Airbus Launches A321LR Aircraft - Part 2

American 767 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:25 am

Please continue the discussion here.

Airbus Launches A321LR Aircraft (by KarelXWB Jan 13 2015 in Civil Aviation)

You are welcome to post your personal ideas and opinions but we kindly ask you that you do not start A vs B fights.
Enjoy the forum.

Ben Soriano

ukoverlander · Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:55 am

Quoting zululima (Reply 210):
"What makes the 321L necessary is the top 5 or so percent of 757 missions that have no current replacement option...a lot of which the 321L will still not be able to handle."

It's great that you apparently have the specifics at your fingertips. Can you share with us your list of those missions that the 757 can handle that the A321NEO LR "will still not be able to handle". Maybe just give us the top five where the A321NEO LR just won't cut it - that'll add some real value to the discussion.

[Edited 2015-01-14 20:55:56]

tommy1808 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:15 am

Quoting zululima (Reply 216):

Any other route would be throwing money down a hole, since (as we currently understand it) this aircraft has ZERO cargo capacity.

If you expect your passengers to check 280-300 bags, then the A321NLR would have zero cargo capacity. In all more realistic cases they still have 2-3 LD3 available for cargo. Especially if it's a 2 or 3 class long haul config with less bags (despite higher allowance, J pax bring less luggage. May not be much, but it ain't zero, much less in capital letters.

Best regards
Thomas

r2rho · Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:29 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 2):
If you expect your passengers to check 280-300 bags, then the A321NLR would have zero cargo capacity. In all more realistic cases they still have 2-3 LD3 available for cargo.

It's not so much a matter of volume. Even if that little empty space is available, you cannot fill it and lift the plane off the ground since the a/c is already maxed out at MTOW. Or you trade that weight for fuel...in which case you're not LR-capable anymore, which defeats the purpose. So the A321LR is, for LR missions, effectively a zero cargo a/c. Which is totally fine for the niche it is supposed to serve. Those needing to carry fish will have to look elsewhere

tommy1808 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:06 am

Quoting r2rho (Reply 3):
It's not so much a matter of volume.

The A321NLR has 97 ton of MTOW, that is ~47 ton of fuel and payload. Max fuel is 25.185kg. That leaves 21.815 kg for pax, bags and catering. So, even with 206 pax at 100kg each there is enough payload left for 2 LD3 containers on a max fuel mission. They can start using the 3rd ACT with any payload below 23,700kg.
The std. 93.5 ton MTOW can carry it's maximum structural payload (WV011 mit 73.800kg MZFW) with just 19.700kg of fuel. That means just one ACT pretty exactly half full. The A321NLR can take off with not just that tank full, but also a 2nd full and a 3rd almost full. That is hundreds of miles in extra range for a given payload.
The A321s cargo hauling will be impeded by volume much more than weight. Don't forget that on a tatl flight in summer (less headwind) much less fuel will be needed, giving payload reserves, or that flights usually face headwinds just in one direction, so the other way it can haul much more. Cargo travels one way on a regular basis.

Best regards
Thomas

S75752 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:31 am

Soooo based on the above posts... Maybe they should have given it a more powerful engine?

The last time I brought up matching the 752's thrust my statement was quickly knocked down by the counterstatement that the 321NeoLR will have lighter weight materials for lightening the load. But now, it sounds as though its MTOW is coming up short. So what is it?

tommy1808 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:41 am

Quoting S75752 (Reply 5):
But now, it sounds as though its MTOW is coming up short. So what is it?

The A321NLR has a T/W ratio of 0.33 at MTOW, the 757 has 0.34 at MTOW... With the strongest available engine, that wasn't exactly the best seller.

Best regards
Thomas

S75752 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:51 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 6):

The A321NLR has a T/W ratio of 0.33 at MTOW, the 757 has 0.34 at MTOW... With the strongest available engine, that wasn't exactly the best seller.

What's the supposed problem then that some are bringing up? Did the 757 also have the issues that are being described above, with its powerful engines?

Pacific · Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:56 am

Let's go through several possible scenarios.

According to the marketing payload-range chart, the A321LR will have 18,500-19,000kg of payload available at max fuel. This means zero freight at 206 (206 x 90kg = 18,540kg) passengers, and if you cram the aircraft up to the limit of 240 passengers (240 x 90kg = 21,600kg), you have to offload fuel, giving a max range of approx 3,300nm on the payload-range chart.

However, on a low-density transatlantic long-range configuration of 165 passengers (TATL 757s only fly 175 pax), you will only be lifting around 15t of payload (165 x 90 = 14,850kg). This means you either have a range of 4,200nm (3,700nm real-world) with zero freight, or 4,000nm (3,500nm real-world) with 3.5t of freight (or fish). This is a significant range improvement over the 757.

The A321LR won't manage TATL on with 240 passengers and typical baggage, BUT if luggage weight is significantly lighter on LCCs due to high check-in fees, say average weight of 85kg instead of 90kg giving a payload of 20,400kg, the A321LR will have a marketing range of 3,700nm, allowing UK - East Coast.

Therefore, I'd say the A321LR will serve premium TATL exceptionally well, but LCCs should realistically expect a max marketing range of 3,700nm which makes it an 8-hour aircraft, rather than a 9.5 hours for a long-range config.

[Edited 2015-01-15 04:01:26]

tommy1808 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:56 am

Quoting S75752 (Reply 7):

What's the supposed problem then that some are bringing up? Did the 757 also have the issues that are being described above, with its powerful engines?

The A321 has a higher wingloading at MTOW than the 757. So, despite having a slightly better T/W ratio than most 757 out there, it still needs a couple of hundred feet more runway. And that gets overblown into "much worse hot and high performance".

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:02 pm

Quoting Pacific (Reply 8):
However, on a low-density transatlantic long-range configuration of 165 passengers (TATL 757s only fly 175 pax), you will only be lifting around 15t of payload (165 x 90 = 14,850kg). This means you either have a range of 4,300nm (3,800nm real-world) with zero freight, or 4,000nm (3,500nm real-world) with 3.5t of freight (or fish). This is a significant range improvement over the 757.

and since there is no way fitting even close to 3.5 ton cargo in just 3 or 4 LD3, that gives some incentive to try and cramp some more seats inside.

Best regards
Thomas

roseflyer · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:12 pm

Quoting Pacific (Reply 8):
Let's go through several possible scenarios.

According to the marketing payload-range chart, the A321LR will have 18,500-19,000kg of payload available at max fuel. This means zero freight at 206 (206 x 90kg = 18,540kg) passengers, and if you cram the aircraft up to the limit of 240 passengers (240 x 90kg = 21,600kg), you have to offload fuel, giving a max range of approx 3,300nm on the payload-range chart.

However, on a low-density transatlantic long-range configuration of 165 passengers (TATL 757s only fly 175 pax), you will only be lifting around 15t of payload (165 x 90 = 14,850kg). This means you either have a range of 4,200nm (3,700nm real-world) with zero freight, or 4,000nm (3,500nm real-world) with 3.5t of freight (or fish). This is a significant range improvement over the 757.

The A321LR won't manage TATL on with 240 passengers and typical baggage, BUT if luggage weight is significantly lighter on LCCs due to high check-in fees, say average weight of 85kg instead of 90kg giving a payload of 20,400kg, the A321LR will have a marketing range of 3,700nm, allowing UK - East Coast.

FYI your weight assumptions are too low. The FAA mandates 195lbs per passenger in weight and balance calculations (in winter) which translates to 90kg so you can't go lower than that. That includes passenger and hand baggage but excludes baggage. You should add about 20kgs per passenger for checked baggage. Realistically you should use 110kgs per passenger. You also have to factor in catering weight, headwinds, ETOPS or holding fuel (maybe), so the range numbers come down a bit.

Pacific · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 11):

In part 1, several users noted that 90kg was standard but obviously this is debatable! At 110kg x 165, you will have 18,150kg payload so it is basically the zero cargo assumption of 4,000nm marketing or 3,500nm real-world range after headwinds etc. AFAIK, the longest current 757 TATL is EWR-TXL at 3,458nm.

The interesting thing about the 110kg assumption is that, the A321 will not be viable for more than 215 passengers (23,650kg). The marketing chart shows max payload at a touch below 24,000kg! For some reason, Airbus still bothered to raise the max certified capacity from 220 to 240 passengers for the NEO so the plot thickens.

MEA-707 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:28 pm

If you have 240 passengers, a bunch of containers with cargo and an 8 hour flight to do, there are other optimal aircraft you can use; the 788 and A332/333. The 757 niche, the FI, AA, UA, DL short transatlantic and deep south America flights have the issue they often have less then 200 passengers so a widebody wouldn't work out and for thát market the A321LR will work out very well. And if the airline often will have to bump passengers or cargo they will be happy to wheel in a 788 or A332 instead.

speedbored · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:32 pm

There's a lot of very interesting information regarding average weights of passengers and luggage in the EASA survey from 2009:
http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fil...t%20Survey%20R20090095%20Final.pdf

It shows average adult passenger weight including carry-on baggage as between 80kg and 87kg depending on season and average checked baggage as around 17kg.

tommy1808 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:35 pm

Quoting Pacific (Reply 12):
The interesting thing about the 110kg assumption is that, the A321 will not be viable for more than 215 passengers (23,650kg). The marketing chart shows max payload at a touch below 24,000kg! For some reason, Airbus still bothered to raise the max certified capacity from 220 to 240 passengers for the NEO so the plot thickens.

there are answers to that:
1. Children: they are a lot lighter and some operators (aka charter) can soundly assume a bunch of kids on board.
2. The US ain't everywhere, other places may have different weight assumptions due to different statistics.
3. A321neo with one ACT is at least 800kg lighter
4. The chart may not be for the highest available MZFW option.

Best regards
Thomas

astuteman · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:39 pm

Quoting S75752 (Reply 5):
The last time I brought up matching the 752's thrust my statement was quickly knocked down

Quote:

Because the 97t A321NEO LR will broadly do what the 116t 757-200 would do.
It doesn't need the same thrust.
It will broadly have the same power-to-weight ratio

[quote=S75752,reply=7]What's the supposed problem then that some are bringing up?

There isn't one. The LR's MTOW went up by 3 1/2 t specifically to accommodate the 2 1/2t extra fuel without having to trade off payload.

[quote=Roseflyer,reply=11]You also have to factor in catering weight, headwinds, ETOPS or holding fuel (maybe), so the range numbers come down a bit.

That is true of every range/payload chart. Not one of them factors in headwinds or catering weight (for example)

Rgds

roseflyer · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:42 pm

Quoting Pacific (Reply 12):

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 11):

In part 1, several users noted that 90kg was standard but obviously this is debatable! At 110kg x 165, you will have 18,150kg payload so it is basically the zero cargo assumption of 4,000nm marketing or 3,500nm real-world range after headwinds etc. AFAIK, the longest current 757 TATL is EWR-TXL at 3,458nm.

The interesting thing about the 110kg assumption is that, the A321 will not be viable for more than 215 passengers (23,650kg). The marketing chart shows max payload at a touch below 24,000kg! For some reason, Airbus still bothered to raise the max certified capacity from 220 to 240 passengers for the NEO so the plot thickens.

I know it is debatable. I was ripped apart pretty badly in the first part of the thread for trying to turn the marketing numbers into real world numbers. Depending on the market even 110kg per person is lower than what some airlines plan for. It varies based on market. For example the Airbus slides mention USA-Brazil. The Brazilian government mandates 2 free 70lbs bags for each passenger and airlines expect 30kg or more per passenger on southbound routes since so many people purchase goods abroad due to lower taxes. That means that the typical 175 passenger configuration would use up a lot of the payload. Route planning is not a simple science!

Pacific · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:50 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 14):
It shows average adult passenger weight including carry-on baggage as between 80kg and 87kg

Very informative, seems it's settled that the 90kg assumption that Airbus uses is reasonable for TATL.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 15):

Very useful post that explains why the above EASA average turned out to be 87kg max.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 16):
That is true of every range/payload chart. Not one of them factors in headwinds or catering weight (for example)

Which is why I happily knock off 500nm off the marketing range for the A321LR. For the 757, it seems 600nm* needs knocking off.

*Longest 757 TATL is EWR-TXL at 3,458nm, flown with RR engines. The more efficient PW birds may manage 3,500nm, which is 600nm short of the 4,100nm quoted by Boeing for a 75W.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 17):
The Brazilian government mandates 2 free 70lbs bags for each passenger and airlines expect 30kg or more per passenger on southbound routes

Also a very valid point for certain markets. I dread to think of how many kg of balikbayan boxes get loaded into Philippine Airlines over Christmas!

[Edited 2015-01-15 04:57:23]

roseflyer · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:56 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 15):

Quoting Pacific (Reply 12):
The interesting thing about the 110kg assumption is that, the A321 will not be viable for more than 215 passengers (23,650kg). The marketing chart shows max payload at a touch below 24,000kg! For some reason, Airbus still bothered to raise the max certified capacity from 220 to 240 passengers for the NEO so the plot thickens.

2. The US ain't everywhere, other places may have different weight assumptions due to different statistics.

Thomas, do you know of any regulatory agencies that don't use the limits from AC 120-27E? 190lbs summer, 195lbs winter. Checked bags weigh at least 30lbs and average per bag is about 40-50lbs. I know some use higher calculations. Bombardier assumes 102kg per passenger.

Weight requirements went up after the B1900 crash in CLT and that affected payload calculations and introduced fuel stops on more 757 transatlantic routes and 737s and A320s on usa transcontinental routes. Airlines know, but manufacturers try to use the lowest numbers possible to show on marketing charts. For example Alaska Airlines ordered the 737-800 partially because that ADvisory Circular made the 737-900 no longer viable on their BOS-SEA and MCO-SEA routes.

seahawk · Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:18 pm

And that is why I think we will see quite a few LRs being bought just for the hight MTOW. Probbaly with just one or 2 ACTs. Routes like Scandinavia or Russia to the Canary Islands would love those. Probably a few routes to HNL would also be interesting for that.

UALWN · Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:34 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 11):
The FAA mandates 195lbs per passenger in weight and balance calculations (in winter) which translates to 90kg

195 lbs translates to 88.5 kg, not 90.

speedbored · Thu Jan 15, 2015 2:09 pm

Quoting Pacific (Reply 12):
The interesting thing about the 110kg assumption is that, the A321 will not be viable for more than 215 passengers (23,650kg). The marketing chart shows max payload at a touch below 24,000kg! For some reason, Airbus still bothered to raise the max certified capacity from 220 to 240 passengers for the NEO so the plot thickens.

Looking at the details in the EASA survey that I linked to earlier, 105kg (rounding up from the survey seasonal max of 104kg) would be better estimate for the average adult plus carry-on and checked luggage, with children roughly half that (max 53kg from the survey), but let's round up to 55kg.

So with 240 passengers, if only 15% (36) of them are children, you are comfortably under the 24t max payload limit.

Even if we go with more cautious 110 / 60kg estimates, you can still take a full 240 passengers if 20% (48) of them are children.

Looks to me like Airbus have got it right with this one.

Revelation · Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:40 pm

Quoting Pacific (Reply 8):
or fish

I see what you did there!

Boeing778X · Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:59 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 4):
The A321s cargo hauling will be impeded by volume much more than weight.

I would imagine that could be the case, especially if the aircraft is flying out of high altitude airports, like DEN.

MON · Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:11 pm

I understood the 240 seat A321NEO config option was partially the result of a lessor galley/catering layout? If this is correct then it's probably not the config that is going to be used on a longhaul 321?

[Edited 2015-01-15 14:13:48]

EPA001 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:18 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 22):
Looks to me like Airbus have got it right with this one.

In the end time will tell, as always. But I agree with this assumption.

davies2911 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:19 pm

Surely this would be the perfect 757 replacement for the likes of La Compagnie and BA Openskies?

Devilfish · Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:22 pm

Quoting Pacific (Reply 18):
Also a very valid point for certain markets. I dread to think of how many kg of balikbayan boxes get loaded into Philippine Airlines over Christmas!

Since it's a short puddle jump from HKG-MNL, the bog standard A321 should handle the 20kg/Y and 30kg/J FBA per passenger, no problem...

...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mohit S. Purswani - AHKGAP

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt

It gets tricky if PR were to acquire the A321LR for service into MEL...

...

Assuming a two-class layout of 16J and 190Y with 10 seats empty...that's at least 180 x 30kg plus 16 x 40kg based on PR's official FBA which took effect 01jan15. Given that the front section seldom gets full (holiday season maybe) PR could probably 'wing' it, while a few lucky Mabuhay Milers get an upgrade

.

It's dreadful when 5J decide they want in on the action and order the A21LR.

Pacific · Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:39 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 28):
Since it's a short puddle jump from HKG-MNL, the bog standard A321 should handle the 20kg/Y and 30kg/J FBA per passenger, no problem... ...

Ohh, but what about the excess, overweight baggage...I mean boxes! I sent my 80 year old grandmother off at HKG back in Christmas 2009 or so, the check-in aisles had piles and piles of balikbayan boxes just stacked up. The equipment that day was a 747-400. Upon arrival, we got a distressful call from her saying her luggage got bumped and she had been told to wait in the arrivals terminal for 5 hours until it arrived in the next flight. Way to treat an 80 year old, PAL customer service - it should have been delivered to her house for free.

Therefore, that extra hold space that the ACT takes up might pose a unique issue for PAL when it comes to a direct flight to Australia beyond Darwin.

KarelXWB · Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:35 am

A321LR analysis by Leeham:

http://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/air...-behind-the-lr-to-see-whats-there/

Devilfish · Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:42 pm

Quoting Pacific (Reply 29):
Ohh, but what about the excess, overweight baggage...I mean boxes!

That's a 'paying' problem that PR is only too happy to solve and no longer the plane's shortcoming...which will likely be dealt with in much the same way, albeit with 77Ws or IGW A330s nowadays...

...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Douglas Wong

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wuweican

Quoting Pacific (Reply 29):
Way to treat an 80 year old, PAL customer service - it should have been delivered to her house for free.

Although deplorable, this should remind passengers of the hassles of flying with excess baggage

.

Quoting Pacific (Reply 29):
Therefore, that extra hold space that the ACT takes up might pose a unique issue for PAL when it comes to a direct flight to Australia beyond Darwin.

As in the HKG example above, the matter can be addressed by equipment substitution.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Hillier

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Xing Stanley Li

Though I hasten to add...the A321LR may be all they'd need in PER, PR's new A330s are probably okay pinch hitting for it at BNE, while the T7s which used to go to MEL can be a bit of an overkill.

Karel's linked analysis above is quite enlightening, particularly these paragraphs.....

Quote:
"It is a bit more involved than just adding fuel but we will take it in steps and when through we have also experienced what Airbus has been through over the years as they have gradually extended the capabilities of the A320 range and what airlines discuss with them when they sit down to understand if A321LR is something for them.

[.....]

We can also see that Airbus has assumed non LD3-45 loaded passenger bags. The bags simply does not fit for 206 passengers in a containerized concept with normal assumptions for bags per passenger and bags per container. It requires nine containers free and we would only have seven after the three fuel tanks have been installed. With bulk-loaded bags, including using the bulk cargo area, the bags for 206 passengers will fit with a bit of room to spare."

mjoelnir · Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:08 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
A321LR analysis by Leeham:

http://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/air...here/

So we are back to 165 passengers and no cargo (no space for cargo because of 3 ACT) and exactly that will be why FI will fly the 757-200W a bit longer.

lightsaber · Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:47 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 32):

Probably. But expect B6 in mint to take advantage. I expect with the 78J, A35J, and 779 cargo yields will drop and the airlines flying narrow bodies 3000nm+ won't worry about cargo.

Lightsaber

Boeing778X · Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:16 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 33):
I expect with the 78J, A35J, and 779 cargo yields will drop and the airlines flying narrow bodies 3000nm+ won't worry about cargo.

Of course, the 78J, A35J and 779 won't fly 3000nm routes, and cargo yields on those aircraft will be just fine, the way I see it.

lightsaber · Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:39 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 34):

I expect all, in particular the 78J, to fly the TATL ranges we're discussing.

Lightsaber

mjoelnir · Sat Jan 17, 2015 1:27 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 34):
Of course, the 78J, A35J and 779 won't fly 3000nm routes, and cargo yields on those aircraft will be just fine, the way I see it.

And they will fly those routes very economical with 150 passengers on average./

eaa3 · Sat Jan 17, 2015 2:08 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 36):
And they will fly those routes very economical with 150 passengers on average./

Cargo doesn't care about flying direct.

Pacific · Sat Jan 17, 2015 2:21 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 31):
Although deplorable, this should remind passengers of the hassles of flying with excess baggage .

My gran had no excess baggage. It was standard check-in.

I'm sure balikbayan cargo is a good source of revenue for PAL and therefore I have doubts about the A321LR being a massive benefit to the airline due to unique, local circumstances! Therefore as you say, other equipment is more suitable!

Devilfish · Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:53 am

Quoting Pacific (Reply 38):
I'm sure balikbayan cargo is a good source of revenue for PAL and therefore I have doubts about the A321LR being a massive benefit to the airline due to unique, local circumstances!

The A321LR may not be massively beneficial to PR but it could spell the difference between having a direct service, a one-stop service or no service at all for communities looking to them for air transportation to the old country and back.

Quoting Pacific (Reply 38):
Therefore as you say, other equipment is more suitable!

I hardly think regularly deploying overly large capacity to secondary destinations as suitable, much less profitable. Those are not the shopping mecca HKG is to Filipinos. These phrases in my post refer: okay pinch hitting and a bit of an overkill.

Boeing778X · Sat Jan 17, 2015 5:36 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 35):
I expect all, in particular the 78J, to fly the TATL ranges we're discussing.

Ah, I see.

lightsaber · Sat Jan 17, 2015 6:33 am

Quoting Pacific (Reply 8):
Let's go through several possible scenarios.

What struck me is you are comparing a 115.6T airframe with much less efficient 38k engines to a new 97t airframe with much more efficient 35k thrust engines.

For 18.6t more weight... one expects quite a bit more capability. But also, we're looking at about 19% more in expense just due to the weight! I'm not seeing the payload difference to manage the cost difference. Please don't forget that the 757 engine cost about *twice* as much per takeoff for maintenance as the NEO engines.

Ironically, fuel has dropped enough in price this old study is valid again. However, the 757s are older and therefor more maintenance intensive:

http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sam...ticles/fleet_planning_2_sample.pdf

Just a little extrapolation for the A321LR shows the CASM will be far less for the new plane.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 36):
And they will fly those routes very economical with 150 passengers on average./

The smallest viable widebody is going to have a hundred more seats (in round numbers) with a cost per flight matching most of the capacity increase.

The cargo will fly on the widebodies to the cities that fill those planes. The added frequencies and smaller cities will see the A321LR.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 39):
The A321LR may not be massively beneficial to PR but it could spell the difference between having a direct service, a one-stop service or no service at all for communities looking to them for air transportation to the old country and back.

Cargo must pay its own way (which I think you agree with). Thus either PR flies the direct, or someone else will. If the passengers must be re-educated on cargo costs (as US airline customers have been), then so be it. Business travelers value their time and direct flights thus earn a premium.

Or PR loses the business (say another AirAsia...).

Lightsaber

Pacific · Sat Jan 17, 2015 8:21 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 41):
What struck me is you are comparing a 115.6T airframe with much less efficient 38k engines to a new 97t airframe with much more efficient 35k thrust engines.

It seems I struck a nerve here but I cannot see how. I would think it is natural to compare the A321LR to the aircraft it is replacing. I compared payload/range and you now compared costs!

I plugged in some payload numbers to see how the A321LR would perform in a TATL config and a LCC config and concluded that the A321LR would fly further than the 757, and would be perfectly viable for premium TATL. That payload-range comparison slide is straight from Airbus and is there for everyone on this forum to use it for number crunching.

The cost figures you post are very true and I've read them in the previous threads as well. It would offset the A321LR's lack of cargo uplift versus the 757 easily. However, the intent of the post was to focus on payload/range alone and bust a few myths regarding how far the A321LR could fly.

Of course, some on here believe that A321LR is not even suitable for TATL let alone a 1 hour hop from DEN and that Boeing should restart 757 production. Big grin

I'm not one of them.

[Edited 2015-01-17 00:34:07]

scbriml · Sat Jan 17, 2015 8:24 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 34):
Of course, the 78J, A35J and 779 won't fly 3000nm routes

They won't? Wow!

Just about all Middle-East to Europe flights are less than 3,000nm and are flown by every widebody out there. Those type of routes will be flown by the specific types you mention.

KarelXWB · Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:49 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 34):
Of course, the 78J, A35J and 779 won't fly 3000nm routes, and cargo yields on those aircraft will be just fine, the way I see it.

You will be surprised to learn that 55% of all 777 flights are no longer than 3,000 nm.

jambrain · Sat Jan 17, 2015 10:49 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 34):
Of course, the 78J, A35J and 779 won't fly 3000nm routes, and cargo yields on those aircraft will be just fine, the way I see it.

To get the utilizations that are the norm nowadays many wide-bodies will be scheduled on one 10 hour + one 6 hour route. They might not beat the CASM of a 321LR but it improves the return on capital to utilize what you have.

mjoelnir · Sat Jan 17, 2015 11:14 am

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 37):
Cargo doesn't care about flying direct.

That is an unsubstantiated assumption. Perishable cargo is very time sensitive.
The examples are flowers, fruits and yes fresh fish.
And the biggest problem are that there are often no other flights, be it wide bodies or dedicated freighters.

Why is it that the freight argument is accepted comparing the A380-800 with the B777-300ER, but when one talks about narrow bodies freight should not be mentioned. Relative to the size and cost of the flight freight can be more important on narrow bodies.
Every flight, but perhaps the LCC´s, here in the northern regions be it Finnair, SAS, Icelandair, Widerö or Ernir takes freight, be it an 757, 737,320 or down to a Jetstream 32.

Airfreight is time sensitive, otherwise it would be shipped by ship over sea or railway and truck.

frostyj · Sat Jan 17, 2015 11:37 am

This is good i'm sure it will be used here but technically the standard a321 can reach here.

Also max too.

seahawk · Sat Jan 17, 2015 11:40 am

That is good point. On the downside a 321LR would either be standing on the ground for ~8 hours a day, or you would need to do a short hop in between the long hauls, but there you will have the wrong cabin configuration and the extra weight of the LR is also not economic. So if you look at the fleet, the wide body might make more sense, as they can do those medium routes and then a long route. Those 757s doing TATL are long paid for, you can easily have them standing on the ground for a few extra hours, a new A321LR however needs to fly.
I still believe that the A321LRs will mostly be used with a high density seating configuration and 1 ACT on routes around 3000nm.

EPA001 · Sat Jan 17, 2015 11:45 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 44):
You will be surprised to learn that 55% of all 777 flights are no longer than 3,000 nm.

Which begs the question, will the A321-neo-(LR) and maybe the longer ranges B737-MAX's be the real next-generation point to point airplanes which might "revolutionise" air traffic? Since indeed many wide body aircraft like the B777, A330 but also A380's frequently fly on such short routes for their capacity (mostly hub-to-hub, but also point-to-hub or hub-to-point) instead for their range. No doubt this will happen with the B787 and A350 as well.

The long-range narrow body aircraft we will see hit the market as the NEO's and the MAX's might therefore be the real "point to point" aircraft we have been discussing so long ever since that term was heavily marketed by Boeing when they introduced the B787. Of course, in the end every aircraft flies from a point to a point, but I hope I have made my specific question clear.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net