Well I don't think there are that many disadvantages when you start thinking of this as a widened narrow body vs 767 in size but some posters do think differently and believe it's a non-starter. Picture an A320 Fuselage with the sides bulged out 15" on each side. So it will have a bigger cross section but will be shorter so the wetted area and internal volumes are essentially the same.
Obvious as the rumours/articles won't die (that it will be a tight/light 2x aisle) and were there even way back when Boeing went with the MAX vs NSA.
Boeing has been working on this an awful long time so I'm sure they have figured out ways to optimize it. I have no doubt the clever engineers at Airbus could do the same if they choose to do so.
So you don’t think there are many disadvantages, the rumours won’t die, and you’re sure Boeing have figured out ways of optimising it.
Respectfully I’d suggest that these are personal opinions framed in your own particular context of NMA happening being a given, and it being a “narrow 7-abreast” being a given.
Unless a poster happens to share your own absolute certainty on these, on the basis that a) NMA has NOT been launched, and b) it being a narrow 7-abreast is, as you point out, still a rumour, and not confirmed, Boeing having made the trade-offs, and found solutions may not be as obvious to many posters as it appears to be to you. Just a thought.
For clarity, I share your advocacy for a “narrow 7-abreast” solution for NMA – it is the only non-narrowbody solution that has a chance of succeeding against ever more capable narrowbodys.
So if the real range is 3,650 NM with 240 seats in the 321 XLR, 3,150NM transatlantic Westbound in the Winter - will 2,450NM be enough to cover what you propose its use will be? Forget trying to fly Tranatlantic - I'm pretty sure less than 2,000NM with 250 seats filled puts you in the drink well short of land.
See this article. https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/
Something tells me it really does need a new wing with more MTOW/Thrust, heavier gear. It would be a good MAX-10 competitor though.
I think I'm missing the point here...
I don't know why you've selected 240 seats in the tightest ULCC configuration as the benchmark because it clearly isn't going to happen on TATL routes
And it wouldn't be the assumption you would make for NMA
The article you cite gives the following real ranges (summer TATL) in TAP configuration
A321LR - 3,400Nm
757-200 (when new) - 3,540Nm
A321XLR - 4,070Nm
This first off clearly shows the A321XLR to have a 500 - 550Nm real world advantage over the 757-200 (when it was new) which probably translates into close to 700Nm against today's 757-200's.
Secondly, if we stick with Keejse's 1,200Nm delta (which could be challenged), that gives a 4m stretch A322 a range of about 2,900Nm real-world (summer TATL) in a "TAP configuration", probably about 500Nm shy of today's 757-200's, and not quite enough for TATL.
That is way plenty to be able to conduct TCON operations in the USA.
Even a 260 seat configuration is only likely to bring that down to about 2,400Nm real-world - still plenty for US TCON in ULCC mode.
I thought we were all agreed that the longer range sectors were in reality going to be the outliers.
And that the shorter sectors would be where a narrowbody would be strongest
It is pretty clear that TCON will be a way bigger slice of sectors performed than TPAC.
That said, next-gen engines applied to NMA can just as easily be applied to an A322 and would probably release about 300Nm more range.
All Airbus then have to do is find another 1 tonne of MTOW and they've got the remaining 200Nm to match a 757-200 of today.
I'll resist saying "its obvious", but it doesn't seen that far-fetched.