DWC
Topic Author
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:16 pm

We have had discussions on the merits of the 7M8 & the A321neoLR/XLR, enabling new & longer thin routes as efficient successors to the 757, A310 & IL-62.

I also read some negative opinions on Pax comfort, specially in premium, compared to wider spaces offered by WBs. Well, CAPA just released a laudative article, behind paywall, on lie-flat on Long Haul Narrow Bodies (LHNBs) in J. The public introduction states :

The number of airlines offering lie-flat seats on narrowbody aircraft is increasing rapidly, providing better options for corporates in a wide range of markets. The introduction of new generation narrowbody aircraft, including the A321neoLR and in future the recently launched A321neoXLR, is a game changer as it enables airlines to operate long haul narrowbody routes efficiently in low density premium-focused configurations.

There are currently 13 airlines operating narrowbody aircraft with lie-flat business class seats, compared to only eight airlines 15 months ago.
Five airlines have introduced lie-flat narrowbody aircraft since May-2018, kicking off a new trend which is expected to accelerate as more network airlines take delivery of A321neoLRs, A321neoXLRs, 737 MAX 8s, 737 MAX 9s and 737 MAX 10s.

The five recent adopters are Philippine Airlines (PAL), Panama’s Copa, Saudia, France’s La Compagnie and TAP Air Portugal. Kazakhstan’s Air Astana is planning to put its first lie-flat narrowbody aircraft into service in Oct-2019, followed by Bahrain’s Gulf Air in early 2020.
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/lie-flat-narrowbody-trend-tap-compagnie-air-astana-gulf-air-join-481280

While the likes of La Compagnie will be all J configured, other airlines will add Y at the back, meaning that LHNBs are developping fast in the two big classes. Most won't have lie flat seats, just normal J & Y or Yplus.

I don't wish to speculate too much on what routes can or cannot be opened with them, or which can get more frequency, but rather extend the topic to all LHNB traffic ( thinking of actually coining that acronym ) & how it can be a game changer per the following questions :
1) What distant premium city pairs are yet underserved because LH WBs are just too big ?
2) What medium-sized airlines can grab market share with LHNBs ?
3) What routes will these LHNBs bypass superconnextors like IST, DXB, AUH, DOH, LHR, SIN, PTY ?
4) Will LHNBs affect legacies' LH network ? if so, how ?
5) Industrially, how do these models actually prevent Boeing from profitably launching a MOM ?
With Airbus having the 338neo ( still not selling well ), and the A321neoLR/XLR, they do have on paper an appropirate offer.
6) Other strategic leads ? or thoughts ?
Last edited by qf789 on Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: changed title for clarity
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5819
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Narrow Body LH development thread

Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:19 pm

DWC wrote:
The number of airlines offering lie-flat seats on narrowbody aircraft is increasing rapidly, providing better options for corporates in a wide range of markets. The introduction of new generation narrowbody aircraft, including the A321neoLR and in future the recently launched A321neoXLR, is a game changer as it enables airlines to operate long haul narrowbody routes efficiently in low density premium-focused configurations.


I really object to the game-changer language. A321LR doesn't bring more range (nor a significantly smaller increment of capacity) than a 757-200, and those were being fitted with international business config seating as much as 20 years ago and displayed 4,000 sm miles of range as operated by CO/UA/DL. This isn't an ETOPS 767ER displacing DC-10s. It's not 777ERs replacing 744s TPAC.

https://web.archive.org/web/20000302233 ... rporate_05

A321XLR has more range, sure, but then the question becomes what are these premium routes between the distance of 4,000 sm (practical, reliable range) and 5,000 sm (and with minimal cargo demand)? Is it really a long list for LH (or any other carrier)?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17473
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Narrow Body LH development thread

Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:22 pm

More than any other option available, the A321XLR is a revolutionary game-changer.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:36 pm

Its Range, Capacity and Cost. There might have been similar range and capacity aircraft in the past the question is really about the economics of the situation, with engine advancements maybe we have reached that tipping point or will do in some near future. Engines advanced enough in proven reliability that more than 2 were no longer necessary on more flights, which seems to have doomed 4 engine planes to being museum pieces.

Whats happening is at technical capability improves at certain points a step change is seen at what is now viable. This is not some promise of a new wonder material that may or may not live up to expectations or a future game changing technology, but a steadily advancing as knowledge and techniques improve. We cannot tell where the limit lines are, but what everything else in air travel has shown, if its cheaper it will happen.
 
A380MSN004
Posts: 609
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:41 pm

Regarding the 321 LR. We heard David Neeleman saying the 321LRs performances from TAP are below what the airbus Sales told them.

Do you guys have any feedbacks or numbers about those deceptive figures ?
 
A380MSN004
Posts: 609
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:42 pm

DWC wrote:
We have had discussions on the merits of the 7M8 & the A321neoLR/XLR, enabling new & longer thin routes as efficient successors to the 757, A310 & IL-62.

I also read some negative opinions on Pax comfort, specially in premium, compared to wider spaces offered by WBs. Well, CAPA just released a laudative article, behind paywall, on lie-flat on Long Haul Narrow Bodies (LHNBs) in J. The public introduction states :

The number of airlines offering lie-flat seats on narrowbody aircraft is increasing rapidly, providing better options for corporates in a wide range of markets. The introduction of new generation narrowbody aircraft, including the A321neoLR and in future the recently launched A321neoXLR, is a game changer as it enables airlines to operate long haul narrowbody routes efficiently in low density premium-focused configurations.

There are currently 13 airlines operating narrowbody aircraft with lie-flat business class seats, compared to only eight airlines 15 months ago.
Five airlines have introduced lie-flat narrowbody aircraft since May-2018, kicking off a new trend which is expected to accelerate as more network airlines take delivery of A321neoLRs, A321neoXLRs, 737 MAX 8s, 737 MAX 9s and 737 MAX 10s.

The five recent adopters are Philippine Airlines (PAL), Panama’s Copa, Saudia, France’s La Compagnie and TAP Air Portugal. Kazakhstan’s Air Astana is planning to put its first lie-flat narrowbody aircraft into service in Oct-2019, followed by Bahrain’s Gulf Air in early 2020.
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/lie-flat-narrowbody-trend-tap-compagnie-air-astana-gulf-air-join-481280

While the likes of La Compagnie will be all J configured, other airlines will add Y at the back, meaning that LHNBs are developping fast in the two big classes. Most won't have lie flat seats, just normal J & Y or Yplus.

I don't wish to speculate too much on what routes can or cannot be opened with them, or which can get more frequency, but rather extend the topic to all LHNB traffic ( thinking of actually coining that acronym ) & how it can be a game changer per the following questions :
1) What distant premium city pairs are yet underserved because LH WBs are just too big ?
2) What medium-sized airlines can grab market share with LHNBs ?
3) What routes will these LHNBs bypass superconnextors like IST, DXB, AUH, DOH, LHR, SIN, PTY ?
4) Will LHNBs affect legacies' LH network ? if so, how ?
5) Industrially, how do these models actually prevent Boeing from profitably launching a MOM ?
With Airbus having the 338neo ( still not selling well ), and the A321neoLR/XLR, they do have on paper an appropirate offer.
6) Other strategic leads ? or thoughts ?


Slight precision : La Compagnie is Flying 321 NEO (not LR). They have only 2 ACTs fitted on them
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:59 pm

The 737 MAX 10 essentially takes over the 757's mission already, minus 30 passengers. A MAX 11 in all composites would be a true successor.
http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing75 ... g757specs/
http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing-7 ... fications/

I don't know if we'd really ever WANT a narrowbody as long as the 777-10 with ~270 souls on board (06*450) to take the place of the 767, but I suppose having the world's longest, most efficient narrowbody has a certain cachet to it.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18099
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:22 am

A380MSN004 wrote:
Regarding the 321 LR. We heard David Neeleman saying the 321LRs performances from TAP are below what the airbus Sales told them.

Do you guys have any feedbacks or numbers about those deceptive figures ?

Do you have a link?

Pratt engines have lower fuel burn, but maintenance issues.

CFM engines are more reliable, still need combustors replaced (about the same as the Pratt's).

Could it be the engines? Neeleman bought CFM.

Disclaimer:. I'm a Pratt fan, I'm particular of the GTF. However, all OQE I've seen show the Pratt's due burn a little less fuel.


Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18099
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:36 am

Found a link:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/305388 ... us-a320neo

Pratt beat specification by 0.5%. CFM missed by 2%. So a 2.5% difference in fuel burn. For longer missions, that matters. At the limit, it gives the Pratt about 80nm more range, perhaps more if slightly less reserves are allowed.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18099
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:47 am

I should have added I have no preference of a widebody over a narrowbody. If there were a notable difference, the 767 would have been more popular for TCON. It is the seat. I won't think for a minute between the A330 or A320NEO to Hawaii. I'll buy off airport, schedule, and fare.

If I can avoid a hub or at least avoid one of the bad hubs, I will take a narrowbody any day (unless the price premium is that high) if it is otherwise a good choice.

Now, I believe the proposed 797 will have great economics. The A321xLR will continue to sell. I expect, in a decade, that the vast majority travel out to 3600nm (actual, so more available range required) will be narrowbody.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
A380MSN004
Posts: 609
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:21 pm

lightsaber wrote:
A380MSN004 wrote:
Regarding the 321 LR. We heard David Neeleman saying the 321LRs performances from TAP are below what the airbus Sales told them.

Do you guys have any feedbacks or numbers about those deceptive figures ?

Do you have a link?

Pratt engines have lower fuel burn, but maintenance issues.

CFM engines are more reliable, still need combustors replaced (about the same as the Pratt's).

Could it be the engines? Neeleman bought CFM.

Disclaimer:. I'm a Pratt fan, I'm particular of the GTF. However, all OQE I've seen show the Pratt's due burn a little less fuel.


Lightsaber


Here is the link :

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2019/06/1 ... ic-routes/

On 1 June, TAP launched Airbus A321LR service between Newark and Porto. In reference to the new XLR, which is the latest evolution of the re-engined A320neo and will be the longest-range single-aisle airliner, Neeleman says

“It’s not as important to us as it is to everyone else because the LR’s performance didn’t come in as promised so the XLR was needed to get back that range they promised in the beginning. But fortunately for us, Lisbon is so much closer to the United States [versus] say you’re flying out of Paris, even Madrid, so it doesn’t affect us as much. But there are places we’d like to fly, [like] Chicago with XLR, so it makes some sense for us.”

Would be interesting to get performance feedbacks from 321 LR drivers.
 
klm617
Posts: 4430
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:15 pm

I find it quite interesting that we have come full circle back to planes the size of the 707 and original DC8s.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
User avatar
ACCS300
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:05 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:41 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
The 737 MAX 10 essentially takes over the 757's mission already, minus 30 passengers. A MAX 11 in all composites would be a true successor.
http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing75 ... g757specs/
http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing-7 ... fications/

I don't know if we'd really ever WANT a narrowbody as long as the 777-10 with ~270 souls on board (06*450) to take the place of the 767, but I suppose having the world's longest, most efficient narrowbody has a certain cachet to it.


Already?! Where are the MAX 10's presently flying since all MAX's are grounded and no MAX 10s have every been delivered.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:51 pm

ACCS300 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
The 737 MAX 10 essentially takes over the 757's mission already, minus 30 passengers. A MAX 11 in all composites would be a true successor.
http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing75 ... g757specs/
http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing-7 ... fications/

I don't know if we'd really ever WANT a narrowbody as long as the 777-10 with ~270 souls on board (06*450) to take the place of the 767, but I suppose having the world's longest, most efficient narrowbody has a certain cachet to it.


Already?! Where are the MAX 10's presently flying since all MAX's are grounded and no MAX 10s have every been delivered.

Doom and gloom FUD. The 737 MAX will be flying again within 6 months and will be the safest frame in the skies moving forward. Now, if you want to be particular and pedantic, then ON PAPER only for the time being (until the first frame is delivered in 9-12 months) the 737 MAX 10 is already the spiritual successor to the 757, minus 30 seats.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1531
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:52 pm

klm617 wrote:
I find it quite interesting that we have come full circle back to planes the size of the 707 and original DC8s.


Great comparison. The reality is, AA DL UA AC BA LH AF KL the list goes on, all of the airlines flying long haul are not going from widebodie to narrow bodies. Widebody production has never had higher capacity. The model might work for fringe flying or small operators, but there is no substantial long haul narrow body flying above what there previously was.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:58 pm

airzona11 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
I find it quite interesting that we have come full circle back to planes the size of the 707 and original DC8s.


Great comparison. The reality is, AA DL UA AC BA LH AF KL the list goes on, all of the airlines flying long haul are not going from widebodie to narrow bodies. Widebody production has never had higher capacity. The model might work for fringe flying or small operators, but there is no substantial long haul narrow body flying above what there previously was.


Well, if the 737 MAX fiasco hadn't happened, we'd have 737 MAX 8s flying across the Atlantic already thanks to Air Canada at the very least, and Virgin Australia would be flying into China with them too. We have some distortion in the data for the time being.
 
timh4000
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:14 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:04 pm

I would think anyone that lives near a small airport that usually tops out at 757's would love to have a plane that could non stop or had non stops tcon or tatl/pac. I certainly would, tcon at least. And when ALB was my home airport it's not like they didn't have planes that could do it, they did. But the farthest route was only about halfway across the u.s. sometimes my wife and I would make a day of it and fly nonstop but mostly just take the connection. ALB is not a very busy airport most of the time. You would think being the capital of NYS it would be. How it is they fly 5x per day to PHL yet mostly 1x per day all other routes and so many times even shortish flights I'm still connecting. Or for those that are picky about which airline either multiple stops or a long drive to another airport. But, that's where the money is

Just having the technology is only have the issue. Building a single wide 2 engine plane that can go 5000m is great, but the smaller airports don't have enough people to make it profitable for such flights and the major airports with the WB capability and so many more options for 1 stop/ non stop service. They have the amount of people to make it profitable.

As it is most flights are being flown by planes having far greater range than the flight they are making. Building the 5-6k mile single isle won't change much as things currently stand.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:18 pm

timh4000 wrote:
I would think anyone that lives near a small airport that usually tops out at 757's would love to have a plane that could non stop or had non stops tcon or tatl/pac. I certainly would, tcon at least. And when ALB was my home airport it's not like they didn't have planes that could do it, they did. But the farthest route was only about halfway across the u.s. sometimes my wife and I would make a day of it and fly nonstop but mostly just take the connection. ALB is not a very busy airport most of the time. You would think being the capital of NYS it would be. How it is they fly 5x per day to PHL yet mostly 1x per day all other routes and so many times even shortish flights I'm still connecting. Or for those that are picky about which airline either multiple stops or a long drive to another airport. But, that's where the money is

Just having the technology is only have the issue. Building a single wide 2 engine plane that can go 5000m is great, but the smaller airports don't have enough people to make it profitable for such flights and the major airports with the WB capability and so many more options for 1 stop/ non stop service. They have the amount of people to make it profitable.

As it is most flights are being flown by planes having far greater range than the flight they are making. Building the 5-6k mile single isle won't change much as things currently stand.


Well and I think the Embraer E195 2 and the A220 mostly fix that, though even they have quite a few seats. Heck you can use the Bombardier Q400 to get from Seattle to Philadelphia if you catch enough of the Jet Stream.

I think what Airbus' next clean sheet project will be is a replacement for the janky Canadair and Embraer regional jets that'll finally solve a number of regional airport woes. The incumbents have not delivered innovation in this space for the better part of 30 years.
 
User avatar
Channex737
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:37 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:27 pm

There is one thing that gets me though,
There is all this talk of the A321XLR and to a Lesser extent the LR being game changing, however by all accounts these aircraft don’t exactly have stellar runway performance, so while they are opening new long thin routes, won’t these mostly be from airports that have longer runways, a true game changer in my opinion would be something that could reliably improve the offerings at regional airports by being able to get off a say, roughly 2000M runway and fly 8+ hours without sacrificing payload, and, I’m not convinced that these aircraft can reliably do that yet.
Would that not be a true breakthrough?
Farewell final CEL* 733s
STILL hasn’t managed to spot an A220 :boggled:
Recent flights: LS MAN-NCE, NCE-MAN
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17473
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:27 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
A MAX 11 in all composites would be a true successor.


But that will be comfortably beaten by the all composite A322XLR. An even realer game-changer. :sarcastic:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:33 pm

scbriml wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
A MAX 11 in all composites would be a true successor.


But that will be comfortably beaten by the all composite A322XLR. An even realer game-changer. :sarcastic:

Can't be. The A320 is a wider body, less aerodynamically efficient.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:34 pm

Channex737 wrote:
There is one thing that gets me though,
There is all this talk of the A321XLR and to a Lesser extent the LR being game changing, however by all accounts these aircraft don’t exactly have stellar runway performance, so while they are opening new long thin routes, won’t these mostly be from airports that have longer runways, a true game changer in my opinion would be something that could reliably improve the offerings at regional airports by being able to get off a say, roughly 2000M runway and fly 8+ hours without sacrificing payload, and, I’m not convinced that these aircraft can reliably do that yet.
Would that not be a true breakthrough?


Regional airports need to extend their runways wherever possible, bottom line.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3929
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:34 pm

lightsaber wrote:
A380MSN004 wrote:
Regarding the 321 LR. We heard David Neeleman saying the 321LRv2500s performances from TAP are below what the airbus Sales told them.

Do you guys have any feedbacks or numbers about those deceptive figures ?

Do you have a link?

Pratt engines have lower fuel burn, but maintenance issues.

CFM engines are more reliable, still need combustors replaced (about the same as the Pratt's).

Could it be the engines? Neeleman bought CFM.

Disclaimer:. I'm a Pratt fan, I'm particular of the GTF. However, all OQE I've seen show the Pratt's due burn a little less fuel.


Lightsaber

What exact Pratt Maintenance issues are you talking about? I've worked with and ON PW Engines for 38 years and I've Never seen all these Maintenance issues you are referring to, and I've worked om the JT8D-7/9/15/17a, PW2037, Jt9D-3A/ 7A / 7ACN/ 7R4D / 7R4G/ 4056/ 4062/ 4077/ 4090. and the V2500, those engines were reliable.!! As reliable as the CF6-6/-50 and the CFM-56-2/ -3. I've seen people make statements about PWA engines but Never saw any definitive reasons except what somebody told them. That Boeing is offering them for their large airplanes? GE PAID Boeing for that! And? If they stopped paying then tomorrow? The PW4000 series would be installed the following DAY!! IF the PWA engine is inferior? Then WHY are all the USAF KC-46 tankers having them installed? The GTF will be coming nto it's own here in the near future. WE'LL See what happens then.
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1561
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:24 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
A MAX 11 in all composites would be a true successor.


:white:

I literally have no response. And yet, felt compelled to respond that I had no response.
learning never stops.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:44 am

strfyr51 wrote:
What exact Pratt Maintenance issues are you talking about? I've worked with and ON PW Engines for 38 years and I've Never seen all these Maintenance issues you are referring to, and I've worked om the JT8D-7/9/15/17a, PW2037, Jt9D-3A/ 7A / 7ACN/ 7R4D / 7R4G/ 4056/ 4062/ 4077/ 4090. and the V2500, those engines were reliable.!! As reliable as the CF6-6/-50 and the CFM-56-2/ -3. I've seen people make statements about PWA engines but Never saw any definitive reasons except what somebody told them. That Boeing is offering them for their large airplanes? GE PAID Boeing for that! And? If they stopped paying then tomorrow? The PW4000 series would be installed the following DAY!! IF the PWA engine is inferior? Then WHY are all the USAF KC-46 tankers having them installed? The GTF will be coming nto it's own here in the near future. WE'LL See what happens then.

The GTF1000 series engines have been having compressor blade erosion problems since they hopped aboard the A320 NEO. It won't last forever. In fact it has quieted down in the last 6 months or so. That said, there's plenty of reading material on it.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3221
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:15 am

lightsaber wrote:
I should have added I have no preference of a widebody over a narrowbody. If there were a notable difference, the 767 would have been more popular for TCON. It is the seat. I won't think for a minute between the A330 or A320NEO to Hawaii. I'll buy off airport, schedule, and fare.

If I can avoid a hub or at least avoid one of the bad hubs, I will take a narrowbody any day (unless the price premium is that high) if it is otherwise a good choice.

Now, I believe the proposed 797 will have great economics. The A321xLR will continue to sell. I expect, in a decade, that the vast majority travel out to 3600nm (actual, so more available range required) will be narrowbody.

Lightsaber


curious if you have seen the leeham article on econmics of A321XLR vs A330-800 and B787-800? It had A321XLR having equal or better unit cost given similar configuration than its widebody counterpart. That means one of the following:

- a LCC can have much lower CASM while having similar layout (J to Y ratio) than a legacy with widebody. Since A321XLR would not represent any additional fleet type
- a LCC can have a comparable CASM while having a significantly premium layout (in J to Y ratio) than a legacy with widebody.
- a legacy airline that already operates A320 series can have slightly lower CASM than a similar layout widebody.

Based on this, I don't see how A321XLR does not eventually run A330-CEO, 767s and even A330NEO and B787 off TATL routes. If you can get the same CASM while not adding fleet complexity and have fewer cheap seat to sell, it's a no brainer to get that aircraft.

A321XLR is not just replacing 757. It's going to replace 767 and A330 at some point.

By the same logic, if NMA turns out viable vs A321XLR, it will eventually replace a lot of B789 on longer routes.

You'd think in 5 to 10 years, we will have another technological leap which adds another 500 or more nm to the range of A321XLR. And NMA might eventually get upgrade to have long enough range to do TPAC missions to northeast asia out of west coast. Once that happens, who is still flying A330NEO or B787 on these routes?
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:33 am

tphuang wrote:
curious if you have seen the leeham article on econmics of A321XLR vs A330-800 and B787-800? It had A321XLR having equal or better unit cost given similar configuration than its widebody counterpart. That means one of the following:

- a LCC can have much lower CASM while having similar layout (J to Y ratio) than a legacy with widebody. Since A321XLR would not represent any additional fleet type
- a LCC can have a comparable CASM while having a significantly premium layout (in J to Y ratio) than a legacy with widebody.
- a legacy airline that already operates A320 series can have slightly lower CASM than a similar layout widebody.

Based on this, I don't see how A321XLR does not eventually run A330-CEO, 767s and even A330NEO and B787 off TATL routes. If you can get the same CASM while not adding fleet complexity and have fewer cheap seat to sell, it's a no brainer to get that aircraft.

A321XLR is not just replacing 757. It's going to replace 767 and A330 at some point.

By the same logic, if NMA turns out viable vs A321XLR, it will eventually replace a lot of B789 on longer routes.

You'd think in 5 to 10 years, we will have another technological leap which adds another 500 or more nm to the range of A321XLR. And NMA might eventually get upgrade to have long enough range to do TPAC missions to northeast asia out of west coast. Once that happens, who is still flying A330NEO or B787 on these routes?


I understand Leeham is considered a demigod on this forum, but his word is not law. I'm sorry but his work on the unit cost of the XLR is superficial for the time being. A lot of long-haul travel is subsidized in part by onboard cargo, and the A321XLR has to be pax-heavy just for the "long-haul" tickets to sell at competitive prices. The unit cost on paper may be competitive with the 787, but the flight and sales economics do not purely from that huge central tank if the hybrid cargo economics go out the window. Pure common sense logic rips his arguments apart more often than they support him these days.

The NMA, assuming Boeing doesn't cheap out, will have several advantages over any attempt to make the A320XLR fit for purpose: composite build, latest engines, longest wings they can fit in a D-class gate, and any new wing twist or winglet tech they've come up with since the 777X design was finalized. Whether Boeing goes slim widebody or very long narrowbody may come down to something as trivial as airline preference for boarding times, but at the end of the day I can guarantee you they'll sculpt and thin the walls of the cargo hold religiously to fit the economics of modern times. On cargo the A321XLR will be a pitiful matchup.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13179
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:14 am

The A321NEO is in mass production and all big airlines ordered them or will shortly do so.

On the A321XLR, Airbus seems to have done some magic redesigning fuel tanks and better flaps, while bumping MTOW. Airlines see the potential and vote with their wallets.

They are now sold out for 8-9 years, which is a new challenge. So most XLR's will have to come from conversions, happily $upported by Airbus.

Small airlines, big airlines from all over the world apparently see new opportunity. Boeing is missing in action, because they made different choices.

The NMA has gone quiet. Some love to add superior specification & opportunities to it. In an other dimension for now. And we see big airlines stop waiting.

United is probably looking for the right words demonstrating their full commitment to Boeing, while getting XLR's.

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=4000NM%40 ... 0x360&PM=*
4000NM from Bruxelles.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17473
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:04 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
A MAX 11 in all composites would be a true successor.


But that will be comfortably beaten by the all composite A322XLR. An even realer game-changer. :sarcastic:

Can't be. The A320 is a wider body, less aerodynamically efficient.


Better wings, better engines (PW) and more passengers means the A322XLR beats the 737-11 all ends up. Game over.

ODwyerPW wrote:
I literally have no response. And yet, felt compelled to respond that I had no response.


I don't know what you mean. :wink2:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
inkjet7
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:50 am

Suppose there is a 3600 NM route. For the same airline, would there be a significant price difference per seat if they operated that route using a 321XLR versus a 787-10?
 
JonesNL
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:32 am

One of the aspects I am most interested in is long haul from secondary airports. I always like smaller airports in favor of the big hubs as you get in and out in 30min tops. Also it is usually cheaper to park. But currently the market of long haul from small airports is nonexistent.

So, I imagine Eindhoven/Rotterdam - New York, Dusseldorf Weeze - India, London stansted - Miami. All thin long haul routes.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:38 am

Channex737 wrote:
however by all accounts these aircraft don’t exactly have stellar runway performance, so while they are opening new long thin routes, won’t these mostly be from airports that have longer runways, a true game changer in my opinion would be something that could reliably improve the offerings at regional airports
Would that not be a true breakthrough?


it was, when 757 introduced.
now its a plenty of normal length runway all around the world
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1518
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:13 am

To me the only time when a widebody is more comfortable is when they have a 2/3/2 configuration instead of 3/3/3, because then you can sit as a couple and have an aisle and a window without some other person boxing you in. For the same reason, I also prefer an Embraer to a 737/A320.

If you fly on an airline that has the same PTV system and service on their narrowbodies (such as Turkish Airlines), it really makes no difference except to us aviation geeks just for the novelty factor. Most people really don't care.

I think where this will really make a difference is that we'll see more and more low-cost airlines increasing their footprints and their networks overlapping between Europe, Asia and America, making it possible to self-connect and get around the world very cheaply if you don't mind making extra stops. It will be possible with a fleet of A320s to have a good long and short-haul network.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18099
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:40 am

JonesNL wrote:
One of the aspects I am most interested in is long haul from secondary airports. I always like smaller airports in favor of the big hubs as you get in and out in 30min tops. Also it is usually cheaper to park. But currently the market of long haul from small airports is nonexistent.

So, I imagine Eindhoven/Rotterdam - New York, Dusseldorf Weeze - India, London stansted - Miami. All thin long haul routes.

I agree thin longhaul will be market opening.

But also for major airports (trunk lines) to add the alternative flight time that is only desirable to a smaller number of fliers.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2316
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:04 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
A MAX 11 in all composites would be a true successor.


So how do you think Boeing are gonna persuade the FAA to grandfather that? [/sarcasm]
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:10 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
I understand Leeham is considered a demigod on this forum, but his word is not law. I'm sorry but his work on the unit cost of the XLR is superficial for the time being. A lot of long-haul travel is subsidized in part by onboard cargo, and the A321XLR has to be pax-heavy just for the "long-haul" tickets to sell at competitive prices. The unit cost on paper may be competitive with the 787, but the flight and sales economics do not purely from that huge central tank if the hybrid cargo economics go out the window. Pure common sense logic rips his arguments apart more often than they support him these days.

The NMA, assuming Boeing doesn't cheap out, will have several advantages over any attempt to make the A320XLR fit for purpose: composite build, latest engines, longest wings they can fit in a D-class gate, and any new wing twist or winglet tech they've come up with since the 777X design was finalized. Whether Boeing goes slim widebody or very long narrowbody may come down to something as trivial as airline preference for boarding times, but at the end of the day I can guarantee you they'll sculpt and thin the walls of the cargo hold religiously to fit the economics of modern times. On cargo the A321XLR will be a pitiful matchup.

Yeah I would expect the NMA to be a market success – plenty of the majors have already signalled they want it in their fleets.

But on the principle of sauce for the goose... it's clear the NMA is not being designed for cargo either. If cargo kills the economics of the XLR what makes you imagine it's different for the NMA?
 
JonesNL
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:11 pm

lightsaber wrote:
I agree thin longhaul will be market opening.

But also for major airports (trunk lines) to add the alternative flight time that is only desirable to a smaller number of fliers.

Lightsaber


I agree, it doesn't make sense for the big hubs as it will add to the flight time. I wonder why Airbus has not chosen to market it as a plan with a great fit for secondary airport. All their marketing material are from one big hub to the other...
 
tphuang
Posts: 3221
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:20 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
curious if you have seen the leeham article on econmics of A321XLR vs A330-800 and B787-800? It had A321XLR having equal or better unit cost given similar configuration than its widebody counterpart. That means one of the following:

- a LCC can have much lower CASM while having similar layout (J to Y ratio) than a legacy with widebody. Since A321XLR would not represent any additional fleet type
- a LCC can have a comparable CASM while having a significantly premium layout (in J to Y ratio) than a legacy with widebody.
- a legacy airline that already operates A320 series can have slightly lower CASM than a similar layout widebody.

Based on this, I don't see how A321XLR does not eventually run A330-CEO, 767s and even A330NEO and B787 off TATL routes. If you can get the same CASM while not adding fleet complexity and have fewer cheap seat to sell, it's a no brainer to get that aircraft.

A321XLR is not just replacing 757. It's going to replace 767 and A330 at some point.

By the same logic, if NMA turns out viable vs A321XLR, it will eventually replace a lot of B789 on longer routes.

You'd think in 5 to 10 years, we will have another technological leap which adds another 500 or more nm to the range of A321XLR. And NMA might eventually get upgrade to have long enough range to do TPAC missions to northeast asia out of west coast. Once that happens, who is still flying A330NEO or B787 on these routes?


I understand Leeham is considered a demigod on this forum, but his word is not law. I'm sorry but his work on the unit cost of the XLR is superficial for the time being. A lot of long-haul travel is subsidized in part by onboard cargo, and the A321XLR has to be pax-heavy just for the "long-haul" tickets to sell at competitive prices. The unit cost on paper may be competitive with the 787, but the flight and sales economics do not purely from that huge central tank if the hybrid cargo economics go out the window. Pure common sense logic rips his arguments apart more often than they support him these days.

The NMA, assuming Boeing doesn't cheap out, will have several advantages over any attempt to make the A320XLR fit for purpose: composite build, latest engines, longest wings they can fit in a D-class gate, and any new wing twist or winglet tech they've come up with since the 777X design was finalized. Whether Boeing goes slim widebody or very long narrowbody may come down to something as trivial as airline preference for boarding times, but at the end of the day I can guarantee you they'll sculpt and thin the walls of the cargo hold religiously to fit the economics of modern times. On cargo the A321XLR will be a pitiful matchup.


Your last 2 sentences of your first paragraph makes no sense.

NYC to Western Europe is not that long. There are plenty of cargo capacity already and yields are low compared to passenger traffic. Much of the TATL flights are supported by premium cabin.

Let's say you have BA 787-8. That's fairly premium heavy. And this also goes for A330.
35 J + 25 W + 154 Y

And then you have a comparable A321XLR
28 J + 130 Y/Y+

If the two has the same CASM, it's a no brainer to go for the one with fewer seat to sell. And keep in mind, not having an additional fleet type is another factor to use A321XLR for all the TATL operation.
 
rigo
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:52 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:22 pm

In these discussions about "new" narrowbody long-haul flights, everyone always seems to forget that before the 747, ALL long haul flights, transatlantic included, were flown by narrowbodies, 707s and DC8s.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3010
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:27 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
A MAX 11 in all composites would be a true successor.


But that will be comfortably beaten by the all composite A322XLR. An even realer game-changer. :sarcastic:

Can't be. The A320 is a wider body, less aerodynamically efficient.


Err, no?

The A320 might have a slighty wider fuselage, but the nose is also far more aerodynamic, which means far, far more. The 737s positively ancient, narrow, pointed nose design causes a ton of drag. Also lots of noise.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8498
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:33 pm

Channex737 wrote:
There is one thing that gets me though,
There is all this talk of the A321XLR and to a Lesser extent the LR being game changing, however by all accounts these aircraft don’t exactly have stellar runway performance, so while they are opening new long thin routes, won’t these mostly be from airports that have longer runways, a true game changer in my opinion would be something that could reliably improve the offerings at regional airports by being able to get off a say, roughly 2000M runway and fly 8+ hours without sacrificing payload, and, I’m not convinced that these aircraft can reliably do that yet.
Would that not be a true breakthrough?


The A321 actually has a good runway performance. The A321neo does keep this good performance, with about 2000m at MTOW (95.7t), due to higher thrust engines and therefore lower rotation and takeoff speeds. We will perhaps see a slight increase to 2100m for the LR at 97t MTOW, but the XLR will have new flaps to manage the 101t MTOW.
The good runway performance of the A321 is based on the changed wing and flaps and higher thrust engines, compared to the A320.

So the A321 fulfills your roughly 2000m runway without sacrificing payload demand.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:13 pm

DWC wrote:
Industrially, how do these models actually prevent Boeing from profitably launching a MOM ?
With Airbus having the 338neo ( still not selling well ), and the A321neoLR/XLR, they do have on paper an appropriate offer.


Boeing took B757 orders from 1978 until 2003, but 50% of them were taken after 1986 and before 1992. So the first A321 delivery in January of 1994 was outside of peak sales of B757. Deliveries for the B757 were always ahead of the A321 until the year 2001 when the program was winding down.

Basically I feel that the A321 chipped away at sales of the B757 which made it easier to end the program. The B737-900ER program never came close to beating sales of the A321.

Boeing keeps raising the stakes for the MOM before it is a profitable program. It used to talk about 2000 orders, and now it talks about 3000. The A321XLR (2762 orders already) is going to chip away at MOM sales, and Boeing is unlikely to reach 3000 sales.

I find it shocking that we have reached the point where break even sales are over 2000.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3127
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:47 pm

peterinlisbon wrote:
To me the only time when a widebody is more comfortable is when they have a 2/3/2 configuration instead of 3/3/3, because then you can sit as a couple and have an aisle and a window without some other person boxing you in. For the same reason, I also prefer an Embraer to a 737/A320.

If you fly on an airline that has the same PTV system and service on their narrowbodies (such as Turkish Airlines), it really makes no difference except to us aviation geeks just for the novelty factor. Most people really don't care.

I think where this will really make a difference is that we'll see more and more low-cost airlines increasing their footprints and their networks overlapping between Europe, Asia and America, making it possible to self-connect and get around the world very cheaply if you don't mind making extra stops. It will be possible with a fleet of A320s to have a good long and short-haul network.


Thinking from an architectural perspective (think Christopher Alexander) and my experience flying comfort has a psychological as well physical dimension. True comfort hence entails a sense of 'my space'. 3-3, 3-3-3, 3-5(4)-3 very much convey very little sense of my space. 2-2, 2-3 as narrow body seating can feel more comfortable even with a little less physical space. 2-3-2 and even 2-4-2 inherently roomier than 3-3-3. All that wasted space on a 380 while not necessarily providing more physical space have make passengers more comfortable because there is a lesser sense of crowding. Old 707s and Douglas 8s improved their sense of comfort with 35 inch standard pitch, as well as being more comfortable with that 10% more space than these days in Y.

Easy boarding also creates less stress, and adds to a feeling of comfort. Small planes can be inherently more comfortable from this alone. Airports tend to funnel every passenger through one single point at security, so let me note on 9-11 (day of remembrance) on this 9-11 how much terrorism has contributed to the stress of the everyday experience of flying.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
WeatherPilot
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:51 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:30 pm

While the developments in the efficiently of engines is getting better I think the future is electric. Keep an eye on the development of graphene. This material is truly revolutionary. It’s not only stronger than any other material ever developed but it is super light weight. It’s structure comes at the atomic level where carbon atoms are layered in a single layer and those layers are then layered on top of each other. A graphene sheet the thickness of a sheet of paper is stronger than steel or aluminium and can stop a bullet. Oh and graphene’s most interesting property? It’s a giant super-capacitor. The energy density of Graphene based batteries is insane and they weigh little to nothing. Another great property of a graphene battery is that they can not only deliver large amounts of power in an instant but can also be charged in seconds. Graphene is just amazing stuff. Electric turbofans are the future in aviation.
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1561
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:44 pm

scbriml wrote:
ODwyerPW wrote:
I literally have no response. And yet, felt compelled to respond that I had no response.

I don't know what you mean. :wink2:


for the poster to even give a moments thought to a major materials change and a further stretch of the 737 just ignores so much reality....i didn't know where to begin …. :spit:
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
afterburner
Posts: 1353
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:38 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:51 pm

peterinlisbon wrote:
To me the only time when a widebody is more comfortable is when they have a 2/3/2 configuration instead of 3/3/3, because then you can sit as a couple and have an aisle and a window without some other person boxing you in. For the same reason, I also prefer an Embraer to a 737/A320.

Almost all A330 operators still use 2-4-2 configuration.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13179
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:29 pm

I think with it's larger fuel capacity, improved flaps and 4t MTOW bump, with the A321 XLR Airbus created the blueprint for a moderate payload for range stretch variant. More capacity (250 seats), still very usefull range and cargo capability. I assume it took experienced Boeing engineers only a second to recognize that. Those developements / investments aren't exclusively for the A321XLR.


Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1518
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:58 pm

afterburner wrote:
peterinlisbon wrote:
To me the only time when a widebody is more comfortable is when they have a 2/3/2 configuration instead of 3/3/3, because then you can sit as a couple and have an aisle and a window without some other person boxing you in. For the same reason, I also prefer an Embraer to a 737/A320.

Almost all A330 operators still use 2-4-2 configuration.


Yes, and the 767 has 2/3/2. I flew last year to Baku on an Azal 767 and back on a 787 and I found the 767 more cosy for this exact reason.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1531
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:04 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
I find it quite interesting that we have come full circle back to planes the size of the 707 and original DC8s.


Great comparison. The reality is, AA DL UA AC BA LH AF KL the list goes on, all of the airlines flying long haul are not going from widebodie to narrow bodies. Widebody production has never had higher capacity. The model might work for fringe flying or small operators, but there is no substantial long haul narrow body flying above what there previously was.


Well, if the 737 MAX fiasco hadn't happened, we'd have 737 MAX 8s flying across the Atlantic already thanks to Air Canada at the very least, and Virgin Australia would be flying into China with them too. We have some distortion in the data for the time being.


Air Canada is a good example, but they are shorter distances than some Transcon flights flown today.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 460
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Narrow Body Longhaul development thread

Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:29 pm

Channex737 wrote:
There is one thing that gets me though,
There is all this talk of the A321XLR and to a Lesser extent the LR being game changing, however by all accounts these aircraft don’t exactly have stellar runway performance, so while they are opening new long thin routes, won’t these mostly be from airports that have longer runways, a true game changer in my opinion would be something that could reliably improve the offerings at regional airports by being able to get off a say, roughly 2000M runway and fly 8+ hours without sacrificing payload, and, I’m not convinced that these aircraft can reliably do that yet.
Would that not be a true breakthrough?



Sounds like a 757-200.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos