Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
777ER
Head Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 10147
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:39 am

Please continue the discussion here. Link to previous thread Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 - Leeham (by Sharktail Oct 21 2014 in Civil Aviation)
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14741
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:18 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 251):
I can not see an A32x model doing trans Pacific.

Wait for a few years of PIPs, and out of SEA and YVR Japan may be in reach down the road. And who is to know if the A321neoLR wonÂŽt be such a success that Airbus will give the A320neo some more MTOW and Fuel to go 4500-5000nm.....

best regards
Thomas
 
frostyj
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:29 am

I would not fly on a narrowbody for 10 hours.

7 hours and no more. I don't even know why it is flying from mainland Europe, its too long.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:58 am

I am surprised at the strong reaction to what has been an obvious move by Airbus and indeed one openly discussed on this forum before (many times). Indeed the increased thrust of the P&W offering pretty much gave it away at the time - and was spotted on this forum.
Extract.
"With the PW1135G-JM engine, we offer incremental value by opening up new routes without compromising fuel burn, emissions and environmental performance."
- New (longer) routes - it really was spelt out. And of course Boeing knew what was coming they ain't stupid - far from it. But as in post 250. They were forced into the max by their biggest 737 customer (and others). We know they wanted and were hawking around 2 possible new aircraft (one a true narrow-body the other a 'slim' twin aisle).

Boeing have sold a truck load of MAX's.Yes market share is 40% but is was heading that way anyway. But its 40% of a load of aircraft. They are struggling to crank them out to the required delivery slots!
The -9 always had a weakness to the 321. All Airbus is doing is capitalising on it. Who would not. Boeing makes the most of it when they have the upper hand as one would expect. (773er/A346).

The problem is for Boeing is that if the complete range of A321's (NEO's) are as good as claimed (From TATL to 240 seats) then there really is no call for the -9. Indeed I think Boeing recognise this fact.

They have just launched 'their' knock out variant-the 737-8MAX 200. This aircraft will do as much damage to the -9 prospects as Airbus ever did. Its simply a better option (than the -9).
I don't believe anyone here expects the -7 to be built (do they?) so the 737 will become a one aircraft family.But a very good one at that.
But all it has to do is stay in production till 2025. When its replacement will be out. I feel certain that it will do this.
Boeing will have their hour.What money on a 787-10er? Now I would want to be in charge of the 350-9 programme if they did that!
 
hz747300
Posts: 2424
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:21 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 3):
We know they wanted and were hawking around 2 possible new aircraft (one a true narrow-body the other a 'slim' twin aisle).

Hmm... a slim twin would be good but airlines would never honor the intent. I agree with the other posters though, at some point it approaches cruelty when you have segments of 7+ hours in a single aisle. I would think a 787 variant of the 762 would fill that role better for passengers, but not airlines, so it won't happen. For Boeing, it would seem to be better to do a clean sheet LR / HGW narrow-body than try to keep the family for 737 full.
 
JimJupiter
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:28 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:44 am

Quoting frostyj (Reply 2):
I would not fly on a narrowbody for 10 hours.

I would.
 
travelavnut
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:35 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:50 am

Quoting JimJupiter (Reply 5):
I would.

Indeed. I'd rather fly on a narrowbody for 10 hours in a comfortable seat than 10 abreast in a 777.
 
frostyj
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:53 am

You would fly to California from UK on Narrowbody!?
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:56 am

Quoting frostyj (Reply 2):

I would not fly on a narrowbody for 10 hours.

7 hours and no more. I don't even know why it is flying from mainland Europe, its too long.

Why? You are in your seat most of the time anyway, and the seats will be the same as in widebodies. If you don't get claustrophobic in a narrowbody after a 3 hour flight, I don't see a reason why you would do so after 7 or 10 hours.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:58 am

10 hours in 3+3 in a A32X vs. 10 hours in 3+5+3 in a 777, I take the A32X.
 
frostyj
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:05 am

Quoting AviationAware (Reply 8):

Well you need your space to get up and walk about. I would not feel safe being in the air in a narrow body for that length of time. I am sorry but there is a limit and 7 hours or 3,000 miles is the limit.

I don't think narrow bodies should be flown to mainland Europe.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1983
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:09 am

I don't think most passengers care much about the aircraft type. If it can get them there direct, they're happy, and this will make a lot of new low-cost routes possible. I think it will enable low-cost airlines from around the world to start longer flights without having to bring a completely different type into their fleets.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:15 am

Quoting frostyj (Reply 10):
I would not feel safe being in the air in a narrow body for that length of time. I am sorry but there is a limit and 7 hours or 3,000 miles is the limit.

I don't think narrow bodies should be flown to mainland Europe.

So what you are saying is that your dislike of the concept is completely irrational and subjective; and that you are just setting some generic limit.
 
kl911
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:18 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 9):
10 hours in 3+3 in a A32X vs. 10 hours in 3+5+3 in a 777, I take the A32X.

Me too. Same seat/ptv , and much more quiet. And don't forget the much faster boarding/deboarding and customs.

Quoting hz747300 (Reply 4):
I agree with the other posters though, at some point it approaches cruelty when you have segments of 7+ hours in a single aisle

No it doesn't. See above.
 
travelavnut
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:35 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:20 am

Quoting frostyj (Reply 10):
I would not feel safe being in the air in a narrow body

Why?! If the aircraft/airline are ETOPS rated than there is no difference in safety.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:20 am

This aircraft would surely be very popular as an ACJ? Or would the existing ACJ customers not need the cargo space and have the ACTs fitted to their A32Xs anyway, making this announcement a non-event? The MTOW rise certainly can't hurt (other than more costly landing/atc fees).

Regardless, its great so see Airbus further optimize the A321.  
Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 1):
Wait for a few years of PIPs, and out of SEA and YVR Japan may be in reach down the road. And who is to know if the A321neoLR wonÂŽt be such a success that Airbus will give the A320neo some more MTOW and Fuel to go 4500-5000nm.....

A narrowbody with that range is an interesting prospect. As has been previously stated though, to make such a flight viable the pax have to be quite high yielding. This would somewhat limit the customers. That said, if is just a matter of fitting some more ACTs and therefore development costs are minimal, why not? Even if it only sells a few frames.

Quoting frostyj (Reply 2):
I would not fly on a narrowbody for 10 hours.

I'd be happy to; much greater chance of a window seat and lower chance of being in a dreaded 'middle seat'.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 6):
Indeed. I'd rather fly on a narrowbody for 10 hours in a comfortable seat than 10 abreast in a 777.

   any day of the week.

Quoting frostyj (Reply 10):
I would not feel safe being in the air in a narrow body for that length of time.

Whyever not? Back in the days of 707s and DC8s, ~3,500nm flights in narrowbodies were common.

Quote:
Interesting how the range keeps improving over time. 3 hour aeroplanes becoming 9 hour aircraft. Truly staggering. Surely, a market would open up for a MD-80 type shorter haul narrowbody in the same segment. *If* Bombardier manages to sort out the CSeries, it's ready to fill in this hypthetical "gap" that B and A have opened up by overbuilding their airframes.

Maybe in 27 years time, the CSeries (well a stretched/reengined derivative of it) will be a nine hour aircraft. Now there's some food for thought.  
Quote:
REGARDING ICELANDAIR:

They have no choice. They have to buy this aircraft to replace their entire fleet. The future of the business depends upon it. This aircraft is made exactly for them. It's very efficient for flights to Europe and can make it to all of their North American destinations. And since they can buy A320's as well they will be able to add lot's of smaller destinations while maintaining one fleet type.

I think they'll end up either selling their B737MAX orders, leasing them out or converting them all to B737-8MAX. Those may still be useful. I do wonder however what it would cost to cancel the 16 ordered planes.

Usually the contracts have language written into them that stop the airlines selling the aircraft on within a certain time of delivery. Despite this, they manage to lease out and then sell their 787 orders, didn't they? Presumably that bit of the contract can be worked around if necessary. I guess they'll likely be doing the same with their orders for the MAX.

Quote:
I'm pretty confident that double-bogies will not be necessary with the new weight variant.

Agreed, though like with Indian Airlines, I'm sure Airbus could fit them if the airline really wanted them (and was prepared to pay a bit extra for them).

Quote:
While we are on the subject of narrow bodies for long flights, could an airline configure a single aisle airplane in an all economy 2-1-2 twin aisle configuration?

Easyjet mentioned sometime in the last five or so years that they wanted an aircraft such as this (maybe it was 2-2-2 or 3-2-3). They wanted this mainly for the benefits that configuration would give in reduced turn-around times, since pax can get on and off quicker. I'm trying to find a link.

Quote:
And what if the GTF proves to be unreliable and problematic, then Boeing has the LEAP-x optimized plane

Then A32Xneo customers will have Leap-Xs on their neos, rather than GTFs. The pdxlight website currently indicates that 35% of the neo orderbook has yet to decide on their engine selection.  
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1658
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:21 am

Quoting frostyj (Reply 10):
Quoting AviationAware (Reply 8):
Well you need your space to get up and walk about. I would not feel safe being in the air in a narrow body for that length of time. I am sorry but there is a limit and 7 hours or 3,000 miles is the limit.

I don't think narrow bodies should be flown to mainland Europe.

The aisles on 10Y 777s are so narrow there's no room to walk around anyway!
 
frostyj
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:25 am

Quoting AviationAware (Reply 12):

No what I am saying is that I do NOT want to fly on one for more than 7 hours so I don't feel like it is necessary.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:27 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 9):
vs. 10 hours in 3+5+3 in a 777

I think anyone would avoid 3-5-3 in the 777!  
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5758
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:30 am

Bobdino said in the previous thread
As I understand it, to put a GTF under the wing would require essentially a whole new airplane anyway. The redesign of the 737 to accommodate the required ground clearance would be prohibitively expensive.

I read that PW had said that they could make a GTF that would fit the 737. The GTF should have less sensitivity to fan diameter than a conventional engine, as you can fiddle with the gear ratio to keep the fan speed optimal for its diameter, and still have optimal core engine speed. Yes, for any thrust level there will be an optimal diameter, but the falloff from departing from the optimum should be less.

And yes, if the GTF proves problematic and unreliable Boeing will be in a good place, although Airbus will be able to match them because they offer both engines. But even though PW has disappointed many times in recent history, I believe they will pull through on this one. They have to; their backs are against the wall in the civil transport field, and if they blow this one I think they will be finished. I suspect that Boeing did not go with the GTF because they distrusted Pratt and they also remembered the Stratocruiser, which had a lot of engine problems, a lot of which were related to the reduction gearing on the propeller, I believe. But my feeling is that they called this one wrong. The theoretical advantages of the GTF are very significant, and I do not see why a gearbox cannot be designed that will be durable and reliable enough for the job. Granted, it will not be easy; if it was, it would have been done long ago.

[Edited 2014-10-23 04:36:20]
 
bgm
Posts: 2535
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:57 am

Quoting frostyj (Reply 17):
No what I am saying is that I do NOT want to fly on one for more than 7 hours so I don't feel like it is necessary.

Well don't then, nobody is forcing you to.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6667
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:31 pm

Quoting frostyj (Reply 10):
Well you need your space to get up and walk about. I would not feel safe being in the air in a narrow body for that length of time. I am sorry but there is a limit and 7 hours or 3,000 miles is the limit.

I don't think narrow bodies should be flown to mainland Europe.

As long as there is adequate leg room, I really don't see the difference. Where are you walking to? The Lav. You can still stand up and stretch in the aisle just the same.

That said, these will go on niche routes.

When 757s started doing TA, everyone worried that it would spread like wildfire where range was possible. It hasn't! As a matter of fact, it leveled off pretty quickly and has since declined.

There will be a market for this plane. But most of your TA flying will still be on a widebody.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:45 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 18):
I think anyone would avoid 3-5-3 in the 777!

Well, I hope airlines will see that the same way with the 777X. The talk about 16" seats was surely not without a reason. And iyo u consider the 3-3-3 on some A330s, I would also prefer a A32x there.
 
frostyj
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:50 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21):

Not from here. My main objective was to keep our east coast routes in regional British Isles airports.. I don'tcare about mainland europe or making connections.

I think more than 7 hours is too long so places like Berlin and Oslo seem a bit odd..
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:03 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 251):
I can not see an A32x model doing trans Pacific.

Hey, it's possible, albeit in special circumstances. 

*filler*
DL To Use 757 On NRT-SEA (by Transpac787 Apr 3 2010 in Civil Aviation)



[Edited 2014-10-23 06:05:00]
 
sharktail
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:41 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:06 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21):
When 757s started doing TA, everyone worried that it would spread like wildfire where range was possible. It hasn't! As a matter of fact, it leveled off pretty quickly and has since declined.

I think this will open up more markets. Coasts go down significantly, so markets open up. It does make sense.

However, you also need to take into account the cost of opening up a new station in smaller markets. Delta could start flying into GLA, or OSL or TXL. But they would also have to have staff in each of those locations. And I believe you need at minimum 150 people a day before you can afford that.

That is why they needed to make the A321 TATL, the 320 or 738MAX is too small.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10623
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:24 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 211):

Take smartphones for instance: the iPhone is the best selling smartphone in the world, but it is an ABSOLUTE FACT that Samsung makes much better phones REGARDLESS OF SALES. Apple just wins on loyalty, not superior product.

Not exactly. The iPhone and Apple are still a distant second to Samsung, globally.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack...phones-apple-still-distant-second/
Now if you want to compare specific models then yes, you could probably say that the iPhone5 is the best selling smartphone but that's because Samsung's product offering is more fragmented than Apple's

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

Don't worry, that's a 12+ hour flight. It's not going to happen any time soon  
Quoting seahawk (Reply 9):
10 hours in 3+3 in a A32X vs. 10 hours in 3+5+3 in a 777, I take the A32X.

  
I've done TATL on a 757 and on an A310, amongst others. I'll take the 757's hard product over the A310's hard product any day. If the hard product would be the same I'd take the 310 obviously. The point is, the interior configuration is more relevant than the width of the tube.

Quoting frostyj (Reply 10):
Well you need your space to get up and walk about.

I don't get up other than to go to the bathroom and if you look around, that's how most passengers are. Just look around next time. Most people are in their seats.
 
kl911
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:40 pm

Quoting Sharktail (Reply 25):
But they would also have to have staff in each of those locations. And I believe you need at minimum 150 people a day before you can afford that.

Why? Just use a GSA and Groundhandling company.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:51 pm

Any possible leads for launch orders?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:07 pm

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.
 
frostyj
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:10 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 26):

Its a 10 hour flight!!! Not 12!
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:29 pm

Quoting frostyj (Reply 30):
Its a 10 hour flight!!! Not 12!

For a widebody, maybe. Narrowbodies tend to cruise quite a bit slower, for example:
A380 M0.86
A320 M0.78
 
airbazar
Posts: 10623
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:46 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 29):
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.

This strategy could change in a heartbeat. WOW is expanding in the same market with A320's and if the A321neo is really 25% more fuel efficient than the 757, FI could be in for a shock against WOW. In addition some of their 757's are already pushing close to 25 years of age. Their youngest is just over 14 yo. Their average fleet age is nearly 20 years old. Those D checks are going to start to add up. IMO the reason why they didn't order enough MAX's is because they know that the MAX is not the 75W replacement that they need. But the A321NEO is. The only other alternative would be the 788.

Quoting frostyj (Reply 30):
Its a 10 hour flight!!! Not 12!

See cruising speed comment above, not to mention the return leg against the jetstream. That should be well above 12 hours.
 
frostyj
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:48 pm

So it would take 12 hours to fly 5,000 miles and 6 hours to fly 3,000 miles. Ok that does not make sense.
 
User avatar
mixalakhs
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:06 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:04 pm

Quoting frostyj (Reply 2):

I would. It will be like flying in the Upper deck of a B748  
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:05 pm

Quoting frostyj (Reply 2):
I would not fly on a narrowbody for 10 hours.

7 hours and no more. I don't even know why it is flying from mainland Europe, its too long.
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 6):
Indeed. I'd rather fly on a narrowbody for 10 hours in a comfortable seat than 10 abreast in a 777.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 9):
10 hours in 3+3 in a A32X vs. 10 hours in 3+5+3 in a 777, I take the A32X.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 26):
I've done TATL on a 757 and on an A310, amongst others. I'll take the 757's hard product over the A310's hard product any day. If the hard product would be the same I'd take the 310 obviously. The point is, the interior configuration is more relevant than the width of the tube.

Ding ding ding !!! The confort of the seat, the configuration and space is more important in 5 plus hours flights. 2 years ago I flew MEX-PHX and then PHX-SEA first on A320 from Americawest days and then on a US AIR A320 of newer vintage, the pitch was horrible on both (coach) but the USAIR seat was much more confortable. 2 months ago I flew SEA-ATL on a spanking new 737-900 on DL and boy !! it had lots of legroom and great slim seats... I have been to some wide bodies (even a MH 744 on business) and the seats are rock hard, after 4 hours you feel like a worm, trying to get confortable squirming around the seat.

Who would be the launch customer? I think such an aircraft has potential in the MEX-USA-CANADA-Southamerica market....

TRB
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7558
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:37 pm

Quoting hz747300 (Reply 4):
Quoting parapente (Reply 3):
We know they wanted and were hawking around 2 possible new aircraft (one a true narrow-body the other a 'slim' twin aisle).

Hmm... a slim twin would be good but airlines would never honor the intent. I agree with the other posters though, at some point it approaches cruelty when you have segments of 7+ hours in a single aisle.

Let's all kindred spirits rally around and petition airlines to demand that Boeing launch the B767MAX !   

[Edited 2014-10-23 08:52:35]
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:00 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 29):
For the airlines not dabbling in belly freight on narrow bodies, the case looks very different.

If the projections are correct and A321NLR is going to be 25-30% more fuel efficient why not just pay FedEx to send your freight?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:34 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 32):

WOW does not do freight.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:03 pm

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 37):
If the projections are correct and A321NLR is going to be 25-30% more fuel efficient why not just pay FedEx to send your freight?

Because FedEx does not move the fish from KEF to Boston in a similar time frame. The fish would go from KEF to the main center in Europe, to the main center in the USA and than to Boston. In Europe all the "express" services are shutting down on Friday and start working again on Monday. If you for example send spare parts to Norway with FedEx, UPS and so on, they go all the way to Oslo and are than distributed by the Norwegian Post. So I use airfreight to Norway. When I want to get spare parts fast to Seattle, I do not use FedEx but the direct FI flight to Seattle. FedEx may be a spanking good service inside the USA, but in the rest of the world you often have to use plain airfreight to move things fast especial from and to out of the way places.

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.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10623
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:06 pm

Quoting frostyj (Reply 33):
So it would take 12 hours to fly 5,000 miles and 6 hours to fly 3,000 miles. Ok that does not make sense.

That's because it takes more than 6 hours for a NB to fly 3,000nm.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/J...3/history/20141023/2355Z/KBOS/KSFO

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

So? Freight isn't always more profitable than people. If you can make more money carrying people only than that's what's going to happen.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 37):
If the projections are correct and A321NLR is going to be 25-30% more fuel efficient why not just pay FedEx to send your freight?

  
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23384
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:25 pm

I'm still in a 'pleasant shock' this is happening.
This is a paradigm shift. I've seen some studies that suggest this will open up TATL total passenger traffic by 20%.   

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 1):
Wait for a few years of PIPs, and out of SEA and YVR Japan may be in reach down the road. And who is to know if the A321neoLR wonÂŽt be such a success that Airbus will give the A320neo some more MTOW and Fuel to go 4500-5000nm.....

I've been one of the top advocates for the A321NEO going TATL here on a.net. Thus I've done numerous 'back of the envelope' studies on my own to try and work out how to increase the range and I just unable to get beyond 4,300nm on the A321NEO without a major wing improvement. 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.)

Quoting frostyj (Reply 2):
I would not fly on a narrowbody for 10 hours.

Why? I read you don't feel safe, but why? What is so special about a widebody that you wouldn't open up new routes?

This sounds like the arguments that "I'll only fly 4 engines with 3 pilots across the Atlantic." Well... I heard that as I watched the 767 take over that market. (Ironically, I've only flown 747s across the Atlantic... not by intention, just the best deals when I bought.)

I'll pick the timing, seat, and service with consideration for the cost. (Pretty much in that order unless the cost is too high and that it drives the decision.)

For the most part you will have alternatives. You will be able to connect in a hub (unless your home airport is a major hub) or fly the night flight which will likely remain a widebody. But for routes like EWR-BER or BDL-AMS, there is no other choice and they will look forward to more frequency (if market conditions grow enough to justify the demand).

This drop in cost per flight will enable far more direct routs (fragmentation). If you chose otherwise, vote with your dollars. Just hope your management doesn't insist you make it there those few hours earlier the A321NEO flights will enable.


Heck, by that argument Gulfstream would be out of business... But when I look every day a *tiny* little Gulfstream has taken off from VNY bound to Europe. But then again, for every one of those I see there are quite a few going to LAX or PHX not using a fraction of their capability.   

Quoting kl911 (Reply 27):

Quoting Sharktail (Reply 25):
But they would also have to have staff in each of those locations. And I believe you need at minimum 150 people a day before you can afford that.

Why? Just use a GSA and Groundhandling company.

Exactly kl911. B6 will do that. Heck, last I looked they still do not do their own ground handling at SEA. There are plenty of companies that will bid on the work.

Quoting Sharktail (Reply 25):
That is why they needed to make the A321 TATL, the 320 or 738MAX is too small.

If Boeing were able to extend the range of the 738MAX, I believe it would work. I concur the A320NEO is too small for commercial passenger duty (but will be incredible as an ACJ). But the 738MAX is 'enough between' to be viable. However, range will be an issue for the type. But it is Boeing's best chance not to completely lose out the long haul narrow body market.

The question is -8 MAX range. I haven't found an authoritative source. I think the -8 MAX could be viable TATL... but that is a hunch and not a real answer.


Lightsaber
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:54 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 39):
Because FedEx does not move the fish from KEF to Boston in a similar time frame.

I'm sorry, but fish tales aside I cannot fathom any belly freight able to be transported on a 757 which could offset a 30% increase in operating costs.

Besides, they have Ice in Iceland right? Why not freeze the fish? Or for the sake of thousands of dollars in savings offer discounted locally sourced produce. I mean it's bad enough that first world nations use air to transport food that could either be grown locally or is a pure luxury. But to take this one step further an try to use it to justify a massive increase in fuel burn... your skating on thin ice (pardon the pun/s)
 
highflier92660
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:59 pm

Since we at a.net love to postulate "what if", I would submit that using an A321 or Being 737 dash whatever on transatlantic flights is the very definition of extreme mission creep. They both cruise at around Mach .78 and were originally designed as short to intermediate range aircraft. Westbound in winter against a howling jet stream, the difference in block time between a cruise capability of .78 and .85 Mach on a flight from (example) Germany to New York is quite noticeable. A half century ago the Boeing 707 cruised at around Mach .82 for a reason; you don't want to crawl over the vast expanse of an ocean at the speed of a DC-7 or Constellation. Today's long range Boeing 787 and A350 are both .85 Mach machines.

I would hope that, deep in the bowels of both airframe manufacturers, there are aerodynamic gurus thinking "what if" they had the go-ahead to design an optimal .85 Mach wing for the next generation transatlantic narrow-body aircraft. After all, I just read that Grumman is calling .90 Mach cruise capability the new normal for long distance corporate jets.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:12 pm

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

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.

Every direct route opened up will put more pressure on maintaining viable flying into the big hubs. The Law of Diminishing Returns at work.
 
Tom_EDDF
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 8:47 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:16 pm

I believe the 767 cruises at around m.80, which is not that much faster. And the 767 does a lot of trans atlantic flying.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2561
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:37 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19):
And yes, if the GTF proves problematic and unreliable Boeing will be in a good place, although Airbus will be able to match them because they offer both engines. But even though PW has disappointed many times in recent history, I believe they will pull through on this one. They have to; their backs are against the wall in the civil transport field, and if they blow this one I think they will be finished. I suspect that Boeing did not go with the GTF because they distrusted Pratt and they also remembered the Stratocruiser, which had a lot of engine problems, a lot of which were related to the reduction gearing on the propeller, I believe. But my feeling is that they called this one wrong. The theoretical advantages of the GTF are very significant, and I do not see why a gearbox cannot be designed that will be durable and reliable enough for the job. Granted, it will not be easy; if it was, it would have been done long ago.

I think it has less to do with the 4360s on the Strat and more to do with the 4098 and watching the PW6100 fiasco over at Airbus, but distrust of Pratt is a factor.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 31):
Quoting frostyj (Reply 30):
Its a 10 hour flight!!! Not 12!

For a widebody, maybe. Narrowbodies tend to cruise quite a bit slower, for example:
A380 M0.86
A320 M0.78

Most A330/340 cruise around .82/.83, it's not a huge difference. If you spend half an hour of taxiing and waiting #20 in line at LHR and then fly a half hour faster, it's a wash anyway. In door-to-door time, I reckon the 321 would win.

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 43):
Since we at a.net love to postulate "what if", I would submit that using an A321 or Being 737 dash whatever on transatlantic flights is the very definition of extreme mission creep. They both cruise at around Mach .78 and were originally designed as short to intermediate range aircraft. Westbound in winter against a howling jet stream, the difference in block time between a cruise capability of .78 and .85 Mach on a flight from (example) Germany to New York is quite noticeable. A half century ago the Boeing 707 cruised at around Mach .82 for a reason; you don't want to crawl over the vast expanse of an ocean at the speed of a DC-7 or Constellation. Today's long range Boeing 787 and A350 are both .85 Mach machines.

Yesteryear's 707s cruised at .82 on longer trips because they were pushing the range envelope, on shorter ones they were often faster because fuel was cheap and fares were regulated, so showing up sooner was a competitive strength. Even then, a 707 at .82 would beat today's 380 at .86 because the 380 spends half an hour in line before takeoff and then flies through a traffic maze before actually crossing the ocean, which more than negates the speed delta.

Now, to bring this all back to the 321neoLR, I think speed won't be a problem because of a) the block time thing I just mentioned, b) the fact that it enables P2P that will beat a one-stop anyway, and c) on price, if it's more efficient. If I can save a couple hundred bucks spending an extra half hour in the air, I'll do it, and I reckon others will too.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:00 pm

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 42):
I'm sorry, but fish tales aside I cannot fathom any belly freight able to be transported on a 757 which could offset a 30% increase in operating costs.

Besides, they have Ice in Iceland right? Why not freeze the fish? Or for the sake of thousands of dollars in savings offer discounted locally sourced produce. I mean it's bad enough that first world nations use air to transport food that could either be grown locally or is a pure luxury. But to take this one step further an try to use it to justify a massive increase in fuel burn... your skating on thin ice (pardon the pun/s)

If one does not know about an industry and there needs one should keep quiet. Fresh fish and frozen fish are different markets and different customers. You definitely do not know about fresh foods and how they move around. They are not transported with FedEx.

If you are right, why have we all this treads about how much belly freight this and that wide body model can take and how important that is for the airlines? Do you really believe cargo on thin routes is less important?
The 5 t in the belly of a B757-200W, can be as important to a small airline, as the 20 t in the belly of a B777-300ER to a big airline to make a certain route economical.
If you need to move fresh food once a day, the weekly flight by the cargo plane does not cut it.
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:33 pm

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

Millions, including me, did without any stress or trauma on DC-8s and B707s. I would do it again in a heart beat if the only alternative was a 9 across A330 or 10 across B777.

Quoting frostyj (Reply 17):
No what I am saying is that I do NOT want to fly on one for more than 7 hours so I don't feel like it is necessary.

Yet you have been advocating BFS to NYC on a B738MAX endlessly on other threads; easily in excess of 7 hours westbound. You contradict your own beliefs and arguments.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 29):
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.

We need a reality check here. An operator utilises the current A321 with 2 ACTs between the UK and the Red Sea resorts of Egypt, carrying 220 passengers and nominally 2+ tonnes of freight.

The A321neoLR with 164 pax, their bags and 4 tonnes of freight rely should be a walk in the park; I'm excited at the prospects for this frame.

Rgds
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 585
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

RE: Airbus Launches A321NEOLR To Replace 757 Part 2

Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:02 pm

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.

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