BrianDromey wrote:

This is a very interesting order from QF and should work out well for them.
The 717s replaced by A223 was a no-brainer and maybe the P&W commonality helped with the financing/maintenance on the larger NEOs?

It doesn’t seem like there is much 1:1 replacement with the A321XLR. The order is too small for much replacement in any case. This looks like expansion into SE Asia to me, straddling the 738/330 gap. Why take the weight penalty of the XLR on the 75 strong 737 fleet? I expect dozens more A321NEOs for domestic flying.
The lack of A320NEO is the most interesting though. I think the smart money is on Airbus launching the 225. QF didn’t mention it, but did say flexibility for the -100. My guess is they have flexibility on any model in the A220 family, which would include a hypothetical -500.

Overall a great order for QF and Airbus. There will still be 737-800s for many years in the Australian skies though.

Would not be totally surprised if an A220-500 is in the works on the down-low and QF have been advised as such and this is why we don't see any A320NEO orders for them in this tranche. Use the first 20 XLR to displace oldest B738 on longer domestic and Tasman sectors, judge real world performance, and then start a push into regional Asian destinations with additional options being exercised. I also would not be totally surprised to see a simple fuselage stretch of the A321XLR with around 4-5 more rows (24-30pax) but with same operating weights and fuel capacity (ALA 787-10) which should still allow up to 6 hour flights with around 250pax. This would be really good for QF on the domestic trunk routes.

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

The bit that surprises me about this order is the choice of engine type for the NEO's. QF are going with PW, while the JQ fleet was ordered with LEAP's, puzzling.

My guess is they want to have best of both worlds, if one is grounded at least there is a back up. QF maintenance can further expand their knowledge on both engine, potentially doing MRO activities for other A320 operators in the region.

QF isn't exactly the maintenance giant it used to be. So many aircraft get shipped off shore too get maintenance done and I don't think they actively bid for maintenance contracts in recent years. I understand that over time they'll build enough volume of both engines to make them economically viable, maybe it's just helping to build up mass with the PW engines on the 220.

Noshow wrote:

Range has become a surprisingly important factor for narrow body orders.

An interesting observation, for me, this.
There was a debate upthread about how "special" the XLR was, and for me what really marks it out, is that is in essence just another A321NEO variant (not quite, but pretty much), which can be produced on a standard production line at 60+ per month, maintained in the existing NEO infrastructure, and can be seamlessly integrated into any NEO fleet without much hassle.
What that means is that it is quite capable of being economically deployed on the shorter domestic 2 hour routes, but then is capable of being deployed onto the 9 hour route on the very next flight.

I've always believed that part of the MOM gap issue is that there is a financial and operating flexibility benefit (to a degree) in "abusing" longer range planes on shorter flights, rather than setting up dedicated "mid-range" fleets. That's why we see 7,000Nm to 8,000Nm 787's and A350's deployed on average stage lengths of about 3,000Nm (in my opinion).
The XLR sort of brings this to narrowbody land.
Hence now that the range capability exists in a "volume" narrowbody, the flexibility that offers becomes a selling point.
I'm willing to bet that most sectors flown by XLR's will be within the range of a standard A321NEO - the 787/A350 experience points that way

Happy to be challenged.
But the real thing that makes the XLR so "special" in the market is, for me, paradoxically that it isn't "special" at all.
It's "Just another A321", but with 4,700Nm range...
That's its real strength IMO.

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

I'm willing to bet that most sectors flown by XLR's will be within the range of a standard A321NEO - the 787/A350 experience points that way

Not sure if most.
There is a not insignificant additional cost and I suspect weight penalty for the tanks.

But certainly there is a point where fleet commonality comes into play.

With the 787, Boeing no longer has a shorter range widebody (was the 767) unlike Airbus with the 330neo and 350.

It will be interesting to see the relative retirement of 737s vs 332s and 333s as the 321XLRs get delivered.

astuteman wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Range has become a surprisingly important factor for narrow body orders.

An interesting observation, for me, this.
There was a debate upthread about how "special" the XLR was, and for me what really marks it out, is that is in essence just another A321NEO variant (not quite, but pretty much), which can be produced on a standard production line at 60+ per month, maintained in the existing NEO infrastructure, and can be seamlessly integrated into any NEO fleet without much hassle.
What that means is that it is quite capable of being economically deployed on the shorter domestic 2 hour routes, but then is capable of being deployed onto the 9 hour route on the very next flight.

I've always believed that part of the MOM gap issue is that there is a financial and operating flexibility benefit (to a degree) in "abusing" longer range planes on shorter flights, rather than setting up dedicated "mid-range" fleets. That's why we see 7,000Nm to 8,000Nm 787's and A350's deployed on average stage lengths of about 3,000Nm (in my opinion).
The XLR sort of brings this to narrowbody land.
Hence now that the range capability exists in a "volume" narrowbody, the flexibility that offers becomes a selling point.
I'm willing to bet that most sectors flown by XLR's will be within the range of a standard A321NEO - the 787/A350 experience points that way

Happy to be challenged.
But the real thing that makes the XLR so "special" in the market is, for me, paradoxically that it isn't "special" at all.
It's "Just another A321", but with 4,700Nm range...
That's its real strength IMO.

Rgds

I wonder how the economics pan out of using 2 XLR’s vs 1 787 or A350. Leeham is doing a serie on the 2 787 vs 1 A380. While the A380 is scoring well in economics the market has decided otherwise.

My guess is that the same will happen with the XLR, it will eat into the sub 4000nm routes of the widebodies step by step…

astuteman wrote:

Happy to be challenged.
But the real thing that makes the XLR so "special" in the market is, for me, paradoxically that it isn't "special" at all.
It's "Just another A321", but with 4,700Nm range...
That's its real strength IMO.

For airlines with less differentiation between their Short Haul and Medium/Long Haul products I think you are correct, but there are limitations to the generalisation. None of the European airlines have a proper hard-product and most of them have a JV requirement for lie-flats on their transatlantic network, so the fleets are less interchangeable.
QF, like airlines in North America has a dedicated Business/First hard product and they use their 737/330/787 fleets more interchangeably than most EU airlines where 737/A320 and 787/330 rarely operate the same routes. For QF standardising the A321/330/787/380 product is probably more appealing than BA where Club Europe and Club Suite are very different beasts and they are competing on the same city-pairs as Ryanair with 197 seat -8200s and easyJet with 235 seat A321neo.

Boeing had intended the 787-3 to cover this market but it turned out to be too much aircraft for medium haul.

Noshow wrote:

Range has become a surprisingly important factor for narrow body orders.

Yes, I would rather say "flexibility"

There is so much uncertainty for the years to come that some airlines depending of their network and model will give more priority on size/range flexibility.

As someone pointed out, it's not about the best aircraft, it's also about the best fit for a network. It seems Qantas will have the flexibility to choose everything between A220-100 and A321XLR for the coming 10 years. That's something Boeing product portfolio can't match.

When they are gradually converting their remaining 94 options I wonder if they stick with the 321 and 220 or perhaps add some 320, too. Or do they replace the remaining 738 with 223?

I'd would tip the A220s will be heading to wholly owned subsidiary National Jet (a QFLink operator) way if the 717 replacement is correct. Very unlikely those will be heading to mainline.

I'm willing to bet that most sectors flown by XLR's will be within the range of a standard A321NEO - the 787/A350 experience points that way

May be (or may not be the case), but as another poster pointed out, commonality seems to be an increasing popular theme during and post-pandemic era of civil RPT aviation. XLRs doing domestic legs won't be much different to widebodies doing domestic runs, regardless if they are positioning runs or not.

There seems to be a fairly widespread assumption that there is consolation for Boeing with Qantas being 787 users, and that more orders can be expected for that type, but is that necessarily realistic? If they follow through with Project Sunrise they will have the A350 entering the fleet and it would surely make more sense to add A359s rather than 787-9s and have the benefit of cockpit commonality and so forth.

DartHerald wrote:

There seems to be a fairly widespread assumption that there is consolation for Boeing with Qantas being 787 users, and that more orders can be expected for that type, but is that necessarily realistic? If they follow through with Project Sunrise they will have the A350 entering the fleet and it would surely make more sense to add A359s rather than 787-9s and have the benefit of cockpit commonality and so forth.

So what do they do with the 87? Sell it?

DartHerald wrote:

There seems to be a fairly widespread assumption that there is consolation for Boeing with Qantas being 787 users, and that more orders can be expected for that type, but is that necessarily realistic? If they follow through with Project Sunrise they will have the A350 entering the fleet and it would surely make more sense to add A359s rather than 787-9s and have the benefit of cockpit commonality and so forth.

Qantas as a group do also have the 787-8, through Jetstar. It's also always speculated the 787-8s may make its way to QF mainline eventually.

Well well, I have had an interesting discussion with a very senior pilot in Qantas.

The XLR will not be able to operate anything longer than SYD-CGK. The problem - crew hours. Anything longer than 8 hours is going to be out of the window as the 321XLR has no crew rest facilities. This limits us to an absolute maximum 3500nm.

77west wrote:

log0008 wrote:

77west wrote:

Do we know what the crew rest requirements for QF would look like, in the XLR development thread there is some question of the viability of some really long sectors due to crew rest requirements. Couple that with less dense seating and you could end up with only around 150-160 seats.

I'm not sure. QF are going to have a union flight on their hand too. Right now Long Haul and Short Haul are clearly divided across fleets. The A321xlr makes this very unclear. The unions are not going to want domestic pilots doing 7+ hour international sectors on the conditions of the current 737 EBA.

What's the current longest QF 737 flight, I am guessing PER-CHC or SYD-RAR (lets forget the pandemic for the context of this and include what was happening in 2019)

Does the current 737 contract cover all 737 destinations? I could see possibly a split contract for up to and including the longest current 737 flight with anything over that falling under something else.

Qantas have never operated PER-CHC or SYD-RAR.

Oddly enough it’s hard to say what the ‘longest’ is routinely, as the longest operated within the last three or four years are SYD-DPS and PER-SIN, not of which became A330s. For arguments sake, call them A321 routes. Take those out and I’m pretty certain that the longest regularly scheduled 737 flight is in fact BNE-PER.

While I agree that AIPA will not like ‘domestic’ pilots flying longer missions, and could stall by not agreeing to amend the EBA to provide for multi crew duties, ultimately Qantas will win that fight as they will fly the aircraft at Network or NationalJet if the mainline pilots don’t cooperate. I personally don’t agree with this approach, but Qantas will not hesitate to outsource the entire domestic network.

log0008 wrote:

The XLR will not be able to operate anything longer than SYD-CGK. The problem - crew hours. Anything longer than 8 hours is going to be out of the window as the 321XLR has no crew rest facilities. This limits us to an absolute maximum 3500nm.

It will be a new contract.
And I think the 332s do a lot further without crew rest.

The crew rest facilities on the XLR will be blocked out passenger seats. The XLR is not the first long range narrow body ever built, we all know how it would be crewed and operated on long haul flights…

Polot wrote:

The crew rest facilities on the XLR will be blocked out passenger seats. The XLR is not the first long-range narrow-body ever built, we all know how it would be crewed and operated on long haul flights…

Australia does not allow just blocked seats. The 767s but a Box around a seat to get the tick. The 330 LAX is using a certin. So yes it could happen but a pretty senior QF captain has told me it is very unlikely.

log0008 wrote:

Polot wrote:

The crew rest facilities on the XLR will be blocked out passenger seats. The XLR is not the first long-range narrow-body ever built, we all know how it would be crewed and operated on long haul flights…

Australia does not allow just blocked seats. The 767s but a Box around a seat to get the tick. The 330 LAX is using a certin. So yes it could happen but a pretty senior QF captain has told me it is very unlikely.

Currently this is what Airbus has proposed to airlines: https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/1171 ... 56/photo/1
1. Fully dedicated area with curtain and lighting control with full flat J-seat
2. Fully dedicated area with curtain and lighting control with modified Y-seat with more recline and foot rest pan.

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:

log0008 wrote:

Polot wrote:

The crew rest facilities on the XLR will be blocked out passenger seats. The XLR is not the first long-range narrow-body ever built, we all know how it would be crewed and operated on long haul flights…

Australia does not allow just blocked seats. The 767s but a Box around a seat to get the tick. The 330 LAX is using a certin. So yes it could happen but a pretty senior QF captain has told me it is very unlikely.

Currently this is what Airbus has proposed to airlines: https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/1171 ... 56/photo/1
1. Fully dedicated area with curtain and lighting control with full flat J-seat
2. Fully dedicated area with curtain and lighting control with modified Y-seat with more recline and foot rest pan.

Interesting mate. I'll send this one off to see what the 330 Captain i'm talking to thinks.

Breathe wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

wait nevermind the 96 thing also includes

A320neo seats – from 150 to 180 for a two-class configuration. 6,300km range
A321neo seats – from 180 to 220 for a two-class configuration. 7,400km range
A321XLR seats – from 180 to 220 for a two-class configuration. 8,700km range

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-renewal/

The press release also states that Qantas have selected Pratt & Whitney engines for the A32Xneo planes. So congrats to P&W as well.

Will be a good thing with 2 models & up to 5 types between A220/A320 series & same engine type. Should see a lot of cost savings on engine maintenance alone of 2 types of the same engine covering entire NB fleet.

log0008 wrote:

Polot wrote:

The crew rest facilities on the XLR will be blocked out passenger seats. The XLR is not the first long-range narrow-body ever built, we all know how it would be crewed and operated on long haul flights…

Australia does not allow just blocked seats. The 767s but a Box around a seat to get the tick. The 330 LAX is using a certin. So yes it could happen but a pretty senior QF captain has told me it is very unlikely.

Well yes, there will be a curtain for privacy. But the seats themselves will be broadly the same as the passenger seats (sometimes they might have a little extra pitch, etc). For flights not requiring the crew rest the curtain will be removed and the seats sold as regular revenue seats (with differences like extra pitch not advertised).

It will happen despite what your senior QF captain friend says.

The world changes.

Personally I'd be far more confident with the pilot who's spent 10hrs in the cockpit of a highly automated long haul aircraft.

Than the domestic 737 pilot who's on his fifth segment for the day but only logged 6hrs flight time

Pentaprism wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

x1234 wrote:

The best solution is the A359ULR for long-haul and A321XLR for short-haul. The range of the A321XLR is impressive, it can reach most of Asia from SYD/MEL/BNE/PER.

Why would Qantas want to fly to Tokyo, Hong Kong, & Singapore from Sydney and Melbourne with a single aisle plane when these city pairs have huge demand ? The A321XLR is being advertised as the cure to all long haul, Airbus had an advertisement from Miami with all the long haul it could do including LHR, the problem is that LHR is the biggest route from MIA. In 2019 There were 3 BA, 2 AA and 2 Virgin Atlantic flights by 747, 777 and 787.

There are a lot more routes that can sustain an A321XLR than a wide body. eg ADL-SIN used to be a 767 but got cut. But would prob work fine in an A321. They could consider stacks of others as well, eg ADL-AKL, PER-AKL, PER-CHC, PER-JNB, SYD-TPE, MEL-KIX, SYD-FUK, SYD-BOM etc etc

With demand uncertain in COVID new norm less risky to purchase these than Wide Bodies and they are suitable for Domestic and thin Intl routes.

Will be very surprised if they don't order some.

Only one on your list that would be an issue is PER-JNB. At 4495nm ( GCR) & the models 4697nm range combined with Altitude & heat at JNB would cut the range too short. However PER-DUR would be interesting.

rbavfan wrote:

Pentaprism wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Why would Qantas want to fly to Tokyo, Hong Kong, & Singapore from Sydney and Melbourne with a single aisle plane when these city pairs have huge demand ? The A321XLR is being advertised as the cure to all long haul, Airbus had an advertisement from Miami with all the long haul it could do including LHR, the problem is that LHR is the biggest route from MIA. In 2019 There were 3 BA, 2 AA and 2 Virgin Atlantic flights by 747, 777 and 787.

There are a lot more routes that can sustain an A321XLR than a wide body. eg ADL-SIN used to be a 767 but got cut. But would prob work fine in an A321. They could consider stacks of others as well, eg ADL-AKL, PER-AKL, PER-CHC, PER-JNB, SYD-TPE, MEL-KIX, SYD-FUK, SYD-BOM etc etc

With demand uncertain in COVID new norm less risky to purchase these than Wide Bodies and they are suitable for Domestic and thin Intl routes.

Will be very surprised if they don't order some.

Only one on your list that would be an issue is PER-JNB. At 4495nm ( GCR) & the models 4697nm range combined with Altitude & heat at JNB would cut the range too short. However PER-DUR would be interesting.

There would be more that would be an issue. The published range of aircraft is the still air range. Every flight deals with winds aloft coming from whatever direction and it impacts range to one extent or another. This is why airline modelling is a bit more complicated than, "The distance between X and Y is Z, can the plane's published range make it? Yes, let's buy it." -

With headwinds, a lot more fuel is used to get the same distance, cross winds, etc, etc, So I think people need to be a little more careful with their numbers

Presumably they would not put 2+2 premium economy on their A321XLR. And if they do, wouldn't it be better to provide the crews with 2 of the premium economy seat for better comfort and sleep.

Sydscott wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

HomeSlice wrote:

Unless Boeing builds a new clean sheet design narrow-body, me thinks they are done in the passenger aircraft business.

Post#6. I guess you were saving up for just the right thread at just the right moment to share those sentiments.....

Allow me to say it then. The selection by so many airlines of the A321, NEO, LR and XLR means Boeings decision to not do a 757 replacement is effectively costing it orders and customers. THe Max9 and Max10 are fine in their own way and have plenty of orders from US Carriers but outside of that the A321 is going to dominate.

I'm following this thread... and I guess I missed the actual Airplane selection? My reading comprehension needs work: However, I saw this CNN article just a few minutes ago: https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/business ... index.html

So, with Qantas selecting 20 A321XLRs and 20 A223s, and of course options for another 94 to replace the rest of the 738s and 717s, we can declare this a rather big upset. This one was Boeing's to loose.... and they did. This was one the 10MAX needed. Boeing has rode the 737 train a few sales campaigns too many. Time to ditch Calhoun and get a new narrowbody program started. This loss no doubt stings...

Congradulations to Qantas for ordering the most modern narrowbody fleet possible for their domestic routes. They've proven a few of us wrong... they certainly were willing to invest a bit more to gain the flexibility of the clearly superior products. I thought the 10MAX might work and would have been the cheap option, but don't fault them for 1 second for buying the better plane.

Here's the rendering for those who enjoy these kinda things. They look great in Qantas colors, especially the A220s! Very slick.

Official Video Renderings from Airbus
https://twitter.com/Airbus/status/1471246766255357958?s=20





Source: https://onemileatatime.com/news/qantas-airbus-order/

log0008 wrote:

Well well, I have had an interesting discussion with a very senior pilot in Qantas.

The XLR will not be able to operate anything longer than SYD-CGK. The problem - crew hours. Anything longer than 8 hours is going to be out of the window as the 321XLR has no crew rest facilities. This limits us to an absolute maximum 3500nm.

Generally I take what pilots and flight attendants say with a grain of salt. Not saying you or your sources are incorrect, however they often don't know any of the behind the scenes work involved in acquiring new aircraft and any new contractual terms that are being drafted.

Airbus has also proposed crew rest facilities which are proven elsewhere too.

Opus99 wrote:

It shouldn’t be a single aisle. Playing into airbus’ hands. They should grow some balls and give us a real game changer. Twin sidle at single aisle economics. I’ve heard that from them before. Now prove it or be a fringe player like the other manufacturers

Not for this thread though

Boeing wishes the only the thing missing from launching a NMA to counter the A321XLR was just having the balls to launch it and not the reality that it is nearly impossible to design a twin aisle aircraft that will be able to compete with a single aisle. That is the solution they are looking for, but seeing as they have not launched it yet should put to bed the notion that all they lack is courage to do it.

log0008 wrote:

The main advantage Airbus had was

- Ability to make the A220 part of the order. Any Boeing order could not be exclusive as Boeing doesn't have a 717 replacement aircraft. This means negotiating with 2 manufacturers and a smaller order with each.
- Fleet commonality with Jetstar
- And the A321XLR which Alan seems to love.

Also, lack of anything like Boeing's NMA which Alan was quite interested in.

log0008 wrote:

This quote from the release is interesting

"The XLR can carry around 15 per cent more passengers on each flight than the airline’s existing B737-800s, making it well suited to busy routes between capital cities like Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Its longer range means it can also be used to open up new city pairs."

They are clearly suggesting that the XLRs will be used on domestic routes. Is it possible they see the higher payload (for fuel on the long flights) being used to boost cargo capacity for Australia Post when used on domestic flights?

Would a normal A321neo be more limited by cargo capacity by volume or weight on a domestic service?

Alan was saying the NMA (which was going to be a step bigger than A321) would be great for SYD-BNE-MEL triangle route, simply due to maximizing gates and runway capacity at these airports. Demand greatly exceeds supply, at least pre-covid.

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:

2. Eliminating the need to two separate crew pool : B737/B717. If they have gone B737MAX and Embraer E-2, it will be two separately crew pool with almost nil commonality.

Agree with your post, but still it's going to take a while before benefits are seen, till then the transition costs will be high. I presume B717 will be first to go, but A220 production still is at a small rate so the order will take a while to fill. B738 will be in the fleet for a longer period. Seems there will be a period where the Group will be dealing with 717, A220, 737NG, A320ceo, A320neo all at the same time, and paying for a lot of pilots to get new type ratings, maintenance teams to learn about the PW engines, etc.

Agree though that in the end the product will offer a lot of new opportunities for the Group and in the end lower expenses too.

enzo011 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

It shouldn’t be a single aisle. Playing into airbus’ hands. They should grow some balls and give us a real game changer. Twin sidle at single aisle economics. I’ve heard that from them before. Now prove it or be a fringe player like the other manufacturers

Not for this thread though

Boeing wishes the only the thing missing from launching a NMA to counter the A321XLR was just having the balls to launch it and not the reality that it is nearly impossible to design a twin aisle aircraft that will be able to compete with a single aisle. That is the solution they are looking for, but seeing as they have not launched it yet should put to bed the notion that all they lack is courage to do it.

If they can’t do that. Then there’s nothing to launch till towards the end of the decade then. I guess they can be a fringe player till then

Opus99 wrote:

If they can’t do that. Then there’s nothing to launch till towards the end of the decade then. I guess they can be a fringe player till then

Tough position to be in, but all of their own making. Even if they launch a NSA or NMA now, much like the A350 there will be a few years while the progress would be painfully slow as resources would need to be allocated to the current programs that are not delivering. Work can start in earnest on a new program around 2023 and it will take around 7 years before EIS (if they run the program without hitches), so yeah, for a decade they are going to be struggling in this space.

log0008 wrote:

Final question for some of you experts. What should we consider as a true range of the A321XLR in normal operations? I know its quote as 4600nm. For example, would SYD/MEL-PVG both at around 4300nm be a bit long?

The XLR is Basically a 321LR with a rear fixed fuel tank instead of the standard center tanks ,plus a tweaked flaps and icreased MTOW

so just take the longest flight LR is doing and give it an extra 60 min of fly time

Airbus specs give it a range of 7500 km (4000) but in reality it can't even do LIS-ORD which is only 6400 km (3470 nm)

rising it's MTOW by 4 tons and fuel capacity by 2.5 tons won't by magic give it +2000 km of range ,it's simply unrealistic
but it still remains capable and has no direct competitor

keep in mind that making it heavier while keeping the same old wing results in increased fuel burn

SYD/MEL-PVG on a XLR won't be a bit long but IMPOSSIBLE

77west wrote:

All of those bar DAC can be done non-stop by the XLR. Range from DRW would almost put Dubai in range, and all of Asia. From PER you put African East coast in range including most of South Africa (JNB-PER could be a bit tight though)

no way an XLR could reach east African coast from any point in Australia ,these airbus numbers are way over-hyped ,

if we believe the advertised range by airbus , the standard 321NEO (6700 km) should be able to do LIS-ORD (6400 km),
but it couldn't make it

that's not all , even the LR which according to airbus have 7400 km range, is unable to make the trip to Chicago (and these are TAP claims)
that's a big failure IMO

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2019/06/17/david-neeleman-keen-on-a321xlr-for-select-tap-transatlantic-routes/
https://www.air-journal.fr/2019-06-29-tap-air-portugal-envisage-une-commande-dairbus-a321xlr-5213456.html

flying the shortest 7900 km Perth - Durban with just 2.5t additional fuel over the LR is a pipe dream ,let alone PER-JNB

Qantas Group already had orders for:
36x A321XLRs
28x A321LRs
45x A320NEOs
They've got a history of moving aircraft between subsidiaries, so increasing the Airbus order was always going to create that flexibility. That flexibility cuts the risk for Qantas, which would have made it hard for MAX.

BrianDromey wrote:

This is a very interesting order from QF and should work out well for them.
The 717s replaced by A223 was a no-brainer and maybe the P&W commonality helped with the financing/maintenance on the larger NEOs?

It doesn’t seem like there is much 1:1 replacement with the A321XLR. The order is too small for much replacement in any case. This looks like expansion into SE Asia to me, straddling the 738/330 gap. Why take the weight penalty of the XLR on the 75 strong 737 fleet? I expect dozens more A321NEOs for domestic flying.
The lack of A320NEO is the most interesting though. I think the smart money is on Airbus launching the 225. QF didn’t mention it, but did say flexibility for the -100. My guess is they have flexibility on any model in the A220 family, which would include a hypothetical -500.

Overall a great order for QF and Airbus. There will still be 737-800s for many years in the Australian skies though.

With the QF order revolving around the long range A321XLR and smaller A220, it looks like the 737NG will remain as the mainstay of the domestic fleet well into the future.

I suspect the A321XLR's will be used to open up new routes into SE Asia, whilst the A220's will be used to help optimise the economics of the domestic fleet. I can't see a situation where the A331LXR can be used solely for domestic flying.

With growth in market, there will continue to be a need for the existing 737NG fleet. I would have thought a fleet of 10-20 737-10's could be useful for the golden triangle.

I'll try to prepare a financial model over the Christmas break to see where the numbers for these new aircraft sit.

If people in the know, have information about routes into SE Asia that would be viable with the A321LXR that would be of great assistance.

[quote="Rifitto"][/quote]

You should probably get on the blower to Airbus and tell them that their aircraft can't fly as far as advertised.

Meanwhile in the real world PVG-MEL/SYD is certainly a challenge, but probably doable. 400-500nm lower than claimed range is usually a fairly safe bet for realistic capability. Then of course this is the airline that gets a lot out of their 787s so could maximise the range to the limit. Might require a low density layout though.

Rifitto wrote:

log0008 wrote:

Final question for some of you experts. What should we consider as a true range of the A321XLR in normal operations? I know its quote as 4600nm. For example, would SYD/MEL-PVG both at around 4300nm be a bit long?

The XLR is Basically a 321LR with a rear fixed fuel tank instead of the standard center tanks ,plus a tweaked flaps and icreased MTOW

so just take the longest flight LR is doing and give it an extra 60 min of fly time

Airbus specs give it a range of 7500 km (4000) but in reality it can't even do LIS-ORD which is only 6400 km (3470 nm)

rising it's MTOW by 4 tons and fuel capacity by 2.5 tons won't by magic give it +2000 km of range ,it's simply unrealistic
but it still remains capable and has no direct competitor

keep in mind that making it heavier while keeping the same old wing results in increased fuel burn

SYD/MEL-PVG on a XLR won't be a bit long but IMPOSSIBLE

77west wrote:

All of those bar DAC can be done non-stop by the XLR. Range from DRW would almost put Dubai in range, and all of Asia. From PER you put African East coast in range including most of South Africa (JNB-PER could be a bit tight though)

no way an XLR could reach east African coast from any point in Australia ,these airbus numbers are way over-hyped ,

if we believe the advertised range by airbus , the standard 321NEO (6700 km) should be able to do LIS-ORD (6400 km),
but it couldn't make it

that's not all , even the LR which according to airbus have 7400 km range, is unable to make the trip to Chicago (and these are TAP claims)
that's a big failure IMO

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2019/06/17/david-neeleman-keen-on-a321xlr-for-select-tap-transatlantic-routes/
https://www.air-journal.fr/2019-06-29-tap-air-portugal-envisage-une-commande-dairbus-a321xlr-5213456.html

flying the shortest 7900 km Perth - Durban with just 2.5t additional fuel over the LR is a pipe dream ,let alone PER-JNB

I think you are in denial of what the XLR is capable of. I aint no expert, but ill take Airbus's claims over someone's on A.net

Why do you feel the above about the A321neoLR/XLR?

TravelQ wrote:

With the QF order revolving around the long range A321XLR and smaller A220, it looks like the 737NG will remain as the mainstay of the domestic fleet well into the future. .

Around half the 738 fleet is 10 years old or younger. 20 years is very normal before retirement at QF. Yes, the initial order is A220 and 321XLR, but there are a bunch of options, which are separate to the large JetStar option book within the QF group.

There will be 738s in the fleet for at least another 10 years, likely longer.

SEU wrote:

I think you are in denial of what the XLR is capable of. I aint no expert, but ill take Airbus's claims over someone's on A.net

Why do you feel the above about the A321neoLR/XLR?

seems you didn't read my whole reply ,these are not my claims , but that of TAP Air Portugal co-owner ,"the LR’s performance didn’t come in as promised" these were his words

if you think he is lying then that's your problem ,
airbus wouldn't tolerate such negative comment about their best selling product ,and would have sued him for defamation

but guess what ? they didn't make a single comment about it

and when an airline operates a route matching the LR alleged range (or at least nearing it ) then i will gladly admit that i'm in denial

Will be sad to see 717s go.

Kent350787 wrote:

TravelQ wrote:

With the QF order revolving around the long range A321XLR and smaller A220, it looks like the 737NG will remain as the mainstay of the domestic fleet well into the future. .

Around half the 738 fleet is 10 years old or younger. 20 years is very normal before retirement at QF. Yes, the initial order is A220 and 321XLR, but there are a bunch of options, which are separate to the large JetStar option book within the QF group.

There will be 738s in the fleet for at least another 10 years, likely longer.

You're right, but it is clear that the trajectory of the narrowbody fleet will be towards the XLRs, with th A220s playing a supplementing role. Joyce has said in recent years that the slot restrictions at Sydney, growing traffic etc would mean its future domestic fleet will require narrowbodies larger than the 738, hence the focus on the Max 10 and A321neo - and an interest in the NMA paper aeroplane. Depending on traffic levels and how dire the slots situation gets, they could bring forward the retirement of the 738s, or just take their sweet time as they did when replacing the 734s.

XLR gives Qantas much more flexibility than the Max. As JQ is planning with their LRs and XLRs, the type can shuttle up and down the domestic network during the day, then do a back-of-the-clock into Southeast Asia. Joyce and co see Qantas doing a similar thing, although it is likely that initially this will see the XLRs rule the transcons, NZ and then grow into new point-to-point services in Asia. Given there are two A332s that are slated for conversion, over time the XLRs will displace them in the fleet, and I imagine we could see 787s used on the higher-capacity services into Asia. I expect that the 788s from JQ will end up in QF colours with lie-flat business seats, and will displace the A332/3s on the Asian network.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Will be sad to see 717s go.

When Delta announced just over a year ago they were retiring the 717s, that doomed the type.
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/delta-a ... 767-300er/

Delta is only keeping 54 of the 717s in service.
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/delta-a ... 767-300er/

Delta used to have a fleet of 91 of the 717s:
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/delta-t ... 717-fleet/

With a retirement date about 5 years after the announcement, that implies no more heavy maintenance visits for the type sometime shortly after the announcement; only C-checks should be expected as there are plenty of frames to cycle through to maintain approximately 54 flying. Considering there are only 39 other 717s flying, that leaves no economy of scale for parts and maintenance.
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-b717.htm

Honestly, with only 156 built, the type was always limping along on parts support with AirTran and later Delta supporting the type through volume. THe 2nd and above link imply only 93 flying. That is brutal on parts support cost if you even just need to rebuild parts (forget the cost of buying new parts, that will be excessive).

Qantas really had no choice. I suspect the 'factory fresh aircraft' to be delivered starting end of 2023 will be to replace 717s in need of pricey service:
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-b717.htm

Airlines expected to keep going off AA releasing MD-80 parts for their fleets, instead AA consumed quite a bit of its stores and so did DL forcing Allegiant to move on from the type. I suspect the same will happen with Qantas and Hawaiian. It is a great plane, until you look at fuel burn and engine over-haul costs. Not the cost per overhaul, but rather how frequently overhauls are required. The airframe maintenance and dispatch reliability is (and was) excellent, this link goes into the level of detail I love to discuss:
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... story.html

I suspect 717 operators were waiting for Pratt/Airbus (mostly, in my opinion Pratt) to improve A220 dispatch reliability. Now Pratt claims 99.98% dispatch reliability on the GTFs (1st link below). The A220 now has 99.85% dispatch reliability (2nd link below in thread discussion) versus many aircraft at 99.5% dispatch reliability. As discussed in that thread, it appears 99.8% dispatch reliability is the new expected level (AFAIK, both the MAX and NEO achieve that).

https://www.aero-mag.com/pratt-whitney- ... -23122020/
viewtopic.php?t=1427277

So Qantas will get a more reliable aircraft and I assume they crunched all the numbers to come to their purchase decision. Fuel burn will certainly be less. With predictive maintenance, I fully expect maintenance expenses for both the aircraft and airframe to be less (but I have no link to confirm that). I believe the range on the A220 will give Qantas a lot more flexibility in operations and thus I fully expect the A220s to fly many more hours per day/month/year than the 717s in part because their range enables more missions and in part the variable costs will be enough lower to make more routes profitable.

I'm actually surprised how few A220s were purchased. I speculate this is because Qantas is both being cautious and also likes the E-jets for low utilization duty. JetBlue is using the 20% to 30% lower seat costs of the A220 to stimulate flying. Considering the E-jets pushed the 717 out of the market, slide 7 shows the E-jets will probably be for low utilization duty and quite possibly Qantas expects to pick them up cheap enough to replace the Fokkers for low utilization duty (e.g., mine charters)? (I don't know, I'm purely speculating.)
http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

Lightsaber

I must say I do have mixed reactions and feeling reading about this order from Qantas. I'm surprised, yet not surprised, that QF has chosen the A321XLR and A220-300. I'm excited to see the A220-300 in this part of the world in QF colours, but do have mixed feelings about the A321XLR. For the enthusiast in me, I am excited seeing a new, capable, aircraft wearing QF's colours. However, from the "traveller" perspective in me, I'm not so sure. I've no doubt the A320XLR would be an excellent, comfy plane to travel in for short flights, but I really shudder to think what the experience would be like flying in a narrow body for a flight as long as 8-9 hours. I can barely stand flying in a narrow body for anything more than 4-5 hours, let alone double that length? No matter how airlines make the seats comfortable with good width and pitch, you can help with the feeling of it being a bit claustrophobic (at least it happens to me) inside a narrowbody, especially if you have to be a solo traveller on the window seats (which are the seats I'd go for). I guess only time will tell.

So, in summary, good on QF and congratulations to Airbus, but....

It will be interesting to see how the unions that represent the Qantas Flight Crews and the Jetstar Flight Crews, how they will negotiate the new agreements.

I am thinking this because in the past they flew different aircraft (737 v A320), now that will be a different story.

Also, I will be interested to see if Qantaslink (National Jet or Cobham whatever that entity operates the 717s) will be the operators of the A220, similar to what is being done with the 717s....

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

The bit that surprises me about this order is the choice of engine type for the NEO's. QF are going with PW, while the JQ fleet was ordered with LEAP's, puzzling.

My guess is they want to have best of both worlds, if one is grounded at least there is a back up. QF maintenance can further expand their knowledge on both engine, potentially doing MRO activities for other A320 operators in the region.

Yup, like LH's ceo A321's.

aschachter wrote:

It will be interesting to see how the unions that represent the Qantas Flight Crews and the Jetstar Flight Crews, how they will negotiate the new agreements.

I am thinking this because in the past they flew different aircraft (737 v A320), now that will be a different story.

Also, I will be interested to see if Qantaslink (National Jet or Cobham whatever that entity operates the 717s) will be the operators of the A220, similar to what is being done with the 717s....

Cobham is no longer involved in QantasLink, they sold off the National Jet subsidiary (717 ops) a few years back to QF group. Thus National Jet is a wholly owned QF group subsidiary under the QFLink banner like Sunstate and Eastern Australia.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

log0008 wrote:

Well well, I have had an interesting discussion with a very senior pilot in Qantas.

The XLR will not be able to operate anything longer than SYD-CGK. The problem - crew hours. Anything longer than 8 hours is going to be out of the window as the 321XLR has no crew rest facilities. This limits us to an absolute maximum 3500nm.

Generally I take what pilots and flight attendants say with a grain of salt. Not saying you or your sources are incorrect, however they often don't know any of the behind the scenes work involved in acquiring new aircraft and any new contractual terms that are being drafted.

Airbus has also proposed crew rest facilities which are proven elsewhere too.

At US Airways back in the day out 767s not 757s had crew rest areas and they used them for US to Europe and other international destinations.

They just block seats for them to use.

Could an airline like Ryanair or any other airline that operates 50+ MAX with over 100 more on order cancel it’s remaining MAX, and sell off its current MAX for a NEO order? Has something like this ever been done before?

With Jetstar operating many Airbus aircraft, will they be assisting in training the Qantas crews on upcoming Airbus aircraft?