Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24852
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:26 pm

JonesNL wrote:
85% coverage is quite significant. It explains the popularity quite a lot. The XLR gives airlines an low risk opportunity to play with frequency based on seasonal or trending behavior of passengers on long thick routes.

I think it's a bit misleading since no one would suggest XLR will end up with 85% of the TATL trips in the foreseeable future.
Range isn't the only factor, payload plays a role as well.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9765
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
85% coverage is quite significant. It explains the popularity quite a lot. The XLR gives airlines an low risk opportunity to play with frequency based on seasonal or trending behavior of passengers on long thick routes.

I think it's a bit misleading since no one would suggest XLR will end up with 85% of the TATL trips in the foreseeable future.
Range isn't the only factor, payload plays a role as well.


The biggest advantage of the XLR is that you can easily use it on normal short to medium routes with a very small penalty only, which means it is a very low risk option in your fleet.
 
tomcat
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:05 pm

Polot wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Here is a question. Given that A321LR claims to have 4200 nm in range and it just has 3 ACTs. What is the range for a 160 seat A321NEO will 2 ACT.


Rule of thumb: 400nm per ACT.
Passengers on board don't really matter, it runs out of fuel volume before running out of floor space, even with the ~4 ACT worth XLR for all but really dense configurations.

Best regards
Thomas

Passengers matter in the sense that at some point with a given passenger load you are going to run out of available weight for fuel no matter how much fuel volume you have available (see A333 vs A343). Of course that won’t happen with 160 passengers and 2 ACTs, that is lighter than many existing A321s


Passengers matter to some degree: the bigger the payload, the heavier the plane, hence more lift is required than for a lighter load. More lift translates into more drag, hence a higher fuel consumption for a given stage length. That's why when Airbus performed that 4700nm test flight with an 321N I was so curious to know which was the actual payload onboard. IIRC, I had estimated the payload to be about 7 tons which means that even with 3 full ACTs, the plane had taken off much below its MTOW. (at the time one person answered that the plane took off at its MTOW but didn't actually provided any evidences of that).

In any case, what matters in the end to evaluate the potential of the XLR is the fact that for a given payload, it will fly farther and at a lower cost than the 757 which is the current benchmark for the long and thin routes. The potential of the XLR is thus substantial.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13782
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:33 pm

tomcat wrote:
Polot wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Rule of thumb: 400nm per ACT.
Passengers on board don't really matter, it runs out of fuel volume before running out of floor space, even with the ~4 ACT worth XLR for all but really dense configurations.

Best regards
Thomas

Passengers matter in the sense that at some point with a given passenger load you are going to run out of available weight for fuel no matter how much fuel volume you have available (see A333 vs A343). Of course that won’t happen with 160 passengers and 2 ACTs, that is lighter than many existing A321s


Passengers matter to some degree: the bigger the payload, the heavier the plane, hence more lift is required than for a lighter load. More lift translates into more drag, hence a higher fuel consumption for a given stage length.


Of course, but as long as you don't have to offload fuel to lift that payload, the effect is rather minuscule. For the XLR that point will be somewhere around 200~210 passengers.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24852
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:52 pm

seahawk wrote:
The biggest advantage of the XLR is that you can easily use it on normal short to medium routes with a very small penalty only, which means it is a very low risk option in your fleet.

tomcat wrote:
In any case, what matters in the end to evaluate the potential of the XLR is the fact that for a given payload, it will fly farther and at a lower cost than the 757 which is the current benchmark for the long and thin routes. The potential of the XLR is thus substantial.

I agree the potential of the XLR is substantial, I just don't think it will approach 85% of the TATL trips in the foreseeable future. To do so it would have to push an awful large number of wide bodies off the TATL routes, and when you consider the fact that hubs will still play their role and cargo does matter to many airlines we will still have a large number of wide bodies on the route. XLR makes sense for thinner routes but once you can fill a people bomber like A339 or 78X it quite often makes sense to up the gauge.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tomcat
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:31 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The biggest advantage of the XLR is that you can easily use it on normal short to medium routes with a very small penalty only, which means it is a very low risk option in your fleet.

tomcat wrote:
In any case, what matters in the end to evaluate the potential of the XLR is the fact that for a given payload, it will fly farther and at a lower cost than the 757 which is the current benchmark for the long and thin routes. The potential of the XLR is thus substantial.

I agree the potential of the XLR is substantial, I just don't think it will approach 85% of the TATL trips in the foreseeable future. To do so it would have to push an awful large number of wide bodies off the TATL routes, and when you consider the fact that hubs will still play their role and cargo does matter to many airlines we will still have a large number of wide bodies on the route. XLR makes sense for thinner routes but once you can fill a people bomber like A339 or 78X it quite often makes sense to up the gauge.


Actually, the longer the range of the XLR, the better it will be able to compliment the widebodies on routes with excess of belly cargo capacity which is far from being optimized at the moment. So on any given route, the widebody capacity could be limited to just satisfy the demand of cargo while the excess of passenger demand would be flown on the XLR.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24852
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Wed Dec 11, 2019 8:01 pm

tomcat wrote:
Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The biggest advantage of the XLR is that you can easily use it on normal short to medium routes with a very small penalty only, which means it is a very low risk option in your fleet.

tomcat wrote:
In any case, what matters in the end to evaluate the potential of the XLR is the fact that for a given payload, it will fly farther and at a lower cost than the 757 which is the current benchmark for the long and thin routes. The potential of the XLR is thus substantial.

I agree the potential of the XLR is substantial, I just don't think it will approach 85% of the TATL trips in the foreseeable future. To do so it would have to push an awful large number of wide bodies off the TATL routes, and when you consider the fact that hubs will still play their role and cargo does matter to many airlines we will still have a large number of wide bodies on the route. XLR makes sense for thinner routes but once you can fill a people bomber like A339 or 78X it quite often makes sense to up the gauge.


Actually, the longer the range of the XLR, the better it will be able to compliment the widebodies on routes with excess of belly cargo capacity which is far from being optimized at the moment. So on any given route, the widebody capacity could be limited to just satisfy the demand of cargo while the excess of passenger demand would be flown on the XLR.

To me the question is if the "complimentary" component can/will reach 85% of TATL flights, and I think the answer is no.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:22 pm

Revelation wrote:
I agree the potential of the XLR is substantial, I just don't think it will approach 85% of the TATL trips in the foreseeable future. To do so it would have to push an awful large number of wide bodies off the TATL routes, and when you consider the fact that hubs will still play their role and cargo does matter to many airlines we will still have a large number of wide bodies on the route. XLR makes sense for thinner routes but once you can fill a people bomber like A339 or 78X it quite often makes sense to up the gauge.


I never suggested that 85% of TATL flights would switch to A321XLR. I merely said that 85% of TATL flights on the 3 US carriers were flying 5000 statute miles or less which means they have range potential.

We might consider LHR will be off limits to the A321XLR. But out of the 1464 flights that went to LHR from US airports, a handful flew with relatively small widebodies.

Number of flights - average number of seats
American Airlines Inc.
9 242 Airbus Industrie A330-200
Delta Air Lines Inc.
112 223 Boeing 767-300/300ER
United Air Lines Inc.
31 169 Boeing 757-200
212 206 Boeing 767-300/300ER

Hawaiian Airlines has 17 A320neos, but they still fly most of their 24 A330s to the major hubs of HNL to LAX, LAS, SEA, SFO, and PHX. They have freed up the larger jets to fly to International Destinations and JFK and BOS.

If they put a pre-clearance facility in one or more aiports in the UK (possibly Stansted), there might develop a whole new market from mid-size US airports to the UK using the smaller jet. There already is pre-clearance facilities at Dublin and Shannon in Ireland,
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:38 pm

BTW on the order/delivery/operating spreadsheet that Airbus posts every month they don't specify which of the A321neos are LR version.

Of the 41 A321neos that are being operated by North American Airline before 1 December, I believe that only the 2 being operated by Air Transat are long range versions. Is that correct?

9 AMERICAN AIRLINES
4 JETBLUE AIRWAYS
10 VIRGIN AMERICA→ ALASKA
16 HAWAIIAN AIRLINES
2 AIR TRANSAT
41 North America
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9765
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:13 am

Revelation wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Revelation wrote:

I agree the potential of the XLR is substantial, I just don't think it will approach 85% of the TATL trips in the foreseeable future. To do so it would have to push an awful large number of wide bodies off the TATL routes, and when you consider the fact that hubs will still play their role and cargo does matter to many airlines we will still have a large number of wide bodies on the route. XLR makes sense for thinner routes but once you can fill a people bomber like A339 or 78X it quite often makes sense to up the gauge.


Actually, the longer the range of the XLR, the better it will be able to compliment the widebodies on routes with excess of belly cargo capacity which is far from being optimized at the moment. So on any given route, the widebody capacity could be limited to just satisfy the demand of cargo while the excess of passenger demand would be flown on the XLR.

To me the question is if the "complimentary" component can/will reach 85% of TATL flights, and I think the answer is no.


I think the 85% is more a way to describe the possibilities, as a huge number of routes is already well established with many easily filling A380 and 747s or 777 multiple times a day. But when it comes to secondary airports it is a huge chance with a very limited risk.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:18 am

Revelation wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
85% coverage is quite significant. It explains the popularity quite a lot. The XLR gives airlines an low risk opportunity to play with frequency based on seasonal or trending behavior of passengers on long thick routes.

I think it's a bit misleading since no one would suggest XLR will end up with 85% of the TATL trips in the foreseeable future.
Range isn't the only factor, payload plays a role as well.


I agree completely. XLR will never reach that number just like Paco mentioned. It would already be a great feat if it reached 20%. My comment was merely to underline that it can be used on a huge amount of existing TATL routes for additional usage and not only the long and thin routes that is being touted. Which explains the popularity a lot; it gives an airliner a lot of flexibility at really low risk. You can use it on short haul or long haul and get great CASM on either one.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:24 am

Seahawk beat me to it.
I forget to add: it also allows NB (u)lcc to compete on TATL routes for the first time in history. Long term impact of this will be much bigger than implementations of legacy carriers.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24852
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:07 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
I never suggested that 85% of TATL flights would switch to A321XLR. I merely said that 85% of TATL flights on the 3 US carriers were flying 5000 statute miles or less which means they have range potential.

Fair enough, it serves as an upper bound. I knew you weren't reading too much in to it, but I was concerned others were. Since you seem to enjoy crunching numbers, can you determine the percentage of commercial TATL flights that are now flown by narrow bodies vs wide bodies, which we can view as being a lower bound since most of us expect TATL narrow body flying to increase rather than decrease?

seahawk wrote:
But when it comes to secondary airports it is a huge chance with a very limited risk.

I'm not sure I'd say there is very limited risk. I've seen flights to secondary New England airports like BDL and PVD struggle. You still need a strong load factor averaged across the entire year for a route to succeed, even in an aircraft as efficient as A321XLR. You also need a high utilization factor to pay off a new airplane, you can't just park it during the weaker parts of the year. We saw WOW fail due to over expansion. We see DY struggling. We see the majors mostly stick to primary airports or demand subsidies to serve secondary airports ( ref: BA flying BWI-LON, IE flying BDL-DUB ). We have some proof of concept flights working out OK (AC from Candian Maritime cities to LON). The market needs to grow at its own rate. Aircraft with lower trip costs will certainly help, yet the market will still have its challenges.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:18 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
But when it comes to secondary airports it is a huge chance with a very limited risk.

I'm not sure I'd say there is very limited risk.


I don't think you got what he meant.

An airline buys 5x A321XLR, puts them on various TATL flights to secondary airports. Only 2 of those routes prove to be sustainable.

The airline then redeploys 3 of those A321s within its regular single aisle fleet, replacing older less fuel efficient aircraft as needs.

The airline has thus opened up 2 new TATL routes at very little long term exposure to its balance sheet. That is very limited risk.


Conversely, an airline (say they fly red and blue aircraft and are called Nerwegen) wants to also explore TATL to secondary airports. It buys 5x A338s (or 339s) to do so.

Now, due to the higher capacity aircraft, only 1 route is sustainable.

Nerwegen is now faced with 4 widebody aircraft for which they have little use within their regular network. That is not very limited risk.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9765
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:35 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
But when it comes to secondary airports it is a huge chance with a very limited risk.

I'm not sure I'd say there is very limited risk.


I don't think you got what he meant.

An airline buys 5x A321XLR, puts them on various TATL flights to secondary airports. Only 2 of those routes prove to be sustainable.

The airline then redeploys 3 of those A321s within its regular single aisle fleet, replacing older less fuel efficient aircraft as needs.

The airline has thus opened up 2 new TATL routes at very little long term exposure to its balance sheet. That is very limited risk.


Conversely, an airline (say they fly red and blue aircraft and are called Nerwegen) wants to also explore TATL to secondary airports. It buys 5x A338s (or 339s) to do so.

Now, due to the higher capacity aircraft, only 1 route is sustainable.

Nerwegen is now faced with 4 widebody aircraft for which they have little use within their regular network. That is not very limited risk.


Exactly what I meant - thank you
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8478
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:42 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
But when it comes to secondary airports it is a huge chance with a very limited risk.

I'm not sure I'd say there is very limited risk.


I don't think you got what he meant.

An airline buys 5x A321XLR, puts them on various TATL flights to secondary airports. Only 2 of those routes prove to be sustainable.

The airline then redeploys 3 of those A321s within its regular single aisle fleet, replacing older less fuel efficient aircraft as needs.

The airline has thus opened up 2 new TATL routes at very little long term exposure to its balance sheet. That is very limited risk.


Conversely, an airline (say they fly red and blue aircraft and are called Nerwegen) wants to also explore TATL to secondary airports. It buys 5x A338s (or 339s) to do so.

Now, due to the higher capacity aircraft, only 1 route is sustainable.

Nerwegen is now faced with 4 widebody aircraft for which they have little use within their regular network. That is not very limited risk.


I would like to add a couple more points.

If TATL routes are not viable, XLR operators can use those frames on high-density short-haul routes, it is not a dead investment.

Every new P2P eats away H2H traffic.
WB operator has to park those frames and slowly drown in debt.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24852
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 2:08 pm

seahawk wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I'm not sure I'd say there is very limited risk.


I don't think you got what he meant.

An airline buys 5x A321XLR, puts them on various TATL flights to secondary airports. Only 2 of those routes prove to be sustainable.

The airline then redeploys 3 of those A321s within its regular single aisle fleet, replacing older less fuel efficient aircraft as needs.

The airline has thus opened up 2 new TATL routes at very little long term exposure to its balance sheet. That is very limited risk.


Conversely, an airline (say they fly red and blue aircraft and are called Nerwegen) wants to also explore TATL to secondary airports. It buys 5x A338s (or 339s) to do so.

Now, due to the higher capacity aircraft, only 1 route is sustainable.

Nerwegen is now faced with 4 widebody aircraft for which they have little use within their regular network. That is not very limited risk.


Exactly what I meant - thank you

There are so many different cases to consider.

Sure, if you are a healthy incumbent already used to operating internationally, adding a few XLRs to try out a few thin routes is relatively low exposure.

Yet I'll point out it seemed to take IE a lot of deliberation and negotiation to launch BDL-DUB even after it was granted subsidies.

They mostly fly 757 on that route so XLR would reduce fuel expense greatly but would also come with capital cost the paid-for 757 does not have.

As usual there is a tipping point where things make sense or they don't make sense.

If you are a predominantly domestic narrow body operator not used to operating internationally, taking the plunge to operate TATL is a big risk.

Look at how deliberate B6 is being when trying to launch TATL services.

And if you are a new entrant such as WOW or DY you may need wide body capacity to bring in enough revenue to make your business case close.

It's easier for the big boys to flood the market with enough cheap seats to sink your operation if you fly low capacity planes on similar routes.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 2:57 pm

Delivery rate of B767 by engine, number, first to last delivery date
767-200
GE 78 25. Oct. 1982 1. Apr. 1994
PW 50 19. Aug. 1982 12. Nov. 1985
767-200ER
GE 73 3. Sep. 1985 31. Mar. 2008
PW 48 26. Mar. 1984 24. Aug. 1993
767-300
GE 79 7. Nov. 1986 28. Nov. 1999
PW 25 25. Sep. 1986 23. Aug. 2001
767-300ER
GE 357 19. Feb. 1988 25. Jun. 2013
PW 195 29. Apr. 1988 26. Jun. 2014
RR 31 8. Feb. 1990 29. Jun. 1998


JonesNL wrote:
I agree completely. XLR will never reach that number just like Paco mentioned. It would already be a great feat if it reached 20%. My comment was merely to underline that it can be used on a huge amount of existing TATL routes for additional usage and not only the long and thin routes that is being touted. Which explains the popularity a lot; it gives an airliner a lot of flexibility at really low risk. You can use it on short haul or long haul and get great CASM on either one.


The B767 took about 5 years after ETOPS began until it was carrying more passengers TATL than all the 3 and 4 engine jets combined (roughly 1985-1990). The fuel consumption advantage was so strong of a twin engine jet compared to 3 or 4 engines.

The XLR does not offer a similar advantage to the A330, just a smaller size. So you can expect replacements (primarily B757s but some B767s) and new thin routes. I agree with the 20% guesstimate in 5 years.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 3:13 pm

Revelation wrote:
Since you seem to enjoy crunching numbers, can you determine the percentage of commercial TATL flights that are now flown by narrow bodies vs wide bodies, which we can view as being a lower bound since most of us expect TATL narrow body flying to increase rather than decrease?


The percentage of TATL flown by B752 only is 8.6%.
The percentage of TATL flown by Boeing 757-200 (171 seats average) and Boeing 767-300/300ER (190 seats average) is 33.6%

I think we have to include the smaller B767 as potential replacements by the XLR, as they fly an average of 3856 statute miles on TATL.

I am only talking about AA/UA/DL and not foreign airlines.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 3:18 pm

incitatus wrote:
The potential for a narrow body with more range than the 757 is vast. That has been evident from how airlines have used the 757 on Transatlantic routes for which it had marginal range, such as Newark-Berlin. Boeing has no one but themselves to blame for making such a huge strategic mistake. But I do think this market is large enough for two products - and the NMA is not one of them.

Yup. It'll have to be the 737 MAX or its replacement. The NMA is dead now. As long as GE delivers another PIP, the 788 will have the economics for the upper half of that market, even if the weight isn't ideal. That just leaves the MAX 8/7 for the low end and the A321 for the lower mid.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9765
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:58 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

I don't think you got what he meant.

An airline buys 5x A321XLR, puts them on various TATL flights to secondary airports. Only 2 of those routes prove to be sustainable.

The airline then redeploys 3 of those A321s within its regular single aisle fleet, replacing older less fuel efficient aircraft as needs.

The airline has thus opened up 2 new TATL routes at very little long term exposure to its balance sheet. That is very limited risk.


Conversely, an airline (say they fly red and blue aircraft and are called Nerwegen) wants to also explore TATL to secondary airports. It buys 5x A338s (or 339s) to do so.

Now, due to the higher capacity aircraft, only 1 route is sustainable.

Nerwegen is now faced with 4 widebody aircraft for which they have little use within their regular network. That is not very limited risk.


Exactly what I meant - thank you

There are so many different cases to consider.

Sure, if you are a healthy incumbent already used to operating internationally, adding a few XLRs to try out a few thin routes is relatively low exposure.

Yet I'll point out it seemed to take IE a lot of deliberation and negotiation to launch BDL-DUB even after it was granted subsidies.

They mostly fly 757 on that route so XLR would reduce fuel expense greatly but would also come with capital cost the paid-for 757 does not have.

As usual there is a tipping point where things make sense or they don't make sense.

If you are a predominantly domestic narrow body operator not used to operating internationally, taking the plunge to operate TATL is a big risk.

Look at how deliberate B6 is being when trying to launch TATL services.

And if you are a new entrant such as WOW or DY you may need wide body capacity to bring in enough revenue to make your business case close.

It's easier for the big boys to flood the market with enough cheap seats to sink your operation if you fly low capacity planes on similar routes.


If you are not operating long haul missions the overall exposure is naturally higher and to be honest a few XLRs do make you a viable competitor on the long haul market. the costs for getting your airline ready for that adventure (from ETOPS to connecting flights and so on) is still huge. But for existing long haul operators of medium to big size, it offers many options for new connections at a very limited risk.

But in general it allows airlines many options. If you are just operating Airbus A320s series planes, you can now fly into South America a lot further. If you are operating them in Europe, it opens routes in Africa, the Middle East, India and central Asia. In Asia it opens many new route options as well. Even from Australia it opens new options within Asia.

It is not the holy grail of the industry, but the ease with which it can be intergrated into the medium to short haul fleets, is a big advantage over a more specialized competitor.
 
User avatar
ChrisNH38
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:53 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
Range isn't the only factor, payload plays a role as well.


The number of bathrooms is a factor, too, the longer the plane is aloft.
https://my.flightradar24.com/ChrisNH
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:31 pm

seahawk wrote:
It is not the holy grail of the industry, but the ease with which it can be intergrated into the medium to short haul fleets, is a big advantage over a more specialized competitor.


The B747 had it's best year for orders in 1990 when the airlines saw what the B747-400 could do for them. That is an airline type which had it's best year on the 25th year of the program.

The XLR version is pushing A321neo orders in 2019 to their highest levels in the nine years that the program has been operating.
119 81 341 183 301 363 418 155 439

That may not be a holy grail, but it is very impressive nonetheless.

I think it may be the first model jet to be purchased by all 11 US mainline carriers. Spirit is the next logical airline to order the A321neo, and Allegiant probably will as well. Sun Country with it's focus on vacation destinations, may change their fleet. Lastly Southwest is going to feel some pressure to diversify its fleet.

A321neo orders (not counting leased jets)
67 FRONTIER AIRLINES
120 AMERICAN AIRLINES
100 DELTA AIR LINES
85 JETBLUE AIRWAYS
50 UNITED AIRLINES
10 VIRGIN AMERICA→ ALASKA
16 HAWAIIAN AIRLINES
 
YIMBY
Posts: 724
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:42 pm

To get an idea of possible and reasonable routes

What are the biggest cities/airports both sides that have reasonably available slots and gates in reasonable hours?
 
parrotta
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:51 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:16 pm

it will have a huge impact on US-EU traffic for sure. if LCCs and ULCCs will use them as they already plan, Wizz for sure will fly LTN-US, BUD-US, WAW-US for sure. big demand on cheap tickets
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:57 pm

A few things to consider: 1) gcmap routings are the ideal, but weather patterns & prevailing winds can cause a reroute that adds substantial distance (and duration) to the flight. 2) A comparison of cruise speed and ceiling with a 788, which is Mach .85 & 43,000 Ft., the A321XLR is 8% slower at Mach .78 cruise and will be flying lower @ 39,000 Ft. 3) Even at 4,500nm max still air range, given traffic congestion and weather conditions in the NE & Midwest US during the Winter months A321XLR's might still be stopping off at Gander or Bangor for a drink, much like the 757's do now.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 1:03 am

parrotta wrote:
it will have a huge impact on US-EU traffic for sure. if LCCs and ULCCs will use them as they already plan, Wizz for sure will fly LTN-US, BUD-US, WAW-US for sure. big demand on cheap tickets


It seems to far to fly from Warsaw or Budapest to Denver. Maybe they are planning a one fuel stop at Luton Airport.
DEN LTN 4,047 nm
DEN WAW 4,611 nm
DEN BUD 4,786 nm

IndiGo partners (Wizz Air, Frontier, Jetsmart, Volaris) is about to go into partnership with Enerjet who is based in Calgary Canada (YYC) which is roughly 300-400 nm closer.
YYC LTN 3,783 nm
YYC WAW 4,213 nm
YYC BUD 4,432 nm

Distance from Luton to Focus cities Frontier (nm)
TTN 3046
PHL 3076
CLE 3246
ORD 3427
CVG 3437
ATL 3655
MIA 3845
LAS 4531

Distance from Budapest to Focus cities Frontier (nm)
TTN 3848
PHL 3879
CLE 4039
ORD 4206
CVG 4230
ATL 4457
MIA 4651
LAS 5240
 
astuteman
Posts: 7184
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:07 am

PacoMartin wrote:
The XLR version is pushing A321neo orders in 2019 to their highest levels in the nine years that the program has been operating.
119 81 341 183 301 363 418 155 439

That may not be a holy grail, but it is very impressive nonetheless.


As a point of order, the A321NEO order book stood a 2,292 in January this year.
As of end November it stood a 3,201.
It has also added at least another 60 orders this month on top of that.

Which means that the A321NEO order book will have advanced by at least 969 orders this year, including conversions from A320 NEO

It is not impossible that A321 NEO orders/conversions could pass 1,000 frames for the year in 2019 ... :)
THE success story of 2019 IMO

Rgds
 
JonesNL
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 2:38 pm

astuteman wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
The XLR version is pushing A321neo orders in 2019 to their highest levels in the nine years that the program has been operating.
119 81 341 183 301 363 418 155 439

That may not be a holy grail, but it is very impressive nonetheless.


As a point of order, the A321NEO order book stood a 2,292 in January this year.
As of end November it stood a 3,201.
It has also added at least another 60 orders this month on top of that.

Which means that the A321NEO order book will have advanced by at least 969 orders this year, including conversions from A320 NEO

It is not impossible that A321 NEO orders/conversions could pass 1,000 frames for the year in 2019 ... :)
THE success story of 2019 IMO

Rgds


And most of the orders sinds June have been for the XLR variant, but the numbers are a bit skewed as orders can spike after introduction of a New type.
 
Pendennis
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:36 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:02 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
parrotta wrote:
it will have a huge impact on US-EU traffic for sure. if LCCs and ULCCs will use them as they already plan, Wizz for sure will fly LTN-US, BUD-US, WAW-US for sure. big demand on cheap tickets


It seems to far to fly from Warsaw or Budapest to Denver. Maybe they are planning a one fuel stop at Luton Airport.
DEN LTN 4,047 nm
DEN WAW 4,611 nm
DEN BUD 4,786 nm

IndiGo partners (Wizz Air, Frontier, Jetsmart, Volaris) is about to go into partnership with Enerjet who is based in Calgary Canada (YYC) which is roughly 300-400 nm closer.
YYC LTN 3,783 nm
YYC WAW 4,213 nm
YYC BUD 4,432 nm

Distance from Luton to Focus cities Frontier (nm)
TTN 3046
PHL 3076
CLE 3246
ORD 3427
CVG 3437
ATL 3655
MIA 3845
LAS 4531

Distance from Budapest to Focus cities Frontier (nm)
TTN 3848
PHL 3879
CLE 4039
ORD 4206
CVG 4230
ATL 4457
MIA 4651
LAS 5240


Can I remind our North American cousins that Luton (LTN) has a single runway 2162m long; great plane the A321XLR looks like being, it wil be no B757 when it comes to airfield performance.
 
arcticcruiser
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:16 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:02 pm

FLALEFTY wrote:
A few things to consider: 1) gcmap routings are the ideal, but weather patterns & prevailing winds can cause a reroute that adds substantial distance (and duration) to the flight. 2) A comparison of cruise speed and ceiling with a 788, which is Mach .85 & 43,000 Ft., the A321XLR is 8% slower at Mach .78 cruise and will be flying lower @ 39,000 Ft. 3) Even at 4,500nm max still air range, given traffic congestion and weather conditions in the NE & Midwest US during the Winter months A321XLR's might still be stopping off at Gander or Bangor for a drink, much like the 757's do now.


An A321XLR will rarely be seen at FL390 unless positioning. It will start a long flight (MTOW departure) at FL290-300, climbing eventually to FL360-370 at best. It has really outgrown the wing.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:05 pm

DHS Preclearance facilities are in Dublin and Shannon in Ireland; Aruba; Freeport and Nassau in The Bahamas; Bermuda; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; and Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Winnipeg in Canada.

The longest nonstop to Aruba at the moment is Chicago. The XLR may open up possibilities from the West Coast
AUA ORD 1,997 nm
AUA SFO 3,173 nm
AUA SEA 3,346 nm

I think that pre-clearance facilities at Edinburgh, Manchester or Belfast will upon up LCC routes to Britain.
The Brits enjoy low cost vacations on the Iberian peninsula or Morocco which could become available to Americans.
ATL LIS 3,564 nm Lisbon
ATL CMN 3,756 nm Casablanca
ATL MAD 3,767 nm Madrid
ATL AGP 3,816 nm Malaga
 
SanDiegoLover
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:24 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:07 pm

I’m excited for the XLR. It will facilitate airlines like JetBlue, Spirit, and others to launch European and more Central/South American flying from the USA, putting downward pressure on airfares.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:09 pm

Pendennis wrote:
Can I remind our North American cousins that Luton (LTN) has a single runway 2162m long; great plane the A321XLR looks like being, it wil be no B757 when it comes to airfield performance.

Good point, STN is 3,049m=10,003'.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2580
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:12 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Since you seem to enjoy crunching numbers, can you determine the percentage of commercial TATL flights that are now flown by narrow bodies vs wide bodies, which we can view as being a lower bound since most of us expect TATL narrow body flying to increase rather than decrease?


The percentage of TATL flown by B752 only is 8.6%.
The percentage of TATL flown by Boeing 757-200 (171 seats average) and Boeing 767-300/300ER (190 seats average) is 33.6%

I think we have to include the smaller B767 as potential replacements by the XLR, as they fly an average of 3856 statute miles on TATL.

I am only talking about AA/UA/DL and not foreign airlines.


I think that's a very important point - that many of the 767-300/ER routes also falls within the scope of the A321XLR market.

And when it comes to fuel, maintenance, and crew, the savings will be far higher than the 30% saved on the fuel between the 757-200 and A321XLR. I would not be surprised if the A321XLR was 40% cheaper to run vs a 767-300ER on TATL routes.

That being said, if you can monetize the small capacity increase in the 767 by selling premium tickets, it might still be worth flying the 767.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2238
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:59 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Since you seem to enjoy crunching numbers, can you determine the percentage of commercial TATL flights that are now flown by narrow bodies vs wide bodies, which we can view as being a lower bound since most of us expect TATL narrow body flying to increase rather than decrease?


The percentage of TATL flown by B752 only is 8.6%.
The percentage of TATL flown by Boeing 757-200 (171 seats average) and Boeing 767-300/300ER (190 seats average) is 33.6%

I think we have to include the smaller B767 as potential replacements by the XLR, as they fly an average of 3856 statute miles on TATL.

I am only talking about AA/UA/DL and not foreign airlines.


I think that's a very important point - that many of the 767-300/ER routes also falls within the scope of the A321XLR market.

And when it comes to fuel, maintenance, and crew, the savings will be far higher than the 30% saved on the fuel between the 757-200 and A321XLR. I would not be surprised if the A321XLR was 40% cheaper to run vs a 767-300ER on TATL routes.

That being said, if you can monetize the small capacity increase in the 767 by selling premium tickets, it might still be worth flying the 767.



The difference in capacity between a 763 and an international configured A321 is easily 60, maybe even 70 seats. That's a ton of revenue to leave behind. Especially premium seats.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2580
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:28 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:

The percentage of TATL flown by B752 only is 8.6%.
The percentage of TATL flown by Boeing 757-200 (171 seats average) and Boeing 767-300/300ER (190 seats average) is 33.6%

I think we have to include the smaller B767 as potential replacements by the XLR, as they fly an average of 3856 statute miles on TATL.

I am only talking about AA/UA/DL and not foreign airlines.


I think that's a very important point - that many of the 767-300/ER routes also falls within the scope of the A321XLR market.

And when it comes to fuel, maintenance, and crew, the savings will be far higher than the 30% saved on the fuel between the 757-200 and A321XLR. I would not be surprised if the A321XLR was 40% cheaper to run vs a 767-300ER on TATL routes.

That being said, if you can monetize the small capacity increase in the 767 by selling premium tickets, it might still be worth flying the 767.



The difference in capacity between a 763 and an international configured A321 is easily 60, maybe even 70 seats. That's a ton of revenue to leave behind. Especially premium seats.


That's what I said in the last paragraph. Although I don't think we're looking at 70 seats difference. Internationally configured A321LR are around 160 seats or so. Average seats on TATL flying 763 are 190 seats. So that's a 30 seat difference.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7184
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 5:17 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Pendennis wrote:
Can I remind our North American cousins that Luton (LTN) has a single runway 2162m long; great plane the A321XLR looks like being, it wil be no B757 when it comes to airfield performance.

Good point, STN is 3,049m=10,003'.


By coincidence, according to the latest A321 ACAP, the standard NEO would have
a takeoff weight limitation of 101 t at 3 000m runway length at 0ft altitude and ISA + 15C, which is exactly the same TOW as the XLR
( at the regular NEO's 93,5t it is 2 250m or 7 500ft in the same conditions)

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

A321ACAP section 3.3.2 page 4

I would assume that
a) at ISA it would be better than that, and
b) the XLR's revised high lift arrangements would improve upon this.

Not sure I see the problem

Rgds
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 5:47 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:

I think that's a very important point - that many of the 767-300/ER routes also falls within the scope of the A321XLR market.

And when it comes to fuel, maintenance, and crew, the savings will be far higher than the 30% saved on the fuel between the 757-200 and A321XLR. I would not be surprised if the A321XLR was 40% cheaper to run vs a 767-300ER on TATL routes.

That being said, if you can monetize the small capacity increase in the 767 by selling premium tickets, it might still be worth flying the 767.



The difference in capacity between a 763 and an international configured A321 is easily 60, maybe even 70 seats. That's a ton of revenue to leave behind. Especially premium seats.


That's what I said in the last paragraph. Although I don't think we're looking at 70 seats difference. Internationally configured A321LR are around 160 seats or so. Average seats on TATL flying 763 are 190 seats. So that's a 30 seat difference.


Based on a comparison of United's 763's and 757's configured for TATL operations, the 763 has 68 premium and 47 economy + seats; the 752 has 28 premium and 42 economy + seats. So while the overall capacity difference is 25 seats, the 763 offers 40 more premium and 5 more economy + seats than the TATL 757. I would expect a similar difference with the A321XLR.
 
Olddog
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:22 pm

You seem to always forget to consider the cost needed for that added revenue.....
 
TObound
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:39 pm

The biggest value I see with the XLR is regularizing seasonal routes. If the XLR has the range to do what a lot of the widebody fleet does, then it becomes possible to run a lot more routes year round and sub in or supplement with widebodies for seasonal demand growth. A ton of secondary airports would fall into this category.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1551
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:56 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Delivery rate of B767 by engine, number, first to last delivery date
767-200
GE 78 25. Oct. 1982 1. Apr. 1994
PW 50 19. Aug. 1982 12. Nov. 1985
767-200ER
GE 73 3. Sep. 1985 31. Mar. 2008
PW 48 26. Mar. 1984 24. Aug. 1993
767-300
GE 79 7. Nov. 1986 28. Nov. 1999
PW 25 25. Sep. 1986 23. Aug. 2001
767-300ER
GE 357 19. Feb. 1988 25. Jun. 2013
PW 195 29. Apr. 1988 26. Jun. 2014
RR 31 8. Feb. 1990 29. Jun. 1998


JonesNL wrote:
I agree completely. XLR will never reach that number just like Paco mentioned. It would already be a great feat if it reached 20%. My comment was merely to underline that it can be used on a huge amount of existing TATL routes for additional usage and not only the long and thin routes that is being touted. Which explains the popularity a lot; it gives an airliner a lot of flexibility at really low risk. You can use it on short haul or long haul and get great CASM on either one.


The B767 took about 5 years after ETOPS began until it was carrying more passengers TATL than all the 3 and 4 engine jets combined (roughly 1985-1990). The fuel consumption advantage was so strong of a twin engine jet compared to 3 or 4 engines.

The XLR does not offer a similar advantage to the A330, just a smaller size. So you can expect replacements (primarily B757s but some B767s) and new thin routes. I agree with the 20% guesstimate in 5 years.


Is it not true that for ranges a 321xlr can do, the cost per seat is much less than a 330neo or 787.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:08 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Is it not true that for ranges a 321xlr can do, the cost per seat is much less than a 330neo or 787.


Not necessarily. Tests done in 2016 compared an 321LR to a 330neo did not show an advantage per seat. I don't think the XLR will have better numbers than the LR.

Airbus A321NeoLR : 154 [email protected],300 km burned 2.99 kg/km
Airbus A330neo-900 : 310 [email protected],200 km burned 6.00 kg/km

So twice as many seats burned fuel at twice the rate. So on a per seat basis they were the same.

There are no list prices published for the LR and XLR versions, but we can guess that the A330neo is roughly twice the price of the A321neo
A321neo $129.5 million
A330-900 (neo) $296.4 million

So there is no advantage in the amortized cost of the jet purchase (or the lease price).

So if you are not utilizing the extra 2500 nmi of range the only real advantage of the larger jet is if you are in a slot controlled airport, or you have some savings in personnel cost (pilots and flight attendants). Basically the flexibility provided by the smaller jet should win for amost situations.

Someone stated that Delta would replace any widebodies with A321XLRs, just the B752s. I disagree, as I think they will be more flexible than the older smaller widebodies.
56 Boeing 767-300 23.6 (years) potential replacement with XLR
11 Airbus A330-200 14.7
31 Airbus A330-300 10.9
4 Airbus A330-900 0.4
13 Airbus A350 XWB 1.8
21 Boeing 767-400 19.0
18 Boeing 777 14.8

Personally, I could imagine shrinking to 100 A33-900 and A350s from their current 154 widebodies with A321XLR making up the difference, bu it would take 12-15 years.
 
whywhyzee
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:08 am

PacoMartin wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Is it not true that for ranges a 321xlr can do, the cost per seat is much less than a 330neo or 787.


Not necessarily. Tests done in 2016 compared an 321LR to a 330neo did not show an advantage per seat. I don't think the XLR will have better numbers than the LR.

Airbus A321NeoLR : 154 [email protected],300 km burned 2.99 kg/km
Airbus A330neo-900 : 310 [email protected],200 km burned 6.00 kg/km

So twice as many seats burned fuel at twice the rate. So on a per seat basis they were the same.

There are no list prices published for the LR and XLR versions, but we can guess that the A330neo is roughly twice the price of the A321neo
A321neo $129.5 million
A330-900 (neo) $296.4 million

So there is no advantage in the amortized cost of the jet purchase (or the lease price).

So if you are not utilizing the extra 2500 nmi of range the only real advantage of the larger jet is if you are in a slot controlled airport, or you have some savings in personnel cost (pilots and flight attendants). Basically the flexibility provided by the smaller jet should win for amost situations.

Someone stated that Delta would replace any widebodies with A321XLRs, just the B752s. I disagree, as I think they will be more flexible than the older smaller widebodies.
56 Boeing 767-300 23.6 (years) potential replacement with XLR
11 Airbus A330-200 14.7
31 Airbus A330-300 10.9
4 Airbus A330-900 0.4
13 Airbus A350 XWB 1.8
21 Boeing 767-400 19.0
18 Boeing 777 14.8

Personally, I could imagine shrinking to 100 A33-900 and A350s from their current 154 widebodies with A321XLR making up the difference, bu it would take 12-15 years.


But consider a 154 seat A321neoXLR is an extremely low density configuration, and a 310 seat A330-900 is an extremely dense configuration. You are comparing apples to oranges. I think the A321neoXLR is even better than you think.
 
grjplanes
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:52 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:34 am

How would the performance be of the A321neoXLR from a hot and high airport, for instance JNB.
Currently there are some destinations with some O&D demand, but not necessarily enough for widebody operations or daily services, which could possibly just be on the fringe of the range of the XLR, but how does this range and capabilities change if they have to be taking off from JNB's runway?

Of course, in no way any South African airline is in a position to purchase these aircraft, but possibly airlines on the other end that could order it and would like to introduce service to JNB for either the O&D demand, or in most cases serving in to their hub and carrying connecting passengers onward:

Current operators serving JNB with widebody 3 or 4 weekly, perhaps could upgrade to daily:
JNB-CAI EgyptAir
JNB-TLV ELAL
JNB-JED Saudia

Other possibilities, routes that were served before, or positioned to offer good onward connections to other popular destinations:
JNB-REC (is the Etops enough?)
JNB-DKR
JNB-CMN
JNB-TUN
JNB-MLA (discussed on other thread...need to go around Libya)
JNB-ATH
JNB-MCT
JNB-BOM
JNB-CMB
JNB-MLE
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9765
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:38 am

If the smaller frame has similar CASM, it is the safer bet, as you need to fill fewer seats. But for TATL the A321 is too small on many routes and will remain a niche option.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3633
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:52 am

PacoMartin wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
We have to remember, there is a huge market for this aircraft in a lot of places other than TATL.


US carriers to Latin America by distance group (flights, seats, average number of seats per flight)
1 4,122 443,286 108
2 11,329 1,437,486 127
3 13,013 1,984,694 153
4 8,877 1,399,752 158
5 2,195 354,652 162
6 461 79,234 172
7 254 49,419 195
8 122 20,880 171
9 434 113,415 261
10 712 167,873 236
11 430 111,726 260
13 62 17,608 284

While not as large as TATL, there is a big increase at roughly 5000 miles to the major airports of the Southern Cone


You realize FLL-EZE is 4421sm. Also FLL-south deep south america is not flying against head winds so the extra 497sm added for headwinds will not be needed either way. with Mint layour it mat be able to get B6 JFK-EZE flight.
 
ist2014
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:58 am

Considering that TK has 66A321 and order for 100 neo321, do u see a potential customer to deploy birds to some african and asia/india destinations?
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3633
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:08 am

The range could allow Hawaiian to fly HNL-STL, HNL-BNA, HNL-CVG, HNL-DAL, HNL-HOU. After all they only have 189 seats on their current fleet. With the XLR 3 door layout they could go to 190 seats (16/56/118) and use the removed door space to add more extra comfort seat rows & an OWEED & still be well below Airbus specs.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3633
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Potential for A321 XLR

Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:13 am

TWA772LR wrote:
I heard on another thread that the XLR will have a different/modified wing thane the other 321neo variants. How true is this? How different/modified will it be, if true?


It's going to have a single flap rather than double slotted unit. Lighter fewer moving parts, lower upkeep.

Who is online

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