I remain persuaded that had Boeing continued as an engineering company the MOM would have been an OK but not all that successful model. But Boeing would be well positioned to remain more than competitive for the 21st century. A cynical read: as the MOM was discussed, the top couple dozen engineers in the company were asked for their feedback on building it. They looked at the board, they looked at the executives, they looked at the state of worker morale - and said 'Hell no!'

texl1649 wrote:

How many 4000+ NM flights are 321XLR’s carrying, err, wait will they really be used on?

https://airinsight.com/first-delivery-a ... arly-2024/

https://expertwriterforhire.wordpress.c ... ight-test/

Flexibility in planning is great and all, but I am reminded of how prevalent the discussion point was on this forum that ‘well, 99 percent of 757 routes don’t use the capability advantage it offers.’ So, the XLR offers even more range/cargo capability on a narrow body that is of course much more efficient than the 30+ year old bird from Boeing, when it’s ‘rolling off the line’ circa 2024. What airlines will substantively be using those capabilities?

If the 757’s capabilities were so unneeded, after all, then why are the 321XLR’s so critical? Well, hang on, we have many, many A320NEO’s out there today, right? What is their long range utilization, one could ask? Well, based on my quick search it looks like all of…17 routes over 3,000 miles, basically S7 flights? Umm….

https://simpleflying.com/longest-a320ne ... -a-summary

Why use it on TATL flights, with what city pairs/airlines? My swag, is that less than 10 percent of the time will the distances operated by the type be over 3500nm. In a time of panicked ‘we must cut carbon emissions’ imperatives it seems to me that hauling around that extra tank/mass is counter-productive. As such, is it really a pertinent barometer for any actual new mid-size aircraft (NMA/MOM)?

I think not, but rather that this theoretical ‘game changer’ in the XLR is a mirage as a big planning metric for either Airbus or Boeing in what they do next in this space. Anything over 4,000 miles in capability means hauling around structure/mass that is not helpful for the vast majority of customers.

Good points and how many 757's were/are flying around with Super low densities (134 seat equivalent) to maximize their range?

morrisond wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

How many 4000+ NM flights are 321XLR’s carrying, err, wait will they really be used on?

https://airinsight.com/first-delivery-a ... arly-2024/

https://expertwriterforhire.wordpress.c ... ight-test/

Flexibility in planning is great and all, but I am reminded of how prevalent the discussion point was on this forum that ‘well, 99 percent of 757 routes don’t use the capability advantage it offers.’ So, the XLR offers even more range/cargo capability on a narrow body that is of course much more efficient than the 30+ year old bird from Boeing, when it’s ‘rolling off the line’ circa 2024. What airlines will substantively be using those capabilities?

If the 757’s capabilities were so unneeded, after all, then why are the 321XLR’s so critical? Well, hang on, we have many, many A320NEO’s out there today, right? What is their long range utilization, one could ask? Well, based on my quick search it looks like all of…17 routes over 3,000 miles, basically S7 flights? Umm….

https://simpleflying.com/longest-a320ne ... -a-summary

Why use it on TATL flights, with what city pairs/airlines? My swag, is that less than 10 percent of the time will the distances operated by the type be over 3500nm. In a time of panicked ‘we must cut carbon emissions’ imperatives it seems to me that hauling around that extra tank/mass is counter-productive. As such, is it really a pertinent barometer for any actual new mid-size aircraft (NMA/MOM)?

I think not, but rather that this theoretical ‘game changer’ in the XLR is a mirage as a big planning metric for either Airbus or Boeing in what they do next in this space. Anything over 4,000 miles in capability means hauling around structure/mass that is not helpful for the vast majority of customers.

Good points and how many 757's were/are flying around with Super low densities (134 seat equivalent) to maximize their range?

The thing that is missing in this analysis is that the XLR brings different economics to the field and that the market has changed quite a lot.
Compare the average density of a 1990 747 vs a 2022 787 and you will see that the density has dropped quite a lot in favor of more spacious business class.
The XLR brings something new to the table that was previously not possible, more point to point options and higher yield possibilities for airlines. Exactly what the 787 did…

JonesNL wrote:

morrisond wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

How many 4000+ NM flights are 321XLR’s carrying, err, wait will they really be used on?

https://airinsight.com/first-delivery-a ... arly-2024/

https://expertwriterforhire.wordpress.c ... ight-test/

Flexibility in planning is great and all, but I am reminded of how prevalent the discussion point was on this forum that ‘well, 99 percent of 757 routes don’t use the capability advantage it offers.’ So, the XLR offers even more range/cargo capability on a narrow body that is of course much more efficient than the 30+ year old bird from Boeing, when it’s ‘rolling off the line’ circa 2024. What airlines will substantively be using those capabilities?

If the 757’s capabilities were so unneeded, after all, then why are the 321XLR’s so critical? Well, hang on, we have many, many A320NEO’s out there today, right? What is their long range utilization, one could ask? Well, based on my quick search it looks like all of…17 routes over 3,000 miles, basically S7 flights? Umm….

https://simpleflying.com/longest-a320ne ... -a-summary

Why use it on TATL flights, with what city pairs/airlines? My swag, is that less than 10 percent of the time will the distances operated by the type be over 3500nm. In a time of panicked ‘we must cut carbon emissions’ imperatives it seems to me that hauling around that extra tank/mass is counter-productive. As such, is it really a pertinent barometer for any actual new mid-size aircraft (NMA/MOM)?

I think not, but rather that this theoretical ‘game changer’ in the XLR is a mirage as a big planning metric for either Airbus or Boeing in what they do next in this space. Anything over 4,000 miles in capability means hauling around structure/mass that is not helpful for the vast majority of customers.

Good points and how many 757's were/are flying around with Super low densities (134 seat equivalent) to maximize their range?

The thing that is missing in this analysis is that the XLR brings different economics to the field and that the market has changed quite a lot.
Compare the average density of a 1990 747 vs a 2022 787 and you will see that the density has dropped quite a lot in favor of more spacious business class.
The XLR brings something new to the table that was previously not possible, more point to point options and higher yield possibilities for airlines. Exactly what the 787 did…

Not really. Its economics will necessarily be worse, out to 3,500 miles for instance, than an A320 NEO LR, or 321 NEO LR with a full load, per pax mile. But for some reason, there are only a couple such routes outside of Russia/Russian carriers in existence today. Going out to 4,700 NM is interesting, yes, but it is not something that has a ton of applications I am aware of, nor is the economic payload range of present narrow bodies being used in many instances globally.

https://simpleflying.com/a321s-compared/

I’ll again ask though, what are the ‘A321XLR is a big disruptive capability’ fans predictions/projections as to the percent of routes that will be operated by the type over 4,000 miles? I again would be shocked to see 10% or more hit that number. 3% sounds much more likely. The rest to be abused/fly around with that extra mass. I’d just like to see the expectation vs. the later reality once a bunch are in revenue service in a few years.

JonesNL wrote:

morrisond wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

How many 4000+ NM flights are 321XLR’s carrying, err, wait will they really be used on?

https://airinsight.com/first-delivery-a ... arly-2024/

https://expertwriterforhire.wordpress.c ... ight-test/

Flexibility in planning is great and all, but I am reminded of how prevalent the discussion point was on this forum that ‘well, 99 percent of 757 routes don’t use the capability advantage it offers.’ So, the XLR offers even more range/cargo capability on a narrow body that is of course much more efficient than the 30+ year old bird from Boeing, when it’s ‘rolling off the line’ circa 2024. What airlines will substantively be using those capabilities?

If the 757’s capabilities were so unneeded, after all, then why are the 321XLR’s so critical? Well, hang on, we have many, many A320NEO’s out there today, right? What is their long range utilization, one could ask? Well, based on my quick search it looks like all of…17 routes over 3,000 miles, basically S7 flights? Umm….

https://simpleflying.com/longest-a320ne ... -a-summary

Why use it on TATL flights, with what city pairs/airlines? My swag, is that less than 10 percent of the time will the distances operated by the type be over 3500nm. In a time of panicked ‘we must cut carbon emissions’ imperatives it seems to me that hauling around that extra tank/mass is counter-productive. As such, is it really a pertinent barometer for any actual new mid-size aircraft (NMA/MOM)?

I think not, but rather that this theoretical ‘game changer’ in the XLR is a mirage as a big planning metric for either Airbus or Boeing in what they do next in this space. Anything over 4,000 miles in capability means hauling around structure/mass that is not helpful for the vast majority of customers.

Good points and how many 757's were/are flying around with Super low densities (134 seat equivalent) to maximize their range?

The thing that is missing in this analysis is that the XLR brings different economics to the field and that the market has changed quite a lot.
Compare the average density of a 1990 747 vs a 2022 787 and you will see that the density has dropped quite a lot in favor of more spacious business class.
The XLR brings something new to the table that was previously not possible, more point to point options and higher yield possibilities for airlines. Exactly what the 787 did…

It wasn't any analysis. I just asked a question. It appears the only one that got close to that low in terms of density was United with one of its three 757-200 layouts at 142 seats, and it appears that version was withdrawn from service. Plus of course there are the transcontinental AA 321's. However it doesn't appear to be a huge market.

The note on United's Fleet Wiki page says its 40 752's will be replaced by A321NEO, XLR and MAX 10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_fleet

Two words - Bigger Wing. That is where I think it will really take off in terms of sales, so you can get 170+ people in an 321/322 out past 4,000NM. Of course that just puts further hurt on small wide bodies.

texl1649 wrote:

How many 4000+ NM flights are 321XLR’s carrying, err, wait will they really be used on?

https://airinsight.com/first-delivery-a ... arly-2024/

https://expertwriterforhire.wordpress.c ... ight-test/

Flexibility in planning is great and all, but I am reminded of how prevalent the discussion point was on this forum that ‘well, 99 percent of 757 routes don’t use the capability advantage it offers.’ So, the XLR offers even more range/cargo capability on a narrow body that is of course much more efficient than the 30+ year old bird from Boeing, when it’s ‘rolling off the line’ circa 2024. What airlines will substantively be using those capabilities?

If the 757’s capabilities were so unneeded, after all, then why are the 321XLR’s so critical? Well, hang on, we have many, many A320NEO’s out there today, right? What is their long range utilization, one could ask? Well, based on my quick search it looks like all of…17 routes over 3,000 miles, basically S7 flights? Umm….

https://simpleflying.com/longest-a320ne ... -a-summary

Why use it on TATL flights, with what city pairs/airlines? My swag, is that less than 10 percent of the time will the distances operated by the type be over 3500nm. In a time of panicked ‘we must cut carbon emissions’ imperatives it seems to me that hauling around that extra tank/mass is counter-productive. As such, is it really a pertinent barometer for any actual new mid-size aircraft (NMA/MOM)?

I think not, but rather that this theoretical ‘game changer’ in the XLR is a mirage as a big planning metric for either Airbus or Boeing in what they do next in this space. Anything over 4,000 miles in capability means hauling around structure/mass that is not helpful for the vast majority of customers.

Most 757 flights didn't use that long of range yet airlines still use 757.

JonesNL wrote:

The thing that is missing in this analysis is that the XLR brings different economics to the field and that the market has changed quite a lot.
Compare the average density of a 1990 747 vs a 2022 787 and you will see that the density has dropped quite a lot in favor of more spacious business class.
The XLR brings something new to the table that was previously not possible, more point to point options and higher yield possibilities for airlines. Exactly what the 787 did…

Precisely.

Too much of a fixation here on the cost per seaty side of things when the emphasis should be on revenue.

The xlr isn't an aircraft where airlines are going to pack 200+ in Y for a beach holiday somewhere (for the most part). It's going to be for longer thinner routes where the market would struggle to support larger aircraft. Explains why so many airline cabin development teams are struggling to procure the premium seating.

Chaostheory wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

The thing that is missing in this analysis is that the XLR brings different economics to the field and that the market has changed quite a lot.
Compare the average density of a 1990 747 vs a 2022 787 and you will see that the density has dropped quite a lot in favor of more spacious business class.
The XLR brings something new to the table that was previously not possible, more point to point options and higher yield possibilities for airlines. Exactly what the 787 did…

Precisely.

Too much of a fixation here on the cost per seaty side of things when the emphasis should be on revenue.

The xlr isn't an aircraft where airlines are going to pack 200+ in Y for a beach holiday somewhere (for the most part). It's going to be for longer thinner routes where the market would struggle to support larger aircraft. Explains why so many airline cabin development teams are struggling to procure the premium seating.

Yes, there is a market for that where airlines are using the full capabilities of an XLR - however I suspect that market numbers in the hundreds of frames, or a small % (less than 3%) of SA deliveries over the next 20 years, which could be over 30,000. As traffic grows on those routes Widebodies take over as the big constraint likely becomes slots. Probably more at the origin than the destination.

I think it would be hard to fill even something like an XLR from Boston to Rome on a given day (or choose your point to point - I'm just guessing on this). NY to Rome - definitely, but then of course slots come back into play.

For SA's to take over from WB's on a lot of medium range flying it's going to require a lot more airport capacity in the big centers, which we know there is not much chance of happening anytime soon.

I think it is important that the XLR will proably not be an aircraft that will serve a route 365 days a year. There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of seasonal routes. All the seasonal routes on WB aircraft (<4500nm) could potentially become year round services with an XLR in the fleet. What the XLR will also allow is to substitute a WB on slow days. No need to fly your 787 half empty on Wednesday if you can just use the XLR.

What the XLR provides is flexibility. Capability is sexy and we love to talk about aircraft capability, but what makes money is flexibility. The A380 failed because it has 0 flexibility, if it isnt full it loses money. The 787 succeeded because it is so flexible. It can make money on a 6500nm flight and then on a 4000nm flight even if load factors are not so great.

The XLR will be able to make money on a 4000nm route and then also on a 500nm route. Thats the true value of it.

Chaostheory wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

The thing that is missing in this analysis is that the XLR brings different economics to the field and that the market has changed quite a lot.
Compare the average density of a 1990 747 vs a 2022 787 and you will see that the density has dropped quite a lot in favor of more spacious business class.
The XLR brings something new to the table that was previously not possible, more point to point options and higher yield possibilities for airlines. Exactly what the 787 did…

Precisely.

Too much of a fixation here on the cost per seaty side of things when the emphasis should be on revenue.

The xlr isn't an aircraft where airlines are going to pack 200+ in Y for a beach holiday somewhere (for the most part). It's going to be for longer thinner routes where the market would struggle to support larger aircraft. Explains why so many airline cabin development teams are struggling to procure the premium seating.

The advantage of the XLR is that you can fly 200+ people in Y configuration to their beach holiday with it, if you want or need to. As long as you avoid the shortest routes the penalty in economics of using a XLR instead of a standard A321NEO is minimal. If you are an existing user of the A320 series, adding some XLRs to the fleet comes with a very small risk compared to adding another type or even a wide body.

morrisond wrote:

Yes, there is a market for that where airlines are using the full capabilities of an XLR - however I suspect that market numbers in the hundreds of frames, or a small % (less than 3%) of SA deliveries over the next 20 years, which could be over 30,000

I seem to recall having these same debates with the likes of Roseflyer, Newbiepilot etc when the neo was first announced. They laughed at the prospect of airbus selling 1000s. Then came the LR debates. Now the MOM and XLR debates. Always the ever moving goal posts.

3% of single aisle sales over 20 years? Time will tell, though, since the launch in 2019, I think the XLR is already above that.

Chaostheory wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes, there is a market for that where airlines are using the full capabilities of an XLR - however I suspect that market numbers in the hundreds of frames, or a small % (less than 3%) of SA deliveries over the next 20 years, which could be over 30,000

I seem to recall having these same debates with the likes of Roseflyer, Newbiepilot etc when the neo was first announced. They laughed at the prospect of airbus selling 1000s. Then came the LR debates. Now the MOM and XLR debates. Always the ever moving goal posts.

3% of single aisle sales over 20 years? Time will tell, though, since the launch in 2019, I think the XLR is already above that.

You missed the part where I said "use the full capabilities of an XLR".

Yes it will allow more flexibility, and the added cost to use it on shorter routes should not be big. However it really depends on what one pays for it in the first place to gain that flexibility. I can see Airbus being able to charge a few extra million for it - but I doubt its the $10 million number that has been thrown around.

For that to be true you would have to believe that United has happy to pay Airbus half a billion dollars extra on its order for 50 XLR's.

airbazar wrote:

77west wrote:

Almost certainly will end up being a wide narrowbody, IE a 6-Abreast with wider aisle to allow people and carts to pass easily / assist with boarding without going full twin aisle.

No one will ever build a 6 abreast twin aisle for the same reason no one will ever build a 4 engined 300-seat aircraft: No airline would ever buy it.
I'm not sure that there is enough demand globally, for a standalone MOM. That is a segment that only U.S. carriers seem to be interested in and I don't see either A or B investing that many resources for such a small gain. The more likely scenario IMO, is for Airbus to continue to improve on the A321 platform (perhaps with an A322 stretch and improved wing?), and for Boeing to launch an all new narrowbody family that will include a model larger and more capable than today's Max10.

that Boeing is already to field the 737-10 the key would only be to replace fhe flight deck with a 787 style flight deck and a comparable electrical system which allows for quick turnarounds and repairs. I'm not at all sure that the all electric systems of the 787 would make a narrowbody airplane more efficient.

morrisond wrote:

You missed the part where I said "use the full capabilities of an XLR".

What do you mean by full capabilities? Departing at MTOW?

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

You missed the part where I said "use the full capabilities of an XLR".

What do you mean by full capabilities? Departing at MTOW?

Fred

I was thinking more of the potential range. Yes I know given it's higher MTOW it has an ability to lift more on shorter missions than a 321NEO - but then again where are you going to put the bags given the loss in LD3-45 spots?

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

You missed the part where I said "use the full capabilities of an XLR".

What do you mean by full capabilities? Departing at MTOW?

Fred

I was thinking more of the potential range.

Very very few aircraft do, why would the XLR be any different in that regard? A B789 doing a 6000nm mission is akin to the XLR going ~3700nm. Neither seems beyond reasonable. UK to north east US is ~3000nm.

morrisond wrote:

Yes I know given it's higher MTOW it has an ability to lift more on shorter missions than a 321NEO - but then again where are you going to put the bags given the loss in LD3-45 spots?

Wasn't one of the major selling points of the XLR that it gained container spaces by integration of the tanks rather than through container based tanks on the LR? Also we have been talking about lower density cabins which would have fewer bags on them too? at 134 seats you'd need 4 or 5 LD3-45 for the bags, two taken up by the additional fuel tank and 1 ACT, giving 6 or 7 used of the 10 left open for cargo if needed so 3 or 4 cargo spaces. Each one has a max weight of ~1588kg (3500lb) with a carry capability of ~1500kg giving a carrying capability of ~4.5-6t assuming you want the extra ACT. Granted that's pretty dense cargo but like with Pax maybe you get to pick and choose the valuable stuff first...

All seems fairly reasonable.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

What do you mean by full capabilities? Departing at MTOW?

Fred

I was thinking more of the potential range.

Very very few aircraft do, why would the XLR be any different in that regard? A B789 doing a 6000nm mission is akin to the XLR going ~3700nm. Neither seems beyond reasonable. UK to north east US is ~3000nm.

morrisond wrote:

Yes I know given it's higher MTOW it has an ability to lift more on shorter missions than a 321NEO - but then again where are you going to put the bags given the loss in LD3-45 spots?

Wasn't one of the major selling points of the XLR that it gained container spaces by integration of the tanks rather than through container based tanks on the LR? Also we have been talking about lower density cabins which would have fewer bags on them too? at 134 seats you'd need 4 or 5 LD3-45 for the bags, two taken up by the additional fuel tank and 1 ACT, giving 6 or 7 used of the 10 left open for cargo if needed so 3 or 4 cargo spaces. Each one has a max weight of ~1588kg (3500lb) with a carry capability of ~1500kg giving a carrying capability of ~4.5-6t assuming you want the extra ACT. Granted that's pretty dense cargo but like with Pax maybe you get to pick and choose the valuable stuff first...

All seems fairly reasonable.

Fred

Once again you are taking things out of context. We were discussing how many missions would actually use the long distance capability of the XLR and People were talking about how flexible the XLR is vs an A321NEO and Airlines would just order them (XLR) by default.

Yes it gained one container spot with an XLR. The tank still takes two spots. I was referring to a short range mission where you packed it with 220-240 seats and need all the space in the belly you can get.

Not to mention if you want to take that many passengers your OEW weight rises also due to the extra exits.

If you configure an XLR for maximum range from Airbus it will not be as good as the regular NEO for high density shorter range routes. Airlines would be wise (just like United) to order both.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I was thinking more of the potential range.

Very very few aircraft do, why would the XLR be any different in that regard? A B789 doing a 6000nm mission is akin to the XLR going ~3700nm. Neither seems beyond reasonable. UK to north east US is ~3000nm.

morrisond wrote:

Yes I know given it's higher MTOW it has an ability to lift more on shorter missions than a 321NEO - but then again where are you going to put the bags given the loss in LD3-45 spots?

Wasn't one of the major selling points of the XLR that it gained container spaces by integration of the tanks rather than through container based tanks on the LR? Also we have been talking about lower density cabins which would have fewer bags on them too? at 134 seats you'd need 4 or 5 LD3-45 for the bags, two taken up by the additional fuel tank and 1 ACT, giving 6 or 7 used of the 10 left open for cargo if needed so 3 or 4 cargo spaces. Each one has a max weight of ~1588kg (3500lb) with a carry capability of ~1500kg giving a carrying capability of ~4.5-6t assuming you want the extra ACT. Granted that's pretty dense cargo but like with Pax maybe you get to pick and choose the valuable stuff first...

All seems fairly reasonable.

Fred

Once again you are taking things out of context. We were discussing how many missions would actually use the long distance capability of the XLR and People were talking about how flexible the XLR is vs an A321NEO and Airlines would just order them (XLR) by default.

Yes it gained one container spot with an XLR. The tank still takes two spots. I was referring to a short range mission where you packed it with 220-240 seats and need all the space in the belly you can get.

Not to mention if you want to take that many passengers your OEW weight rises also due to the extra exits.

If you configure an XLR for maximum range from Airbus it will not be as good as the regular NEO for high density shorter range routes. Airlines would be wise (just like United) to order both.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, if you load any aircraft in a high density configuration it isn't as good for longer flights. This is why airlines often have multiple cabin configurations of the same aircraft type.

We still don't know what the mom is though do we, can it be both high and low density at the same time? I mean we all wriggle and squirm around the XLR not being able to be 2 things at the same time but as yet the MOM/NMA isn't anything at all.

Fred

Chaostheory wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I suspect that market numbers in the hundreds of frames, or a small % (less than 3%) of SA deliveries over the next 20 years

3% of single aisle sales over 20 years? Time will tell, though, since the launch in 2019, I think the XLR is already above that.

I think it is irrelevant how large share of totalt single-aisle deliveries will be an XLR. The XLR competition is other long haul aircraft.

Currently we have (numbers from Wiki) these unfilled orders.

Boeing, long haul pax backlog:
777-8/9: 297
787-8/9/10: 570
Total: 867

Airbus, long haul pax backlog:
A350-900/1000: 369
A330-800/900: 196
A321XLR: 540*
Total: 1105

Conclusion: The A321XLR, as the only MOM-aircraft available to order, grabs market share from Boeing in the long haul market.

* Estimated based airline press releases at time of order.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I was thinking more of the potential range.

Very very few aircraft do, why would the XLR be any different in that regard? A B789 doing a 6000nm mission is akin to the XLR going ~3700nm. Neither seems beyond reasonable. UK to north east US is ~3000nm.

morrisond wrote:

Yes I know given it's higher MTOW it has an ability to lift more on shorter missions than a 321NEO - but then again where are you going to put the bags given the loss in LD3-45 spots?

Wasn't one of the major selling points of the XLR that it gained container spaces by integration of the tanks rather than through container based tanks on the LR? Also we have been talking about lower density cabins which would have fewer bags on them too? at 134 seats you'd need 4 or 5 LD3-45 for the bags, two taken up by the additional fuel tank and 1 ACT, giving 6 or 7 used of the 10 left open for cargo if needed so 3 or 4 cargo spaces. Each one has a max weight of ~1588kg (3500lb) with a carry capability of ~1500kg giving a carrying capability of ~4.5-6t assuming you want the extra ACT. Granted that's pretty dense cargo but like with Pax maybe you get to pick and choose the valuable stuff first...

All seems fairly reasonable.

Fred

Once again you are taking things out of context. We were discussing how many missions would actually use the long distance capability of the XLR and People were talking about how flexible the XLR is vs an A321NEO and Airlines would just order them (XLR) by default.

Yes it gained one container spot with an XLR. The tank still takes two spots. I was referring to a short range mission where you packed it with 220-240 seats and need all the space in the belly you can get.

Not to mention if you want to take that many passengers your OEW weight rises also due to the extra exits.

If you configure an XLR for maximum range from Airbus it will not be as good as the regular NEO for high density shorter range routes. Airlines would be wise (just like United) to order both.

All long haul aircraft usually fly much shorter sectors than their maximum capability.

The A321LR have three additional center tanks (ACT), with two in the rear cargo compartment and one in the front cargo compartment. Each tank adds about 3000 liters.

The A321XLR have one rear center tank (RCT) that adds 12000 liters. This tanks up the same space as two ACTs, but have the fuel capacity of four tanks. The XLR retains the possibility of one additional ACT in the front cargo area. This additional tank is not included in the 4700 nm, as it can only be used when the A321XLR is in a low density configuration. The 4700 nm range of the XLR is with 200 passengers on board.

reidar76 wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I suspect that market numbers in the hundreds of frames, or a small % (less than 3%) of SA deliveries over the next 20 years

3% of single aisle sales over 20 years? Time will tell, though, since the launch in 2019, I think the XLR is already above that.

I think it is irrelevant how large share of totalt single-aisle deliveries will be an XLR. The XLR competition is other long haul aircraft.

Currently we have (numbers from Wiki) these unfilled orders.

Boeing, long haul pax backlog:
777-8/9: 297
787-8/9/10: 570
Total: 867

Airbus, long haul pax backlog:
A350-900/1000: 369
A330-800/900: 196
A321XLR: 540*
Total: 1105

Conclusion: The A321XLR, as the only MOM-aircraft available to order, grabs market share from Boeing in the long haul market.

* Estimated based airline press releases at time of order.

That's a stretch adding the A321XLR into the 7,000NM+ Widebody market.

There is more than size in defining this as the "Middle of the Market"

And how do you know it came from Boeing - it could have been stolen more from Airbus. Given that Boeing was +216 in Widebodies last year and Airbus was -55, a very different conclusion could be made.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I was thinking more of the potential range.

Very very few aircraft do, why would the XLR be any different in that regard? A B789 doing a 6000nm mission is akin to the XLR going ~3700nm. Neither seems beyond reasonable. UK to north east US is ~3000nm.

morrisond wrote:

Yes I know given it's higher MTOW it has an ability to lift more on shorter missions than a 321NEO - but then again where are you going to put the bags given the loss in LD3-45 spots?

Wasn't one of the major selling points of the XLR that it gained container spaces by integration of the tanks rather than through container based tanks on the LR? Also we have been talking about lower density cabins which would have fewer bags on them too? at 134 seats you'd need 4 or 5 LD3-45 for the bags, two taken up by the additional fuel tank and 1 ACT, giving 6 or 7 used of the 10 left open for cargo if needed so 3 or 4 cargo spaces. Each one has a max weight of ~1588kg (3500lb) with a carry capability of ~1500kg giving a carrying capability of ~4.5-6t assuming you want the extra ACT. Granted that's pretty dense cargo but like with Pax maybe you get to pick and choose the valuable stuff first...

All seems fairly reasonable.

Fred

Once again you are taking things out of context. We were discussing how many missions would actually use the long distance capability of the XLR and People were talking about how flexible the XLR is vs an A321NEO and Airlines would just order them (XLR) by default.

Yes it gained one container spot with an XLR. The tank still takes two spots. I was referring to a short range mission where you packed it with 220-240 seats and need all the space in the belly you can get.

Not to mention if you want to take that many passengers your OEW weight rises also due to the extra exits.

If you configure an XLR for maximum range from Airbus it will not be as good as the regular NEO for high density shorter range routes. Airlines would be wise (just like United) to order both.

220 pax is low cost configuration. Little or zero cargo. Maybe some bags in the old. Not many in Europe maybe some in India - AE but the company can lift the prices or refuse them. Still fill the plane with pax.

reidar76 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Very very few aircraft do, why would the XLR be any different in that regard? A B789 doing a 6000nm mission is akin to the XLR going ~3700nm. Neither seems beyond reasonable. UK to north east US is ~3000nm.

Wasn't one of the major selling points of the XLR that it gained container spaces by integration of the tanks rather than through container based tanks on the LR? Also we have been talking about lower density cabins which would have fewer bags on them too? at 134 seats you'd need 4 or 5 LD3-45 for the bags, two taken up by the additional fuel tank and 1 ACT, giving 6 or 7 used of the 10 left open for cargo if needed so 3 or 4 cargo spaces. Each one has a max weight of ~1588kg (3500lb) with a carry capability of ~1500kg giving a carrying capability of ~4.5-6t assuming you want the extra ACT. Granted that's pretty dense cargo but like with Pax maybe you get to pick and choose the valuable stuff first...

All seems fairly reasonable.

Fred

Once again you are taking things out of context. We were discussing how many missions would actually use the long distance capability of the XLR and People were talking about how flexible the XLR is vs an A321NEO and Airlines would just order them (XLR) by default.

Yes it gained one container spot with an XLR. The tank still takes two spots. I was referring to a short range mission where you packed it with 220-240 seats and need all the space in the belly you can get.

Not to mention if you want to take that many passengers your OEW weight rises also due to the extra exits.

If you configure an XLR for maximum range from Airbus it will not be as good as the regular NEO for high density shorter range routes. Airlines would be wise (just like United) to order both.

All long haul aircraft usually fly much shorter sectors than their maximum capability.

The A321LR have three additional center tanks (ACT), with two in the rear cargo compartment and one in the front cargo compartment. Each tank adds about 3000 liters.

The A321XLR have one rear center tank (RCT) that adds 12000 liters. This tanks up the same space as two ACTs, but have the fuel capacity of four tanks. The XLR retains the possibility of one additional ACT in the front cargo area. This additional tank is not included in the 4700 nm, as it can only be used when the A321XLR is in a low density configuration. The 4700 nm range of the XLR is with 200 passengers on board.

It will only do 4,700nm with all Y seats, no IFE and Short range rules for Passenger weights (Airbus is assuming 90KG per passenger which is low). See even Airbus thinks of it as Short Ranged.

Realistic loadings and Cabin configs put it under 4,000 NM TATL in the Winter with 200 passengers.

Kikko19 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Very very few aircraft do, why would the XLR be any different in that regard? A B789 doing a 6000nm mission is akin to the XLR going ~3700nm. Neither seems beyond reasonable. UK to north east US is ~3000nm.

Wasn't one of the major selling points of the XLR that it gained container spaces by integration of the tanks rather than through container based tanks on the LR? Also we have been talking about lower density cabins which would have fewer bags on them too? at 134 seats you'd need 4 or 5 LD3-45 for the bags, two taken up by the additional fuel tank and 1 ACT, giving 6 or 7 used of the 10 left open for cargo if needed so 3 or 4 cargo spaces. Each one has a max weight of ~1588kg (3500lb) with a carry capability of ~1500kg giving a carrying capability of ~4.5-6t assuming you want the extra ACT. Granted that's pretty dense cargo but like with Pax maybe you get to pick and choose the valuable stuff first...

All seems fairly reasonable.

Fred

Once again you are taking things out of context. We were discussing how many missions would actually use the long distance capability of the XLR and People were talking about how flexible the XLR is vs an A321NEO and Airlines would just order them (XLR) by default.

Yes it gained one container spot with an XLR. The tank still takes two spots. I was referring to a short range mission where you packed it with 220-240 seats and need all the space in the belly you can get.

Not to mention if you want to take that many passengers your OEW weight rises also due to the extra exits.

If you configure an XLR for maximum range from Airbus it will not be as good as the regular NEO for high density shorter range routes. Airlines would be wise (just like United) to order both.

220 pax is low cost configuration. Little or zero cargo. Maybe some bags in the old. Not many in Europe maybe some in India - AE but the company can lift the prices or refuse them. Still fill the plane with pax.

Yes 220 pax on short range missions don't take much luggage but then why go to the extra expense of an XLR?

However for holiday travelers there will not be that many flying 6-8 hours who aren't taking baggage and you aren't getting that many carry-ons in the cabin.

morrisond wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Once again you are taking things out of context. We were discussing how many missions would actually use the long distance capability of the XLR and People were talking about how flexible the XLR is vs an A321NEO and Airlines would just order them (XLR) by default.

Yes it gained one container spot with an XLR. The tank still takes two spots. I was referring to a short range mission where you packed it with 220-240 seats and need all the space in the belly you can get.

Not to mention if you want to take that many passengers your OEW weight rises also due to the extra exits.

If you configure an XLR for maximum range from Airbus it will not be as good as the regular NEO for high density shorter range routes. Airlines would be wise (just like United) to order both.

All long haul aircraft usually fly much shorter sectors than their maximum capability.

The A321LR have three additional center tanks (ACT), with two in the rear cargo compartment and one in the front cargo compartment. Each tank adds about 3000 liters.

The A321XLR have one rear center tank (RCT) that adds 12000 liters. This tanks up the same space as two ACTs, but have the fuel capacity of four tanks. The XLR retains the possibility of one additional ACT in the front cargo area. This additional tank is not included in the 4700 nm, as it can only be used when the A321XLR is in a low density configuration. The 4700 nm range of the XLR is with 200 passengers on board.

It will only do 4,700nm with all Y seats, no IFE and Short range rules for Passenger weights (Airbus is assuming 90KG per passenger which is low). See even Airbus thinks of it as Short Ranged.

Realistic loadings and Cabin configs put it under 4,000 NM TATL in the Winter with 200 passengers.

And at the same density the B781 would only be able to go 5200nm, does this preclude it being in the same category as those 7000+nm jets?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

morrisond wrote:

That's a stretch adding the A321XLR into the 7,000NM+ Widebody market.

And how do you know it came from Boeing - it could have been stolen more from Airbus.

When the 787-10 is fully loaded with passengers and with all cargo positions filled, the range is about 4200 nm according to Boeing.
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/airpo ... nuals.page

When the A321XLR is fully loaded with 180 - 220 passengers, range is 4700 nm according to Airbus. The XLR can't carry additional cargo.
https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr

Market share doesn't work like that. You can cannibalise your own products as much as you like, your market share won't change. Your market share changes if your product is ordered instead of your competitors product. The XLR is an aircraft that completes with other long haul pax aircraft, and will strengthen Airbus overall market position in that market.

morrisond wrote:

It will only do 4,700nm with all Y seats, no IFE and Short range rules for Passenger weights (Airbus is assuming 90KG per passenger which is low). See even Airbus thinks of it as Short Ranged.

Realistic loadings and Cabin configs put it under 4,000 NM TATL in the Winter with 200 passengers.

Whenever we talk about range it is always nominal range. The A321XLR have a nominal range of 4700nm with 180 - 220 passengers on board. The difference here is cabin configuration and weight assumptions per passenger. I took an average of 200 passengers.

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr

In low density cabin configurations the XLR can have an optional, additional fuel tank in the front cargo compartment, increasing range to more than 5000 nm.

Chaostheory wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

The thing that is missing in this analysis is that the XLR brings different economics to the field and that the market has changed quite a lot.
Compare the average density of a 1990 747 vs a 2022 787 and you will see that the density has dropped quite a lot in favor of more spacious business class.
The XLR brings something new to the table that was previously not possible, more point to point options and higher yield possibilities for airlines. Exactly what the 787 did…

Precisely.

Too much of a fixation here on the cost per seaty side of things when the emphasis should be on revenue.

The xlr isn't an aircraft where airlines are going to pack 200+ in Y for a beach holiday somewhere (for the most part). It's going to be for longer thinner routes where the market would struggle to support larger aircraft. Explains why so many airline cabin development teams are struggling to procure the premium seating.

While I would generally agree with you both, we must consider that it is hard to divorce the XLR from the base platform (the A321). It's important to consider that quite a lot of the orders for that base platform were from LCCs, to whom that cost-per-seat metric is sacrosanct. To then consider the pressure that those carriers place(s/d) on legacy carriers, and how that helped redefine those legacy carriers should also be part of that equation. Many of those same legacy carriers are battling the fact that on the same platform, and in most cases, for lesser costs - those LCCs are only an adaptation of services away from offering a comparable product that competes. Smart move, from the perspective of Airbus to produce the frame that both types of carriers both want, and need, and to their credit - a genius endeavor that captures both markets (and a willing customer base well into the future). I agree that the yields matter more than cost-per-seat as it is how those yeilds are maximized that determine the business, yet, we shouldn't discount the effect that those LCCs, using the same frame (sometimes, albeit, non XLR variants) affect when/how those operating mechanics/mathematics determine how the manufacturer responds. If left to legacies, and LCCs not considered, we would likely be flying larger gauges and to fewer destinations, feeding larger hubs and banked services.

reidar76 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

That's a stretch adding the A321XLR into the 7,000NM+ Widebody market.

And how do you know it came from Boeing - it could have been stolen more from Airbus.

When the 787-10 is fully loaded with passengers and with all cargo positions filled, the range is about 4200 nm according to Boeing.
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/airpo ... nuals.page

When the A321XLR is fully loaded with 180 - 220 passengers, range is 4700 nm according to Airbus. The XLR can't carry additional cargo.
https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr

Market share doesn't work like that. You can cannibalise your own products as much as you like, your market share won't change. Your market share changes if your product is ordered instead of your competitors product. The XLR is an aircraft that completes with other long haul pax aircraft, and will strengthen Airbus overall market position in that market.

morrisond wrote:

It will only do 4,700nm with all Y seats, no IFE and Short range rules for Passenger weights (Airbus is assuming 90KG per passenger which is low). See even Airbus thinks of it as Short Ranged.

Realistic loadings and Cabin configs put it under 4,000 NM TATL in the Winter with 200 passengers.

Whenever we talk about range it is always nominal range. The A321XLR have a nominal range of 4700nm with 180 - 220 passengers on board. The difference here is cabin configuration and weight assumptions per passenger. I took an average of 200 passengers.

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr

In low density cabin configurations the XLR can have an optional, additional fuel tank in the front cargo compartment, increasing range to more than 5000 nm.

So high density (220 passengers) it can go 4,700NM and with another fuel tank it can go over 5,000NM but with low density? I'd like to see the graph of that... That Airbus page you linked to is not saying what you think.

I think some of the calculations from Members here on this thread put it under 150 seats to get to 4,700NM.

Okay then - just ignore recent sales. Fine if you want the XLR to take all 330 and 350 sales going forward, I'm sure Boeing will be happy to keep selling WB's at the rate it is.

morrisond wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

That's a stretch adding the A321XLR into the 7,000NM+ Widebody market.

And how do you know it came from Boeing - it could have been stolen more from Airbus.

When the 787-10 is fully loaded with passengers and with all cargo positions filled, the range is about 4200 nm according to Boeing.
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/airpo ... nuals.page

When the A321XLR is fully loaded with 180 - 220 passengers, range is 4700 nm according to Airbus. The XLR can't carry additional cargo.
https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr

Market share doesn't work like that. You can cannibalise your own products as much as you like, your market share won't change. Your market share changes if your product is ordered instead of your competitors product. The XLR is an aircraft that completes with other long haul pax aircraft, and will strengthen Airbus overall market position in that market.

morrisond wrote:

It will only do 4,700nm with all Y seats, no IFE and Short range rules for Passenger weights (Airbus is assuming 90KG per passenger which is low). See even Airbus thinks of it as Short Ranged.

Realistic loadings and Cabin configs put it under 4,000 NM TATL in the Winter with 200 passengers.

Whenever we talk about range it is always nominal range. The A321XLR have a nominal range of 4700nm with 180 - 220 passengers on board. The difference here is cabin configuration and weight assumptions per passenger. I took an average of 200 passengers.

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr

In low density cabin configurations the XLR can have an optional, additional fuel tank in the front cargo compartment, increasing range to more than 5000 nm.

So high density (220 passengers) it can go 4,700NM and with another fuel tank it can go over 5,000NM but with low density? I'd like to see the graph of that... That Airbus page you linked to is not saying what you think.

I think some of the calculations from Members here on this thread put it under 150 seats to get to 4,700NM.

Okay then - just ignore recent sales. Fine if you want the XLR to take all 330 and 350 sales going forward, I'm sure Boeing will be happy to keep selling WB's at the rate it is.

Why would Boeing be immune from it when airbus aren’t? And surely the aircraft most at risk would be the one that plays closest in the range territory i.e. the 781?

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1480755

This thread shows the relative performance of the relevant aircraft. Every time the A321 improves it’s MTOW it is the 781 that it moves the rug under. The A338/9 play in the same space as the 788/9 respectively, they have no 781 equivalent.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

All long haul aircraft usually fly much shorter sectors than their maximum capability.

The A321LR have three additional center tanks (ACT), with two in the rear cargo compartment and one in the front cargo compartment. Each tank adds about 3000 liters.

The A321XLR have one rear center tank (RCT) that adds 12000 liters. This tanks up the same space as two ACTs, but have the fuel capacity of four tanks. The XLR retains the possibility of one additional ACT in the front cargo area. This additional tank is not included in the 4700 nm, as it can only be used when the A321XLR is in a low density configuration. The 4700 nm range of the XLR is with 200 passengers on board.

It will only do 4,700nm with all Y seats, no IFE and Short range rules for Passenger weights (Airbus is assuming 90KG per passenger which is low). See even Airbus thinks of it as Short Ranged.

Realistic loadings and Cabin configs put it under 4,000 NM TATL in the Winter with 200 passengers.

And at the same density the B781 would only be able to go 5200nm, does this preclude it being in the same category as those 7000+nm jets?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would say yes 3,600-3,800Nm is not the same as 5,200NM. If an 781 could only do 3,600-3,800Nm we would not be calling it a long ranged aircraft. How many aircraft are airlines flying that actually have a density equivalent to 134 seats on an XLR - less than .5%? There is probably a good reason - that being not that many people will pay a premium to fly up front vs in Y.

Max out an XLR with an extra fuel tank up front to get it to the same range as the 781 at 5,200nm. It's density will be what 60-65% (110-130 seats)? How are the economics going to work on that comparison? You could pack the 781 with 330 seats (32 at 85" and 298 at 32" according to the ACAP - page 26) , https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf vs what looks like about 16 85" seats and about 96 32" seats looking at AA A321 heavy first layout on seatguru removing some up front to get more in the back. https://seatguru.com/airlines/American_ ... 21_new.php

You would need two XLR flights to carry the same Premium traffic and not get the benefit of over 100 Y seats on the 781Y you could sell - or cargo if they are empty.

As I've said multiple times with a new Big Wing then an A321 becomes a lot more capable and IMO what is needed to really crack that market, and get its density up higher at these ranges. However by the time that happens Boeing could be well on its way to delivering a viable competitor. Whatever the size of the market that really exists we know Boeing has been in discussions about it, and it would be pretty foolish to assume they are not taking it into their future plans.

Do I think it's a standalone aircraft/program? No of course not, I've always believed that it will be based on whatever fuselage they use to replace the MAX - with the logical order being the longer ranged/bigger winged version first.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

When the 787-10 is fully loaded with passengers and with all cargo positions filled, the range is about 4200 nm according to Boeing.
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/airpo ... nuals.page

When the A321XLR is fully loaded with 180 - 220 passengers, range is 4700 nm according to Airbus. The XLR can't carry additional cargo.
https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr

Market share doesn't work like that. You can cannibalise your own products as much as you like, your market share won't change. Your market share changes if your product is ordered instead of your competitors product. The XLR is an aircraft that completes with other long haul pax aircraft, and will strengthen Airbus overall market position in that market.



Whenever we talk about range it is always nominal range. The A321XLR have a nominal range of 4700nm with 180 - 220 passengers on board. The difference here is cabin configuration and weight assumptions per passenger. I took an average of 200 passengers.

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr

In low density cabin configurations the XLR can have an optional, additional fuel tank in the front cargo compartment, increasing range to more than 5000 nm.

So high density (220 passengers) it can go 4,700NM and with another fuel tank it can go over 5,000NM but with low density? I'd like to see the graph of that... That Airbus page you linked to is not saying what you think.

I think some of the calculations from Members here on this thread put it under 150 seats to get to 4,700NM.

Okay then - just ignore recent sales. Fine if you want the XLR to take all 330 and 350 sales going forward, I'm sure Boeing will be happy to keep selling WB's at the rate it is.

Why would Boeing be immune from it when airbus aren’t? And surely the aircraft most at risk would be the one that plays closest in the range territory i.e. the 781?

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1480755

This thread shows the relative performance of the relevant aircraft. Every time the A321 improves it’s MTOW it is the 781 that it moves the rug under. The A338/9 play in the same space as the 788/9 respectively, they have no 781 equivalent.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Boeing is not immune from it - and I'm sure it has taken sales away. However, it seems to have hurt Airbus more than Boeing based on recent sales. Plus we have the upcoming MTOW increase on the 781 which should help change the equation further. 100 more Y seats vs two XLR flights (at 5,200NM) and with the MTOW boost some cargo as well for revenue.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

It will only do 4,700nm with all Y seats, no IFE and Short range rules for Passenger weights (Airbus is assuming 90KG per passenger which is low). See even Airbus thinks of it as Short Ranged.

Realistic loadings and Cabin configs put it under 4,000 NM TATL in the Winter with 200 passengers.

And at the same density the B781 would only be able to go 5200nm, does this preclude it being in the same category as those 7000+nm jets?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would say yes 3,600-3,800Nm is not the same as 5,200NM. If an 781 could only do 3,600-3,800Nm we would not be calling it a long ranged aircraft. How many aircraft are airlines flying that actually have a density equivalent to 134 seats on an XLR - less than .5%? There is probably a good reason - that being not that many people will pay a premium to fly up front vs in Y.

Max out an XLR with an extra fuel tank up front to get it to the same range as the 781 at 5,200nm. It's density will be what 60-65% (110-130 seats)? How are the economics going to work on that comparison? You could pack the 781 with 330 seats (32 at 85" and 298 at 32" according to the ACAP - page 26) , https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf vs what looks like about 16 85" seats and about 96 32" seats looking at AA A321 heavy first layout on seatguru removing some up front to get more in the back. https://seatguru.com/airlines/American_ ... 21_new.php

You would need two XLR flights to carry the same Premium traffic and not get the benefit of over 100 Y seats on the 781Y you could sell - or cargo if they are empty.

As I've said multiple times with a new Big Wing then an A321 becomes a lot more capable and IMO what is needed to really crack that market, and get its density up higher at these ranges. However by the time that happens Boeing could be well on its way to delivering a viable competitor. Whatever the size of the market that really exists we know Boeing has been in discussions about it, and it would be pretty foolish to assume they are not taking it into their future plans.

Do I think it's a standalone aircraft/program? No of course not, I've always believed that it will be based on whatever fuselage they use to replace the MAX - with the logical order being the longer ranged/bigger winged version first.

134 seats is the same density as UA B781. That’s why it was chosen.

Incidentally the 767 (often cited as the original MOM) has a ridiculously low density at UA giving the equivalent of 111-132 seats on an A321…

Equivalent density to the UA77W would give 129 seats.

Equivalent density to the UA 789 would give 123 seats.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

morrisond wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Once again you are taking things out of context. We were discussing how many missions would actually use the long distance capability of the XLR and People were talking about how flexible the XLR is vs an A321NEO and Airlines would just order them (XLR) by default.

Yes it gained one container spot with an XLR. The tank still takes two spots. I was referring to a short range mission where you packed it with 220-240 seats and need all the space in the belly you can get.

Not to mention if you want to take that many passengers your OEW weight rises also due to the extra exits.

If you configure an XLR for maximum range from Airbus it will not be as good as the regular NEO for high density shorter range routes. Airlines would be wise (just like United) to order both.

220 pax is low cost configuration. Little or zero cargo. Maybe some bags in the old. Not many in Europe maybe some in India - AE but the company can lift the prices or refuse them. Still fill the plane with pax.

Yes 220 pax on short range missions don't take much luggage but then why go to the extra expense of an XLR?

However for holiday travelers there will not be that many flying 6-8 hours who aren't taking baggage and you aren't getting that many carry-ons in the cabin.

In fact will be for 170 oax or less like LR used by TP or SK long thin segments no 240 pax + big bags as mentioned up here.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

And at the same density the B781 would only be able to go 5200nm, does this preclude it being in the same category as those 7000+nm jets?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would say yes 3,600-3,800Nm is not the same as 5,200NM. If an 781 could only do 3,600-3,800Nm we would not be calling it a long ranged aircraft. How many aircraft are airlines flying that actually have a density equivalent to 134 seats on an XLR - less than .5%? There is probably a good reason - that being not that many people will pay a premium to fly up front vs in Y.

Max out an XLR with an extra fuel tank up front to get it to the same range as the 781 at 5,200nm. It's density will be what 60-65% (110-130 seats)? How are the economics going to work on that comparison? You could pack the 781 with 330 seats (32 at 85" and 298 at 32" according to the ACAP - page 26) , https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf vs what looks like about 16 85" seats and about 96 32" seats looking at AA A321 heavy first layout on seatguru removing some up front to get more in the back. https://seatguru.com/airlines/American_ ... 21_new.php

You would need two XLR flights to carry the same Premium traffic and not get the benefit of over 100 Y seats on the 781Y you could sell - or cargo if they are empty.

As I've said multiple times with a new Big Wing then an A321 becomes a lot more capable and IMO what is needed to really crack that market, and get its density up higher at these ranges. However by the time that happens Boeing could be well on its way to delivering a viable competitor. Whatever the size of the market that really exists we know Boeing has been in discussions about it, and it would be pretty foolish to assume they are not taking it into their future plans.

Do I think it's a standalone aircraft/program? No of course not, I've always believed that it will be based on whatever fuselage they use to replace the MAX - with the logical order being the longer ranged/bigger winged version first.

134 seats is the same density as UA B781. That’s why it was chosen.

Incidentally the 767 (often cited as the original MOM) has a ridiculously low density at UA giving the equivalent of 111-132 seats on an A321…

Equivalent density to the UA77W would give 129 seats.

Equivalent density to the UA 789 would give 123 seats.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get 140 with equivalent density but 134 is close enough.

Yet - when you look at the seats UA is using on 781 (it seems pretty equivalent to AA321 Transcon) - you aren't going to do much better than 2x in a 3.7M wide (internal) A321 fuselage vs 4x in the 5.5M 781. The A321 uses a lot higher % of the 34M available in the cabin of a 321 vs 52M available in a 781, to get half the seats. It is not as efficient up front as a widebody.

Please of course you totally ignored the pending weight increase on the 781 - which should be able to take it out another 500-700NM.

You can't use the same density. Take a look at the AA map and see how you are going to get 134 seats in it, with a bunch of sleepers.

Kikko19 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

220 pax is low cost configuration. Little or zero cargo. Maybe some bags in the old. Not many in Europe maybe some in India - AE but the company can lift the prices or refuse them. Still fill the plane with pax.

Yes 220 pax on short range missions don't take much luggage but then why go to the extra expense of an XLR?

However for holiday travelers there will not be that many flying 6-8 hours who aren't taking baggage and you aren't getting that many carry-ons in the cabin.

In fact will be for 170 oax or less like LR used by TP or SK long thin segments no 240 pax + big bags as mentioned up here.

Context - people were arguing Airlines would just order XLR's for all missions.

In one of the previous posts the XLR payload- range diagram was shared. If we take 100kg for a passenger+luggage, it becomes clear that for a 4000NM flight, the typical 180-190 seat cabin can easily be flown year round. Contrary to the Boeing 757 and A321LR.


Source: https://epsilonaviation.com

160-180 seats is what United, American and Jetblue will probably fly on their Atlantic XLR flights.

keesje wrote:

In one of the previous posts the XLR payload- range diagram was shared. If we take 100kg for a passenger+luggage, it becomes clear that for a 4000NM flight, the typical 180-190 seat cabin can easily be flown year round. Contrary to the Boeing 757 and A321LR.


Source: https://epsilonaviation.com

160-180 seats is what United, American and Jetblue will probably fly on their Atlantic XLR flights.

That makes a lot more sense to me vs 180-220 seats 4,700NM.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I would say yes 3,600-3,800Nm is not the same as 5,200NM. If an 781 could only do 3,600-3,800Nm we would not be calling it a long ranged aircraft. How many aircraft are airlines flying that actually have a density equivalent to 134 seats on an XLR - less than .5%? There is probably a good reason - that being not that many people will pay a premium to fly up front vs in Y.

Max out an XLR with an extra fuel tank up front to get it to the same range as the 781 at 5,200nm. It's density will be what 60-65% (110-130 seats)? How are the economics going to work on that comparison? You could pack the 781 with 330 seats (32 at 85" and 298 at 32" according to the ACAP - page 26) , https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf vs what looks like about 16 85" seats and about 96 32" seats looking at AA A321 heavy first layout on seatguru removing some up front to get more in the back. https://seatguru.com/airlines/American_ ... 21_new.php

You would need two XLR flights to carry the same Premium traffic and not get the benefit of over 100 Y seats on the 781Y you could sell - or cargo if they are empty.

As I've said multiple times with a new Big Wing then an A321 becomes a lot more capable and IMO what is needed to really crack that market, and get its density up higher at these ranges. However by the time that happens Boeing could be well on its way to delivering a viable competitor. Whatever the size of the market that really exists we know Boeing has been in discussions about it, and it would be pretty foolish to assume they are not taking it into their future plans.

Do I think it's a standalone aircraft/program? No of course not, I've always believed that it will be based on whatever fuselage they use to replace the MAX - with the logical order being the longer ranged/bigger winged version first.

134 seats is the same density as UA B781. That’s why it was chosen.

Incidentally the 767 (often cited as the original MOM) has a ridiculously low density at UA giving the equivalent of 111-132 seats on an A321…

Equivalent density to the UA77W would give 129 seats.

Equivalent density to the UA 789 would give 123 seats.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get 140 with equivalent density but 134 is close enough.

Yet - when you look at the seats UA is using on 781 (it seems pretty equivalent to AA321 Transcon) - you aren't going to do much better than 2x in a 3.7M wide (internal) A321 fuselage vs 4x in the 5.5M 781. The A321 uses a lot higher % of the 34M available in the cabin of a 321 vs 52M available in a 781, to get half the seats. It is not as efficient up front as a widebody.

Please of course you totally ignored the pending weight increase on the 781 - which should be able to take it out another 500-700NM.

You can't use the same density. Take a look at the AA map and see how you are going to get 134 seats in it, with a bunch of sleepers.

Indeed one might have to do some thinking about how to use the space appropriately rather than just lift and shift wide body products in. Hardly seems beyond the wit of man to do so.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

134 seats is the same density as UA B781. That’s why it was chosen.

Incidentally the 767 (often cited as the original MOM) has a ridiculously low density at UA giving the equivalent of 111-132 seats on an A321…

Equivalent density to the UA77W would give 129 seats.

Equivalent density to the UA 789 would give 123 seats.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get 140 with equivalent density but 134 is close enough.

Yet - when you look at the seats UA is using on 781 (it seems pretty equivalent to AA321 Transcon) - you aren't going to do much better than 2x in a 3.7M wide (internal) A321 fuselage vs 4x in the 5.5M 781. The A321 uses a lot higher % of the 34M available in the cabin of a 321 vs 52M available in a 781, to get half the seats. It is not as efficient up front as a widebody.

Please of course you totally ignored the pending weight increase on the 781 - which should be able to take it out another 500-700NM.

You can't use the same density. Take a look at the AA map and see how you are going to get 134 seats in it, with a bunch of sleepers.

Indeed one might have to do some thinking about how to use the space appropriately rather than just lift and shift wide body products in. Hardly seems beyond the wit of man to do so.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is true - but it has to have the same comfort levels to be comparable.

AA doesn't seem to have that ability if that is what they are using (wide body products).

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I get 140 with equivalent density but 134 is close enough.

Yet - when you look at the seats UA is using on 781 (it seems pretty equivalent to AA321 Transcon) - you aren't going to do much better than 2x in a 3.7M wide (internal) A321 fuselage vs 4x in the 5.5M 781. The A321 uses a lot higher % of the 34M available in the cabin of a 321 vs 52M available in a 781, to get half the seats. It is not as efficient up front as a widebody.

Please of course you totally ignored the pending weight increase on the 781 - which should be able to take it out another 500-700NM.

You can't use the same density. Take a look at the AA map and see how you are going to get 134 seats in it, with a bunch of sleepers.

Indeed one might have to do some thinking about how to use the space appropriately rather than just lift and shift wide body products in. Hardly seems beyond the wit of man to do so.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is true - but it has to have the same comfort levels to be comparable.

AA doesn't seem to have that ability if that is what they are using (wide body products).

Interestingly it might not even need the same comfort level in terms of hard product. Perception can be your friend. A wide body aircraft feels huge from the inside, so your brain automatically expects more space for yourself. Thats for example why 10ab on the 777 feels often more cramped than 6ab on the 737, because the aircraft seems so big but you have so little space. On the 737 it is expected to have little space.
On top of that up front in a medium to long haul product on an A321 you will feel pretty alone in a 1-1 seating, so you airlines might get away with a innovative solutions that have less floor area per passenger but still make the impression of an equal or even better product compared to a wide body just by tricking the brain.

astuteman wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

morrisond wrote:

This is true - but it has to have the same comfort levels to be comparable.

AA doesn't seem to have that ability if that is what they are using (wide body products).

Interestingly it might not even need the same comfort level in terms of hard product. Perception can be your friend. A wide body aircraft feels huge from the inside, so your brain automatically expects more space for yourself. Thats for example why 10ab on the 777 feels often more cramped than 6ab on the 737, because the aircraft seems so big but you have so little space. On the 737 it is expected to have little space.
On top of that up front in a medium to long haul product on an A321 you will feel pretty alone in a 1-1 seating, so you airlines might get away with a innovative solutions that have less floor area per passenger but still make the impression of an equal or even better product compared to a wide body just by tricking the brain.

The best business class experience I can remember has been at the front of a narrowbody - not because of hard product or service, but because of the "club-like intimacy" that being one of only 12 or 16 brings ...

Rgds

This is true. Although I was on AC330 upfront last week which was 1x2x1 and it was quite private as well.

To really cement that Business traveller though on a 8-10 hour flight - you would want the ability to go straight to the higher flight levels to get over weather, and being able to cruise at something better than .78M (assuming that is the XLR's cruise speed) would also help. An XLR will be what - 30-45 min slower crossing the pond? Business travellers notice that.

It does not have to do .95M - but a new wing that got it closer to .9M if the fuel burn penalty is reasonable and the ability to go straight to over 35,000', and eventually cruise in the low 40's could be a good thing. The A321NEO is only good for 39,800, I'm guessing an XLR may be worse due to heavier weight.

tvh wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

3% of single aisle sales over 20 years? Time will tell, though, since the launch in 2019, I think the XLR is already above that.

I think it is irrelevant how large share of totalt single-aisle deliveries will be an XLR. The XLR competition is other long haul aircraft.

Currently we have (numbers from Wiki) these unfilled orders.

Boeing, long haul pax backlog:
777-8/9: 297
787-8/9/10: 570
Total: 867

Airbus, long haul pax backlog:
A350-900/1000: 369
A330-800/900: 196
A321XLR: 540*
Total: 1105

Conclusion: The A321XLR, as the only MOM-aircraft available to order, grabs market share from Boeing in the long haul market.

* Estimated based airline press releases at time of order.

If you look at how many widebodies have been sold since the XLR is on offer then you realy understand how good the XLR is dowing.

From 2019 until now A330NEO is +40 and the 787 is +302, through Covid and a production shutdown. I would say it has definitely hurt one product.

Yes the 787 would have gotten more sales if the XLR did not exist, but it seems to be doing fine with an ASC606 adjusted backlog of 505, and an upcoming MTOW increase that should help things as well.

morrisond wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes 220 pax on short range missions don't take much luggage but then why go to the extra expense of an XLR?

However for holiday travelers there will not be that many flying 6-8 hours who aren't taking baggage and you aren't getting that many carry-ons in the cabin.

In fact will be for 170 oax or less like LR used by TP or SK long thin segments no 240 pax + big bags as mentioned up here.

Context - people were arguing Airlines would just order XLR's for all missions.

Different airlines will use it for different scopes (over 500 orders) and the solutions will likely be back ported to other models.

keesje wrote:

In one of the previous posts the XLR payload- range diagram was shared. If we take 100kg for a passenger+luggage, it becomes clear that for a 4000NM flight, the typical 180-190 seat cabin can easily be flown year round. Contrary to the Boeing 757 and A321LR.


Source: https://epsilonaviation.com

160-180 seats is what United, American and Jetblue will probably fly on their Atlantic XLR flights.

That diagram is very interesting, especially for what it shows about the XLR.

If the XLR curve is correct, and I suspect that not even Airbus knows for sure yet (let alone journalists, so called experts, and assorted amateurs), look at the shallow slope past 3700nm. Decreasing the slope by just a bit would dramatically improve the paylod-range characteristics. With a tiny decrease, it could carry 20t all the way to 4700nm. The potential payoff for that extra percent in weight reduction, or aerodynamic efficiency, or extra engine performance, would be huge.

Of course, the argument works in reverse too, so if they are not careful, they could easily take a big payload-range performance cut.

IADFCO wrote:

keesje wrote:

In one of the previous posts the XLR payload- range diagram was shared. If we take 100kg for a passenger+luggage, it becomes clear that for a 4000NM flight, the typical 180-190 seat cabin can easily be flown year round. Contrary to the Boeing 757 and A321LR.


Source: https://epsilonaviation.com

160-180 seats is what United, American and Jetblue will probably fly on their Atlantic XLR flights.

That diagram is very interesting, especially for what it shows about the XLR.

If the XLR curve is correct, and I suspect that not even Airbus knows for sure yet (let alone journalists, so called experts, and assorted amateurs), look at the shallow slope past 3700nm. Decreasing the slope by just a bit would dramatically improve the paylod-range characteristics. With a tiny decrease, it could carry 20t all the way to 4700nm. The potential payoff for that extra percent in weight reduction, or aerodynamic efficiency, or extra engine performance, would be huge.

Of course, the argument works in reverse too, so if they are not careful, they could easily take a big payload-range performance cut.

That slope represents the product of aerodynamic and propulsive performance, the lower the better and likely a good chunk of the brain power of both Airbus and Boeing.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This chart is only interesting, if you compare it to the standard A321NEO. Which show that the XLR makes sense from 2500nm to 3700nm, if you can fill the maximum payload. Or in other words. it extends the fully useful range of your A321 fleet by nearly 50% and it does this with a very tiny drawback on the sub 2500nm routes.

It is not a new type, it just another version of an A320 series plane, but a version that extends the payload and range of your A320 series fleet by about 50%. Which is huge.

flipdewaf wrote:

IADFCO wrote:

keesje wrote:

In one of the previous posts the XLR payload- range diagram was shared. If we take 100kg for a passenger+luggage, it becomes clear that for a 4000NM flight, the typical 180-190 seat cabin can easily be flown year round. Contrary to the Boeing 757 and A321LR.


Source: https://epsilonaviation.com

160-180 seats is what United, American and Jetblue will probably fly on their Atlantic XLR flights.

That diagram is very interesting, especially for what it shows about the XLR.

If the XLR curve is correct, and I suspect that not even Airbus knows for sure yet (let alone journalists, so called experts, and assorted amateurs), look at the shallow slope past 3700nm. Decreasing the slope by just a bit would dramatically improve the paylod-range characteristics. With a tiny decrease, it could carry 20t all the way to 4700nm. The potential payoff for that extra percent in weight reduction, or aerodynamic efficiency, or extra engine performance, would be huge.

Of course, the argument works in reverse too, so if they are not careful, they could easily take a big payload-range performance cut.

That slope represents the product of aerodynamic and propulsive performance, the lower the better and likely a good chunk of the brain power of both Airbus and Boeing.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why does the LR line slope down at a steeper angle than the XLR past 4,000NM?

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

IADFCO wrote:

That diagram is very interesting, especially for what it shows about the XLR.

If the XLR curve is correct, and I suspect that not even Airbus knows for sure yet (let alone journalists, so called experts, and assorted amateurs), look at the shallow slope past 3700nm. Decreasing the slope by just a bit would dramatically improve the paylod-range characteristics. With a tiny decrease, it could carry 20t all the way to 4700nm. The potential payoff for that extra percent in weight reduction, or aerodynamic efficiency, or extra engine performance, would be huge.

Of course, the argument works in reverse too, so if they are not careful, they could easily take a big payload-range performance cut.

That slope represents the product of aerodynamic and propulsive performance, the lower the better and likely a good chunk of the brain power of both Airbus and Boeing.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why does the LR line slope down at a steeper angle than the XLR past 4,000NM?

Full tanks, it stops swapping fuel for payload and just reduces payload to increase range.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk