TAP schedules first non stop A321LR service between Europa and South America

dcajet · Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:15 pm

Effective Oct 29, TAP will fly between Lisbon and Belem (Brazil) with the A321LR, marking the A321 debut over the South Atlantic. It will replace 2 weekly A332 flights; a third weekly flight will be added to compensate for the A321's lower capacity.

https://newsbeezer.com/portugaleng/tap- ... nd-lisbon/

sabby · Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:27 pm

What'st the ETOPS certification of the A321LR ? Judging by the map, this routes needs 150 minutes.

AECM · Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:46 pm

The A321LR has ETOPS 180

lhrnue · Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:12 pm

Long haul with an narrowbody is a strong no from me

330lover · Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:30 pm

lhrnue wrote:
Long haul with an narrowbody is a strong no from me

I'm sure airlines won't care about you flying narrowbody or not

If the seat is the same, same width, same pitch, same service as in a widebody, why not?
There are narrowbodies with more generous seating than high density widebodies!
It's just in your (and lots of others) mind that widebodies are standard more comfy than narrows.

And as a side note: most people on long flights sleep (or try to), so wide or narrow, sleep will be the same

PatrickZ80 · Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:53 pm

330lover wrote:
lhrnue wrote:
Long haul with an narrowbody is a strong no from me

I'm sure airlines won't care about you flying narrowbody or not

If the seat is the same, same width, same pitch, same service as in a widebody, why not?
There are narrowbodies with more generous seating than high density widebodies!
It's just in your (and lots of others) mind that widebodies are standard more comfy than narrows.

And as a side note: most people on long flights sleep (or try to), so wide or narrow, sleep will be the same

I couldn't agree more, the days that you needed a wide body for long haul are in the past. Seats are the same, legroom is the same. I'd fly long haul on a narrow body any day.

Every time this comes up it reminds me of the same thing, a guy that went to buy a car and he thought because he was tall he needed a big car. He went to sit in a big car, but it was rather cramped. The only thing that made the car big was the very large trunk, but the driver seat wasn't actually big. Then he went to sit in the car next to it which was a lot smaller, but it wasn't cramped at all. The driver seat was a lot more spacious, only there was hardly any space in the trunk. However since trunk space wasn't important, he ended up buying the small car which was more spacious than the big car.

Kikko19 · Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:00 pm

Only problem is the pressure of the cabin, that's what I heard. But the a321 is definitely more spacious and silent than a 777 in 10 abreast.

airbazar · Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:18 pm

The second LR appears to be in service now and doing "break-in" runs up to OSL and ORY.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/cs-txb

Kadish · Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:28 pm

330lover wrote:
lhrnue wrote:
Long haul with an narrowbody is a strong no from me

I'm sure airlines won't care about you flying narrowbody or not

If the seat is the same, same width, same pitch, same service as in a widebody, why not?
There are narrowbodies with more generous seating than high density widebodies!
It's just in your (and lots of others) mind that widebodies are standard more comfy than narrows.

And as a side note: most people on long flights sleep (or try to), so wide or narrow, sleep will be the same

I guess people think is safer to fly in a 777 or 350 rather than a 320 or 737...for me the most comfortable plane i ve flown in cattle class was an embraer 145...

MIflyer12 · Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:54 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
330lover wrote:
lhrnue wrote:
Long haul with an narrowbody is a strong no from me

I'm sure airlines won't care about you flying narrowbody or not

If the seat is the same, same width, same pitch, same service as in a widebody, why not?
There are narrowbodies with more generous seating than high density widebodies!
It's just in your (and lots of others) mind that widebodies are standard more comfy than narrows.

There's the perception of spaciousness, and improved circulation via two aisles. U.S. carriers are required to have handicapped-accessible lavs on widebodies per the Air Carrier Access Act. There's more to comfort than seat pitch and seat width.

Aisak · Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:33 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
There is the perception of spaciousness, and improved circulation via two aisles. U.S. carriers are required to have handicapped-accessible lavs on widebodies per the Air Carrier Access Act. There's more to comfort than seat pitch and seat width.

Yes, there is more “air” on a wide tube than on a narrow tube. But airlines don’t get paid to transport air. Then there’s the two aisles thing. “If one is blocked...” probably on a widebody the two aisles are blocked by service carts at the same time.

And about the lavatories... Airbus offers the space flex config to install two lavatories and a small galley I’m the area used by the large back galley. The two lavs can be merged to be accesible.

BlueberryWheats · Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:17 pm

Kikko19 wrote:
Only problem is the pressure of the cabin, that's what I heard. But the a321 is definitely more spacious and silent than a 777 in 10 abreast.

Why would cabin pressure on the A321 be any different to the current A330 on the route?

santi319 · Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:34 pm

I flew on SAS in their 737 from CPH to BOS back then and it felt no different than an A380. Seat is the same. Cabin pressure is for the most part the same (except on the 787 which has a lower one).

Scotron12 · Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:10 pm

GCM shows this route is 3726nm which would be approx 60mins longer flight than the A330. The A330 takes about 7hrs.

Motorhussy · Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:15 pm

santi319 wrote:
I flew on SAS in their 737 from CPH to BOS back then and it felt no different than an A380. Seat is the same. Cabin pressure is for the most part the same (except on the 787 which has a lower one).

I wasn’t aware SK flew the A380.

With regard to NB versus wide-body, while the seat may be the same in long haul configuration, I’d still rather fly on an A330 in Y due to the aisle access. The A32X family is as bad as a 777, A350 or 787 if you’re in a windows seat and need to go to the loo when the other pax are asleep.

questions · Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:29 pm

I’m not a nervous flyer but I am mildly claustrophobic. I always fly F/J on long haul international. I definitely prefer a wide body. While I have plenty of personal space on a 757 or 777 to Europe, for example, the larger cabin of a wide body aircraft makes for a calmer environment for me.

With that said, I’m glad the A321LR is opening up long, thin routes and making others more operationally efficient and profitable.

Kilopond · Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:31 pm

santi319 wrote:
I flew on SAS in their 737 from CPH to BOS back then and it felt no different than an A380. Seat is the same. Cabin pressure is for the most part the same (except on the 787 which has a lower one).

I`m terribly sorry to say so but you are completely wrong about the pressure. It`s npt even your fault but the result of the moronic idea of measuring air pressure in feet.

Fact is: 380, 350, 787 and all the likes provide a cabin pressure of around 0.8 atm during cruise. That still equals to an oxigen deficit of 20% compared to sea level. So a HIGHER pressure should be desired, ideally one that equals 0 feet above sea level. In correct units (and not fhe marketing idiot`s system) that would be 1013 mBar or 1013 hPa or 760 Torr.

santi319 · Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:40 pm

Kilopond wrote:
santi319 wrote:
I flew on SAS in their 737 from CPH to BOS back then and it felt no different than an A380. Seat is the same. Cabin pressure is for the most part the same (except on the 787 which has a lower one).

I`m terribly sorry to say so but you are completely wrong about the pressure. It`s npt even your fault but the result of the moronic idea of measuring air pressure in feet.

Fact is: 380, 350, 787 and all the likes provide a cabin pressure of around 0.8 atm during cruise. That still equals to an oxigen deficit of 20% compared to sea level. So a HIGHER pressure should be desired, ideally one that equals 0 feet above sea level. In correct units (and not fhe marketing idiot`s system) that would be 1013 mBar or 1013 hPa or 760 Torr.

You are right! But the 787 does provide a better pressure:

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing- ... lag-2016-9

DarthLobster · Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:50 pm

A321LR has the range to reach Europa? Wonder if it can make Io or Ganymede...

Kilopond · Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:59 pm

santi319 wrote:
[...]
You are right! But the 787 does provide a better pressure:

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing- ... lag-2016-9

But Boeing`s marketing claims more often than not make their nose grow to a Pinnochio size.

LDRA · Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:43 pm

Cabin pressure is regulated against external atmosphere pressure, so it is delta pressure that is controlled. 787 does allow more delta pressure, but it also tend to fly higher, negating the benefit

SCQ83 · Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:40 am

Would TAP be able to launch new destinations in Northern Brazil with the A321LR?

I recall Joao Pessoa had TACV flights for a while (it seems they are gone). But it seems it is too close to Recife and Natal.

São Luís? Sergipe?

LXwing · Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:50 am

Yes, definitely.
I've heard rumors that João Pessoa (JPA) and Maceió (MCZ) are in the pipeline.
And I would guess that São Luís (SLZ) would be likely too.

c933103 · Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:58 am

AECM wrote:
The A321LR has ETOPS 180

ETOPS 180... Can it carry sufficient fuel reserve to fly EZE-IPC and PPT-IPC? Although I suspect carriers flying the route need the freight capacity of widebodies

aerorobnz · Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:47 am

It should be raised that the flight is still only 8h. That is far less than long-haul, hell it is about the same as HNL-ORD. Anyone who has flown a NEO knows that the engine noise is easily as quiet as an A350 or 787 onboard and has more seat width than a 787 so I definitely don't understand the histrionics regarding narrow-bodies on mid-haul ops.

airbazar · Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:50 am

Scotron12 wrote:
GCM shows this route is 3726nm which would be approx 60mins longer flight than the A330. The A330 takes about 7hrs.

You have the measuring unit wrong. You number is in statute miles not nautical miles.
LIS-BEL at 3,237nm is about 300nm longer than the current OPO-EWR but without the consistent headwinds that the north Atlantic route is subject to. So time-wise both routes should have a very similar duration. OPO-EWR has been clocking at around 7.5hrs with the occasional 8hr day.
The one issue that I see about using this aircraft on Brazilian routes is space for all the luggage. Brazil has a law requiring all airlines to allow 2 free checked bags, but I'm sure TAP has done their math.

peterinlisbon · Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:15 am

Having an extra aisle doesn't make any difference unless you're in the middle seat in the middle row, which is probably not where you'd want to be anyway. If they put in the same type of seats and in-flight entertainment, then as far as most passengers are concerned there's no difference. I've flown on Turkish 737 and 777 and they're basically the same in terms of service and comfort. To me this is great news - it's going to open up a lot of new routes and for TAP there is a lot of potential in NE Brazil.

I wonder if RAM or Iberia could also take advantage of these opportunities, as they could connect many smaller cities in South America to Europe having the feed at the European end already.

peterinlisbon · Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:19 am

Kilopond wrote:
santi319 wrote:
[...]
You are right! But the 787 does provide a better pressure:

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing- ... lag-2016-9

But Boeing`s marketing claims more often than not make their nose grow to a Pinnochio size.

Maybe you've inadvertently stumbled upon a fix for the MAX. They should put that long nose design in the wind tunnel - it should balance out the position of the engines and allow them to remove the MCAS system.

Motorhussy · Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:24 am

peterinlisbon wrote:
Having an extra aisle doesn't make any difference unless you're in the middle seat in the middle row, which is probably not where you'd want to be anyway. If they put in the same type of seats and in-flight entertainment, then as far as most passengers are concerned there's no difference. I've flown on Turkish 737 and 777 and they're basically the same in terms of service and comfort. To me this is great news - it's going to open up a lot of new routes and for TAP there is a lot of potential in NE Brazil.

I wonder if RAM or Iberia could also take advantage of these opportunities, as they could connect many smaller cities in South America to Europe having the feed at the European end already.

I’d much rather be in the window seat in Y on a TP A332 than A321neo, there’s an extra set of knees to get past on the nb.

MoKa777 · Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:26 am

Regarding flight times, how much longer will an A321LR take compared with an A330/787 on a 3000nm-4000nm route?

Will it be significant enough to become a problem? (Especially if 2 airlines operate the same route - one with an A321LR and the other with an A330/787)

Pyrex · Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:38 am

While a narrowbody will never be as comfortable as a widebody (generally speaking, I know individual configurations matter a lot), the advantage for an airline like TAP with a lot of routes flown less than daily is that they can increase frequency materially, providing a much better service. I know a lot of people who fully EWR-OPO regularly and everyone is thrilled that they will be able to fly direct most days (wouldn't be surprised if daily soon), instead of connecting through LIS (aka, gateway to hell).

Pyrex · Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:42 am

While a narrowbody will never be as comfortable as a widebody (generally speaking, I know individual configurations matter a lot), the advantage for an airline like TAP with a lot of routes flown less than daily is that they can increase frequency materially, providing a much better service. I know a lot of people who fully EWR-OPO regularly and everyone is thrilled that they will be able to fly direct most days (wouldn't be surprised if daily soon), instead of connecting through LIS (aka, gateway to hell).

by738 · Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:58 am

yikes mid atlantic turbulence on a small narrowbody with undersized wings... no thanks

Insertnamehere · Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:15 pm

I actually quite like flying TATL across the Atlantic. Boarding and Deplaning times are much lower and the immigration queues are much smaller. Flying Delta back from AGP last year to JFK I was off the plane, through immigration(did not have global entry at the time), and waiting for my bags in about 30 minutes. If I went through MAD or LHR and flew on a 747 or 777 it would be well over an hour.

PW100 · Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:56 pm

peterinlisbon wrote:
Maybe you've inadvertently stumbled upon a fix for the MAX. They should put that long nose design in the wind tunnel - it should balance out the position of the engines and allow them to remove the MCAS system.

Nope. You've got that the wrong way around.
A looong (lizzard) tail though could rebalance the position of the engines . . .

PW100 · Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:58 pm

Motorhussy wrote:
peterinlisbon wrote:
Having an extra aisle doesn't make any difference unless you're in the middle seat in the middle row, which is probably not where you'd want to be anyway. If they put in the same type of seats and in-flight entertainment, then as far as most passengers are concerned there's no difference. I've flown on Turkish 737 and 777 and they're basically the same in terms of service and comfort. To me this is great news - it's going to open up a lot of new routes and for TAP there is a lot of potential in NE Brazil.

I wonder if RAM or Iberia could also take advantage of these opportunities, as they could connect many smaller cities in South America to Europe having the feed at the European end already.

I’d much rather be in the window seat in Y on a TP A332 than A321neo, there’s an extra set of knees to get past on the nb.

Correct. Though generally only Airbus WB would offer you that comfort. Most Boeing WB don't . . .

PW100 · Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:01 pm

by738 wrote:
yikes mid atlantic turbulence on a small narrowbody with undersized wings... no thanks

"Undersize" wings help to reduce turbulence effect thanks to higher wing loading . . .

spinotter · Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:12 pm

DarthLobster wrote:
A321LR has the range to reach Europa? Wonder if it can make Io or Ganymede...

A very narrow-minded and single language oriented comment, you realize? "In classical Greek mythology, Europa (Ancient Greek: Εὐρώπη, Eurṓpē) was a Phoenician princess. The word Europe is derived from her name. Most major world languages use words derived from Eurṓpē or Europa to refer to the continent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

airbazar · Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:21 pm

MoKa777 wrote:
Regarding flight times, how much longer will an A321LR take compared with an A330/787 on a 3000nm-4000nm route?

Will it be significant enough to become a problem? (Especially if 2 airlines operate the same route - one with an A321LR and the other with an A330/787)

There's no need to guess since TP flies both OPO-EWR and LIS-EWR with an A321 and A330 respectively.
Yesterday's OPO-EWR on the A321LR was actually faster than LIS-EWR on the A330.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/TAP ... /LPPR/KEWR
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/TAP ... /LPPT/KEWR
We often make too big a deal out of the aircraft's max cruise speed on this forum without taking into consideration other factors like air traffic congestion and a more economical route and cruise speed selection.

DoctorVenkman · Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:30 pm

spinotter wrote:
DarthLobster wrote:
A321LR has the range to reach Europa? Wonder if it can make Io or Ganymede...

A very narrow-minded and single language oriented comment, you realize? "In classical Greek mythology, Europa (Ancient Greek: Εὐρώπη, Eurṓpē) was a Phoenician princess. The word Europe is derived from her name. Most major world languages use words derived from Eurṓpē or Europa to refer to the continent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

A very dull and pedantic comment, you realize? He was making a joke. On an English language forum.

Thibault973 · Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:24 pm

LXwing wrote:
Yes, definitely.
I've heard rumors that João Pessoa (JPA) and Maceió (MCZ) are in the pipeline.
And I would guess that São Luís (SLZ) would be likely too.

If they couldn’t make Manaus and Campinas work, I really can’t see how they could make Joao Pessoa, which is only 120km from Recife and can barely sustain any domestic flights, work.

incitatus · Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:29 pm

airbazar wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
Regarding flight times, how much longer will an A321LR take compared with an A330/787 on a 3000nm-4000nm route?

Will it be significant enough to become a problem? (Especially if 2 airlines operate the same route - one with an A321LR and the other with an A330/787)

There's no need to guess since TP flies both OPO-EWR and LIS-EWR with an A321 and A330 respectively.
Yesterday's OPO-EWR on the A321LR was actually faster than LIS-EWR on the A330.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/TAP ... /LPPR/KEWR
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/TAP ... /LPPT/KEWR
We often make too big a deal out of the aircraft's max cruise speed on this forum without taking into consideration other factors like air traffic congestion and a more economical route and cruise speed selection.

Interesting comparison but most of the difference in this single case is attributed to taxi times, both before and after the flight. I have seen several examples of A330s crossing the Atlantic on busy routes, with overlapping 777 or 787 aircraft on the same route. In some cases, the faster aircraft take-off later and land earlier - that is - the A330 gets passed mid-flight. Your example shows other factors matters, but cruise speed is pretty important.

cschleic · Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:42 pm

I'll admit that I generally prefer widebodies on TATL trips...easier overall lav access and, if you happen to be in biz class, it's roomier, although the 10-across 777 was tighter (width) than a narrowbody. But I suppose that many a.netters aren't old enough to remember that back in the old days of 707s, DC-8s and VC-10s....all were narrowbodies.

windian425 · Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:44 pm

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... en-459501/

Great article on the 321XLR

Bricktop · Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:04 pm

Kikko19 wrote:
Only problem is the pressure of the cabin, that's what I heard. But the a321 is definitely more spacious and silent than a 777 in 10 abreast.

So therefore certainly superior to the 10 abreast A350 as that camel's nose is now squarely under the tent. Of course there will be some here who will try to argue that 5.61m in the A350XWB > 5.87m in the 77W or 5.97m in the 777X, but the objective reader will just smile at such tribalist sophistry.

As someone who has done many TATL flights on a NB I find it perfectly fine, even on the ancient B757. A modern NB would be also be perfectly fine as long as the seat pitch is decent, so I would not hesitate a second to fly TATL on an A321.

noviorbis77 · Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:04 pm

lhrnue wrote:
Long haul with an narrowbody is a strong no from me

The United 757s are quite comfortable crossing the Atlantic.

Bricktop · Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:12 pm

cschleic wrote:
I'll admit that I generally prefer widebodies on TATL trips...easier overall lav access and, if you happen to be in biz class, it's roomier, although the 10-across 777 was tighter (width) than a narrowbody. But I suppose that many a.netters aren't old enough to remember that back in the old days of 707s, DC-8s and VC-10s....all were narrowbodies.

Indeed. I flew on the first two as a kid, but never got to go on a VC-10. Of course even a NB was big for me then, but the older and MUCH heavier me was fine on a B757. I only ever saw the VC-10 from a distance at JFK, but for looks there hasn't been a better airplane.

indcwby · Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:26 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
330lover wrote:
lhrnue wrote:
Long haul with an narrowbody is a strong no from me

I'm sure airlines won't care about you flying narrowbody or not

If the seat is the same, same width, same pitch, same service as in a widebody, why not?
There are narrowbodies with more generous seating than high density widebodies!
It's just in your (and lots of others) mind that widebodies are standard more comfy than narrows.

And as a side note: most people on long flights sleep (or try to), so wide or narrow, sleep will be the same

I couldn't agree more, the days that you needed a wide body for long haul are in the past. Seats are the same, legroom is the same. I'd fly long haul on a narrow body any day.

Every time this comes up it reminds me of the same thing, a guy that went to buy a car and he thought because he was tall he needed a big car. He went to sit in a big car, but it was rather cramped. The only thing that made the car big was the very large trunk, but the driver seat wasn't actually big. Then he went to sit in the car next to it which was a lot smaller, but it wasn't cramped at all. The driver seat was a lot more spacious, only there was hardly any space in the trunk. However since trunk space wasn't important, he ended up buying the small car which was more spacious than the big car.

Say that when everyone is lined up to use the LAV all in one single file line down the middle. Speaking off, I only saw one seat map showing 2 LAV past the wings and 1 and the tail with 1 in the front. Is that the standard plan?

dcajet · Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:30 pm

c933103 wrote:
AECM wrote:
The A321LR has ETOPS 180

ETOPS 180... Can it carry sufficient fuel reserve to fly EZE-IPC and PPT-IPC? Although I suspect carriers flying the route need the freight capacity of widebodies

You may have meant SCL-IPC. No airline but LATAM flies there.

Lx

CobaltScar · Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:36 pm

How are they going to fit meals for long haul on a narrow body? They can barely provision enough snacks and drinks on a transcon turn currently and regularly run out, and thats without space for meals and ovens. This is why super long haul on a narrow won't work.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net