch out for your Sarcasm...

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:38 am

shamrock350 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Flying for a 4-5 hour mission with 200 single-class seats is scary. I do not like the A321neoLR.
Really it scares me ...
It's a bad Airbus joke?

I think 200 seats is still relatively spacious for the A321 these days, the likes of easyJet and Wizz have almost 240 on flights of up to four hours within Europe so 200 for an hour or so more is hardly going to be that noticeable.

Most carriers opting for the XLR will be those in search of a 757 replacement and will likely continue to seat around 180 or less in order to provide 2 or even 3 class cabins in line with their transatlantic or mid-haul products.

Thank you for your demonstration.
But do not get tired more

Objectively,

You are given the choice of traveling in one aisle 3-3 or in two aisles 2-4-2 you choose which one?
:bigthumbsup:

lightsaber · Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:47 am

Checklist787 wrote:
shamrock350 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Flying for a 4-5 hour mission with 200 single-class seats is scary. I do not like the A321neoLR.
Really it scares me ...
It's a bad Airbus joke?

I think 200 seats is still relatively spacious for the A321 these days, the likes of easyJet and Wizz have almost 240 on flights of up to four hours within Europe so 200 for an hour or so more is hardly going to be that noticeable.

Most carriers opting for the XLR will be those in search of a 757 replacement and will likely continue to seat around 180 or less in order to provide 2 or even 3 class cabins in line with their transatlantic or mid-haul products.

Thank you for your demonstration.
But do not get tired more

Objectively,

You are given the choice of traveling in one aisle 3-3 or in two aisles 2-4-2 you choose which one?

Objectively:
1. The one with the better schedule
2. The cheaper flight

Not that many people look at equipment prior to selecting a flight.

Lightsaber

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:11 am

lightsaber wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
shamrock350 wrote:

I think 200 seats is still relatively spacious for the A321 these days, the likes of easyJet and Wizz have almost 240 on flights of up to four hours within Europe so 200 for an hour or so more is hardly going to be that noticeable.

Most carriers opting for the XLR will be those in search of a 757 replacement and will likely continue to seat around 180 or less in order to provide 2 or even 3 class cabins in line with their transatlantic or mid-haul products.

Thank you for your demonstration.
But do not get tired more

Objectively,

You are given the choice of traveling in one aisle 3-3 or in two aisles 2-4-2 you choose which one?

Objectively:
1. The one with the better schedule
2. The cheaper flight

Not that many people look at equipment prior to selecting a flight.

Lightsaber

Apart from the one who wants a Premium or Business seat, :coffee:

You can not neglect or delete this customer, in the so-called missions:
Middle Of Market!

AirbusA322 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:49 am

VSMUT wrote:
AirbusA322 wrote:
Jetstar already converted 18x321N to 321LR. There is another 32 321neo’s left to be delivered by 2025 so fairly easy to convert without disrupting timeframes.

Cairns-NRT/KIX would free up 1
X787.

Not sure where they are planning on adding all the extra 787 capacity opening up.

A rumour I was told a month ago was that the A321XLR would replace the 787 entirely at JetStar. The 787 would then go to Qantas to replace the oldest A330s.

On an interesting side note, same source also said that the deal would include A321neos for Qantas, and the A380 cancellation fees and deposits would be used on an A350 order. If the first part is turning out to be true...

80% of the 787 network the 321XLR couldn’t fly with a full payload so probably won’t be that drastic.

Although they do have the big issue with 100 Neos that were originally going to Japan/Viet/Hong Hong, which are obviously no longer going ahead leaving them with half the order too many!

448205 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:31 am

Europeans and Americans seem to lose their minds over these airplanes crossing the atlantic.

It will be interesting to see what other routes they are used for around the world.

YIMBY · Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:13 am

Checklist787 wrote:
Objectively,

You are given the choice of traveling in one aisle 3-3 or in two aisles 2-4-2 you choose which one?

Ceteris paribus, the narrower the better.

In 2+2 my chances to get a window seat are 50 %, in 3+3 it is 33 %, in 2+4+2 down to 25 %, in 10 abreast only 20 %.
In 2+2 my chances to get the middle seat are 0 %, in 3+3 33%, in 2+4+2 25 %, in 10 abreast 40 %.

The middle seats of the middle rows are the most dreaded seats of all. Whether aisle seat is any better than middle seat depends on the size of fellow passengers.

When arriving at the destination, a smaller plane adds less to the queues. The luggage may be faster in the line (though there is greater probability for it to be left out).

keesje · Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:34 am

I think the seats/ aisles on a A320 are wider and quieter than on a 787. That helps.

PlymSpotter · Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:01 am

Checklist787 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

Thank you for your demonstration.
But do not get tired more

Objectively,

You are given the choice of traveling in one aisle 3-3 or in two aisles 2-4-2 you choose which one?

Objectively:
1. The one with the better schedule
2. The cheaper flight

Not that many people look at equipment prior to selecting a flight.

Lightsaber

Apart from the one who wants a Premium or Business seat,

You can not neglect or delete this customer, in the so-called missions:
Middle Of Market!

Which basically proves the point - the type of traveller you are describing is really looking at the hard product, not directly at the equipment.

But first of all for business travellers is schedule. Time is both money and quality of life.

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:26 am

YIMBY wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Objectively,

You are given the choice of traveling in one aisle 3-3 or in two aisles 2-4-2 you choose which one?
:bigthumbsup

eteris paribus, the narrower the better.

In 2+2 my chances to get a window seat are 50 %, in 3+3 it is 33 %, in 2+4+2 down to 25 %, in 10 abreast only 20 %.
In 2+2 my chances to get the middle seat are 0 %, in 3+3 33%, in 2+4+2 25 %, in 10 abreast 40 %.

The middle seats of the middle rows are the most dreaded seats of all. Whether aisle seat is any better than middle seat depends on the size of fellow passengers.

1) In a 6-Abreast/3-3 configuration, the passenger on the aisle side
will be disturbed twice if his neighbors go to the lavatories.

2) The passenger window side has a difficult access to the aisle.
He is a Hell to go and a Hell to back (sorry, sorry to go, and sorry, sorry for the return to his seat)

YIMBY wrote:

When arriving at the destination, a smaller plane adds less to the queues. The luggage may be faster in the line (though there is greater probability for it to be left out).

I am not convinced that you have flown and experienced the hell of a single aisle when it is densified (A320 / 737-8) to the single-aisle densified seat (A321 / 737-9 / -10 / 757-200 / -300).

Boarding and disembarking becomes a hell for the passenger and for the airline because it happens that the plane does not leave until the bins are not closed.

The airlines loses money on the tarmac. Sometimes he is waiting a long time to recover his baggage.

What you say above is wrong in most cases!

Now

imagine a 7-Abreast / 2-3-2 comfort cab with twin aisle comfort of mobility and bins above each passenger?

Imagine a larger and longer aircraft that would offer 20 J seats lie-flat and 190 seat economy @ 32 in pitch? :coffee:

This should reconcile everyone it's indisputable!

:thumbsup:

Thanks

ewt340 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:17 am

Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
May someone please provide a brief summary of what the latest A321XLR specs and design changes are rumoured to be..?

A range boost of 500-700NM over the A321LR (4000NM), revised fuel system, MTOW of 101t.

Capability for 200 seats on 3500-4000NM flights, year round reliably, at NB cost levels, opens up a string of TATL city pairs.

For LCC's, smaller airlines as well as legacy net work carriers.

For half the airlines it opens up opportunity's, for the other half it's threathening too..

Flying for a 4-5 hour mission with 200 single-class seats is scary. I do not like the A321neoLR.
Really it scares me ...
It's a bad Airbus joke?

You know it's actually funny to think about how A321LR would be more comfortable compared to B777 10-abreast configurations and B787.

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:31 am

ewt340 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:

A range boost of 500-700NM over the A321LR (4000NM), revised fuel system, MTOW of 101t.

Capability for 200 seats on 3500-4000NM flights, year round reliably, at NB cost levels, opens up a string of TATL city pairs.

For LCC's, smaller airlines as well as legacy net work carriers.

For half the airlines it opens up opportunity's, for the other half it's threathening too..

Flying for a 4-5 hour mission with 200 single-class seats is scary. I do not like the A321neoLR.
Really it scares me ...
It's a bad Airbus joke?

You know it's actually funny to think about how A321LR would be more comfortable compared to B777 10-abreast configurations and B787.

You repeat as a mantra.

Yesterday still it seems to me that the 777 and 787 come back to your mouth.

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more.. :bigthumbsup:

leghorn · Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:38 am

Varsity1 wrote:
Europeans and Americans seem to lose their minds over these airplanes crossing the atlantic.

It is the Nürburgring of Civil Aviation.

AirwayBill · Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:39 am

Checklist787 wrote:

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more..

Haha, funny how 9ab, 3-3-3 configured 787 with 17" seats somehow got lost in translation and turned into "freedom and mobility"... tell me more! :roll:

Armadillo1 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:15 am

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... us-458630/

Asked when such a derivative could be available for delivery, he said: “The earliest you can expect any new versions of an A321 with some serious work done on it would be the 2023-24 timeframe.”

astuteman · Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:17 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/extended-range-a321xlr-available-by-2024-airbus-458630/
Asked when such a derivative could be available for delivery, he said: “The earliest you can expect any new versions of an A321 with some serious work done on it would be the 2023-24 timeframe.”

Given the A32X backlog, it'll take that long to get them into the production queue ......

Rgds

Mrakula · Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:26 am

Checklist787 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

Flying for a 4-5 hour mission with 200 single-class seats is scary. I do not like the A321neoLR.
Really it scares me ...
It's a bad Airbus joke?

You know it's actually funny to think about how A321LR would be more comfortable compared to B777 10-abreast configurations and B787.

You repeat as a mantra.

Yesterday still it seems to me that the 777 and 787 come back to your mouth.

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more..

I flew by CSA A319 from PRG to RUH 5,5h flight in first row only 2 persons on triple seat, it was much more confortable then 1h flight from RUH to JED onboard 10 abreast Saudi Boeing 777!

When I compare that flight with my experience onboard saudi 9 abreast Boeing 787 on flight JED-CDG it is not big diffrence.

Humidity and aspecial cabin high is more of the marketing hype rather then real benefit. I remember A310 cabin altitude did not raised above 6000ft most of the time, but of course cruise altitude was lower then on modern aircrafts.

Cheers

Polot · Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:31 am

Mrakula wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

You know it's actually funny to think about how A321LR would be more comfortable compared to B777 10-abreast configurations and B787.

You repeat as a mantra.

Yesterday still it seems to me that the 777 and 787 come back to your mouth.

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more..

I flew by CSA A319 from PRG to RUH 5,5h flight in first row only 2 persons on triple seat, it was much more confortable then 1h flight from RUH to JED onboard 10 abreast Saudi Boeing 777!

When I compare that flight with my experience onboard saudi 9 abreast Boeing 787 on flight JED-CDG it is not big diffrence.

Humidity and aspecial cabin high is more of the marketing hype rather then real benefit. I remember A310 cabin altitude did not raised above 6000ft most of the time, but of course cruise altitude was lower then on modern aircrafts.

Cheers

Not sure bulkhead seat with middle seat empty to the middle of economy is the best comparison...

Mrakula · Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:39 am

Polot wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

You repeat as a mantra.

Yesterday still it seems to me that the 777 and 787 come back to your mouth.

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more..

I flew by CSA A319 from PRG to RUH 5,5h flight in first row only 2 persons on triple seat, it was much more confortable then 1h flight from RUH to JED onboard 10 abreast Saudi Boeing 777!

When I compare that flight with my experience onboard saudi 9 abreast Boeing 787 on flight JED-CDG it is not big diffrence.

Humidity and aspecial cabin high is more of the marketing hype rather then real benefit. I remember A310 cabin altitude did not raised above 6000ft most of the time, but of course cruise altitude was lower then on modern aircrafts.

Cheers

Not sure bulkhead seat with middle seat empty to the middle of economy is the best comparison...

Yes it is not but if someone call how bad is travel in singel isle aircraft. I have to post my opinion. It is always depends on circumstances and airline configuration at first place.

TObound · Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:03 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
shamrock350 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Flying for a 4-5 hour mission with 200 single-class seats is scary. I do not like the A321neoLR.
Really it scares me ...
It's a bad Airbus joke?

I think 200 seats is still relatively spacious for the A321 these days, the likes of easyJet and Wizz have almost 240 on flights of up to four hours within Europe so 200 for an hour or so more is hardly going to be that noticeable.

Most carriers opting for the XLR will be those in search of a 757 replacement and will likely continue to seat around 180 or less in order to provide 2 or even 3 class cabins in line with their transatlantic or mid-haul products.

Thank you for your demonstration.
But do not get tired more

Objectively,

You are given the choice of traveling in one aisle 3-3 or in two aisles 2-4-2 you choose which one?

I don't think you understand that the alternative to 321XLR is not a widebody. It's an extra stop.

For example. From YOW, there are two widebody flights to FRA and LHR. They are also the only two TATL flights out. Everything else involves a stop in YYZ or YUL or EWR or IAD. If AC gets the 321XLR, I'd expect direct flights to BRU and MUC year round and plenty of seasonal services.

Gulfstream500 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:07 pm

LawAndOrder wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
I think A321XLR will be a Widebody/Super Hub killer.
- I doubt it. There is a reason US airlines have talked about the MOM or NMA it isn't just the range or they would have pushed airbus to just create the 321XLR a while ago. They are looking at something that can replace the 757's and 767's with a widebody feel. I know a few routes could work on a 321XLR (more than just being able to fly- think passenger experience) i wouldn't expect the US (AA/UA/DL) to jump on the band wagon other than B6.

Atlanta will never die...

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:52 pm

AirwayBill wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more..

Haha, funny how 9ab, 3-3-3 configured 787 with 17" seats somehow got lost in translation and turned into "freedom and mobility"... tell me more!

I may disappoint you.
The difference is barely perceptible between a 17.2 in wide seat (according to ACAPS Boeing 787/777-X) against 18 in wide seat by the competition (according ACAPS Airbus A320 / A330).

The Differential is 0.80 "(2.032 cm)

Explain to me how you get to a distinction in there?

The 17.2 seat is the best comfort / weight ratio that allowed Boeing to save substantial weight compared to the competition in the widebody market success :roll:

Thanks

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:04 pm

Mrakula wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

You know it's actually funny to think about how A321LR would be more comfortable compared to B777 10-abreast configurations and B787.

You repeat as a mantra.

Yesterday still it seems to me that the 777 and 787 come back to your mouth.

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more..

I flew by CSA A319 from PRG to RUH 5,5h flight in first row only 2 persons on triple seat it was much more confortable then 1h flight from RUH to JED onboard 10 abreast Saudi Boeing 777!

When I compare that flight with my experience onboard saudi 9 abreast Boeing 787 on flight JED-CDG it is not big diffrence.

Cheers

"I flew by CSA A319 from PRG to RUH 5,5h flight in first row only 2 persons on triple seat".

That's the real difference. Luck and circumstances can improve your comfort. Nothing to do with the 787 ...

ewt340 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:06 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
AirwayBill wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more..

Haha, funny how 9ab, 3-3-3 configured 787 with 17" seats somehow got lost in translation and turned into "freedom and mobility"... tell me more!

I may disappoint you.
The difference is barely perceptible between a 17.2 in wide seat (according to ACAPS Boeing 787/777-X) against 18 in wide seat by the competition (according ACAPS Airbus A320 / A330).

The Differential is 0.80 "(2.032 cm)

Explain to me how you get to a distinction in there?

The 17.2 seat is the best comfort / weight ratio that allowed Boeing to save substantial weight compared to the competition in the widebody market success

Thanks

0.8" or 2cm for EVERY passengers. not just 1 passenger, which mean that there is extra 2 cm space between you and the person on your left and right. B787 also have 18" aisle. Both A320 and A330 have 19" aisle. A350 have 20" aisle.

A330 configurations mean that only 1 people before you reach the aisle as well, compared to 2.

Less chance of getting your arm getting bumped by cart and people walking by.

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:10 pm

Polot wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

You repeat as a mantra.

Yesterday still it seems to me that the 777 and 787 come back to your mouth.

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more..

I flew by CSA A319 from PRG to RUH 5,5h flight in first row only 2 persons on triple seat, it was much more confortable then 1h flight from RUH to JED onboard 10 abreast Saudi Boeing 777!

When I compare that flight with my experience onboard saudi 9 abreast Boeing 787 on flight JED-CDG it is not big diffrence.

Humidity and aspecial cabin high is more of the marketing hype rather then real benefit. I remember A310 cabin altitude did not raised above 6000ft most of the time, but of course cruise altitude was lower then on modern aircrafts.

Cheers

Not sure bulkhead seat with middle seat empty to the middle of economy is the best comparison...

Fair point

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:19 pm

Mrakula wrote:
Polot wrote:
Mrakula wrote:

I flew by CSA A319 from PRG to RUH 5,5h flight in first row only 2 persons on triple seat, it was much more confortable then 1h flight from RUH to JED onboard 10 abreast Saudi Boeing 777!

When I compare that flight with my experience onboard saudi 9 abreast Boeing 787 on flight JED-CDG it is not big diffrence.

Humidity and aspecial cabin high is more of the marketing hype rather then real benefit. I remember A310 cabin altitude did not raised above 6000ft most of the time, but of course cruise altitude was lower then on modern aircrafts.

Cheers

Not sure bulkhead seat with middle seat empty to the middle of economy is the best comparison...

Yes it is not but if someone call how bad is travel in singel isle aircraft. I have to post my opinion. It is always depends on circumstances and airline configuration at first place.

You have not understood yet.
Nothing to do with the airline. It's a question of luck and circumstance.

Just ask yourself that sitting on an empty seat of a widebody bulkhead would have been a better experience yet ...

Mrakula · Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:29 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
Polot wrote:
Not sure bulkhead seat with middle seat empty to the middle of economy is the best comparison...

Yes it is not but if someone call how bad is travel in singel isle aircraft. I have to post my opinion. It is always depends on circumstances and airline configuration at first place.

You have not understood yet.
Nothing to do with the airline. It's a question of luck and circumstance.

Just ask yourself that sitting on an empty seat of a widebody bulkhead would have been a better experience yet ...

OK you still have 18 inch seat on A319 at six abreast while on 9 abreast 787 you have 17.2 inch and if you sitting in the middle A319 is still better and and number of rows would not help you while sitting so for me better broad seat at single isle then cramped seat in anything else!

DartHerald · Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:30 pm

I'm not sure why people think that a single aisle plane transatlantic will necessarily be hell. After all, no-one here seems to be objecting to the use of 757s or 707s/DC8s before them, just the increasing use of A321s which, ironically, have a slightly wider cabin! FWIW, I think seat pitch is the most important factor, followed by width - I'm not keen to contract DVT.. After that comes width. It's ok for you Americans who seem to habitually eat one handed with just a fork, but for us more civilised Europeans who like to use both hands, both knife and fork, the lack of elbow room in the economy seats most of us frequent is an affront to human dignity that is present regardless of whether the plane is single or twin aisle. We should all be campaigning for a next generation of planes that gives seats of 20" width and 34" pitch for medium/ long haul

caljn · Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:40 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the seats/ aisles on a A320 are wider and quieter than on a 787. That helps.

If you say it often enough it becomes true!

Revelation · Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:53 pm

DartHerald wrote:
I'm not sure why people think that a single aisle plane transatlantic will necessarily be hell.

I think we should follow the money.

Airlines are buying all the various A321 variants in large numbers despite people posting their personal dislike of long range narrowbodies.

QF has got both A and B spending large amounts of resources designing an airplane capable of doing SYD-LON with ~300 people on it and plan to make a choice this year despite people posting their personal dislike of ultra long range widebodies.

I think we have to take the big picture view instead of expecting the world to conform to our personal preferences.

afgeneral · Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:45 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
AirwayBill wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more..

Haha, funny how 9ab, 3-3-3 configured 787 with 17" seats somehow got lost in translation and turned into "freedom and mobility"... tell me more!

I may disappoint you.
The difference is barely perceptible between a 17.2 in wide seat (according to ACAPS Boeing 787/777-X) against 18 in wide seat by the competition (according ACAPS Airbus A320 / A330).

The Differential is 0.80 "(2.032 cm)

Explain to me how you get to a distinction in there?

The 17.2 seat is the best comfort / weight ratio that allowed Boeing to save substantial weight compared to the competition in the widebody market success

Thanks

I always appreciate the wider seats of an A320 (in case it has the wider seats and not the wider aisle) vs. the narrower 737 seats. It's quite obvious and a significant boost in comfort.

keesje · Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:47 pm

caljn wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the seats/ aisles on a A320 are wider and quieter than on a 787. That helps.

If you say it often enough it becomes true!

On a A320 6 people are sharing 145 inch with 1 20 ich aisle. Leaves close to 20.83 inch per passenger.
On a B787 9 people are sharing 216 inch with 2 20 ich aisles. Leaves close to 19.56 inch per passenger.

If you start narrowing aisles on one, do the same to the other to avoid fraud.
The seat cushion widths are usually bumped by narrowing armrests/ aisles :candle:

gatibosgru · Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:54 pm

AirwayBill wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more..

Haha, funny how 9ab, 3-3-3 configured 787 with 17" seats somehow got lost in translation and turned into "freedom and mobility"... tell me more!

I'm sure he'll enjoy a ride on a 3x4x3 French Blue A350, cuz you know, widebodies are always better and what not.

proudavgeek · Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:37 pm

gatibosgru wrote:
I could definitely see B6/DL/TP/EI ordering some. Already all (current or future) A321NEO operators.

6E aka Indigo (India) or Air Vistara can also order some for their much awaited long haul services

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:29 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
AirwayBill wrote:

Haha, funny how 9ab, 3-3-3 configured 787 with 17" seats somehow got lost in translation and turned into "freedom and mobility"... tell me more!

I may disappoint you.
The difference is barely perceptible between a 17.2 in wide seat (according to ACAPS Boeing 787/777-X) against 18 in wide seat by the competition (according ACAPS Airbus A320 / A330).

The Differential is 0.80 "(2.032 cm)

Explain to me how you get to a distinction in there?

The 17.2 seat is the best comfort / weight ratio that allowed Boeing to save substantial weight compared to the competition in the widebody market success

Thanks

0.8" or 2cm for EVERY passengers. not just 1 passenger, which mean that there is extra 2 cm space between you and the person on your left and right. B787 also have 18" aisle. Both A320 and A330 have 19" aisle. A350 have 20" aisle.

A330 configurations mean that only 1 people before you reach the aisle as well, compared to 2.

Less chance of getting your arm getting bumped by cart and people walking by.

I understand it.

But in reality each passenger is cloistered between two armrests.
Unless you are obese, you can sit in the aisle seat and lift your armrest.

It is good to specify that indeed in this case each seat is wide of 2 centimeters and that generates a little weight.

That's why I said above,
that the 787/777-X seat is the best comfort / weight seat and contributes to the success of the Boeing Widebody Market.

This is very revealing in the definition of the fuselage cross section of the 787 Dreamliner.

I see 5 directions to establish the fuselage of the 7E7 Dreamliner at the time.

1) It was designed so that Boeing would be certain that no aircraft would come under it to attack the market

2) Big enough to integrate the rest crew area for as on the 777-300ER / -200LR.

3) Big enough to fit the big bins as on the 777.

4) Allow 3-3-3 / 9-Abreast as on the Triple 7.

5) And throw a lengthened version up to 70 meters (787-10).

In other terms. he 787 has been designed to be much lighter than the 777-200ER.

When an airplane is defined, the weight increases very, very fast, and becomes an arm wrestling against the weight. That's why Airbus had to set the A350 XWB to be a little bigger than the 787 Dreamliner but lighter than the 777-200ER / -300ER.

Airbus had abandoned the A350 Mk1 concept because it was impossible to integrate the rest crew areas and the big bins as on the 777's LR and 787 Dreqmliner.

The advantage is that the A350MK1 was below the 787 but could not beat the Dreamliner in these criteria that the market wanted.

That's why the A350 XWB has an extra body compared to the A330 / A350Mk1.

The weight could grow very quickly also for the A350 so the teams introduce the 1. 5 in wide armrests instead of 2 in to reduce the fuselage by 6 in wide always in order to be smaller and lighter compared to the 777-LR's ...

Thanks

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:44 pm

gatibosgru wrote:
AirwayBill wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

The 787 has a higher humidity than the old A321neoXLR, larger window, more luggage compartment, twin aisle for more freedom and mobility ...

But compare apples to apples. Maybe the NMA / 797 VS A321neo / LR game in a few weeks at PAS'19 we'll know a little more..

Haha, funny how 9ab, 3-3-3 configured 787 with 17" seats somehow got lost in translation and turned into "freedom and mobility"... tell me more!

I'm sure he'll enjoy a ride on a 3x4x3 French Blue A350, cuz you know, widebodies are always better and what not.

A 3-4-3 / 10 Abreast A350 seat is 16.35 / 16.5.in wide. Nothing to do with the 787/777-X 17.2 inch seat.

:banghead:

Checklist787 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:53 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
AirwayBill wrote:

Haha, funny how 9ab, 3-3-3 configured 787 with 17" seats somehow got lost in translation and turned into "freedom and mobility"... tell me more!

I'm sure he'll enjoy a ride on a 3x4x3 French Blue A350, cuz you know, widebodies are always better and what not.

A 3-4-3 / 10 Abreast A350 seat is 16.35 / 16.5.in wide. Nothing to do with the 787/777-X 17.2 inch seat.

gatibosgru · Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:05 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
AirwayBill wrote:

Haha, funny how 9ab, 3-3-3 configured 787 with 17" seats somehow got lost in translation and turned into "freedom and mobility"... tell me more!

I'm sure he'll enjoy a ride on a 3x4x3 French Blue A350, cuz you know, widebodies are always better and what not.

A 3-4-3 / 10 Abreast A350 seat is 16.35 / 16.5.in wide. Nothing to do with the 787/777-X 17.2 inch seat.

You've mentioned widebody vs narrowbody throughout the thread, this wasn't specific to the 787/777X. You're the one calling the idea of flying 4-5 hours on a narrowbody "scary". I'd rather do that than a 10 abreast A350, but that's just me.

tropical · Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:20 pm

Ultimately, it’s not as if the paying public will be able to do much about a possible proliferation of NB a/c on long haul anyway. In any case, public passenger opposition to it cannot be too strong or widespread, or the various 757 transatlantic routes in existence wouldn’t have lasted long.

Speaking of the 757, has the fact that it too is a NB also attracted a similar amount of protestations around here?

WayexTDI · Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:28 pm

tropical wrote:
Ultimately, it’s not as if the paying public will be able to do much about a possible proliferation of NB a/c on long haul anyway. In any case, public passenger opposition to it cannot be too strong or widespread, or the various 757 transatlantic routes in existence wouldn’t have lasted long.

There is plenty the paying public can do: refuse to book the trip/airline that offer the equipment you do not want to fly; and the airline will readjust its offering until the paying public start booking again.

BUT, the paying public has decided to go for the cheapest option; so, the airline is using NB on long-haul if it's cheaper or less crowded.

astuteman · Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:33 pm

Can anyone point me to the thread about Airbus pencilling orders for the A321XLR.
I click on it and end up in a thread about seat widths - on any aircraft.
I'm sure it's a great thread too, but not what I'm looking for here
Any ideas anyone?
It would be much appreciated.
Perhaps the Mods could help?

Rgds

AleksW · Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:38 pm

Folks, if you don't like a narrow body long haul airplane..... well, pretend that you are flying on the upper deck of a 747

)))))

AleksW · Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:41 pm

Speaking of claustrophobia: how all these millionaires are flying their small biz jets

???

qf789 · Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:49 pm

Due to the thread going off topic, it will be locked

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net