T4thH wrote:

Rifitto wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1425571

UA seems not interested in the XLR as well ,they need bigger planes tu fill the MOM needs

There I have now my doubts to this "story". If I just verify the UA fleet and the UA orders...
They are flying A320 ceo and A319 ceo and seems to be happy with them. They have even bought additional used A320 ceo and A319 ceo from other airlines, most of them still in delivery.
They are not flying the A321 ceo or neo, they have till now neither ordered any A320 neo family members (especially no A321neo).

Instead they have ordered B737 Max, but no MAX 7 or 8, instead "only" 190 Max 9 and Max 10 together. And the Max 10 will replace the B757-200 of the existing UA fleet.

So UA has decided against the A321 and the A320 neo family (especially the A321 neo), and instead have ordered the A321 neo competitors Max 9 and 10.

The A321 Xlr is a niche jet; seems every airline, who has already ordered the A321 neo, is willed to buy few (something around 10 to 15% of the A321neo fleet) of them or to convert some of the A321 neo order. If you break down all of the 249 A321 Xlr orders + Loi e.g. till now to single airlines (even the 36 bird Qantas order is for 2 airlines), whith exception of AA have ordered less than 20/airline and AA seems to have ordered them as B757-200 replacement. There were 20 UFO orders, even These were two orders from two different, one order of 14 A321 Xlr new and the other a conversion of an existing order.
No one has ordered the A321 Xlr till now, if not already ordered the A321 neo earlier; regarding low numbers needed of the A321 Xlr/airline, the high maintenace costs for these few orphan birds in a fleet would eat all benefits.

UA has had decided pro B737 Max 9 and 10 and against the A321 and A321 Neo, now they are committed and not any more able to buy the A321 Xlr.

United being reluctant to the XLR shows their strategy with the MOM. Besides additional cargo revenue, the larger aircraft would also allow them to price more competitively per seat against the LCCs vs having a whole other airline within an airline or subfleets/configurations. I don't think the MOM will be too big, probably between 752 and 753 on the low end to somewhere just beneath the 763 on the high end. Still enough to be competitive with the XLR especially being 1-1.5 generations newer even if it's a widebody.

He never said it's a bad aircraft. You guys are all flaming him. He simply said it's not worth it for his airline. A standard NEO will do just fine. Maybe he needs to step a side and let the ANet experts run his airline.

So? Are we now demanding that LH fly the A321XLR or suggesting they fly it? An. d? If so? What for? Could it be that Boeing might be offering a better Deal? And?
that fleet and engine commonality with United and the other Star Carriers might well have a business plan afoot? It could be any of 50 reasons why LH might not order the A321XLR. Especially? If the LH CEO has the Specs for the B797 in his Hands, And? Might have a major SAY in it's configuration for his Airline.
Not only in the passenger cabin, but the cargo compartment as well as fuel uplift and Engines as well. Especially if Lufthansa Technik might benefit from LH flying the Airplane as a major repair center for the airplane. OR? Wasn't any of this thought of? Boeing didn't just fall off the Banana Boat. And LH has been in Chicago a number of times, Just socializing, especially since United and Boeing are less than a quarter of a Mile apart in downtown Chicago

Checklist787 wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

the only modern ?

Given that the only narrowbody with near similar characteristics is the jurassic 757...then yes. And no...the 737-10 does not qualify.

The new cockpit of the 737MAX, the aerodynamics, the new tail cone and the new wing tips would be less advanced than the old cockpit and wingtip dating from the time of the 737NG fited at A320neo ?

The 737 MAX cockpit may be new, but trust me, it's still too legacy optimized to be considered anything modern. The 1988 Airbus 320 still beats it's cockpit in technological advancement, ergonomics, human factors, etc.

But airline accountants care little about cockpits, and manufacturers design for their customers what they want. Hopefully the MAX proves that ignoring pilot interface innovation for over half a century in favor of all mighty commonality can be catastrophic.

oschkosch wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Perhaps he's got a NMA briefing in his hands and wants to create a big splash like IAG just did by ordering Boeing?

Looking at their current drop in profits I don't think LH is ordering a lot of new types of aircraft anytime soon. They will stick with existing models.



Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

You mean other than the 20 787s and 20 A350s they just ordered and being launch customer for the 777-9, LH will stick with existing models and not order any new types soon.

Game changer...no. It's a derivative of a derivative. But it's still a hell of a lot better than a 30 year old 757. Just saying.....

"I could pay less on this Tatl flight but I'll pay more for another flight because I don't want to go on a narrowbody"

-No passenger ever.

InsideMan wrote:

Not sure where they would use NMA or even A321XLR as they don't have and never had 757s or 767s (one route being the lone exception). Other than that the only time you ever hear glowing endorsements of a specific aircraft type from and airline CEO is when he just ordered and announced it. Everything else is politics.

Lufthansa were big users of the A300 and A310s. They have a lot of flights to obscure-ish destinations that often need to be a tag along, for example, Pune. I could see a 797 working for LH in parts of India, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe very very well. A321 XLR less so because it isn't so much the extra range they need as it is the extra capacity with minimal fuel punishment.

LH needs cargo capacity as well. This might be a problem with the XLR.
LH is a full service carrier, not only for the passengers but also for cargo. Lots of those destinations in Africa and the ME would be in XLR range. But those destinations are cargo heavy flights als well.
Therefore cargo might be the issue preventing LH mainline from using the XLR.

Opening up new routes with a XLR could be an option though. This might be the factor for LH requiring more range than the LR.

Francoflier wrote:

"I could pay less on this Tatl flight but I'll pay more for another flight because I don't want to go on a narrowbody"

-No passenger ever.

Well, I know many passengers who pay more to fly with Lufthansa simply because it is a familiar brand. Not everyone chases the lowest fare on the market. Brand awareness plays a big role.


Anyway, the only route where XLR might play a role for LH is on MUC/FRA-IKA. I think capacity has gone down in recent times and I wonder if the A333 might be too big for them.

speedbird52 wrote:

Lufthansa were big users of the A300 and A310s. They have a lot of flights to obscure-ish destinations that often need to be a tag along, for example, Pune. I could see a 797 working for LH in parts of India, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe very very well. A321 XLR less so because it isn't so much the extra range they need as it is the extra capacity with minimal fuel punishment.

This. LH is definately one of the airlines which needs a small WB in the 200-250 seat range. The B788 and A332/-8 are too capable for this role and the A321 is too small. The additional range of the XLR doesn’t change that.

I think the XLR might prove a game changer for LH Group in that we will see competing airlines directly connecting their Atlantic hubs with places like Berlin, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, Dresden, Cologne. The LH hubs in FRA and MUC are not convenient located for traffic to/ from Berlin, Hamburg etc. LH might defensively station some XLR's in Berlin. Like they did in Dusseldorf.

I've flown on Delta's 757 TATL on PSA, was a nice ride, but indeed, not the best experience. A widebody is way better. Wait, not every widebody is better. LH's A346 is way better... others are quite better.

Flying quite frequently FR between PSA and LPA, ACE, FUE I can agree, flying low cost on 4+ hours trips is not a nice experience from any point of view - except of the economic side.

marcelh wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Lufthansa were big users of the A300 and A310s. They have a lot of flights to obscure-ish destinations that often need to be a tag along, for example, Pune. I could see a 797 working for LH in parts of India, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe very very well. A321 XLR less so because it isn't so much the extra range they need as it is the extra capacity with minimal fuel punishment.

This. LH is definately one of the airlines which needs a small WB in the 200-250 seat range. The B788 and A332/-8 are too capable for this role and the A321 is too small. The additional range of the XLR doesn’t change that.

A recent example of this is Cairo where one of two daily flights was upgraded from A321 to A330.

TWA772LR wrote:

T4thH wrote:

Rifitto wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1425571

UA seems not interested in the XLR as well ,they need bigger planes tu fill the MOM needs

There I have now my doubts to this "story". If I just verify the UA fleet and the UA orders...
They are flying A320 ceo and A319 ceo and seems to be happy with them. They have even bought additional used A320 ceo and A319 ceo from other airlines, most of them still in delivery.
They are not flying the A321 ceo or neo, they have till now neither ordered any A320 neo family members (especially no A321neo).

Instead they have ordered B737 Max, but no MAX 7 or 8, instead "only" 190 Max 9 and Max 10 together. And the Max 10 will replace the B757-200 of the existing UA fleet.

So UA has decided against the A321 and the A320 neo family (especially the A321 neo), and instead have ordered the A321 neo competitors Max 9 and 10.

The A321 Xlr is a niche jet; seems every airline, who has already ordered the A321 neo, is willed to buy few (something around 10 to 15% of the A321neo fleet) of them or to convert some of the A321 neo order. If you break down all of the 249 A321 Xlr orders + Loi e.g. till now to single airlines (even the 36 bird Qantas order is for 2 airlines), whith exception of AA have ordered less than 20/airline and AA seems to have ordered them as B757-200 replacement. There were 20 UFO orders, even These were two orders from two different, one order of 14 A321 Xlr new and the other a conversion of an existing order.
No one has ordered the A321 Xlr till now, if not already ordered the A321 neo earlier; regarding low numbers needed of the A321 Xlr/airline, the high maintenace costs for these few orphan birds in a fleet would eat all benefits.

UA has had decided pro B737 Max 9 and 10 and against the A321 and A321 Neo, now they are committed and not any more able to buy the A321 Xlr.

United being reluctant to the XLR shows their strategy with the MOM. Besides additional cargo revenue, the larger aircraft would also allow them to price more competitively per seat against the LCCs vs having a whole other airline within an airline or subfleets/configurations. I don't think the MOM will be too big, probably between 752 and 753 on the low end to somewhere just beneath the 763 on the high end. Still enough to be competitive with the XLR especially being 1-1.5 generations newer even if it's a widebody.

The decision by UA to order the Max 9 and later on the Max 10, was done somehow 2012 or so. So around 7 years ago, UA has decoded not to buy any A320 Neo family members; not to order the A321 subfamily was already done 15 or more years ago. So already many years ago (long time before anyone in the world had even started to think about a A321 Xlr version), UA was already committed and not any more able in the future, to order the A321 Xlr. And if I veriify the up to date UA feet and the NB jets on order, when I see, that UA is stll buying used A320 ceo and A319 ceo from other airlines (instead of buying new A320 family members, as to be expected by an legacy airliine, it seems UA has some interesting contracts with Boeing.

Regarding NMA; do they have a strategy? Or are they just committed/forced regarding decisions long time ago performed?

Revelation wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lufthansa-planes-idUSKCN1TP1RP says:

“The new XLR could be used in our network. We look at it. But in my view it is a niche product,” Spohr told investors at Lufthansa’s capital markets day in Frankfurt.

He pointed out that it was not comfortable to spend more than four hours on a flight in a narrow-bodied aircraft, adding: “It will not be a game changer.”

Very interesting take.

Perhaps LH is trying to differentiate itself from LCCs who chose to use XLR on routes greater than four hours?

Perhaps he's got a NMA briefing in his hands and wants to create a big splash like IAG just did by ordering Boeing?

You must be elated!

If he thinks spending 4+ hrs on a narrowbody is bad, he should fly the competition's 3x4x3 777s.

I believe we had heard this already from LH, maybe put differently. Guess we'll see IAG/TP be the firsts to test out the water for the LR/XLR

AirwayBill wrote:

Coming from an airline with rather... atypical fleet decisions (346, 748, etc), I wouldn't take his words as a general mantra for the aviation industry.

Beat me to it. LH has over the last two decades made some of the most oddball fleet choices (relative to where the rest of the market clearly went), so yeah, consider the source.

(and yes, I'm aware they've made what they have work fine).

Like it or not, it will be a gamechanger, perhaps not in the best way for LH. Smaller airlines and budget carriers have ordered it. They will start more point to point travel across the pond and maybe even into MiddleEast/South Asia, its going to impact the feed to mega-hubs like FRA and MUC amongst others. Time shall tell if it is going to lead to substantial growth in traffic or it will eat into LH's share.

T4thH wrote:

Rifitto wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1425571

UA seems not interested in the XLR as well ,they need bigger planes tu fill the MOM needs

There I have now my doubts to this "story". If I just verify the UA fleet and the UA orders...
They are flying A320 ceo and A319 ceo and seems to be happy with them. They have even bought additional used A320 ceo and A319 ceo from other airlines, most of them still in delivery.
They are not flying the A321 ceo or neo, they have till now neither ordered any A320 neo family members (especially no A321neo).

Instead they have ordered B737 Max, but no MAX 7 or 8, instead "only" 190 Max 9 and Max 10 together. And the Max 10 will replace the B757-200 of the existing UA fleet.

So UA has decided against the A321 and the A320 neo family (especially the A321 neo), and instead have ordered the A321 neo competitors Max 9 and 10.

The A321 Xlr is a niche jet; seems every airline, who has already ordered the A321 neo, is willed to buy few (something around 10 to 15% of the A321neo fleet) of them or to convert some of the A321 neo order. If you break down all of the 249 A321 Xlr orders + Loi e.g. till now to single airlines (even the 36 bird Qantas order is for 2 airlines), whith exception of AA have ordered less than 20/airline and AA seems to have ordered them as B757-200 replacement. There were 20 UFO
orders, even These were two orders from two different, one order of 14 A321 Xlr new and the other a conversion of an existing order.
No one has ordered the A321 Xlr till now, if not already ordered the A321 neo earlier; regarding low numbers needed of the A321 Xlr/airline, the high maintenace costs for these few orphan birds in a fleet would eat all benefits.

UA has had decided pro B737 Max 9 and 10 and against the A321 and A321 Neo, now they are committed and not any more able to buy the A321 Xlr.

Please furnish proof that the XLR will have high maintenance costs...

RalXWB wrote:

T4thH wrote:

Rifitto wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1425571

UA seems not interested in the XLR as well ,they need bigger planes tu fill the MOM needs

There I have now my doubts to this "story". If I just verify the UA fleet and the UA orders...
They are flying A320 ceo and A319 ceo and seems to be happy with them. They have even bought additional used A320 ceo and A319 ceo from other airlines, most of them still in delivery.
They are not flying the A321 ceo or neo, they have till now neither ordered any A320 neo family members (especially no A321neo).

Instead they have ordered B737 Max, but no MAX 7 or 8, instead "only" 190 Max 9 and Max 10 together. And the Max 10 will replace the B757-200 of the existing UA fleet.

So UA has decided against the A321 and the A320 neo family (especially the A321 neo), and instead have ordered the A321 neo competitors Max 9 and 10.

The A321 Xlr is a niche jet; seems every airline, who has already ordered the A321 neo, is willed to buy few (something around 10 to 15% of the A321neo fleet) of them or to convert some of the A321 neo order. If you break down all of the 249 A321 Xlr orders + Loi e.g. till now to single airlines (even the 36 bird Qantas order is for 2 airlines), whith exception of AA have ordered less than 20/airline and AA seems to have ordered them as B757-200 replacement. There were 20 UFO
orders, even These were two orders from two different, one order of 14 A321 Xlr new and the other a conversion of an existing order.
No one has ordered the A321 Xlr till now, if not already ordered the A321 neo earlier; regarding low numbers needed of the A321 Xlr/airline, the high maintenace costs for these few orphan birds in a fleet would eat all benefits.

UA has had decided pro B737 Max 9 and 10 and against the A321 and A321 Neo, now they are committed and not any more able to buy the A321 Xlr.

Please furnish proof that the XLR will have high maintenance costs...

It has one letter more in its name. Huge consumption of ink on the safety cards and in the paper magazines...

“The new XLR could be used in our network. We look at it. But in my view it is a niche product,” Spohr told investors at Lufthansa’s capital markets day in Frankfurt.

He pointed out that it was not comfortable to spend more than four hours on a flight in a narrow-bodied aircraft, adding: “It will not be a game changer.”

Hypocrisy at its worst. He's just afraid of the competition. LH group is sending today their terrible Euro-config narrowbodies to the Middle East, which are all 4h+ flights.
So he says he would be uncomfortable on his company flight??? Even in C???

LH have historically bought more capable frames to fly routes which could be done by lighter aircraft to carry the passengers and their bags. They are a very cargo heavy airlines. On top of that, they want everyone to connect via FRA and MUC so of course they'd say A321XLR isn't a game changer. I'd bet they would be irritated when the LCCs or other competitors fly smaller planes (be it A321 or NMA) from HAM/DUS/CLG/TXL etc and people stop taking connections at their hubs. LH rely heavily on monopoly for long hauls, Germany aviation dept have heavily protected them against foreign airlines.

7673mech wrote:

He never said it's a bad aircraft. You guys are all flaming him. He simply said it's not worth it for his airline. A standard NEO will do just fine. Maybe he needs to step a side and let the ANet experts run his airline.

Indeed, I do not see A321 XLR helping LH much, as the range increase over the regular NEO will not open so many useful routes for them. A main application for the XLR is some not too long and thin enough TATL routes; since LH hubs are not at the very west of Europe, the number of cities they could serve does not look that great.

sabby wrote:

LH have historically bought more capable frames to fly routes which could be done by lighter aircraft to carry the passengers and their bags. They are a very cargo heavy airlines. On top of that, they want everyone to connect via FRA and MUC so of course they'd say A321XLR isn't a game changer. I'd bet they would be irritated when the LCCs or other competitors fly smaller planes (be it A321 or NMA) from HAM/DUS/CLG/TXL etc and people stop taking connections at their hubs. LH rely heavily on monopoly for long hauls, Germany aviation dept have heavily protected them against foreign airlines.

+1, with the ME3 offensive that is hard for them to contain and Ryanair's expansion in FRA Airport itself along with the rise of other LCCs in Germany, cheap - long haul - point to point flights by newcomers is the last thing the guys at Lufty would like to see appear on the German market at the moment. They are already showing signs of weakness in the current business Environment against other European LCCs. Spohr is just trying to throw doubt on a tool that could prove quite harmful against the LH Group, if used efficiently by other airlines seeing a great expansion opportunity.

I have no idea how revolutionary the XLR will be but the answer has little or nothing to do with it being a narrowbody. What nonsense. Three seats - an aisle - and three more seats is the same (uncomfortable) experience whether it's on an A320 or a 787. He must know he's talking rubbish.

T4thH wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

T4thH wrote:

There I have now my doubts to this "story". If I just verify the UA fleet and the UA orders...
They are flying A320 ceo and A319 ceo and seems to be happy with them. They have even bought additional used A320 ceo and A319 ceo from other airlines, most of them still in delivery.
They are not flying the A321 ceo or neo, they have till now neither ordered any A320 neo family members (especially no A321neo).

Instead they have ordered B737 Max, but no MAX 7 or 8, instead "only" 190 Max 9 and Max 10 together. And the Max 10 will replace the B757-200 of the existing UA fleet.

So UA has decided against the A321 and the A320 neo family (especially the A321 neo), and instead have ordered the A321 neo competitors Max 9 and 10.

The A321 Xlr is a niche jet; seems every airline, who has already ordered the A321 neo, is willed to buy few (something around 10 to 15% of the A321neo fleet) of them or to convert some of the A321 neo order. If you break down all of the 249 A321 Xlr orders + Loi e.g. till now to single airlines (even the 36 bird Qantas order is for 2 airlines), whith exception of AA have ordered less than 20/airline and AA seems to have ordered them as B757-200 replacement. There were 20 UFO orders, even These were two orders from two different, one order of 14 A321 Xlr new and the other a conversion of an existing order.
No one has ordered the A321 Xlr till now, if not already ordered the A321 neo earlier; regarding low numbers needed of the A321 Xlr/airline, the high maintenace costs for these few orphan birds in a fleet would eat all benefits.

UA has had decided pro B737 Max 9 and 10 and against the A321 and A321 Neo, now they are committed and not any more able to buy the A321 Xlr.

United being reluctant to the XLR shows their strategy with the MOM. Besides additional cargo revenue, the larger aircraft would also allow them to price more competitively per seat against the LCCs vs having a whole other airline within an airline or subfleets/configurations. I don't think the MOM will be too big, probably between 752 and 753 on the low end to somewhere just beneath the 763 on the high end. Still enough to be competitive with the XLR especially being 1-1.5 generations newer even if it's a widebody.

The decision by UA to order the Max 9 and later on the Max 10, was done somehow 2012 or so. So around 7 years ago, UA has decoded not to buy any A320 Neo family members; not to order the A321 subfamily was already done 15 or more years ago. So already many years ago (long time before anyone in the world had even started to think about a A321 Xlr version), UA was already committed and not any more able in the future, to order the A321 Xlr. And if I veriify the up to date UA feet and the NB jets on order, when I see, that UA is stll buying used A320 ceo and A319 ceo from other airlines (instead of buying new A320 family members, as to be expected by an legacy airliine, it seems UA has some interesting contracts with Boeing.

Regarding NMA; do they have a strategy? Or are they just committed/forced regarding decisions long time ago performed?

United will probably buy A321XLR's soon. They have little choice replacing their aging 757 fleet in the coming years.Little relative young 757s left, many will be 25-30 years olds in the next few years.
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2017/05/01/united-airlines-757-retirement/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-adds-a321xlr-as-possible-757-replacement-457311/.
They'll probably order Boeing's & promote NMA at the same event, to mask it's significance.

I can see LH sconverting some NEO orders & tationing A321XLR's at Berlin. Not because they like it, but defensively, when Jetblue, AA and Delta XLR's start sailing in.

Devilfish wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

the only modern ?

Given that the only narrowbody with near similar characteristics is the jurassic 757...then yes. And no...the 737-10 does not qualify.

But mich Airbus-fanboyism, isn't it?

Whenever we discussed the 757 in the past, long before a 737MAX and A32Xneo were talked about, we came to the conclusion that 90-95% of the routes that the 757s fly, can be flown by back then current tech 737s and A320s. The 737-900ER and A321 took over most of the work of the 757. The 737-9, -10, A321, A321LR and A321XLR, all five "TOGETHER" will definetly be finde successors to the 757.

If there should be an airline, having a free choice of A and B, having no currently rated pilots of one of the models (unrealistic assumption), so basically a startup, I'm sure the mathematics and economics for both planes are basically the same, the advantage of one over the other will be at +/-0 and the decision will just be made by the very small numbers on a combination of sales price, maintenance contracts, power by the hour contracts for the engines, etc. The only real advantage for the A321LR/XLR would be, if that hypothetical airline would be one of the few airlines aiming to fly their new aircraft on routes as long as the 757 can do at maximum endurance. And that won't be many. Thus your comment that the 737-10 does not qualify is void...

CHRISBA35X wrote:

Thing is its a game changer for LH as it will allow them to do BER, HAM and DUS transatlantic with a right-sized aircraft. It is pretty compelling for them. It will also allow them to lift more cargo and bags than their A321 and open up new West Africa routes that their A333 is too big for. It does make a lot of sense for them I think.

Agree completely!!

Revelation wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lufthansa-planes-idUSKCN1TP1RP says:

“The new XLR could be used in our network. We look at it. But in my view it is a niche product,” Spohr told investors at Lufthansa’s capital markets day in Frankfurt.

He pointed out that it was not comfortable to spend more than four hours on a flight in a narrow-bodied aircraft, adding: “It will not be a game changer.”

Very interesting take.

Perhaps LH is trying to differentiate itself from LCCs who chose to use XLR on routes greater than four hours?

Perhaps he's got a NMA briefing in his hands and wants to create a big splash like IAG just did by ordering Boeing?

He is absolutely correct.

There has not been a "game-changer" in commercial aerospace since the 747. Everything else has been evolution and iterative improvement. The bulls__t term is handed out far too readily.

A "game-changer" is a simultaneous paradigm shift in capability and cost that renders all other approaches obsolete. A quiet Mach 3 aircraft made of dried grass that can do London to Sydney on 3 cups of water is a game changer.


A321XLR doesn't really add much to Lufthansa given their location. Such is the way it always has been - some airlines see great value in improvements - others don't see the same added value. But the strong point is that even if they don't get great value out of XLR, they can still buy a few and roll them in beside their current A321 fleet without the cost of supporting a small orphan type and assign them onto the few places they'll see benefits.

Many legacies were pissed at the range of the 787, 777X and A350 as they felt they were paying extra in fuel burn for the range requirements of the ME3.

sabby wrote:

LH have historically bought more capable frames to fly routes which could be done by lighter aircraft to carry the passengers and their bags. They are a very cargo heavy airlines. On top of that, they want everyone to connect via FRA and MUC so of course they'd say A321XLR isn't a game changer. I'd bet they would be irritated when the LCCs or other competitors fly smaller planes (be it A321 or NMA) from HAM/DUS/CLG/TXL etc and people stop taking connections at their hubs. LH rely heavily on monopoly for long hauls, Germany aviation dept have heavily protected them against foreign airlines.

Would the "cargo heavy" part explain a) good profitability and b) extreme focus on the two hubs FRA and MUC?

keesje wrote:

I think the XLR might prove a game changer for LH Group in that we will see competing airlines directly connecting their Atlantic hubs with places like Berlin, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, Dresden, Cologne. The LH hubs in FRA and MUC are not convenient located for traffic to/ from Berlin, Hamburg etc. LH might defensively station some XLR's in Berlin. Like they did in Dusseldorf.

sabby wrote:

LH have historically bought more capable frames to fly routes which could be done by lighter aircraft to carry the passengers and their bags. They are a very cargo heavy airlines. On top of that, they want everyone to connect via FRA and MUC so of course they'd say A321XLR isn't a game changer. I'd bet they would be irritated when the LCCs or other competitors fly smaller planes (be it A321 or NMA) from HAM/DUS/CLG/TXL etc and people stop taking connections at their hubs. LH rely heavily on monopoly for long hauls, Germany aviation dept have heavily protected them against foreign airlines.

The counter point is that BA have learned the hard way over years if not decades in a less protected market that it's not worth it to defend every UK city not named London from competition and it's better to focus on what you do well rather than a half hearted effort at doing something you don't do well. We have EK flying A380 to BHX, MAN, and GLA without the end of the world for BA and I suspect it will go the same way for LH. They won't be nimble enough to fight off all the eventual competitors in BER/HAM/DUS/CGN/etc and they know it. The fact they are shutting down EW longhaul speaks to this.

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think the XLR might prove a game changer for LH Group in that we will see competing airlines directly connecting their Atlantic hubs with places like Berlin, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, Dresden, Cologne. The LH hubs in FRA and MUC are not convenient located for traffic to/ from Berlin, Hamburg etc. LH might defensively station some XLR's in Berlin. Like they did in Dusseldorf.

sabby wrote:

LH have historically bought more capable frames to fly routes which could be done by lighter aircraft to carry the passengers and their bags. They are a very cargo heavy airlines. On top of that, they want everyone to connect via FRA and MUC so of course they'd say A321XLR isn't a game changer. I'd bet they would be irritated when the LCCs or other competitors fly smaller planes (be it A321 or NMA) from HAM/DUS/CLG/TXL etc and people stop taking connections at their hubs. LH rely heavily on monopoly for long hauls, Germany aviation dept have heavily protected them against foreign airlines.

The counter point is that BA have learned the hard way over years if not decades in a less protected market that it's not worth it to defend every UK city not named London from competition and it's better to focus on what you do well rather than a half hearted effort at doing something you don't do well. We have EK flying A380 to BHX, MAN, and GLA without the end of the world for BA and I suspect it will go the same way for LH. They won't be nimble enough to fight off all the eventual competitors in BER/HAM/DUS/CGN/etc and they know it. The fact they are shutting down EW longhaul speaks to this.

The difference between UK and DE for air travel is DE is much larger and more spread out. It has many big cities with different industries e.g. Finance in FRA, Auto in MUC, Tech in BER/TXL etc. FRA and MUC are not even top 2 in terms of population. In stark contrast, London is one of the largest mega cities in the world and any other cities in UK are far down in terms of industry, population and wealth. There's enough market in London that more than dozen airlines rake in serious money from it. BA being the home carrier and far larger than VS, takes the major pie. BHX,MAN,GLA are majorly dependent on VFR traffic and don't hold a candle in terms of yield from LON.

What is the effective range of the A321XLR? So not the advertised range, but the longest route this aircraft can effectively fly?

sabby wrote:

The difference between UK and DE for air travel is DE is much larger and more spread out. It has many big cities with different industries e.g. Finance in FRA, Auto in MUC, Tech in BER/TXL etc. FRA and MUC are not even top 2 in terms of population. In stark contrast, London is one of the largest mega cities in the world and any other cities in UK are far down in terms of industry, population and wealth. There's enough market in London that more than dozen airlines rake in serious money from it. BA being the home carrier and far larger than VS, takes the major pie. BHX,MAN,GLA are majorly dependent on VFR traffic and don't hold a candle in terms of yield from LON.

All good points, but the main issue is will LH be nimble enough to take on LCC competitors who fly long range narrow bodies like XLR to cities other than FRA/MUC?

It's pretty costly for a full service high overhead carrier to station sufficient assets at each secondary city to deal with each competitor that pops up, even in its home market.

It seems like EW was an attempt to engage this market, but we are being told that its long haul ops are being wound up.

Revelation wrote:

sabby wrote:

The difference between UK and DE for air travel is DE is much larger and more spread out. It has many big cities with different industries e.g. Finance in FRA, Auto in MUC, Tech in BER/TXL etc. FRA and MUC are not even top 2 in terms of population. In stark contrast, London is one of the largest mega cities in the world and any other cities in UK are far down in terms of industry, population and wealth. There's enough market in London that more than dozen airlines rake in serious money from it. BA being the home carrier and far larger than VS, takes the major pie. BHX,MAN,GLA are majorly dependent on VFR traffic and don't hold a candle in terms of yield from LON.

All good points, but the main issue is will LH be nimble enough to take on LCC competitors who fly long range narrow bodies like XLR to cities other than FRA/MUC?

It's pretty costly for a full service high overhead carrier to station sufficient assets at each secondary city to deal with each competitor that pops up, even in its home market.

It seems like EW was an attempt to engage this market, but we are being told that its long haul ops are being wound up.

They aren't nimble enough and are conservative in fleet planning, which is why Spohr is discarding the smaller aircraft. A321XLR (and NMA if/when it happens) will only help the rivals. Eurowing is a different story though. LH group prefer LH airlines over LX/SN/OS and those are FSC. Running EW properly would mean taking some passengers away from the mainline hubs and they'd never do that. While LH rescued those other airlines in their time of difficulties, I think they are only hindering the true capabilities of LX/OS/SN because they would come at the cost of LH mainline.

Blerg wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

"I could pay less on this Tatl flight but I'll pay more for another flight because I don't want to go on a narrowbody"

-No passenger ever.

Well, I know many passengers who pay more to fly with Lufthansa simply because it is a familiar brand. Not everyone chases the lowest fare on the market. Brand awareness plays a big role.

This is 100% correct. And they are usually German/Austrian too. My wife and her family being some of them

keesje wrote:

I can see LH converting some NEO orders & stationing A321XLR's at Berlin. Not because they like it, but defensively, when Jetblue, AA and Delta XLR's start sailing in.

They won't have to. They have a TATL JV with UA and AC and those airlines will take care of the TATL market from Berlin and other German cities not named Frankfurt and Munich.

sabby wrote:

The difference between UK and DE for air travel is DE is much larger and more spread out.

No the difference is the DE protects LH. Just ask EK how long they've been wanting to expand to other airports in Germany.

Revelation wrote:

All good points, but the main issue is will LH be nimble enough to take on LCC competitors who fly long range narrow bodies like XLR to cities other than FRA/MUC?

They won't have to because that will never happen. The business environment in Germany does not favor the LCC model and that is the case for a reason: to protect LH. Don't you find weird that DY doesn't fly long haul from the second largest market in Europe?

airbazar wrote:

sabby wrote:

The difference between UK and DE for air travel is DE is much larger and more spread out.

No the difference is the DE protects LH. Just ask EK how long they've been wanting to expand to other airports in Germany.

I know, I mentioned it in one of my previous posts. It boggles my mind why DE keeps doing this to protect a private entity. I could understand some govt owned airlines to be given preferential treatment. Are the german politicians in LH's pocket ?

sabby wrote:

airbazar wrote:

sabby wrote:

The difference between UK and DE for air travel is DE is much larger and more spread out.

No the difference is the DE protects LH. Just ask EK how long they've been wanting to expand to other airports in Germany.

I know, I mentioned it in one of my previous posts. It boggles my mind why DE keeps doing this to protect a private entity. I could understand some govt owned airlines to be given preferential treatment. Are the german politicians in LH's pocket ?

You can bet that no government would ever try to mess with a company that is involved with more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs on its home soil and directly linked to the country's image.

LH is national pride and anything that could present a threat to them will be dealt with more or less fair terms by German authorities... the fact that it is a private entity is just a detail. Lufthansa has huge leverage, and they are using it when deemed necessary.

Surprising? Not really.

A direct flight Berlin - Washington, being capitals and stuff, wouldn't that be fantastic?

airbazar wrote:

Don't you find weird that DY doesn't fly long haul from the second largest market in Europe?

Good point.

Maybe LH's untouchable status will change in the post-Merkel world, but I doubt it.

AirwayBill wrote:

You can bet that no government would ever try to mess with a company that is involved with more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs on its home soil and directly linked to the country's image.

LH is national pride and anything that could present a threat to them will be dealt with more or less fair terms by German authorities... the fact that it is a private entity is just a detail. Lufthansa has huge leverage, and they are using it when deemed necessary.

Surprising? Not really.

If you said such things during the Air Berlin bankruptcy, you would have been shouted down by a chorus of LH apologists.

keesje wrote:

A direct flight Berlin - Washington, being capitals and stuff, wouldn't that be fantastic?

Yes, in both senses of the word:

fan·tas·tic
/fanˈtastik/

1.
extraordinarily good or attractive.
"they did a fantastic job"

2.
imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality.
"fantastic hybrid creatures"

Revelation wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Don't you find weird that DY doesn't fly long haul from the second largest market in Europe?

Good point.

Maybe LH's untouchable status will change in the post-Merkel world, but I doubt it.

AirwayBill wrote:

You can bet that no government would ever try to mess with a company that is involved with more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs on its home soil and directly linked to the country's image.

LH is national pride and anything that could present a threat to them will be dealt with more or less fair terms by German authorities... the fact that it is a private entity is just a detail. Lufthansa has huge leverage, and they are using it when deemed necessary.

Surprising? Not really.

If you said such things during the Air Berlin bankruptcy, you would have been shouted down by a chorus of LH apologists.

keesje wrote:

A direct flight Berlin - Washington, being capitals and stuff, wouldn't that be fantastic?

Yes, in both senses of the word:

fan·tas·tic
/fanˈtastik/

1.
extraordinarily good or attractive.
"they did a fantastic job"

2.
imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality.
"fantastic hybrid creatures"

Guess who has a hub at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport & has a big A321XLR backlog.



They should fix something with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, but I guess it would be convenient enough enough politicians to support setting that up. Otherwise Dulles..

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Don't you find weird that DY doesn't fly long haul from the second largest market in Europe?

Good point.

Maybe LH's untouchable status will change in the post-Merkel world, but I doubt it.

AirwayBill wrote:

You can bet that no government would ever try to mess with a company that is involved with more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs on its home soil and directly linked to the country's image.

LH is national pride and anything that could present a threat to them will be dealt with more or less fair terms by German authorities... the fact that it is a private entity is just a detail. Lufthansa has huge leverage, and they are using it when deemed necessary.

Surprising? Not really.

If you said such things during the Air Berlin bankruptcy, you would have been shouted down by a chorus of LH apologists.

keesje wrote:

A direct flight Berlin - Washington, being capitals and stuff, wouldn't that be fantastic?

Yes, in both senses of the word:

Guess who has a hub at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport & has a big A321XLR backlog.

And LGA but the perimeter rule won't allow either

keesje wrote:

Guess who has a hub at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport & the biggest A321XLR backlog.


3630NM as the bird flies, headwinds in winter..

They should fix something with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, but I guess it would be convenient enough enough politicians to support setting that up. Otherwise Dulles..

Guess who has no XLRs on order, nor any A321s at all, markets to corporate customers used to wide body comfort, doesn't need an act of Congress to change the Perimeter Rule, and has an alliance partner to sell seats for it in BER?

If AA can pull off WAS-BER, more power to them, but I have a lot of doubts they will even try, and if they do, that it will last.

At least at PHL they have a bunch of feed to utilize.

UA is a better yet still not great fit.

However, credit where credit is due, AA WAS-BER is a fantastic fantasy!

zkojq wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

For LH, how many TATL cities are even available out of Germany with the economics to support an A-321XLR vs an A-332? I see it more of a plane they could use East & South of Germany, but again how many new markets or existing markets would benefit from this aircraft enough to buy a sub-fleet for LH? Maybe one of the LH owned partner carriers?

I think that the issue with the LR and XLR for Lufthansa is more to do with geography than anything. From Munich or Frankfurt you can't do nearly as many transatlantic routes with the LR and XLR's range than if your hub was at London, Dublin or Paris.

The flip side of this is that more of Middle East and India is reachable, but they're both much lower yielding.

For this reason I'd expect that if LH Group does order XLRs, they'd be placed with Brussels Airlines in Brussels or Eurowings in Dusseldorf.

I agree, the LR/XLR just isn't the right aircraft for LH, for transatlantic operations, at least. They may have some use for them on routes to the middle-East and Africa, but most of that is well served by TK and the ME3, at competitive fares in price sensitive markets. If LH sees an attractive UK/Irish/Western Europe market, it will be for UA to operate on the 757/767 fleet and its eventual successor.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I am sure that the A321 is going to dominate the NB market. Has to be.

In what aspect?

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Don't you find weird that DY doesn't fly long haul from the second largest market in Europe?

Good point.

Maybe LH's untouchable status will change in the post-Merkel world, but I doubt it.

AirwayBill wrote:

You can bet that no government would ever try to mess with a company that is involved with more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs on its home soil and directly linked to the country's image.

LH is national pride and anything that could present a threat to them will be dealt with more or less fair terms by German authorities... the fact that it is a private entity is just a detail. Lufthansa has huge leverage, and they are using it when deemed necessary.

Surprising? Not really.

If you said such things during the Air Berlin bankruptcy, you would have been shouted down by a chorus of LH apologists.

keesje wrote:

A direct flight Berlin - Washington, being capitals and stuff, wouldn't that be fantastic?

Yes, in both senses of the word:

fan·tas·tic
/fanˈtastik/

1.
extraordinarily good or attractive.
"they did a fantastic job"

2.
imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality.
"fantastic hybrid creatures"

Guess who has a hub at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport & has a big A321XLR backlog.



They should fix something with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, but I guess it would be convenient enough enough politicians to support setting that up. Otherwise Dulles..

Except they cannot operate transatlantic flights from Reagan. Dulles would lose any potential connection activity and the case for the route/aircraft combination would be lost.

Revelation wrote:

All good points, but the main issue is will LH be nimble enough to take on LCC competitors who fly long range narrow bodies like XLR to cities other than FRA/MUC?

It's pretty costly for a full service high overhead carrier to station sufficient assets at each secondary city to deal with each competitor that pops up, even in its home market.

It seems like EW was an attempt to engage this market, but we are being told that its long haul ops are being wound up.

LH is under threat by LCC's at their home markets. And unlike London, FRA and MUC (and ZRH) cannot support multiple large carriers. If LH loses the backbone of their strong short haul network at FRA or MUC, they have nothing left to feed their long haul flights with.

The lack of capacity at MUC & ZRH has actually protected them quite well. Ryanair was quick to use the added slots from FRA's fourth runway. I'd expect the same to happen if/when MUC gets their third runway.

3. Your comfort level as a pax does not have anything to do with your plane being NB or WB. It must be horribly uncomfortable to fly in a private jet as they are NB.

- THIS!

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

Guess who has a hub at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport & the biggest A321XLR backlog.


3630NM as the bird flies, headwinds in winter..

They should fix something with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, but I guess it would be convenient enough enough politicians to support setting that up. Otherwise Dulles..

Guess who has no XLRs on order, nor any A321s at all, markets to corporate customers used to wide body comfort, doesn't need an act of Congress to change the Perimeter Rule, and has an alliance partner to sell seats for it in BER?

If AA can pull off WAS-BER, more power to them, but I have a lot of doubts they will even try, and if they do, that it will last.

At least at PHL they have a bunch of feed to utilize.

UA is a better yet still not great fit.

However, credit where credit is due, AA WAS-BER is a fantastic fantasy!

UA is an interesting case to look at. First, you are wrong about this "markets to corporate customers used to wide body comfort". UA's lie flat seating on the transcon and medium haul flights have some of the smallest real estates around. In case studies like BOS-SFO, they were shown to not be able to get any kind of premium on those 8 across lie flat seating, but ended up having to heavily discount J pricing in order to fill so many seats. The end result is they ended up switching 777s off BOS-SFO completely and it's all 757s now. If you look at 767 business seating charge, it's like the business class version of stuffing sardines in a can.

But UA is a great case to see the market size for A321XLR. it doesn't speak much for A321XLR that they got conversions from JetBlue or Indigo since those are already huge A321NEO operators that offer at most one other fleet types. It's slightly more comforting for Airbus that AA has picked A321XLR to replace 757 and probably A330 and 767s, since AA can deal with additional fleet types, but also is a huge A321NEO operator. But UA would be a big deal since it doesn't currently operate A321XLR. When the 757s and 767s go away, UA could go with A321XLR or NMA or more 787s. The first 2 would both involve adding a new fleet types and the associated costs. The last one would not, but it would be big bump in capacity without any reduction in CASM. So I think if Airbus can persuade UA to go with A321XLR, then it will be a huge win. In order for NMA to work, I think Boeing has to win vast majority of cases like UA.

UA will be under huge pressure in 5 years when AA is operating XLR out of PHL/CLT and B6 is operating LR/XLR out of BOS/JFK. The costs for the 757/767s will make them uncompetitive when business class and one way y pricing inevitably crashes from the flood of LCC/ULCCs that will start to do TATL flying.

DL is another interesting case since it's such a large 757 operator and A321/NEO operator. It seems automatic for them to replace 757s with A321XLR, but they are actually one airline that does care about getting a premium on J pricing. That's why they have the Delta One Suites. It would be hard for them to get premium on J pricing for TATL flights using the same product as B6 or AA. And there are quite a few TATL routes currently operated by 757 that would feel immense pressure once B6 gets into those markets with the much lower cost A321LR/XLR. So I could see DL adding NMA if they can get a business class cabin added in there that they can really promote.

mxaxai wrote:

LH is under threat by LCC's at their home markets. And unlike London, FRA and MUC (and ZRH) cannot support multiple large carriers. If LH loses the backbone of their strong short haul network at FRA or MUC, they have nothing left to feed their long haul flights with.

The lack of capacity at MUC & ZRH has actually protected them quite well. Ryanair was quick to use the added slots from FRA's fourth runway. I'd expect the same to happen if/when MUC gets their third runway.

The reason for Ryanair to start flying out of FRA was not the new runway which was opened years before they arrived. FRAPORT decided to offer discounted fees for new airlines which they made use of.
Although LH is a minority shareholder they were denied the same fees which made them move some A380s to MUC.