flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

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

That's what I figured. Thanks

seahawk wrote:

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.

It's funny how many folks here are obsessed with maximum range while happily ignoring the payload benefits. It's almost as though they're trying to downplay the plane's capabilities.

scbriml wrote:

seahawk wrote:

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.

It's funny how many folks here are obsessed with maximum range while happily ignoring the payload benefits. It's almost as though they're trying to downplay the plane's capabilities.

Just look at what an airline like Wizzair / Wizzair Abu Dhabi could do.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3700nm%40L ... =wls&DU=mi

Even with a 200 seat high density configuration and the seat mile costs of an A321NEo with 200 seats. With no extra costs in maintenance or pilot/crew training. (okay they need ETOPS certification)

Now imagine, they would get a partner like jetblue or Spirit in the US

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3700nm%40L ... =wls&DU=mi

Already made that reference once, so here it is again:
MoM is tough to crack. Look at cars. We have 2-seaters and we have 4-5 seaters. Logically, a 3-seater seems a great idea. MoM is like the 3-seater.

incitatus wrote:

Already made that reference once, so here it is again:
MoM is tough to crack. Look at cars. We have 2-seaters and we have 4-5 seaters. Logically, a 3-seater seems a great idea. MoM is like the 3-seater.

I'd say the 737 and A320 are subcompacts, and the widebodies are full size cars of the 70s. The Mom is the SUV. People will pay for comfort and space over being jammed into the cheapest smallest space, given the rational choice.

DenverTed wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Already made that reference once, so here it is again:
MoM is tough to crack. Look at cars. We have 2-seaters and we have 4-5 seaters. Logically, a 3-seater seems a great idea. MoM is like the 3-seater.

I'd say the 737 and A320 are subcompacts, and the widebodies are full size cars of the 70s. The Mom is the SUV. People will pay for comfort and space over being jammed into the cheapest smallest space, given the rational choice.

Aren't SUVs doing great, selling like crazy?

xl0hr wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Already made that reference once, so here it is again:
MoM is tough to crack. Look at cars. We have 2-seaters and we have 4-5 seaters. Logically, a 3-seater seems a great idea. MoM is like the 3-seater.

I'd say the 737 and A320 are subcompacts, and the widebodies are full size cars of the 70s. The Mom is the SUV. People will pay for comfort and space over being jammed into the cheapest smallest space, given the rational choice.

Aren't SUVs doing great, selling like crazy?

SUV are not investments and are just a cost for most of people. Planes need highest ROE.

DenverTed wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Already made that reference once, so here it is again:
MoM is tough to crack. Look at cars. We have 2-seaters and we have 4-5 seaters. Logically, a 3-seater seems a great idea. MoM is like the 3-seater.

I'd say the 737 and A320 are subcompacts, and the widebodies are full size cars of the 70s. The Mom is the SUV. People will pay for comfort and space over being jammed into the cheapest smallest space, given the rational choice.

The issue is that Boeing is apparently unable to make the business case for building such an SUV.

scbriml wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Already made that reference once, so here it is again:
MoM is tough to crack. Look at cars. We have 2-seaters and we have 4-5 seaters. Logically, a 3-seater seems a great idea. MoM is like the 3-seater.

I'd say the 737 and A320 are subcompacts, and the widebodies are full size cars of the 70s. The Mom is the SUV. People will pay for comfort and space over being jammed into the cheapest smallest space, given the rational choice.

The issue is that Boeing is apparently unable to make the business case for building such an SUV.

Not without a new engine. Open rotor won't be ready until the 2030s I believe.

texl1649 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

I'd say the 737 and A320 are subcompacts, and the widebodies are full size cars of the 70s. The Mom is the SUV. People will pay for comfort and space over being jammed into the cheapest smallest space, given the rational choice.

The issue is that Boeing is apparently unable to make the business case for building such an SUV.

Not without a new engine. Open rotor won't be ready until the 2030s I believe.

Open rotors of course not being available for anything else…

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DenverTed wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Already made that reference once, so here it is again:
MoM is tough to crack. Look at cars. We have 2-seaters and we have 4-5 seaters. Logically, a 3-seater seems a great idea. MoM is like the 3-seater.

I'd say the 737 and A320 are subcompacts, and the widebodies are full size cars of the 70s. The Mom is the SUV. People will pay for comfort and space over being jammed into the cheapest smallest space, given the rational choice.

I like the 3-seater analogy better. Better still is cars with 1 row of seats vs 2 (same as 1 aisle vs 2). The reason is that they are discrete variables, i.e., there is no 1.5-aisle configuration, it's either 1 or 2.

Design optimization methods for continuous variables (wing area, fuselage length, airfoil cross-section, etc.) are a lot faster and easier to use than those for discrete variables (number of aisles, number of containers in cargo hold, etc.). Fuselage width is continuous, but turns out to be discrete if thought of in terms of seats abreast. Search "MINLP" for technical details.

I don't work on airliners, so I have no idea of what design optimization methods they use, but I suspect that the specific methods, and even more the objectives and constraints they use, are very proprietary.

flipdewaf wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

The issue is that Boeing is apparently unable to make the business case for building such an SUV.

Not without a new engine. Open rotor won't be ready until the 2030s I believe.

Open rotors of course not being available for anything else…

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or truss braced wings, or many other technologies that are approaching a tech. Maturity level which would be needed for a new commercial passenger aircraft program.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... rator-2028

With the CFM Rise, and demonstrator per above link flying by 2028, I think it would be pretty silly to launch a new program (whether MOM as commonly guessed or something smaller) ‘just before’ these are ready. As with the A320/737/767/A330 etc., the primes expect to get 4+ decades out of the huge investment in a major new aircraft. Neither can afford an “A380” type of pitfall moving forward, least of all Boeing given their financial situation today, likely also factoring in much less sales to China over the life of any program(s).

This is also part of why I think it is so laughable that many are so focused on the A321XLR as some sort of factor in Boeing’s considerations around MOM.

I hope to see open rotors or trussed wings, or even a geared engine on the 787/A350. Things seem to move so slow and manufacturers being so investment averse, in 17 years, 2040, I could see 10K MAX produced and still in production, 18K neos, and no new engine EIS on the 787/A350. Maybe an A225 and A322 by then.

flipdewaf wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

The issue is that Boeing is apparently unable to make the business case for building such an SUV.

Not without a new engine. Open rotor won't be ready until the 2030s I believe.

Open rotors of course not being available for anything else…

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Open rotors are unlikely to be certified for under wing applications so won't be able to re-engine existing models.

texl1649 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Not without a new engine. Open rotor won't be ready until the 2030s I believe.

Open rotors of course not being available for anything else…

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or truss braced wings, or many other technologies that are approaching a tech. Maturity level which would be needed for a new commercial passenger aircraft program.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... rator-2028

With the CFM Rise, and demonstrator per above link flying by 2028, I think it would be pretty silly to launch a new program (whether MOM as commonly guessed or something smaller) ‘just before’ these are ready. As with the A320/737/767/A330 etc., the primes expect to get 4+ decades out of the huge investment in a major new aircraft. Neither can afford an “A380” type of pitfall moving forward, least of all Boeing given their financial situation today, likely also factoring in much less sales to China over the life of any program(s).

This is also part of why I think it is so laughable that many are so focused on the A321XLR as some sort of factor in Boeing’s considerations around MOM.

CFM RISE designed for .80M, TBW now good for .80M as well - coincidence?

texl1649 wrote:

I think it is so laughable that many are so focused on the A321XLR as some sort of factor in Boeing’s considerations around MOM.

Yes, Boeing lost the XLR battle and it is now in the past. MOM is the future, so all manufacturers must gear their products to the needs of the future. It will be quite a challenge balancing commercial and environmental needs. That is why none of the OEMs can come up with something definitive - there are so many new technologies required for this future generation of aircraft. To rush in hastily with incomplete definitions of the aircraft will be a waste of resources.

flee wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I think it is so laughable that many are so focused on the A321XLR as some sort of factor in Boeing’s considerations around MOM.

Yes, Boeing lost the XLR battle and it is now in the past. MOM is the future, so all manufacturers must gear their products to the needs of the future. It will be quite a challenge balancing commercial and environmental needs. That is why none of the OEMs can come up with something definitive - there are so many new technologies required for this future generation of aircraft. To rush in hastily with incomplete definitions of the aircraft will be a waste of resources.

Boeing hasn't lost any market they didn't go for. Had they thought that? They would have re-engineered the 757 and taken out the A321 altogether!

strfyr51 wrote:

flee wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I think it is so laughable that many are so focused on the A321XLR as some sort of factor in Boeing’s considerations around MOM.

Yes, Boeing lost the XLR battle and it is now in the past. MOM is the future, so all manufacturers must gear their products to the needs of the future. It will be quite a challenge balancing commercial and environmental needs. That is why none of the OEMs can come up with something definitive - there are so many new technologies required for this future generation of aircraft. To rush in hastily with incomplete definitions of the aircraft will be a waste of resources.

Boeing hasn't lost any market they didn't go for. Had they thought that? They would have re-engineered the 757 and taken out the A321 altogether!

Good imagination ......
Lets not forget that the vast bulk of A321NEO's sold are bog standard 3,600Nm, 97t A321 NEO's?
A re-engined 757 would be good for what, 4,000Nm + 15% - i.e. 4,600Nm, about the same as the XLR, only on a 116t MTOW and not 101t?
And yet the XLR will still be (pretty much) just another A321 and interchangeable with the standard NEO

20 years ago, the likes of the A321CEO killed the business case for the 757.
What makes you think a re-engine would change the dynamic?

Rgds

strfyr51 wrote:

flee wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I think it is so laughable that many are so focused on the A321XLR as some sort of factor in Boeing’s considerations around MOM.

Yes, Boeing lost the XLR battle and it is now in the past. MOM is the future, so all manufacturers must gear their products to the needs of the future. It will be quite a challenge balancing commercial and environmental needs. That is why none of the OEMs can come up with something definitive - there are so many new technologies required for this future generation of aircraft. To rush in hastily with incomplete definitions of the aircraft will be a waste of resources.

Boeing hasn't lost any market they didn't go for. Had they thought that? They would have re-engineered the 757 and taken out the A321 altogether!

The 757 was dead 20 years ago. Nothing this aircraft offered was good enough to battle it out with the 737NG or A321ceo. Too heavy, too much wing, too powerful (thirsty engines). A re-engine would only have solved one of the problems. A new engine with less thrust could have improved fuel burn, but because of the very heavy frame and huge wing, it would still have been uncompetitive in all but the longest missions, what would have pushed it into a corner.

On top of that, the way the airline industry works with pilot groups, the 757Neo would have been its own group. This makes it very uncompetitive flexibility wise. If your standard A321neo goes tech, but you have an XLR standing around, the crew can just jump on that one and off they go. Not gonna work with the 757. It can only substitute for another NB if there is crew ready. This is another handicap.

There are just too many draw backs with the 757, thats why its dead and in 10-15 years we will only see "regular" 757 pax operations with some shady airlines somewhere in 3rd world countries.

texl1649 wrote:

This is also part of why I think it is so laughable that many are so focused on the A321XLR as some sort of factor in Boeing’s considerations around MOM.

Boeing's been talking about MOM for decades. Talking.

But, there's little doubt that the A321XLR is eating into the mythical MOM gap.

DenverTed wrote:

I hope to see open rotors or trussed wings, or even a geared engine on the 787/A350. Things seem to move so slow and manufacturers being so investment averse, in 17 years, 2040, I could see 10K MAX produced and still in production, 18K neos, and no new engine EIS on the 787/A350. Maybe an A225 and A322 by then.

My earlier post notwithstanding, I get this.

Commercially, I absolutely see anything in the MOM space being developed from the solution for the next-generation standard cooking narrowbody (i.e. A320, 737-8,9,10, A321).

As an enthusiast, it's sad that the commercial dynamic is likely to rule out either a 757NEO, or an all-new dedicated MOM.
A new plane would definitely be more exciting
As you say, its easy to see A320, 737, 787 and A350 derivatives still in production in 2040

Rgds

I think Airbus and Boeing both understand absolute range might be less important than capacity (250+ seats), excellent fuel efficiency and environmental performance.

Affordable & not leaning on (/ hiding behind) unrealistic expectations, "2035 ! "

It might make an A321XLR stretch with improved engine variants, an A322 NEO the only credible NMA option this decade.

Range depending on number of seats, cargo but 5-6 hours shouldn't be an issue.


source: keesje

If they would stretch the A321, they will take the MTOW of the XLR and use it for a standard A322. They won´t stretch A321XLR, as it offers no benefit at all. And if you look at the operational limits (angel of rotation) there is not that much length left in the A321. To be honest the A321 has very good length. It allows for close to 250 seats in sardine can configuration and close to 200 seats in a two class layout. Doing a new version for 2 rows of seats, is pointless and the airlines won´t be interested in 258 or 208 seats, as this means an additional crew member for just a few extra seats. Sometimes one has to accept that you reached the limits.

seahawk wrote:

If they would stretch the A321, they will take the MTOW of the XLR and use it for a standard A322. They won´t stretch A321XLR, as it offers no benefit at all. And if you look at the operational limits (angel of rotation) there is not that much length left in the A321. To be honest the A321 has very good length. It allows for close to 250 seats in sardine can configuration and close to 200 seats in a two class layout. Doing a new version for 2 rows of seats, is pointless and the airlines won´t be interested in 258 or 208 seats, as this means an additional crew member for just a few extra seats. Sometimes one has to accept that you reached the limits.

The A322 concept shown above has 4 extra seat rows. And 250 seats in a regular leisure single class lay-out with enough galley, toilets and luggage space for the average NY-Cancun, Manchester-Antalya or Hangzhou-Chongqing flights. Still many A330s, 757s and 767s to be replaced in those roles.

Then you are down to around 8,6° from 9,7° rotation angle compared to the A321. This comes with drawbacks in performance and an increased tailstrike risk.

scbriml wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

This is also part of why I think it is so laughable that many are so focused on the A321XLR as some sort of factor in Boeing’s considerations around MOM.

Boeing's been talking about MOM for decades. Talking.

But, there's little doubt that the A321XLR is eating into the mythical MOM gap.

The big thing the XLR seems to be eating into right now is A330 sales which was effectively Airbus's MOM aircraft for the past 25 years. Airbus has only sold 60 A330's since XLR launch. XLR is a niche of normal A321 sales which may end up killing the A330 line, which is fine if that was the plan, and it does make sense to consolidate Widebody into one architecture (A350).

seahawk wrote:

Then you are down to around 8,6° from 9,7° rotation angle compared to the A321. This comes with drawbacks in performance and an increased tailstrike risk.

Looking at aircraft stretches, usually the stretch is 2/3 in front of the wing, 1/3 after the wing, so for a 3.7m stretch, this would be ~1.3m after the wing.
As you state the rotation angle would be reduced about 1 degree .
I think the XLR will have an improved flap system, software and higher thrust engines versions will be introduced.
It doesn't seem a show stopper, A321 runway performance never was critical in that respect. .

Angle https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... 0.1&view=1
Engines uprate https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ap-a321xlr

morrisond wrote:

scbriml wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

This is also part of why I think it is so laughable that many are so focused on the A321XLR as some sort of factor in Boeing’s considerations around MOM.

Boeing's been talking about MOM for decades. Talking.

But, there's little doubt that the A321XLR is eating into the mythical MOM gap.

The big thing the XLR seems to be eating into right now is A330 sales which was effectively Airbus's MOM aircraft for the past 25 years. Airbus has only sold 60 A330's since XLR launch. XLR is a niche of normal A321 sales which may end up killing the A330 line, which is fine if that was the plan, and it does make sense to consolidate Widebody into one architecture (A350).

Not sure that's really the case though...Seeing as the NEO is basically what is being sold there are two models with max ranges of upwards of 5000nm (starting at MZFW) up to 7200 and 8100nm. the 787-10 has a MZFW range of ~4000nm and goes up to 6400nm pax only. Its difficult to say that the impact would be on the A330 when the 781 model clearly plays more in that range space (4700nm).

Fred

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Then you are down to around 8,6° from 9,7° rotation angle compared to the A321. This comes with drawbacks in performance and an increased tailstrike risk.

Looking at aircraft stretches, usually the stretch is 2/3 in front of the wing, 1/3 after the wing, so for a 3.7m stretch, this would be ~1.3m after the wing.
As you state the rotation angle would be reduced about 1 degree .
I think the XLR will have an improved flap system, software and higher thrust engines versions will be introduced.
It doesn't seem a show stopper, A321 runway performance never was critical in that respect. .

Angle https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... 0.1&view=1
Engines uprate https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ap-a321xlr

I think this would only happen if the MAX-10 succeeds in really taking sales from the A321. Otherwise it is imho not worth the effort and the demand of the airlines is (afaik) lukewarm at best.

morrisond wrote:

scbriml wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

This is also part of why I think it is so laughable that many are so focused on the A321XLR as some sort of factor in Boeing’s considerations around MOM.

Boeing's been talking about MOM for decades. Talking.

But, there's little doubt that the A321XLR is eating into the mythical MOM gap.

The big thing the XLR seems to be eating into right now is A330 sales which was effectively Airbus's MOM aircraft for the past 25 years. Airbus has only sold 60 A330's since XLR launch. XLR is a niche of normal A321 sales which may end up killing the A330 line, which is fine if that was the plan, and it does make sense to consolidate Widebody into one architecture (A350).

Just no. The A330NEO is suffering from the 787 and the A350, not the A321.

seahawk wrote:

If they would stretch the A321, they will take the MTOW of the XLR and use it for a standard A322. They won´t stretch A321XLR, as it offers no benefit at all. And if you look at the operational limits (angel of rotation) there is not that much length left in the A321. To be honest the A321 has very good length. It allows for close to 250 seats in sardine can configuration and close to 200 seats in a two class layout. Doing a new version for 2 rows of seats, is pointless and the airlines won´t be interested in 258 or 208 seats, as this means an additional crew member for just a few extra seats. Sometimes one has to accept that you reached the limits.

Does this mean no rear center tank of the xlr? I suppose if it saves weight and is not needed, they will not have it on the A322.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Boeing's been talking about MOM for decades. Talking.

But, there's little doubt that the A321XLR is eating into the mythical MOM gap.

The big thing the XLR seems to be eating into right now is A330 sales which was effectively Airbus's MOM aircraft for the past 25 years. Airbus has only sold 60 A330's since XLR launch. XLR is a niche of normal A321 sales which may end up killing the A330 line, which is fine if that was the plan, and it does make sense to consolidate Widebody into one architecture (A350).

Not sure that's really the case though...Seeing as the NEO is basically what is being sold there are two models with max ranges of upwards of 5000nm (starting at MZFW) up to 7200 and 8100nm. the 787-10 has a MZFW range of ~4000nm and goes up to 6400nm pax only. Its difficult to say that the impact would be on the A330 when the 781 model clearly plays more in that range space (4700nm).

Fred

What else would airlines buy if there were no XLR?

It would have been 330-800/900 and 788/789, and airlines would just have abused them or maybe not run as many frequencies. 781 is pretty big for MOM, at it's MZFW weight it's hauling a lot of cargo which the XLR can't, I doubt many airlines would seriously be comparing A321XLR with 781 especially with its upcoming MTOW increase.

Plus the 787 seems to be selling fine. Yes - I'm sure XLR has taken some sales from it, but it(787) has a really healthy backlog. You can't say the same thing about the 330.

seahawk wrote:

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Then you are down to around 8,6° from 9,7° rotation angle compared to the A321. This comes with drawbacks in performance and an increased tailstrike risk.

Looking at aircraft stretches, usually the stretch is 2/3 in front of the wing, 1/3 after the wing, so for a 3.7m stretch, this would be ~1.3m after the wing.
As you state the rotation angle would be reduced about 1 degree .
I think the XLR will have an improved flap system, software and higher thrust engines versions will be introduced.
It doesn't seem a show stopper, A321 runway performance never was critical in that respect. .

Angle https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... 0.1&view=1
Engines uprate https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ap-a321xlr

I think this would only happen if the MAX-10 succeeds in really taking sales from the A321. Otherwise it is imho not worth the effort and the demand of the airlines is (afaik) lukewarm at best.

morrisond wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Boeing's been talking about MOM for decades. Talking.

But, there's little doubt that the A321XLR is eating into the mythical MOM gap.

The big thing the XLR seems to be eating into right now is A330 sales which was effectively Airbus's MOM aircraft for the past 25 years. Airbus has only sold 60 A330's since XLR launch. XLR is a niche of normal A321 sales which may end up killing the A330 line, which is fine if that was the plan, and it does make sense to consolidate Widebody into one architecture (A350).

Just no. The A330NEO is suffering from the 787 and the A350, not the A321.

So you are saying that if the XLR did not exist A330NEO sales would be the same? That is really hard to believe.

I suspect many of the over 1,400 A330CEO's that were sold (664 332's), were used precisely for these medium ranged routes we are talking about as it was the most efficient option that had the necessary range. Since the XLR has been introduced its sales have dried up.

Of the 560ish XLR's that are confirmed to be sold, it's probably 200 instead of normal A321NEO or LR as they had sufficient range anyways - these are not incremental sales, just airlines wanting more flexibility. I would also have to guess it has come at the cost of maybe 150 A330NEO and 100 787's, for the routes that really need the range in excess of 321NEOLR. Yes the numbers don't add up as you would need fewer widebodies to replace the smaller SA frames.

The point is 560 XLR sales aren't all incremental, a large number of them will have come at the expense of sales of other frames.

DenverTed wrote:

seahawk wrote:

If they would stretch the A321, they will take the MTOW of the XLR and use it for a standard A322. They won´t stretch A321XLR, as it offers no benefit at all. And if you look at the operational limits (angel of rotation) there is not that much length left in the A321. To be honest the A321 has very good length. It allows for close to 250 seats in sardine can configuration and close to 200 seats in a two class layout. Doing a new version for 2 rows of seats, is pointless and the airlines won´t be interested in 258 or 208 seats, as this means an additional crew member for just a few extra seats. Sometimes one has to accept that you reached the limits.

Does this mean no rear center tank of the xlr? I suppose if it saves weight and is not needed, they will not have it on the A322.

I think it makes no sense, as the MTOW would be the same, but the additional structure and the needed additional payload for the extra seats would probably mean that you would probably not be able to make use of the fuel volume at max payload.

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

keesje wrote:

Looking at aircraft stretches, usually the stretch is 2/3 in front of the wing, 1/3 after the wing, so for a 3.7m stretch, this would be ~1.3m after the wing.
As you state the rotation angle would be reduced about 1 degree .
I think the XLR will have an improved flap system, software and higher thrust engines versions will be introduced.
It doesn't seem a show stopper, A321 runway performance never was critical in that respect. .

Angle https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... 0.1&view=1
Engines uprate https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ap-a321xlr

I think this would only happen if the MAX-10 succeeds in really taking sales from the A321. Otherwise it is imho not worth the effort and the demand of the airlines is (afaik) lukewarm at best.

morrisond wrote:

The big thing the XLR seems to be eating into right now is A330 sales which was effectively Airbus's MOM aircraft for the past 25 years. Airbus has only sold 60 A330's since XLR launch. XLR is a niche of normal A321 sales which may end up killing the A330 line, which is fine if that was the plan, and it does make sense to consolidate Widebody into one architecture (A350).

Just no. The A330NEO is suffering from the 787 and the A350, not the A321.

So you are saying that if the XLR did not exist A330NEO sales would be the same? That is really hard to believe.

I suspect many of the over 1,400 A330CEO's that were sold (664 332's), were used precisely for these medium ranged routes we are talking about as it was the most efficient option that had the necessary range. Since the XLR has been introduced its sales have dried up.

Of the 560ish XLR's that are confirmed to be sold, it's probably 200 instead of normal A321NEO or LR as they had sufficient range anyways - these are not incremental sales, just airlines wanting more flexibility. I would also have to guess it has come at the cost of maybe 150 A330NEO and 100 787's, for the routes that really need the range in excess of 321NEOLR. Yes the numbers don't add up as you would need fewer widebodies to replace the smaller SA frames.

The point is 560 XLR sales aren't all incremental, a large number of them will have come at the expense of sales of other frames.

Yes, the A330 would not sell much more. Because if a route can fill a A330 (or 787), you use an A330/787. If it can not fill that plane, you might use an A321, but you would never fly an A330/787 at 60% load factor. And btw, a larger plane is not able to replace more smaller planes. Because you fly actual people and not excel numbers. So the time you need to reach your destination matters, therefore frequency matters.

seahawk wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

seahawk wrote:

If they would stretch the A321, they will take the MTOW of the XLR and use it for a standard A322. They won´t stretch A321XLR, as it offers no benefit at all. And if you look at the operational limits (angel of rotation) there is not that much length left in the A321. To be honest the A321 has very good length. It allows for close to 250 seats in sardine can configuration and close to 200 seats in a two class layout. Doing a new version for 2 rows of seats, is pointless and the airlines won´t be interested in 258 or 208 seats, as this means an additional crew member for just a few extra seats. Sometimes one has to accept that you reached the limits.

Does this mean no rear center tank of the xlr? I suppose if it saves weight and is not needed, they will not have it on the A322.

I think it makes no sense, as the MTOW would be the same, but the additional structure and the needed additional payload for the extra seats would probably mean that you would probably not be able to make use of the fuel volume at max payload.

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I think this would only happen if the MAX-10 succeeds in really taking sales from the A321. Otherwise it is imho not worth the effort and the demand of the airlines is (afaik) lukewarm at best.



Just no. The A330NEO is suffering from the 787 and the A350, not the A321.

So you are saying that if the XLR did not exist A330NEO sales would be the same? That is really hard to believe.

I suspect many of the over 1,400 A330CEO's that were sold (664 332's), were used precisely for these medium ranged routes we are talking about as it was the most efficient option that had the necessary range. Since the XLR has been introduced its sales have dried up.

Of the 560ish XLR's that are confirmed to be sold, it's probably 200 instead of normal A321NEO or LR as they had sufficient range anyways - these are not incremental sales, just airlines wanting more flexibility. I would also have to guess it has come at the cost of maybe 150 A330NEO and 100 787's, for the routes that really need the range in excess of 321NEOLR. Yes the numbers don't add up as you would need fewer widebodies to replace the smaller SA frames.

The point is 560 XLR sales aren't all incremental, a large number of them will have come at the expense of sales of other frames.

Yes, the A330 would not sell much more. Because if a route can fill a A330 (or 787), you use an A330/787. If it can not fill that plane, you might use an A321, but you would never fly an A330/787 at 60% load factor. And btw, a larger plane is not able to replace more smaller planes. Because you fly actual people and not excel numbers. So the time you need to reach your destination matters, therefore frequency matters.

A330 and 787 fly at 60% all the time. Frequency matters for business people but not for Leisure travellers.

When they are hundred's of new point to point routes in excess of 4,000NM but less than 4,700NM that open up that weren't big enough for a A330 or 787 then I will agree.

We will also ignore the 1,400 A330's MOM's that were sold. A large chunk of that replacement will go to XLR but would have gone to A330NEO if it had never existed.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

The big thing the XLR seems to be eating into right now is A330 sales which was effectively Airbus's MOM aircraft for the past 25 years. Airbus has only sold 60 A330's since XLR launch. XLR is a niche of normal A321 sales which may end up killing the A330 line, which is fine if that was the plan, and it does make sense to consolidate Widebody into one architecture (A350).

Not sure that's really the case though...Seeing as the NEO is basically what is being sold there are two models with max ranges of upwards of 5000nm (starting at MZFW) up to 7200 and 8100nm. the 787-10 has a MZFW range of ~4000nm and goes up to 6400nm pax only. Its difficult to say that the impact would be on the A330 when the 781 model clearly plays more in that range space (4700nm).

Fred

What else would airlines buy if there were no XLR?

It would have been 330-800/900 and 788/789, and airlines would just have abused them or maybe not run as many frequencies. 781 is pretty big for MOM, at it's MZFW weight it's hauling a lot of cargo which the XLR can't, I doubt many airlines would seriously be comparing A321XLR with 781 especially with its upcoming MTOW increase.

Plus the 787 seems to be selling fine. Yes - I'm sure XLR has taken some sales from it, but it(787) has a really healthy backlog. You can't say the same thing about the 330.

Wait so you are saying 2.1x the capacity but 2x the range is definitely the same market but 2.35 x the cabin capacity and 1.5x the range is definitely not in the same market when compared to an aircraft which hasn’t had an increase in capacity but has in range? How convenient that your metrics also confirm a previously held belief…

Out of curiosity, how many 787-10s have been ordered since the XLR launch?

morrisond wrote:

We will also ignore the 1,400 A330's MOM's that were sold. A large chunk of that replacement will go to XLR but would have gone to A330NEO if it had never existed.

Indeed, am even larger chunk may well have gone towards an aircraft that operates more within the same range space. Unless of course you think the A330NEO is better suited to the short range TATL sectors than the B781 and so the orders would otherwise have gone to airbus?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Not sure that's really the case though...Seeing as the NEO is basically what is being sold there are two models with max ranges of upwards of 5000nm (starting at MZFW) up to 7200 and 8100nm. the 787-10 has a MZFW range of ~4000nm and goes up to 6400nm pax only. Its difficult to say that the impact would be on the A330 when the 781 model clearly plays more in that range space (4700nm).

Fred

What else would airlines buy if there were no XLR?

It would have been 330-800/900 and 788/789, and airlines would just have abused them or maybe not run as many frequencies. 781 is pretty big for MOM, at it's MZFW weight it's hauling a lot of cargo which the XLR can't, I doubt many airlines would seriously be comparing A321XLR with 781 especially with its upcoming MTOW increase.

Plus the 787 seems to be selling fine. Yes - I'm sure XLR has taken some sales from it, but it(787) has a really healthy backlog. You can't say the same thing about the 330.

Wait so you are saying 2.1x the capacity but 2x the range is definitely the same market but 2.35 x the cabin capacity and 1.5x the range is definitely not in the same market when compared to an aircraft which hasn’t had an increase in capacity but has in range? How convenient that your metrics also confirm a previously held belief…

Out of curiosity, how many 787-10s have been ordered since the XLR launch?

morrisond wrote:

We will also ignore the 1,400 A330's MOM's that were sold. A large chunk of that replacement will go to XLR but would have gone to A330NEO if it had never existed.

Indeed, am even larger chunk may well have gone towards an aircraft that operates more within the same range space. Unless of course you think the A330NEO is better suited to the short range TATL sectors than the B781 and so the orders would otherwise have gone to airbus?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ok then if that is your argument. I'm sure Boeing will be happy to replace all current A330's with 787's, and the XLR won't replace any of those frames(the 330's). No one will ever order another 788/789(unless they need the range) or 338/339 as they don't have the best "Economics". 781 with it's MTOW boost will be take 99% of the small widebody market.

Of course that won't happen and as you know best economics for a given range are not the only deciding factor in a fleet purchase. Purchase price and things like - having similar planes in the fleet, with common cockpits matter. NAV costs matter, landing fees, etc.. The economics of the 330NEO don't seem to be that far off 787.

But as I said up top if the A321XLR did not exist, A330 NEO could have gotten another 150ish orders as one would assume sales would skew more to Airbus as more Airbus customers, and maybe 100 787's. Maybe it would have been 200 787 and 100 A330 - but that's my point - XLR has hurt both, 330NEO can less afford it given its weaker backlog, IMO.

Depending on how many 781's UA will take out of its first 100 probably somewhere around 70-80, were ordered since XLR launch, with the MTOW boost I suspect more 789's will be converted to 781.

Do you also believe the XLR has had no impact on A330NEO backlog?

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

Does this mean no rear center tank of the xlr? I suppose if it saves weight and is not needed, they will not have it on the A322.

I think it makes no sense, as the MTOW would be the same, but the additional structure and the needed additional payload for the extra seats would probably mean that you would probably not be able to make use of the fuel volume at max payload.

morrisond wrote:

So you are saying that if the XLR did not exist A330NEO sales would be the same? That is really hard to believe.

I suspect many of the over 1,400 A330CEO's that were sold (664 332's), were used precisely for these medium ranged routes we are talking about as it was the most efficient option that had the necessary range. Since the XLR has been introduced its sales have dried up.

Of the 560ish XLR's that are confirmed to be sold, it's probably 200 instead of normal A321NEO or LR as they had sufficient range anyways - these are not incremental sales, just airlines wanting more flexibility. I would also have to guess it has come at the cost of maybe 150 A330NEO and 100 787's, for the routes that really need the range in excess of 321NEOLR. Yes the numbers don't add up as you would need fewer widebodies to replace the smaller SA frames.

The point is 560 XLR sales aren't all incremental, a large number of them will have come at the expense of sales of other frames.

Yes, the A330 would not sell much more. Because if a route can fill a A330 (or 787), you use an A330/787. If it can not fill that plane, you might use an A321, but you would never fly an A330/787 at 60% load factor. And btw, a larger plane is not able to replace more smaller planes. Because you fly actual people and not excel numbers. So the time you need to reach your destination matters, therefore frequency matters.

A330 and 787 fly at 60% all the time. Frequency matters for business people but not for Leisure travellers.

When they are hundred's of new point to point routes in excess of 4,000NM but less than 4,700NM that open up that weren't big enough for a A330 or 787 then I will agree.

We will also ignore the 1,400 A330's MOM's that were sold. A large chunk of that replacement will go to XLR but would have gone to A330NEO if it had never existed.

You all are making many arguments back and forth that I won't attempt to address, but I do take exception to flying around "at 60% all the time." I'm not sure what "all the time" means. Pre-Covid, the large, established airlines in the USA had gotten very, very good at filling up their airplanes. The flew in the low 80's for the entire year. So as an average, there are some time periods where they are flying at 60%. Airlines hate that and try to eliminate it. There were periods (summertime) where certain markets were basically full from Memorial Day to Labor day, scarcely a seat existed all summer long. Airline employees know this because non-revenue stand-by travel essentially ceased to be a benefit.

No airline route/network planning department at any large airline ever plans to operate "at 60% all the time." Statements like this tend to make me think that you are a Boeing employee. Only manufacturers think that way. Its like the car dealer that wants to load the car up with options, because the margin on the options is so high. OF COURSE, the manufacturers want to sell the bigger airplanes to the airlines, the manufacturers make more money that way. To that extent, the manufacturers are in direct conflict with their airline customers, the airline bears the risk of attempting to fill those seats at profitable fares for the entire lifetime of the airplane.

SteelChair wrote:

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I think it makes no sense, as the MTOW would be the same, but the additional structure and the needed additional payload for the extra seats would probably mean that you would probably not be able to make use of the fuel volume at max payload.



Yes, the A330 would not sell much more. Because if a route can fill a A330 (or 787), you use an A330/787. If it can not fill that plane, you might use an A321, but you would never fly an A330/787 at 60% load factor. And btw, a larger plane is not able to replace more smaller planes. Because you fly actual people and not excel numbers. So the time you need to reach your destination matters, therefore frequency matters.

A330 and 787 fly at 60% all the time. Frequency matters for business people but not for Leisure travellers.

When they are hundred's of new point to point routes in excess of 4,000NM but less than 4,700NM that open up that weren't big enough for a A330 or 787 then I will agree.

We will also ignore the 1,400 A330's MOM's that were sold. A large chunk of that replacement will go to XLR but would have gone to A330NEO if it had never existed.

You all are making many arguments back and forth that I won't attempt to address, but I do take exception to flying around "at 60% all the time." I'm not sure what "all the time" means. Pre-Covid, the large, established airlines in the USA had gotten very, very good at filling up their airplanes. The flew in the low 80's for the entire year. So as an average, there are some time periods where they are flying at 60%. Airlines hate that and try to eliminate it. There were periods (summertime) where certain markets were basically full from Memorial Day to Labor day, scarcely a seat existed all summer long. Airline employees know this because non-revenue stand-by travel essentially ceased to be a benefit.

No airline route/network planning department at any large airline ever plans to operate "at 60% all the time." Statements like this tend to make me think that you are a Boeing employee. Only manufacturers think that way. Its like the car dealer that wants to load the car up with options, because the margin on the options is so high. OF COURSE, the manufacturers want to sell the bigger airplanes to the airlines, the manufacturers make more money that way. To that extent, the manufacturers are in direct conflict with their airline customers, the airline bears the risk of attempting to fill those seats at profitable fares for the entire lifetime of the airplane.

I never said you would plan to operate at 60%.

The person I was responding too made a very definitive statement in that "but you would never fly an A330/787 at 60% load". Basically implying that if its at 60% load factor or less the flight is cancelled.

BTW you get to 80% fleet average load factor, from an average of one flight at 100% and one at 60%. It's not ideal - but it does happen "all the time", just like you said above. I was on an AC 330 Flight back and forth to Orlando last week - I don't know the precise load - but it looked definitely like it was under 60% at least on the way down. The way back only 5 of the 18 Y+ seats were full - no idea what was happening in the back.

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

morrisond wrote:

A330 and 787 fly at 60% all the time. Frequency matters for business people but not for Leisure travellers.

When they are hundred's of new point to point routes in excess of 4,000NM but less than 4,700NM that open up that weren't big enough for a A330 or 787 then I will agree.

We will also ignore the 1,400 A330's MOM's that were sold. A large chunk of that replacement will go to XLR but would have gone to A330NEO if it had never existed.

You all are making many arguments back and forth that I won't attempt to address, but I do take exception to flying around "at 60% all the time." I'm not sure what "all the time" means. Pre-Covid, the large, established airlines in the USA had gotten very, very good at filling up their airplanes. The flew in the low 80's for the entire year. So as an average, there are some time periods where they are flying at 60%. Airlines hate that and try to eliminate it. There were periods (summertime) where certain markets were basically full from Memorial Day to Labor day, scarcely a seat existed all summer long. Airline employees know this because non-revenue stand-by travel essentially ceased to be a benefit.

No airline route/network planning department at any large airline ever plans to operate "at 60% all the time." Statements like this tend to make me think that you are a Boeing employee. Only manufacturers think that way. Its like the car dealer that wants to load the car up with options, because the margin on the options is so high. OF COURSE, the manufacturers want to sell the bigger airplanes to the airlines, the manufacturers make more money that way. To that extent, the manufacturers are in direct conflict with their airline customers, the airline bears the risk of attempting to fill those seats at profitable fares for the entire lifetime of the airplane.

I never said you would plan to operate at 60%.

The person I was responding too made a very definitive statement in that "but you would never fly an A330/787 at 60% load". Basically implying that if its at 60% load factor or less the flight is cancelled.

BTW you get to 80% fleet average load factor, from an average of one flight at 100% and one at 60%. It's not ideal - but it does happen "all the time", just like you said above. I was on an AC 330 Flight back and forth to Orlando last week - I don't know the precise load - but it looked definitely like it was under 60% at least on the way down. The way back only 5 of the 18 Y+ seats were full - no idea what was happening in the back.

Thanks for the clarification. As often stated on the board, one flight does not a survey make. Having said that, we are in one of the historically low periods of demand, January-March. It will pick up with spring break and go up from there.

And yes, I agree that cancellation due to low loads is not generally an option. That "went out" as an operational philosophy at many airlines some time ago. So, you're left with operating those flights, and trying to fill them. Thus, smaller airplanes. I'm always in awe of the number of 747/DC10/L1011 aircraft built in the 70s......what were the airlines thinking? I guess yield management didn't even exist. When I started in the industry ~49% was breakeven and ~53-54% was normal for the year average load factor.

morrisond wrote:

Do you also believe the XLR has had no impact on A330NEO backlog?

Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I’d wager it will have, when it has been in service for a while, had significant impact on both aircraft size categories below (A320 previously needed for range) right up to VLA. A380 and 77w will be operating in the same market as the XLR.

Aircraft seats are a fungible commodity, the size of the tube they are contained in is irrelevant to the purchaser…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

What else would airlines buy if there were no XLR?

It would have been 330-800/900 and 788/789, and airlines would just have abused them or maybe not run as many frequencies. 781 is pretty big for MOM, at it's MZFW weight it's hauling a lot of cargo which the XLR can't, I doubt many airlines would seriously be comparing A321XLR with 781 especially with its upcoming MTOW increase.

Plus the 787 seems to be selling fine. Yes - I'm sure XLR has taken some sales from it, but it(787) has a really healthy backlog. You can't say the same thing about the 330.

Wait so you are saying 2.1x the capacity but 2x the range is definitely the same market but 2.35 x the cabin capacity and 1.5x the range is definitely not in the same market when compared to an aircraft which hasn’t had an increase in capacity but has in range? How convenient that your metrics also confirm a previously held belief…

Out of curiosity, how many 787-10s have been ordered since the XLR launch?

morrisond wrote:

We will also ignore the 1,400 A330's MOM's that were sold. A large chunk of that replacement will go to XLR but would have gone to A330NEO if it had never existed.

Indeed, am even larger chunk may well have gone towards an aircraft that operates more within the same range space. Unless of course you think the A330NEO is better suited to the short range TATL sectors than the B781 and so the orders would otherwise have gone to airbus?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ok then if that is your argument. I'm sure Boeing will be happy to replace all current A330's with 787's, and the XLR won't replace any of those frames(the 330's). No one will ever order another 788/789(unless they need the range) or 338/339 as they don't have the best "Economics". 781 with it's MTOW boost will be take 99% of the small widebody market.

Of course that won't happen and as you know best economics for a given range are not the only deciding factor in a fleet purchase. Purchase price and things like - having similar planes in the fleet, with common cockpits matter. NAV costs matter, landing fees, etc.. The economics of the 330NEO don't seem to be that far off 787.

But as I said up top if the A321XLR did not exist, A330 NEO could have gotten another 150ish orders as one would assume sales would skew more to Airbus as more Airbus customers, and maybe 100 787's. Maybe it would have been 200 787 and 100 A330 - but that's my point - XLR has hurt both, 330NEO can less afford it given its weaker backlog, IMO.

Depending on how many 781's UA will take out of its first 100 probably somewhere around 70-80, were ordered since XLR launch, with the MTOW boost I suspect more 789's will be converted to 781.

Do you also believe the XLR has had no impact on A330NEO backlog?

Scott Kirby confirmed majority of (at least the early ones) the order will be 787-10

Nocella called it the star of the show. It will probably end up being their most popular widebody. Definitely seeing over 80 frames

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

morrisond wrote:

A330 and 787 fly at 60% all the time. Frequency matters for business people but not for Leisure travellers.

When they are hundred's of new point to point routes in excess of 4,000NM but less than 4,700NM that open up that weren't big enough for a A330 or 787 then I will agree.

We will also ignore the 1,400 A330's MOM's that were sold. A large chunk of that replacement will go to XLR but would have gone to A330NEO if it had never existed.

You all are making many arguments back and forth that I won't attempt to address, but I do take exception to flying around "at 60% all the time." I'm not sure what "all the time" means. Pre-Covid, the large, established airlines in the USA had gotten very, very good at filling up their airplanes. The flew in the low 80's for the entire year. So as an average, there are some time periods where they are flying at 60%. Airlines hate that and try to eliminate it. There were periods (summertime) where certain markets were basically full from Memorial Day to Labor day, scarcely a seat existed all summer long. Airline employees know this because non-revenue stand-by travel essentially ceased to be a benefit.

No airline route/network planning department at any large airline ever plans to operate "at 60% all the time." Statements like this tend to make me think that you are a Boeing employee. Only manufacturers think that way. Its like the car dealer that wants to load the car up with options, because the margin on the options is so high. OF COURSE, the manufacturers want to sell the bigger airplanes to the airlines, the manufacturers make more money that way. To that extent, the manufacturers are in direct conflict with their airline customers, the airline bears the risk of attempting to fill those seats at profitable fares for the entire lifetime of the airplane.

I never said you would plan to operate at 60%.

The person I was responding too made a very definitive statement in that "but you would never fly an A330/787 at 60% load". Basically implying that if its at 60% load factor or less the flight is cancelled.

BTW you get to 80% fleet average load factor, from an average of one flight at 100% and one at 60%. It's not ideal - but it does happen "all the time", just like you said above. I was on an AC 330 Flight back and forth to Orlando last week - I don't know the precise load - but it looked definitely like it was under 60% at least on the way down. The way back only 5 of the 18 Y+ seats were full - no idea what was happening in the back.

So down to semantics again? First you argue that airlines would fly A330NEO on the routes they plan on using A321XLRs or LRs which clearly is a about fleet planing and then you come up with individual load factors of single flight. So to make it more easy for you:

Given normal yields, no airline will plan to schedule an aircraft on a route, if it seems likely that they won´t exceed a 60% load factor on average.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Do you also believe the XLR has had no impact on A330NEO backlog?

Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I’d wager it will have, when it has been in service for a while, had significant impact on both aircraft size categories below (A320 previously needed for range) right up to VLA. A380 and 77w will be operating in the same market as the XLR.

Aircraft seats are a fungible commodity, the size of the tube they are contained in is irrelevant to the purchaser…

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Considering there is no A320LR for airline use, it is unlikely that range was ever a reason to choose an A320NEO over and A321LR.

seahawk wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Do you also believe the XLR has had no impact on A330NEO backlog?

Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I’d wager it will have, when it has been in service for a while, had significant impact on both aircraft size categories below (A320 previously needed for range) right up to VLA. A380 and 77w will be operating in the same market as the XLR.

Aircraft seats are a fungible commodity, the size of the tube they are contained in is irrelevant to the purchaser…

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Considering there is no A320LR for airline use, it is unlikely that range was ever a reason to choose an A320NEO over and A321LR.

I meant referring to the CEO era where the A32X had a more typical family relationship with range vs capacity.

Fred

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

You all are making many arguments back and forth that I won't attempt to address, but I do take exception to flying around "at 60% all the time." I'm not sure what "all the time" means. Pre-Covid, the large, established airlines in the USA had gotten very, very good at filling up their airplanes. The flew in the low 80's for the entire year. So as an average, there are some time periods where they are flying at 60%. Airlines hate that and try to eliminate it. There were periods (summertime) where certain markets were basically full from Memorial Day to Labor day, scarcely a seat existed all summer long. Airline employees know this because non-revenue stand-by travel essentially ceased to be a benefit.

No airline route/network planning department at any large airline ever plans to operate "at 60% all the time." Statements like this tend to make me think that you are a Boeing employee. Only manufacturers think that way. Its like the car dealer that wants to load the car up with options, because the margin on the options is so high. OF COURSE, the manufacturers want to sell the bigger airplanes to the airlines, the manufacturers make more money that way. To that extent, the manufacturers are in direct conflict with their airline customers, the airline bears the risk of attempting to fill those seats at profitable fares for the entire lifetime of the airplane.

I never said you would plan to operate at 60%.

The person I was responding too made a very definitive statement in that "but you would never fly an A330/787 at 60% load". Basically implying that if its at 60% load factor or less the flight is cancelled.

BTW you get to 80% fleet average load factor, from an average of one flight at 100% and one at 60%. It's not ideal - but it does happen "all the time", just like you said above. I was on an AC 330 Flight back and forth to Orlando last week - I don't know the precise load - but it looked definitely like it was under 60% at least on the way down. The way back only 5 of the 18 Y+ seats were full - no idea what was happening in the back.

So down to semantics again? First you argue that airlines would fly A330NEO on the routes they plan on using A321XLRs or LRs which clearly is a about fleet planing and then you come up with individual load factors of single flight. So to make it more easy for you:

Given normal yields, no airline will plan to schedule an aircraft on a route, if it seems likely that they won´t exceed a 60% load factor on average.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Do you also believe the XLR has had no impact on A330NEO backlog?

Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I’d wager it will have, when it has been in service for a while, had significant impact on both aircraft size categories below (A320 previously needed for range) right up to VLA. A380 and 77w will be operating in the same market as the XLR.

Aircraft seats are a fungible commodity, the size of the tube they are contained in is irrelevant to the purchaser…

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Considering there is no A320LR for airline use, it is unlikely that range was ever a reason to choose an A320NEO over and A321LR.

Of course not. But there aren't that many routes in the world that require exactly that capacity, that won't soon grow into big enough for a WB, and you are ignoring my main point - if the A321XLR did not exist - A330NEO would have a lot better backlog (probably).

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I never said you would plan to operate at 60%.

The person I was responding too made a very definitive statement in that "but you would never fly an A330/787 at 60% load". Basically implying that if its at 60% load factor or less the flight is cancelled.

BTW you get to 80% fleet average load factor, from an average of one flight at 100% and one at 60%. It's not ideal - but it does happen "all the time", just like you said above. I was on an AC 330 Flight back and forth to Orlando last week - I don't know the precise load - but it looked definitely like it was under 60% at least on the way down. The way back only 5 of the 18 Y+ seats were full - no idea what was happening in the back.

So down to semantics again? First you argue that airlines would fly A330NEO on the routes they plan on using A321XLRs or LRs which clearly is a about fleet planing and then you come up with individual load factors of single flight. So to make it more easy for you:

Given normal yields, no airline will plan to schedule an aircraft on a route, if it seems likely that they won´t exceed a 60% load factor on average.

flipdewaf wrote:

Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I’d wager it will have, when it has been in service for a while, had significant impact on both aircraft size categories below (A320 previously needed for range) right up to VLA. A380 and 77w will be operating in the same market as the XLR.

Aircraft seats are a fungible commodity, the size of the tube they are contained in is irrelevant to the purchaser…

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Considering there is no A320LR for airline use, it is unlikely that range was ever a reason to choose an A320NEO over and A321LR.

Of course not. But there aren't that many routes in the world that require exactly that capacity, that won't soon grow into big enough for a WB, and you are ignoring my main point - if the A321XLR did not exist - A330NEO would have a lot better backlog (probably).

And you come to the conclusion how?

If the route fits into the range of an A321/A321LR airline would simply use those.
If the route is able to reasonably fill a A330/787 airlines would use those.

So that leaves routes that can not fill a A330/787 and are within the range of the A321XLR but outside the range of an A321LR. I can not imagine that there are many routes that would make economic sense that fall into that category and that can be commercially successful using a widebody flying at 55-60% load factor average.

The realistic option is that the route would simply not be served or the demand can be met through a one-stop connection (with a partner airline if necessary)

xl0hr wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Already made that reference once, so here it is again:
MoM is tough to crack. Look at cars. We have 2-seaters and we have 4-5 seaters. Logically, a 3-seater seems a great idea. MoM is like the 3-seater.

I'd say the 737 and A320 are subcompacts, and the widebodies are full size cars of the 70s. The Mom is the SUV. People will pay for comfort and space over being jammed into the cheapest smallest space, given the rational choice.

Aren't SUVs doing great, selling like crazy?

"People will pay for comfort and space over being jammed into the cheapest smallest space, given the rational choice." - Absolute nonsense. People have been voting with the wallet on cramped airplane seats for decades. If there was any truth to this statement, the likes of Spirit and Frontier wouldn't exist.

Also, technically SUV's have all pretty much been replaced by smaller and lighter cross-overs. In addition, SUV's (and xovers), really only sell well in 1 country. You go just about anywhere in the world and the predominant car is a sedan and usually a compact or economy size sedan. American's like the extra space because Americans are larger and because the national mentality is that if it's bigger it must be better. So it's easier to sell a piece of crap Kia simply by making it large. But airplanes need to sell on a global scale, not just in America.

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I never said you would plan to operate at 60%.

The person I was responding too made a very definitive statement in that "but you would never fly an A330/787 at 60% load". Basically implying that if its at 60% load factor or less the flight is cancelled.

BTW you get to 80% fleet average load factor, from an average of one flight at 100% and one at 60%. It's not ideal - but it does happen "all the time", just like you said above. I was on an AC 330 Flight back and forth to Orlando last week - I don't know the precise load - but it looked definitely like it was under 60% at least on the way down. The way back only 5 of the 18 Y+ seats were full - no idea what was happening in the back.

So down to semantics again? First you argue that airlines would fly A330NEO on the routes they plan on using A321XLRs or LRs which clearly is a about fleet planing and then you come up with individual load factors of single flight. So to make it more easy for you:

Given normal yields, no airline will plan to schedule an aircraft on a route, if it seems likely that they won´t exceed a 60% load factor on average.

flipdewaf wrote:

Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I’d wager it will have, when it has been in service for a while, had significant impact on both aircraft size categories below (A320 previously needed for range) right up to VLA. A380 and 77w will be operating in the same market as the XLR.

Aircraft seats are a fungible commodity, the size of the tube they are contained in is irrelevant to the purchaser…

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Considering there is no A320LR for airline use, it is unlikely that range was ever a reason to choose an A320NEO over and A321LR.

Of course not. But there aren't that many routes in the world that require exactly that capacity, that won't soon grow into big enough for a WB, and you are ignoring my main point - if the A321XLR did not exist - A330NEO would have a lot better backlog (probably).

In your opinion, which A321XLR customers realistically might have bought A330neos instead?

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

So down to semantics again? First you argue that airlines would fly A330NEO on the routes they plan on using A321XLRs or LRs which clearly is a about fleet planing and then you come up with individual load factors of single flight. So to make it more easy for you:

Given normal yields, no airline will plan to schedule an aircraft on a route, if it seems likely that they won´t exceed a 60% load factor on average.



Considering there is no A320LR for airline use, it is unlikely that range was ever a reason to choose an A320NEO over and A321LR.

Of course not. But there aren't that many routes in the world that require exactly that capacity, that won't soon grow into big enough for a WB, and you are ignoring my main point - if the A321XLR did not exist - A330NEO would have a lot better backlog (probably).

And you come to the conclusion how?

If the route fits into the range of an A321/A321LR airline would simply use those.
If the route is able to reasonably fill a A330/787 airlines would use those.

So that leaves routes that can not fill a A330/787 and are within the range of the A321XLR but outside the range of an A321LR. I can not imagine that there are many routes that would make economic sense that fall into that category and that can be commercially successful using a widebody flying at 55-60% load factor average.

The realistic option is that the route would simply not be served or the demand can be met through a one-stop connection (with a partner airline if necessary)

Exactly my point - there aren't that many viable routes even for an XLR. It's just further proving that the market really isn't that huge.

Also where were all the routes that 757's were flying with 130-140 passengers and auxiliary tanks at 4,000NM or above?

I would have to guess the American's would have been flying a lot more of those if they were viable.

IMO - the bigger use case may be to replace exactly what the 757 was/is being used for - shorter ranged missions but using the extra lift to pack it full of passengers and cargo(fish). It seems like it can lift about as much as an 752.

Yes it will open some routes that didn't exist before - but that probably only requires at most a few hundred frames.

scbriml wrote:

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

So down to semantics again? First you argue that airlines would fly A330NEO on the routes they plan on using A321XLRs or LRs which clearly is a about fleet planing and then you come up with individual load factors of single flight. So to make it more easy for you:

Given normal yields, no airline will plan to schedule an aircraft on a route, if it seems likely that they won´t exceed a 60% load factor on average.



Considering there is no A320LR for airline use, it is unlikely that range was ever a reason to choose an A320NEO over and A321LR.

Of course not. But there aren't that many routes in the world that require exactly that capacity, that won't soon grow into big enough for a WB, and you are ignoring my main point - if the A321XLR did not exist - A330NEO would have a lot better backlog (probably).

In your opinion, which A321XLR customers realistically might have bought A330neos instead?

AirAsiaX,Indigo,
Air canada could have bought a few B787 more.
XLR will open new routes for passengers that otherwise had to go through a hub or choice an other holliday destination. The xlr takes a little from the wb-market, but it is only a few percent, it is not killing anything. Well, maybe the A321LR, no sales since xlr launch.

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Of course not. But there aren't that many routes in the world that require exactly that capacity, that won't soon grow into big enough for a WB, and you are ignoring my main point - if the A321XLR did not exist - A330NEO would have a lot better backlog (probably).

And you come to the conclusion how?

If the route fits into the range of an A321/A321LR airline would simply use those.
If the route is able to reasonably fill a A330/787 airlines would use those.

So that leaves routes that can not fill a A330/787 and are within the range of the A321XLR but outside the range of an A321LR. I can not imagine that there are many routes that would make economic sense that fall into that category and that can be commercially successful using a widebody flying at 55-60% load factor average.

The realistic option is that the route would simply not be served or the demand can be met through a one-stop connection (with a partner airline if necessary)

Exactly my point - there aren't that many viable routes even for an XLR. It's just further proving that the market really isn't that huge.

Also where were all the routes that 757's were flying with 130-140 passengers and auxiliary tanks at 4,000NM or above?

I would have to guess the American's would have been flying a lot more of those if they were viable.

IMO - the bigger use case may be to replace exactly what the 757 was/is being used for - shorter ranged missions but using the extra lift to pack it full of passengers and cargo(fish). It seems like it can lift about as much as an 752.

Yes it will open some routes that didn't exist before - but that probably only requires at most a few hundred frames.

Well as explained in this post here :- https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/
The 757 would only have realistically been able to manage 3000nm flights reliably in such a configuration and so was only really good for UK->US north east coast.

I have, in the past, flown to destinations from MAN and LHR on AA on their A330s that had very low load factors (row of 4 to myself overnight) those seem like the perfect candidates to be pemium heavy XLR contenders in the future. Doesnt Jetblue fly at the densities being spoke of TATL? 138 seats?

I guess if the XLR wasnt around AA would have ordered the A388 right?

Fred