Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
kl911
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:17 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 39):
We have here in Iceland fresh fish producers. The fish is caught one day, processed over night and goes for example with the early morning flight to Boston and is on the next day on the market in Boston or New York or Brussels or Paris.Get it into your head that belly freight is important for Icelandair to earn money.

That doesn't make sense. Boston is at the sea, a sea where you catch fish. Why fly fish from Iceland to Boston? Flowers I understand, but fish is everywhere. Besides, fish is already frozen on the ships, why not ship it frozen to Boston?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:33 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 41):
This is a paradigm shift. I've seen some studies that suggest this will open up TATL total passenger traffic by 20%.   

The problem with this is the slot controls on the EU sides, many smaller cities from the USA East coast could use this a/c to provide service, but if they want to serve LHR with those costly slots..........
Central and South American routes from the USA could also benefit replacing some of the 767's presently used.
 
frostyj
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:35 pm

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 48):

Oh I did not realise that it would take more than 7 hours to fly from Belfast to New York, a distance of 3,000 miles. Funny I did this journey in 6 hours and 20 minutes this June.
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL76/history/20140810/1010Z/EGAA/KEWR

[Edited 2014-10-23 13:38:25]
 
kl911
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:38 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 51):
The problem with this is the slot controls on the EU sides, many smaller cities from the USA East coast could use this a/c to provide service, but if they want to serve LHR with those costly slots..........

Not everybody needs to be in London. Lots of people connect in London. Who not p2p to medium sized cities?

Quoting frostyj (Reply 52):
Oh I did not realise that it would take more than 7 hours to fly from Belfast to New York, a distance of 3,000 miles. Funny I did this journey in 6 hours and 20 minutes this June.

Try that again in winter....
 
nry
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:38 pm

I find it deeply interesting that the company that had the hub-oriented business case for the A380 is now potentially offering aircraft that blows that business case up. Maybe Airbus acknowledging that Boeing was right about p2p?
 
frostyj
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:41 pm

Quoting kl911 (Reply 53):

Yes I know what you are saying but this route is highly variable depending on winds but I have never seen it more than 7 hours and 45 minutes so that still supports my claim.
 
evomutant
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:47 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:57 pm

Quoting nry (Reply 54):
I find it deeply interesting that the company that had the hub-oriented business case for the A380 is now potentially offering aircraft that blows that business case up. Maybe Airbus acknowledging that Boeing was right about p2p?

It's not either or...
 
ZKCIF
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:18 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:04 pm

Quoting nry (Reply 54):
I find it deeply interesting that the company that had the hub-oriented business case for the A380 is now potentially offering aircraft that blows that business case up. Maybe Airbus acknowledging that Boeing was right about p2p?

maybe they want to offer something to 'both ends' of the market?
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:23 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 28):
Any possible leads for launch orders?

First of all, God Bless You and your country sir. May evil think twice before stepping on your shores again.

Any A321LRneo launch customer will be either a big 757 and/or A321 operator. The big three from the U.S. certainly qualify. IAG, LH, AV and EI are others to consider.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10607
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:59 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 44):
How did all those "US/EU open skies will increase traffic 5% per year" predictions turn out? Every time I look around one airline after another is actively practicing "capacity discipline", summer seasons get shorter, and winter frequencies get cut on more days.

I'd say the predictions were about right, at 3-4% growth year-over-year despite a global economic crisis, with some TATL markets far above those numbers. The huge increase in TATL traffic from Ireland for example is a good indication of how narrowbodies can stimulate a market. AA, DL, US, UA, EI all operate 752 routes between DUB/SNN and the U.S. It is thanks to the 752 that many of these routes even exist.

So just like Ireland has seen a huge increase in TATL traffic as a result of this "757 expansion", it's fair to expect a similar thing to happen in other markets once there is an aircraft that can operate those routes for 25% less cost.

Quoting frostyj (Reply 52):
Oh I did not realise that it would take more than 7 hours to fly from Belfast to New York, a distance of 3,000 miles. Funny I did this journey in 6 hours and 20 minutes this June.
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL76/history/20140810/1010Z/EGAA/KEWR

It's a 757. It can cruise at slightly higher speeds than your typical narrowbody. Now look at an A318 which has the same cruise speed as the A321.
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW3/history/20141023/1700Z/EINN/KJFK
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1635
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:10 pm

Quoting frostyj (Reply 7):
You would fly to California from UK on Narrowbody!?

Good Lord. Why would you even spew such poison? I can barely take 5hrs on a narrow body.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3676
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:33 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 28):
Any possible leads for launch orders?

I'd put money on NZ for their AKL-PER route, so they can make it twice daily, and so they can start CHC-PER. They'd also be useful on AKL-PPT to replace the last 763ER freeing up the 789's for other routes.

And I'd expect the airline to put in some form of premium cabin, probably a narrow-body version of their Premium Economy cabin at 3-2 abreast.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9682
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:34 pm

Quoting kl911 (Reply 50):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 39):
We have here in Iceland fresh fish producers. The fish is caught one day, processed over night and goes for example with the early morning flight to Boston and is on the next day on the market in Boston or New York or Brussels or Paris.Get it into your head that belly freight is important for Icelandair to earn money.

That doesn't make sense. Boston is at the sea, a sea where you catch fish. Why fly fish from Iceland to Boston? Flowers I understand, but fish is everywhere. Besides, fish is already frozen on the ships, why not ship it frozen to Boston?

Again if people do not have knowledge about an industry they should keep out. Exactly because Boston lies at the sea, and the people there are used to eating fish, it is a good market for Icelandic fish. Fish is not everywhere. For example cod on the great banks, the main area were cod was caught in the old days, was heavily overfished and does not yield cod today. So there are a lot of other fishing grounds in the world that are overfished. The UK, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Japan all of them old fishing nations buy a lot of Icelandic fish.
And again, does anybody really read posts in a thread?, fresh fish and frozen fish are different markets. Like for example fresh and frozen strawberries.
So what does not make sense to you makes a whole lot of sense to the fish catching and processing industry and overall to the airlines flying around with fresh food.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:37 pm

I just wanted to mention that we've been discussing this aircraft on the Australian aviation thread, and the consensus seems to be that there is a good place for it here and it could open up quite a number of new routes.

First of all, the proposed A321NEOLR would allow flights to all of Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines from MEL and SYD. There are quite a number of secondary/tourist destinations in these countries that do not currently have direct service to Australia. This aircraft could potentially open up these routes. From BNE, all of Vietnam and Thailand would also be accessible.

However potentially bigger winners are mid-tier cities like PER and ADL. From PER, it would enable flights to a huge part of Asia, including southern China.

It should also be noted that the market is very different from when the 757 was on offer. Aviation in south east Asia is far more developed than it was 15 years ago, and the market is a lot more mature. The traffic between Australia and S.E Asia is many times over what it was when the 757 was available, so while the 757 was not a big seller in these parts of the world, a A321NEOLR very well could be.

Which is to say that, in my opinion, the potential market for this aircraft is far bigger than merely TATL and 757 replacements.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:45 am

All this whining about how long one will (or won't) spend in a narrowbody is remarkably pointless. If a plane such as this A321NeoLR, opens up new markets, then it may very well inspire more people to travel, and possibly travel more often. More routes and more travellers means more aviation jobs, and more things for us aviation appreciators to discuss. Just because some a.netters reject the idea of sitting on a narrowbody for more than x hours doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same.

I hope Airbus finds interested customers for this idea. Assuming they go ahead with it, I will be excited to read the forums discussing its every detail. And, should Boeing come up with some response to this, I will be excited to read those forums too!

Let's stick to the topic at hand; a new plane! Even if it is a derivative, it's still interesting, is it not?

Moving on…

Speaking of airlines regretting their orders, I wonder if AC might have been better served with an Airbus NB order. What about Canadian domestic routes which might be plausible with an A321NeoLR, which are currently not? Or, which AC's future 737Max planes could not handle.
 
UA444
Posts: 3158
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:53 am

How come everyone is speculating on what ifs for the GTF failing and Airbus being disadvantaged, when Boeing has nothing to fall back on if the LEAP-X is a failure?
 
nc3rd
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:52 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:00 am

Its all about the wing...Have they stated officially that they are going to expand the wing?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5757
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:18 am

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 46):

I think it has less to do with the 4360s on the Stra

I think that is where their distrust of gearboxes come from. I agree that their distrust of PW comes from more recent history.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:49 am

Thinking about it, I don't see a business case for the 321NEO/LR unless it can take belly freight. As mentioned above, 4t seems reasonable plus passenger bags. To budge airlines like DL and UA, they want to be comfortable with the notion that they won't be doing tons of fuel stops westbound on TATL routes.

A larger and lighter wing is a given to improve the numbers.

[Edited 2014-10-23 18:57:19]
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:07 am

Quoting nry (Reply 54):

I find it deeply interesting that the company that had the hub-oriented business case for the A380 is now potentially offering aircraft that blows that business case up. Maybe Airbus acknowledging that Boeing was right about p2p?

If Boeing were so dead set on P2P why did they produce the 748? And why are they still designing VLA's such as the 77X?

I think as another poster pointed out it's going to be a mix due to some city pairs never having the demand for a dedicated service - Hence you would have to commute to a Hub.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 62):
Again if people do not have knowledge about an industry they should keep out. Exactly because Boston lies at the sea, and the people there are used to eating fish, it is a good market for Icelandic fish.

If demand was such then a dedicated freighter could be used, but your talking about belly freight in one of the smallest aircraft able to fly such a route. So again I return to my original point in that I cannot see any freight able to be loaded into a 757 hold generating enough revenue to offset a 30% reduction in operating cost.

We are fishing the Cod to extinction too, perhaps it's time people got a taste for something else.


Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 68):
Thinking about it, I don't see a business case for the 321NEO/LR unless it can take belly freight. As mentioned above, 4t seems reasonable plus passenger bags. To budge airlines like DL and UA, they want to be comfortable with the notion that they won't be doing tons of fuel stops westbound on TATL routes

I was following you right up until you didn't see a business case. The whole point of this variant is its extra fuel tanks hence it doesn't require "mid-Atlantic" fuel stops. As yet its freight capacity is unknown, but not expected to be great.

Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 49):

So it seems like Airbus won't fully commit to this till they get enough interest from Airlines. At least if they don't, it should kill the convo that Airlines are falling all over themselves clamouring for a 757 replacement.

Nothing will ever stop the conversation about the "true" 757 replacement.


Quick question for those more knowledgeable than I; but could this variant be the "gateway" drug of the aviation world? In other words are there airlines which have thus far remained clean of Airbus with its new fangled side-sticks and computers, but this would be just too much for them to resist?

With all the mergers of late I don't think there are many clean airlines left  
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:10 am

Quoting UA444 (Reply 65):
How come everyone is speculating on what ifs for the GTF failing and Airbus being disadvantaged, when Boeing has nothing to fall back on if the LEAP-X is a failure?

In my opinion, PW has a lot more to prove than CFM does. CFM is pretty much building on the the success of its previous generation of engines ( the CFM56 series). PW on the other hand hasn't had the same success and with this new engine, they have to prove themselves as a viable player in the market (and I really hope it becomes a success).
 
astuteman
Posts: 7506
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:39 am

Quoting aerolimani (Reply 64):
Let's stick to the topic at hand; a new plane! Even if it is a derivative, it's still interesting, is it not?

The funny thing is, the A321NEO LR is pretty much an A321NEO with a 3rd Auxiliary tank.
Unfortunately adding the 3rd auxiliary tank takes c.3 tonnes off the available payload beyond about 3 500Nm.(400kg of tank plus 2 400kg fuel)
Hence Airbus have added 3.5 tonnes to the MTOW, and the engines get 3k lb more thrust.
And there's the payload capability restored beyond 3 500nm
I'm guessing that there's 600-700kg of extra structure been inserted somewhere which prevents this from being a retrofit to the base A321NEO

Quoting UA444 (Reply 65):
How come everyone is speculating on what ifs for the GTF failing and Airbus being disadvantaged, when Boeing has nothing to fall back on if the LEAP-X is a failure?

A good question. In a way, Airbus a covered every which way. They have both engines on their platform, and are the only ones of the new families of narrowbodys to be in that position.
The MAX, C919 and MS21 are all single type.

Quoting nc3rd (Reply 66):
Its all about the wing...Have they stated officially that they are going to expand the wing?

They've officially already done that of course.
The wingspan of an A321 without sharklets is 111 ft. With the sharklets the span is 117ft and the are goes up a couple of %.
Hence A321's and A321NEO's will have far better field performance with the sharklets than the originals had without.
The wing loading of the A321NEO LR should be about the same as the baseline A321 without sharklets.
But it will have much lower induced drag at take-off, and 6 000lb more thrust  
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 68):
To budge airlines like DL and UA, they want to be comfortable with the notion that they won't be doing tons of fuel stops westbound on TATL routes.

???
The current A321 with sharklets will already eat that as a task.
The NEO will eat that and then 15% more.
And won't need aux tanks to do so.
The A321NEO LR will eat that plus 15% plus another 10% for the extra fuel.

Rgds
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:43 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 3):
I don't believe anyone here expects the -7 to be built (do they?)

I do... it is chump change for Boeing.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 88):
I feel like Christmas just arrived two months early! I was working on a TATL A321 re-engine over a dozen years ago. A project shelved for the A380. So for myself, it feels like long lost potential is finally being realized!

Respect!!

  
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:50 am

Quoting UA444 (Reply 65):

I do not think the Leap X will be a failure, GE has proven very realiable in the past. However I do not get how that version of the engine will be same efficient as the 320 one that has a bigger fan. Either it wan't be or GE is serving the two customers with different care. The latter seems not to be news, really.

About possible customers, what about TK?
 
kl911
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:57 am

Quoting nc3rd (Reply 66):
Its all about the wing...Have they stated officially that they are going to expand the wing?
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 68):
A larger and lighter wing is a given to improve the numbers.

But isn't a new wing the most difficult and expensive part of an airplane development?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16657
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:25 am

Quoting kl911 (Reply 74):

But isn't a new wing the most difficult and expensive part of an airplane development?

The answer to that is it depends. On a conventional aircraft where you have mechanical controls, the problem that will arise come from interfacing the new wing with the airframe. With a FBW and FADEC aircraft like the A321, these are electrical interfaces. The handeling can be matched in the FBW software.

If you were going to go down the path of a new wing, it would make sense then to also adopt the A380/A350 dual hydraulic arctecture with electro hydraulic actuators, this would mean the fuselage blue hydraulic system could be remove with additional weight savings.

The key is to keep the number of fuselage system changes to a minimum.

The A321 wing does not need to match the 757 wing, it burns considerably less fuel, so it does not need the structure to hold or carry that fuel. Being lighter with less drag, it does not need to match the thrust of the 757 either. Think of how the A350-1000/777X can carry more with less thrust than the 77W.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20304
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:26 am

Quoting nry (Reply 54):
I find it deeply interesting that the company that had the hub-oriented business case for the A380 is now potentially offering aircraft that blows that business case up. Maybe Airbus acknowledging that Boeing was right about p2p?

I find it interesting that some people take marketing BS far too seriously!

Both manufacturers build planes that serve both hub-to-hub and point-to-point markets. Not to mention hub-to-point. Airbus and Boeing have slightly different views of the market, but both are in the business of building and selling planes.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1904
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:42 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 29):

It is difficult to compare the A321neoLR with the B757-200W with the information given in the Leeham news article.
It seems to be no question that the A321 has enough range when you fit enough ACT to have enough fuel.
The question remains what is the payload range curve.

If you have a look at Icelandair they have 183 passengers, of them 22 Saga class, all the bags and 5 t of belly freight in their B757-200W on the way to SEA for example.

If the A321neoLR does 164 passengers and there bags, but will not be able to take some freight, I do not see it as a replacement for the B757-200 for Icelandair.
If the A321neoLR does 164 passengers, their bags and lets say 4 t of freight without leaving something behind every second flight, the case looks very different.
You can be sure that Icelandair, as they have also declared, does not see the B737Max as a replacement for the B757-200 on the longer KEF to North America routes. As it is they expect to use the B757 for quite a few years more, they are setting up a spanking new simulator for B757 pilot training and will start to use it beginning of January.

For the airlines not dabbling in belly freight on narrow bodies, the case looks very different.

Very good summary on the FI situation. Thanks   
Compare that to the poster(s) who said FI's 737MAX purchase was a huge c***-up of FI, and didn't know how to run a business  

There are lots of routes FI flies where they don't need the extra payload/range of the 757.

The A321neoLR surely looks very promising and a good fit for many airlines. But we have to wait for the official numbers given by Airbus when they launch it. Too early to draw conclusions yet.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 38):
WOW does not do freight.

Hmm, just after I boarded my WW flight to AMS last august I saw people load a huge amount of white boxes into the A319. They were not large or heavy (certainly not fish), but it was quite a lot of boxes, a big pallet full.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 72):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 88):
I feel like Christmas just arrived two months early! I was working on a TATL A321 re-engine over a dozen years ago. A project shelved for the A380. So for myself, it feels like long lost potential is finally being realized!

Respect!!

  

+1 nice to see this news after all your posts on this subject, Neal  
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9682
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:30 am

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 77):
Hmm, just after I boarded my WW flight to AMS last august I saw people load a huge amount of white boxes into the A319. They were not large or heavy (certainly not fish), but it was quite a lot of boxes, a big pallet full.

White boxes from Iceland, polystyrene packaging, usually contain fish. They would contain about somewhere between 15 to 20 Kg fish per box. So even WOW does freight.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7506
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:44 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 75):
The A321 wing does not need to match the 757 wing, it burns considerably less fuel, so it does not need the structure to hold or carry that fuel.

I must admit that if there's any driver for a new wing, then it is surely fuel capacity even more than aerodynamics....

The 757's wings hold 35.0 tonnes of fuel.
The 737's wings hold 20.8 tonnes of fuel
The A321's wings only hold 18.6 tonnes.
An A321 with 1 x ACT only holds the same fuel as a 737 with none.

As each ACT is only 2.3 tonnes of fuel, even the 3 x ACT specified for the A321NEO LR only bring the fuel capacity up to 25.5 tonnes, 9.5 tonnes less than the 757's wings alone carry.
There's a real illustration of the efficiency gain
But 3 x ACT's take up valuable hold space.

Wings sized to hold 25t-26t of fuel (i.e. only 70%-75% of the size of the 757's) would probably be perfect for a true 757 replacement with this generation of engines
Freeing up the hold for all that fresh fish  

Rgds

[Edited 2014-10-24 06:37:35]
 
airbazar
Posts: 10607
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:12 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 79):

I must admit that if there's any driver for a new wing, then it is surely fuel capacity even more than aerodynamics....

Your post illustrates the true achilles heel of the A321: It's fuel volume limited. It always has been. It desperately needs a larger wing. Is there such a thing as a "plug" to extend the wing? Ok, sharklets can be considered that but I was thinking about a plug containing a fuel tank, to be inserted between the fuselage and the existing wing root. On the surface that would seem less work than a whole new wing.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27348
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:21 pm

Yes, fish is so much more tasty than Jet A!  

Also Wikipedia's 757 page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757 tells us:

Quote:

A new aft-loaded shape which produced lift across most of the upper wing surface, instead of a narrow band as in previous airfoil designs, was used for the 757's wings.[8] The more efficient wings had less drag and greater fuel capacity,[8] and were similar in configuration to those on the 767.[24] A wider wingspan than the 727's produced less lift-induced drag, while larger wing roots increased undercarriage storage space and provided room for future stretched versions of the aircraft.[24]

It may be an over simplification, but it seems to me A320's design target was the 727 whereas the 757 was designed to be a bigger plane than 727 with more range. I've read here and elsewhere that the launch customers BA and EA drove Boeing towards the decision to make the 757 bigger than the 727. This of course left Boeing pretty exposed when the A320 came along and hit the sweet spot of the 727 replacement market, forcing Boeing to come out with 737NG and now 737MAX because 757 is too big and heavy for so many routes. I'm not crying for Boeing because they got the 1000 frame 757 market all to itself but the consequence is now that the 757's economic life is fading they are forced to build on the 737 and/or move to an all new narrowbody. Of course the 787 and 747-8 debacles squashed the window that NSA/Y1 was supposed to be using so it's a very good thing the market is ordering huge number of the MAX airframes.

[Edited 2014-10-24 06:37:41]
 
astuteman
Posts: 7506
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:35 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 80):
Your post illustrates the true achilles heel of the A321: It's fuel volume limited.

Scary isn't it.
18.6 tonnes in the wing tanks vs 35.0 tonnes in a 757's wings.

I'm pretty sure all the stories we've heard about A321's having to execute tech stops on transcons are related to A321's with no ACT's and no sharklets (and likely lower MTOW 89t versions of some vintage) being used to the limit.
Mind you, Spanair used to run 212 seater A321's on 2 650nm sectors from Scandinavia to Tenerife which HAS to mean 2 x ACT's AND 212 passenger's luggage.
Who says it can't be done?  

As I said on the previous thread, for me the biggest advantage in the A321NEO isn't the 3 650Nm range, it is this.
Where the current non-winglet A321 requires 2 x ACT's to carry a 20t payload for 2 900Nm still air, the A321NEO will achieve that with no ACT's.
That has to be a major boost in flexibility, Spanair's historical srctors notwithstanding  .

Rgds
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:36 pm

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 69):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 68):
Thinking about it, I don't see a business case for the 321NEO/LR unless it can take belly freight. As mentioned above, 4t seems reasonable plus passenger bags. To budge airlines like DL and UA, they want to be comfortable with the notion that they won't be doing tons of fuel stops westbound on TATL routes

I was following you right up until you didn't see a business case. The whole point of this variant is its extra fuel tanks hence it doesn't require "mid-Atlantic" fuel stops. As yet its freight capacity is unknown, but not expected to be great.

I doubt I made myself clear in the comment. My point was that this plane needs to have both true TATL west-bound range in the winter AND the ability to carry a decent amount of cargo (i.e. ~4t). If this a/c can demonstrate the range but not be able to carry any meaningful amount of cargo, I think it will severely hurt the business case for this variant.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23333
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:52 pm

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 77):
+1 nice to see this news after all your posts on this subject, Neal

Thanks. It is a matter of seeing potential realized. Potential the A321NEO had.    About two years earlier EIS than I hoped/thought.   

Quoting par13del (Reply 51):
The problem with this is the slot controls on the EU sides, many smaller cities from the USA East coast could use this a/c to provide service, but if they want to serve LHR with those costly slots..........

Yes, the EU hubs will be congested. So those small US cities will be served at US hubs and the secondary European cities will be served by US hubs. (I fully expect B6 at BOS to take advantage of the opportunity, as well as USAA at CLT/PHL. UA will reallocate RJ slots at EWR for TATL (perhaps a range improved MAX, this competition isn't over yet...).

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 83):
I doubt I made myself clear in the comment. My point was that this plane needs to have both true TATL west-bound range in the winter AND the ability to carry a decent amount of cargo (i.e. ~4t).

The cost savings more than pay for the cargo. If you're staying there is a future market for a similar cost per flight airframe with cargo, I agree. But with A330NEOs and 787s replacing smaller cargo volume widebodies, I'm not worried about the market for the A321NEO sans cargo. Its there thanks to the much lower cost per flight. The cargo will drive the case widebody/narrowbody and impact how much frequency.

Those that want TATL cargo will buy 787-10 with its *amazing* 14 tons of cargo volume. That is a game changer versus the 77E/A330/767. This plane is but one part in the system.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
As I said on the previous thread, for me the biggest advantage in the A321NEO isn't the 3 650Nm range, it is this.
Where the current non-winglet A321 requires 2 x ACT's to carry a 20t payload for 2 900Nm still air, the A321NEO will achieve that with no ACT's.

   Agreed my friend. This will be a nice help on TCON economics. In particular for B6's 'mint' product. And it will allow them to go TATL!   

So what is the range of the A321NEO-LR with a mere 15t payload?    Talk about a configuration begging for this option...

Lightsaber
 
opticalilyushin
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:35 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:04 pm

Quoting frostyj (Reply 55):

During the 2010 ash cloud i flew BFS-EWR with a grand flight time of 8hrs 15! We got the scenic tour over Eastern Scotland and the North coast of Iceland
 
eaa3
Posts: 962
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:49 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:11 pm

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 77):
Compare that to the poster(s) who said FI's 737MAX purchase was a huge c***-up of FI, and didn't know how to run a business  

Yes, they chose the aircraft with less performance. They had a choice of the A321NEO and B737-9MAX. If you have to sacrifice cargo then choosing the B737-9MAX will certainly cause you to have to leave more cargo behind than a A321NEO. I don't think anyone is making the case the the B737-9MAX carries more cargo in comparable situations. What I'm saying is that they need all the performance they can get and they chose the aircraft with less of it. Especially now that the A321NEO is being upgraded.

It is a c*** up because if they need to buy the A321NEO LR (which they will) then why would you also operate B737-9 aircraft.

The A321NEO LR is not a perfect replacement for the 757. But I don't really see the point of arguing about that because it's the only replacement that's available and will be available. Boeing won't do a new 757... it's just too expensive given the small market. Icelandair might not be able to take as much fish as on a 757..... but they won't be able to anyway because there is no other aircraft that allows them to do that. Also, please stop talking about fish on this thread. It's just plain idiotic. It's just cargo.

The A321NEO will be able to fly the North American routes that the B757 flies today. And given the efficiency it will be able to do it competitively and help them open new markets. 164 seats assumes lie flat seats. Icelandair doesn't have those. I'm willing to bet that they would put something like 170+ seats on the plane.

Mjölnir: Ekki vera þverhaus!

[Edited 2014-10-24 07:14:14]
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1904
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:35 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 86):
Yes, they chose the aircraft with less performance. They had a choice of the A321NEO and B737-9MAX. If you have to sacrifice cargo then choosing the B737-9MAX will certainly cause you to have to leave more cargo behind than a A321NEO. I don't think anyone is making the case the the B737-9MAX carries more cargo in comparable situations. What I'm saying is that they need all the performance they can get and they chose the aircraft with less of it. Especially now that the A321NEO is being upgraded.

Maybe the 737MAX has less performance. The 737-9 indeed looks to be behind the A321neo. The A320 and 737-8 seem to be more equal though. But look at some numbers: FI now has 23 757s in their fleet. They ordered only 16 737MAXs, 9x -8 and 7x -9. For European destinations and perhaps even some of their NA destinations the 737 will do fine. And for some smaller European destinations the 757 may very well have been too much aircraft, that's why they ordered the -8 IMO. Of course FI could have ordered A320neo's for thinner destinations. But FI knew what they were doing when they ordered the 737, they have run the numbers.

I guess FI has those 8 options on the 737 just in case the MAX provides such nice real world figures it could even replace FI's 757s on US destinations. Hardly likely, I admit, but then they can always place an A321neoLR order. A mixed 737/A321 isn't so extraordinary these days, isn't it?
 
airbazar
Posts: 10607
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:54 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 83):
If this a/c can demonstrate the range but not be able to carry any meaningful amount of cargo, I think it will severely hurt the business case for this variant.

I doubt the 752 is being used on the current TATL routes because of it's cargo carrying capabilities on such routes. As it is it has to make the occasional fuel stop. Save one or 2 exceptions, airlines that operate 757's across the Atlantic use them to complement their TATL network, not as their TATL workhorse. Cargo can go on one of the many widebodies that the same airline operates on the same or similar route. Or contract it out to cargo carriers. For example, UA is flying 752's between EWR and CDG alongside 767's. One is for the frequency the other is for the cargo.
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:10 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 72):
I do... it is chump change for Boeing.

Please explain what you mean by chump change. A netters use that term frequently, but I think it is a nonsense term which is used too casually sounds like something out of a B grade movie

[Edited 2014-10-24 08:12:41]
 
StTim
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:26 pm

I think the Boeing numbers clearly indicate that they do not at present have the cash earning capacity to launch a major new plane or even another significant programme.

They have on their plate:

787 - still costing significantly more per frame than they receive
748 - looking at another rate cut and will probably never recover costs
777 - under current pressure from the 350 with a rate cut to come. Has been one of two cash cows and will probably turn cash negative for a few years (taken as the 777 classic and 777X together)
737 - the major cash cow but looking increasingly like a one frame family. The max programme must be delivered efficiently

The in defence there are major cost over runs leading to the programme being a cash consumer on the tanker that they seemed to have bought.

Anyone thinking they have the capacity to do a 757neo or an NSA programme in the next few years is not looking at the numbers.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:49 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 80):
Your post illustrates the true achilles heel of the A321: It's fuel volume limited. It always has been. It desperately needs a larger wing. Is there such a thing as a "plug" to extend the wing? Ok, sharklets can be considered that but I was thinking about a plug containing a fuel tank, to be inserted between the fuselage and the existing wing root. On the surface that would seem less work than a whole new wing.

A321 wingspan is 35.80 m, ICAO CAT D wingspan is limited to 36 m (corresponding to FAA Group III).

Even if the development cost for a modified wing were not prohibitive, the wingspan cannot be increased due to this restriction. The plane would require wider gates to operate (and this same limitation extends to any new Airbus or Boeing narrowbody to be developed).

It is interesting to note that B757 wingspan is 38 m, not very well optimized to ICAO/FAA categories.

[Edited 2014-10-24 08:51:31]
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:10 pm

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 89):
Please explain what you mean by chump change.

.

definition of "CHUMP CHANGE" noun

US, informal

: a relatively small amount of money : an amount of money that is not important or impressive

Examples:

* What seems like a huge amount of money to most people is only chump change to a billionaire.

* His share of the profits was chump change. [=his share of the profits was not very big]

* It is chump change for Boeing.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:56 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 88):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 83):
If this a/c can demonstrate the range but not be able to carry any meaningful amount of cargo, I think it will severely hurt the business case for this variant.

I doubt the 752 is being used on the current TATL routes because of it's cargo carrying capabilities on such routes. As it is it has to make the occasional fuel stop. Save one or 2 exceptions, airlines that operate 757's across the Atlantic use them to complement their TATL network, not as their TATL workhorse. Cargo can go on one of the many widebodies that the same airline operates on the same or similar route. Or contract it out to cargo carriers. For example, UA is flying 752's between EWR and CDG alongside 767's. One is for the frequency the other is for the cargo

Cargo is not a main point to be sure. However, I doubt its economical for UA to truck cargo from EDI or GLA down to LHR to be put on a wide body. This assumes they carry cargo out of those stations which I believe they do. The same logic goes with cargo carriers. If the 757 is flown to stations with wide body service, of course the cargo would go on the wide body in most instances.

My point is that cargo is a factor. Savvy airlines don't fly with empty cargo bays if they can sell the space for a profit. While its possible that UA would buy the 321NEO-LR with no cargo capability, it would be one of the first mainline aircraft they've ever bought to have no cargo utility.
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:28 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 83):
I think it will severely hurt the business case for this variant

I am still to get my head around a.nets fascination with cargo. I understand that if you have capability/space leftover when you have all pax, fuel etc onboard, fill that leftover capability/space with as much cargo as you can cram in. However I don't understand how 4-5t of cargo is being given such huge importance against cost savings of 25%. If a route is viable on a 757 with 5t of cargo, its even more viable on a 321neolr with no cargo but 25% less cost.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:32 pm

First question now is, how many LD3-45Ws are required to carry the bags of 165 TATL passengers? The A321 will have 7 LD3-45W spaces remaining after installing 3 ACTs.

Second question is the payload range. Currently, the A321NEO has 2,500nm of max payload range. Adding 1x ACT shifts the fuel volume limited "kink" by approx 500nm. 3x ACT will shift the payload-range curve by 1,500nm.

Here is my attempt at extrapolating the payload-range curve: http://i.imgur.com/euqWyp1.jpg

The A321 will lift 25.5t with no ACTs and 24.9t with 1 ACT. With 3 ACTs it will go down to 23.3t (assuming 0.6t per ACT). Adding in the MTOW bump of 3.5t takes it to 26.8t. 170 passengers and crew at an average weight of 100kg = 17t. At 4,200nm, there is room for zero freight. At 3,600nm, you will manage 4t of freight.

Random Icelandair talk: No problem hauling fish to Boston weight-wise but if I reduce the 3,600nm still-air to 3,000nm reality, Denver, Orlando, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver and Anchorage on their route map won't be getting fish.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3000nm%...%0D%0A&MS=wls&PC=red&RC=navy&DU=mi

At max passenger-only range of 4,200nm reduced to 3,500nm "reality", only Denver is at the edge of the envelope.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3500nm%40RKV&MS=wls&DU=mi



[Edited 2014-10-24 10:44:29]
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:39 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 41):
I've been one of the top advocates for the A321NEO going TATL here on a.net.

Yes, you always have been that.  .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 41):
To even get to 4,300nm would require Airbus to re-optimize the wing underside aerodynamics for better laminar flow (aka "wing bend", but that is what Airbus is aiming for IMHO is better laminar flow on the underside of the wing) and better wing tip treatment. (Yes, I'm aware the "Sharklets" are new. But there are options to do net 3% better at a structural weight cost.)

Interesting thoughts.  .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 41):
Heck, by that argument Gulfstream would be out of business...

They would be, but they have just launched two new products, all with two engines of course.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
Spanair used to run 212 seater A321's on 2 650nm sectors from Scandinavia to Tenerife which HAS to mean 2 x ACT's AND 212 passenger's luggage.
Who says it can't be done?  

Not me.   With the correct developments it is surely possible.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 84):
Those that want TATL cargo will buy 787-10 with its *amazing* 14 tons of cargo volume. That is a game changer versus the 77E/A330/767. This plane is but one part in the system.

It is. Also the A359 would be a candidate for that though I believe the B781 has the larger cargo capability.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23333
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:43 pm

Quoting Pacific (Reply 95):
Here is my attempt at extrapolating the payload-range curve: http://i.imgur.com/euqWyp1.jpg

Thank you. Helpful for discussion.

Alas, I expect Icelandair to stick with the MAX. Interesting case study.


Utilizing your ranges for BOS:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3000nm%40bos,+3600nm%40bos

For BER:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3000nm%40ber,+3600nm%40ber

For MUC:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3000nm%40muc,+3600nm%40muc

For CLT:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3000nm%40clt,+3600nm%40clt

For PHL:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3000nm%40phl,+3600nm%40phl

For DOH:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3000nm%40doh,+3600nm%40doh

For CGK (Nice capability!):
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3000nm%40cgk,+3600nm%40cgk

This will be the 'no fish' configuration for TATL. For others, it adds the "fish" option.  

Lightsaber
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:56 pm

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 94):

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 83):
I think it will severely hurt the business case for this variant

I am still to get my head around a.nets fascination with cargo. I understand that if you have capability/space leftover when you have all pax, fuel etc onboard, fill that leftover capability/space with as much cargo as you can cram in. However I don't understand how 4-5t of cargo is being given such huge importance against cost savings of 25%. If a route is viable on a 757 with 5t of cargo, its even more viable on a 321neolr with no cargo but 25% less cost.

I can't speak for anyone else but my "fascination" is driven by the profit and loss statements of the U.S. based carriers as well as the fact I don't think any of the major carriers have an aircraft that was purchased with zero cargo capability as envisioned in their fleet plan. As always, I'm happy to be corrected if that isn't the case.

What this a/c could do for an airline like UA is enable small cargo lift from Ireland and perhaps the UK and Norway while doing a no cargo flight from their other 757 stations with lower costs and less likelihood of fuel stops.

UA will pencil it out (321NEO-LR) versus what they are doing now (RR 757s) versus likelihood of using a wide body on those routes in a seasonal fashion and compare the numbers.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:57 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
Mind you, Spanair used to run 212 seater A321's on 2 650nm sectors from Scandinavia to Tenerife which HAS to mean 2 x ACT's AND 212 passenger's luggage.
Who says it can't be done?

AY is running at the moment HEL - TFS charter (2564 nm) with the A321ceo with Sharklets and a 209-seat configuration.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos