Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
GSP psgr
Topic Author
Posts: 765
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:09 am

A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:33 am

With Airbus soon to launch the A321LR and already talking about building a 4500nm capable LR, one starts to wonder about it opening up secondary markets in Asia from at least Seattle, with the most likely single mission application being Delta using them to secondary Japanese markets. A 4500nm capable 321XLR could do SEA-KIX/CTS/NGO/FUK, all markets where widebodies have struggled in the past from Los Angeles and other markets. That would partially allow Delta to build a transpac hub at SEA along the lines of how CO used the 757 to open up secondary European destinations. Thoughts?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13895
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:37 am

These routes are all at the edge of that range, and thus would struggle tremendously on the winter westbounds just to cover the distance.

Logistically, probably the only way it'd work is with a superhigh-premium or all-J confirguration... but there's no way the aforementioned markets would generate the yields necessary to sustain that.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7618
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:41 am

That would be the still-air range. How would it hold up in the inter against the jet stream and other powerful headwinds? Also, That extra range will come at the expense of cargo space and Japan traffic is particularly tricky because it is very Tokyo-centric. Right now the only successful US mainland-Japan services are DTW-NGO (auto industry) on DL and SFO-KIX (SFO's near-endless demand to the Far East) on UA, and DL about to resume SEA-KIX (we'll see how it goes this time) next year.

I think the A321XLR may be the foundation for a freighter or a VIP jet with some token pax orders ala 77L.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
GSP psgr
Topic Author
Posts: 765
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:09 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:46 am

LAX772LR wrote:
These routes are all at the edge of that range, and thus would struggle tremendously on the winter westbounds just to cover the distance.

Logistically, probably the only way it'd work is with a superhigh-premium or all-J confirguration... but there's no way the aforementioned markets would generate the yields necessary to sustain that.


You're probably right, but WOW got a standard 321neo 3700nm+ on LAX-KEF. For the 321XLR, 4500nm is probably a floor, and we still haven't seen what the 321LR is capable of, so who knows.
 
Yossarian22
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:25 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:54 am

GSP psgr wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
These routes are all at the edge of that range, and thus would struggle tremendously on the winter westbounds just to cover the distance.

Logistically, probably the only way it'd work is with a superhigh-premium or all-J confirguration... but there's no way the aforementioned markets would generate the yields necessary to sustain that.


You're probably right, but WOW got a standard 321neo 3700nm+ on LAX-KEF. For the 321XLR, 4500nm is probably a floor, and we still haven't seen what the 321LR is capable of, so who knows.


Yeah, my first thought was a Wow like operation in Asia. Using a Japanese airport as a hub to connect flights from the West Coast to various destinations in Asia, using the LCC model. Scoot and AirAsia already operate at HNL, so it isn’t completely without President, and Wow has smashed the myth that airlines need to offer a premium product over the Ocean.

Of course, this depends on the actual capabilities of the A321LR, if 4500 NM is still air, this probably doesn’t work.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13895
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:31 am

GSP psgr wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
These routes are all at the edge of that range, and thus would struggle tremendously

You're probably right, but WOW got a standard 321neo 3700nm+ on LAX-KEF.

....with 60+ seats blocked, and no additional premium capacity to compensate.

No sane airline would tolerate (much less build a scheduled operations model around) that.


Yossarian22 wrote:
without President

"precedent"


Yossarian22 wrote:
and Wow has smashed the myth that airlines need to offer a premium product over the Ocean.

Might wanna wait until WW (and DU/DI/DY for that matter) actually survive a major market downturn, before using their business models as proof of anything.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:25 am

The flights that actually travel the wikipedia range you can count on one hand. Very low density.

You need to knock off 10% to take into account headwinds. That means 3600nm for the A321LR and probably 4000nm for the A321XLR

That rules out crossing the Pacific. You'll be to run very density cabin to fly that distancd.

The 797 on the other hand this will be within its range.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:51 am

The additional 10% spoken about for the XLR (Thats 4.4knm btw) is primarily being developed (if it's developed) to increase the range of destinations available between western USA and Europe
However I am certain it would be v useful between N&S America and in Asia.
As above there is a huge difference between stil air range and real range in a commercial world.How much you loose depends on the actual journey and time of year.Westbound from Europe in the winter bring a good example.
But Pacific,Nah.
But let's see what the 'simple' LR can do first! Will be out this Autumn I believe.It may have some surprises based on their test work.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:29 am

Slightly off-topic but how about Anchorage - Asia? 4000nm covers all of Japan, S.Korea, Beijing and Shanghai to the East, UK, Scandinavia, Berlin in Europe, the whole continental USA and most of Mexico.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:59 pm

United was able to use the 777-200A on SEA-NRT, which is 4100nm. I believe there were weight restrictions if they tried to use it on NRT-SFO, which is 4400nm. I bring this up since that plane has 5200nm of range and still struggled on transpacific crossings.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4796
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:18 pm

I thought there was somewhat of a consensus that even the 797 would not be a Pacific Ocean crosser. Those few shorter routes may be an exception.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:43 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
I thought there was somewhat of a consensus that even the 797 would not be a Pacific Ocean crosser. Those few shorter routes may be an exception.


SEA or YVR to Japan and S. Korea is doable, but that's about it (and that's on the smaller, longer range i.e. 5000nm 797). For example, SFO-ICN is 4917nm and is probably not very doable on the smaller 797 without weight restriction, especially westbound. Basically any TPAC route that's done on the 763 right now is good to go.

A theoretical ANC-based airline with ANC as a "super hub" could also fly to pretty much all major cities in East Asia, N. America, and most of Europe, but there are, of course, other issues with such airline (i.e. Plane rotation - b/c Lower 48-ANC-E. Asia-ANC-Lower 48 requires 1.5 planes for a 2-day rotation, unlike the single plane that WW can use on Europe-KEF-N. America-KEF-Europe).

Its main target is definitely TATL, though, replacing all those 757s and 767s that US airlines are using from Eastern US (NE/Midwest or as far south as ATL) to Europe.
Last edited by zakuivcustom on Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
LY777
Posts: 2587
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:45 pm

I wouldn’t like to be on a narrow body on such a long flight. Widebodies are a necessity for me for flights longer than 5 hours
Flown:717,727,732,733,734,735,738,73H,742/744/748,752,753,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W, 788, 789, DC8,DC10,E190,E195,MD83,MD88, L1011, A3B2,A319,A320-100/200,A321,A332/A333,A343,A388
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:54 pm

Answer: No
 
dmstorm22
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:49 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:59 pm

LAX772LR wrote:

Yossarian22 wrote:
and Wow has smashed the myth that airlines need to offer a premium product over the Ocean.

Might wanna wait until WW (and DU/DI/DY for that matter) actually survive a major market downturn, before using their business models as proof of anything.


If anything, DU/DI/DY is already starting to show the myth may be closer to reality than people think.

Even with the newer A321s, it's probably wise to give it some time to see if it actually works out TATL before we start dreaming about TPAC.
 
PDX757
Posts: 210
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:06 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:10 pm

4000nm puts all of Japan, SK, and NE China (including PEK and PVG) well in range of ANC. A KEF type operation to Asia from NA would be interesting to see.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 5104
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:18 pm

SEA-ANC-Asia is more likely. I could see a ULCC setting up shop in ANC. CALI, LAS, PHX, DEN, SLC, SEA, PDX those are big markets to Asia. People want ULCC even on longer routes, they say they don't but that is what people book. What Iceland is to Europe ANC could be to Asia.
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:54 pm

I'm sure it's possible, but there would be lots of weight restrictions, making the yields absolutely terrible.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:17 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
SEA-ANC-Asia is more likely. I could see a ULCC setting up shop in ANC. CALI, LAS, PHX, DEN, SLC, SEA, PDX those are big markets to Asia. People want ULCC even on longer routes, they say they don't but that is what people book. What Iceland is to Europe ANC could be to Asia.


A big problem is that there is very very little O/D demand between Anchorage and Asia. Alaska tourism isn’t centralized like it is in Iceland
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:22 pm

Maybe a 797, but then it possibly would’ve been tried already with a 767 unless the planes aren’t available.

Maybe a 757 max could do it :duck:
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4521
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:35 pm

PDX757 wrote:
4000nm puts all of Japan, SK, and NE China (including PEK and PVG) well in range of ANC. A KEF type operation to Asia from NA would be interesting to see.


Indeed, from Alaska or maybe Hawaii this is certainly possible. From mainland USA it's too far, however what would there be against a cheap Los Angeles - Tokyo trip with a transfer in Honolulu?

Another thing, since Guam is also USA but too far for a direct flight from Honolulu on a narrow-body, it could technically be possible to do this with a fuel stop in Japan. The airline would have rights to sell tickets on both individual legs (each of them touch the USA) plus on the whole Hawaii - Guam trip. I could see an airline like Spirit do something like that in the future. If they set up a hub in Honolulu or another place in Hawaii they could become the LCC of the pacific.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4521
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:38 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
A big problem is that there is very very little O/D demand between Anchorage and Asia. Alaska tourism isn’t centralized like it is in Iceland


What about using Hawaii instead of Alaska? Say what you want about Hawaii, but it does draw tourists. On an A320XLR Japan, South Korea and parts of China are well within reach from let's say Honolulu.
 
bzcat
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:31 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
A big problem is that there is very very little O/D demand between Anchorage and Asia. Alaska tourism isn’t centralized like it is in Iceland


What about using Hawaii instead of Alaska? Say what you want about Hawaii, but it does draw tourists. On an A320XLR Japan, South Korea and parts of China are well within reach from let's say Honolulu.


Those Japan-Hawaii flights can fill a widebody so why would you use a narrow body?
 
PDX757
Posts: 210
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:06 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:32 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
A big problem is that there is very very little O/D demand between Anchorage and Asia. Alaska tourism isn’t centralized like it is in Iceland


What about using Hawaii instead of Alaska? Say what you want about Hawaii, but it does draw tourists. On an A320XLR Japan, South Korea and parts of China are well within reach from let's say Honolulu.


The advantage of ANC is its northerly position that is very near great circle distance from NA to Asia. HNL being well to the south would add a considerable amount of distance to a transpac trip. Great spot for a stopover ala Icelandair and Keflavik. Not sure if HA has much connecting traffic from NA to Asia, probably not.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:23 pm

GSP psgr wrote:
With Airbus soon to launch the A321LR and already talking about building a 4500nm capable LR, one starts to wonder about it opening up secondary markets in Asia from at least Seattle, with the most likely single mission application being Delta using them to secondary Japanese markets. A 4500nm capable 321XLR could do SEA-KIX/CTS/NGO/FUK, all markets where widebodies have struggled in the past from Los Angeles and other markets. That would partially allow Delta to build a transpac hub at SEA along the lines of how CO used the 757 to open up secondary European destinations. Thoughts?


Boeing and Airbus lists nominal range (still air performance). For a commercial service there must be fuel for alternate airport plus additional reserves for headwinds etc. A rule of thumb is to deduct 15% for headwinds, alternate airport and reserves. A 4500 nm (plus) A321 XLR or a up to 5000 nm Boeing NMA can operate a commercial service of, approximately, 3850 nm and 4200 nm respectively.

Only SEA-CTS (3800 nm) would be within A321 XLR or 797 range.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4521
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:44 pm

bzcat wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
Those Japan-Hawaii flights can fill a widebody so why would you use a narrow body?


What about higher frequencies or thinner routes to/from smaller airports? Basically all flights from Hawaii to Japan are from Honolulu except for one flight from Kona to Tokyo Haneda. Narrow bodies could offer for example Hilo - Tokyo or Honolulu - Sendai. That way you don't have to funnel all traffic through the hubs.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:51 pm

Are airlines obsessed with trying to use the smallest plane possible for a long haul route? They are trying to set a record with these small narrow body planes.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6530
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:58 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
Are airlines obsessed with trying to use the smallest plane possible for a long haul route? They are trying to set a record with these small narrow body planes.


No, I'd say airlines are obsessed with making money. If they feel a smaller airplane is more profitable for a give route, that's what they'll assign.

Narrow body planes used to fly many long haul flights, albeit not with 31" seat pitch.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:10 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
Are airlines obsessed with trying to use the smallest plane possible for a long haul route? They are trying to set a record with these small narrow body planes.


No, I'd say airlines are obsessed with making money. If they feel a smaller airplane is more profitable for a give route, that's what they'll assign.

Narrow body planes used to fly many long haul flights, albeit not with 31" seat pitch.


That was back when flying was still a luxury. A.net is a place that says long haul on a 757 is worst thing ever, yet mention the A321 and it is the future.

Airlines, especially the booming LCC for Lonhaul, need to pack in as many people as possible. A330Neos, 787s, A350s, 777s are what make money on longhaul.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:22 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
PDX757 wrote:
4000nm puts all of Japan, SK, and NE China (including PEK and PVG) well in range of ANC. A KEF type operation to Asia from NA would be interesting to see.


Indeed, from Alaska or maybe Hawaii this is certainly possible. From mainland USA it's too far, however what would there be against a cheap Los Angeles - Tokyo trip with a transfer in Honolulu?

Another thing, since Guam is also USA but too far for a direct flight from Honolulu on a narrow-body, it could technically be possible to do this with a fuel stop in Japan. The airline would have rights to sell tickets on both individual legs (each of them touch the USA) plus on the whole Hawaii - Guam trip. I could see an airline like Spirit do something like that in the future. If they set up a hub in Honolulu or another place in Hawaii they could become the LCC of the pacific.


Umm...not sure what you mean.

HNL-GUM: 3303nm
HNL-NRT: 3318nm (HND is 3349nm)

Don't see how a fuel stop helps, or required, at all.

PatrickZ80 wrote:
What about higher frequencies or thinner routes to/from smaller airports? Basically all flights from Hawaii to Japan are from Honolulu except for one flight from Kona to Tokyo Haneda. Narrow bodies could offer for example Hilo - Tokyo or Honolulu - Sendai. That way you don't have to funnel all traffic through the hubs.


No point in operating to Hilo at all when JL already fly to KOA (BTW there are flights to KOA from both NRT and HND, NRT on daily JL 763, HND on 3/wk HA 332). Not even many US-based airlines fly there for a reason.

The big missing link is OGG anyway, due to OGG's lack of border/custom facility. God knows when that facility is going to be (finally) built, though.

I do agree about secondary Japan to Hawaii being able to used those NB, though. CTS-HNL can go daily on a narrowbody instead of 3 weekly, and routes like HNL-HIJ or HNL-SDJ are more possible (HIJ may be too far west and thus, out of range for a narrowbody, though).

Newbiepilot wrote:
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
SEA-ANC-Asia is more likely. I could see a ULCC setting up shop in ANC. CALI, LAS, PHX, DEN, SLC, SEA, PDX those are big markets to Asia. People want ULCC even on longer routes, they say they don't but that is what people book. What Iceland is to Europe ANC could be to Asia.


A big problem is that there is very very little O/D demand between Anchorage and Asia. Alaska tourism isn’t centralized like it is in Iceland


I actually wonder how much demand there were to/from Iceland before the tourism boom. So never say never, and ANC already have the facility (that's currently extremely underused) to handle those traffic, also. On the other hand, yes, it would be a lot harder to throw out short stopover packages like Iceland does (You can at least get a good glimpse of Iceland in 2-3 days, in Alaska traveling around would take that long :white: ).
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:52 pm

I think what the idea is this.

Currently when flying from two small cities we have:
1) 1 hour feeder flight to hub
2) 8 hour flight from hub to hub
3) 1 hour feeder flight to destination

This will be replaced by a direct flight 8-9 hours long.

I call this the future point to point market.

Even if the smaller aircraft burns significantly more fuel per passenger it will probably beat all three flights combined. It can also demand a much higher ticket price. The two stop journey could take twice as long so passengers will pay a premium for direct flight.

This is one of the design goals of the long range version of the 797. In 3 class config it will be able to do nearly any Europe city with North America and nearly any Europe city with central Asia. 1-2 stop flights can start becoming direct. You need 5000-5300nm to cover this.

Less traffic passing through hubs is a good thing for growth. This means less VLA sales. What we saw with the 787 point to point model is just the tip of the iceberg. The number of airports flying international has doubled in less than a decade. There is an exponential trend.

The A380's hub and spoke model is doomed for failure. The A321 with a big carbon wing and 5000nm range would be bad for short haul but it is ideal for this point to point model. The A321XLR is a way of not reducing short haul performance with a big heavy wing. But 4400nm will still capture a big chunk of that point to point market.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:03 pm

Pacific wrote:
Slightly off-topic but how about Anchorage - Asia? 4000nm covers all of Japan, S.Korea, Beijing and Shanghai to the East, UK, Scandinavia, Berlin in Europe, the whole continental USA and most of Mexico.

We should forget about Anchorage.

The narrowbody option will burn more fuel per seat than the hub widebody option. So there will be no price advantage.

No passenger will accept an extra stop in Anchorage unless there is a price advantage.

It is worth noting quite a few destinations between the countries you mentioned could operate direct with the proposed long range 797. That is by far the best option for smaller cities.
 
Freshside3
Posts: 1594
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:11 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:20 am

How about Eastern Russia, too? Or GUM/SPN/etc. feeding the hub
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:04 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
I thought there was somewhat of a consensus that even the 797 would not be a Pacific Ocean crosser. Those few shorter routes may be an exception.


Consensus among who? Have the people specifying the 797 made any statements like this?
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:05 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The narrowbody option will burn more fuel per seat than the hub widebody option. So there will be no price advantage.

No passenger will accept an extra stop in Anchorage unless there is a price advantage.


Hub WB only win on CASM if they can fill the plane. Which is where smaller NB comes in anyway. Or else, everyone would be just flying a bunch of A380 around b/c it has unbeatable CASM.

But yes, connecting hub at ANC will have to relied on it being "cheaper" than competition, i.e. mid/long-haul LCC. I won't dive too much deeper into such theoretical airline, though (There were multiple discussions already and why it would/wouldn't work)

Freshside3 wrote:
How about Eastern Russia, too? Or GUM/SPN/etc. feeding the hub


Feeding where? ANC or SEA? Demand to Russia Far East is tiny to begin with (There are just, well, not a lot of people there; Not much leisure demand, either, with international tourism relatively limited to northern Chinese, some South Korean, and occasional Japanese, and mainly to Vladivostok).

GUM is pretty far from ANC and it's not really "in the way" of traveling there in terms of Great Circle Route to/from GUM, at least from West Coast (HNL would be the most logical stopping point; and just for example, SFO-NRT-GUM is not that much further than SFO-ANC-GUM).

P.S. Time to get back to discussing SEA-E. Asia flights?
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:05 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Currently when flying from two small cities we have:
1) 1 hour feeder flight to hub
2) 8 hour flight from hub to hub
3) 1 hour feeder flight to destination

Did you not forget the one stop model?

1) 4 hour flight to hub somewhere in the middle
2) 4 hour flight to destination

That hub does not need a lot of O/D traffic, if the one stop company can offer favorable terms for a large number of small city-to-small city connections.

Another huge advantage is that you dont need range monsters as aircraft. MOM type or A321XLR (or lets say A322) is sufficient, and should offer better per seat cost too. No need to carry the first 4 hours the fuel for the second 4 hours.

Even another advantage is, that you also can cover true 6000nm...8000nm routes with the one stop approach (which is not possible with MOM or A321XLR point-to-point operations).

So Hawai or ANC could be such a one-stop base for a carrier that works like that. Hawai would even allow the combination of such a one stop long haul model with nice O/D demand.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:58 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Currently when flying from two small cities we have:
1) 1 hour feeder flight to hub
2) 8 hour flight from hub to hub
3) 1 hour feeder flight to destination

Did you not forget the one stop model?

1) 4 hour flight to hub somewhere in the middle
2) 4 hour flight to destination

No I did not forget it.

The one stop model does not scale down to short haul. The benefits all disappear.

Time
Replacing a 16 hour direct flight with two 8 hour flights with a 2 hour stopover is only a 12.5% increase in travel time. Replacing an 8 hour direct flight with two 4 hour flights with a 2 hour stopover is a 25% increase in travel time.

Landing fees
Airport and landing fees also become a larger percentage of total fight costs the shorter the route becomes. So the one stop flight will eventually have a greater overall trip cost at a certain point.

Fuel burn
Aircraft efficiency seems to be fairly linear up to 8 hour flight time. This is because the passenger load is fixed weight. In a 1 hour flight versus a 2 hour flight the extra fuel required would only be a fraction of the passenger weight and incresse fuel burn by a couple percent. However going from an 8 hour flight to a 16 hour flight the fuel weight would be increased by more than passenger weight itself.

So in the real world two 4 hour flights might burn 10% less fuel than a single 8 hour flight. However two 8 hour flights might burn 20% less fuel than a 16 hour flight. That 20% saving in fuel cost more than covers the extra trip time and airport fees.

The combination of time, fuel burn and landing fees means no airline would be crazy enough to do a one stop solution when the direct flight is under 8 hours.

An extreme example to prove the point. We're not going to fly a 7 stop trip with multiple 1 hour hops in a E190 to save fuel. That would mean 8 airport landing fees and 24 hour total trip time. A single A321LR might burn more total fuel but would be way cheaper with one landing fee and get to the destination in 8 hour.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5435
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:28 pm

Yossarian22 wrote:

Yeah, my first thought was a Wow like operation in Asia. Using a Japanese airport as a hub to connect flights from the West Coast to various destinations in Asia, using the LCC model. Scoot and AirAsia already operate at HNL, so it isn’t completely without President, and Wow has smashed the myth that airlines need to offer a premium product over the Ocean.

Of course, this depends on the actual capabilities of the A321LR, if 4500 NM is still air, this probably doesn’t work.

Only viable destinations to the north/east of Japan are ANC/SEA/YVR/YEG/YYC/PDX/SFO/HNL/KOA, and maybe LAX/LAS/SAN/PHX/SLC/DEN/TIJ if it have supereme range but that is it. Potential from Japanese side would be too limited. Besides, it would directly competing with widebody LCCs which multiple of them have stated interest in operating from Japan.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
A placeholder line
You are now at your youngest moment in your remaining life.
 
estorilm
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:09 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The flights that actually travel the wikipedia range you can count on one hand. Very low density.

You need to knock off 10% to take into account headwinds. That means 3600nm for the A321LR and probably 4000nm for the A321XLR

That rules out crossing the Pacific. You'll be to run very density cabin to fly that distancd.

The 797 on the other hand this will be within its range.

I feel like I remind you of this in every single one of these threads lol! :lol:

Everyone keeps saying "we have no idea what the LR can ACTUALLY do" and "well, that remains to be seen - it probably can't do x/y/z anyways" etc etc etc.
New Airbus A321LR Claims Long-Distance Record With 4,750-Nautical-Mile Flight
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2018/04/12/new-airbus-a321lr-claims-long-distance-record-with-4750-mile-flight/

That was with 178 pax - even 10% off that is 4,275, a far cry from your 3,600mi estimate. Granted in complete real-world conditions I'd say 4k is a safe bet, and very impressive.

In any event - these aren't intangibles anymore. This is a real aircraft and we DO know a decent amount about its' performance. I can't help but feel like most people are trying their best to remain in complete denial about it, probably based on its obvious implications to other projects/aircraft everyone is obsessed with on these forums *cough cough*.
Last edited by estorilm on Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
idlewild
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:16 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:10 pm

bzcat wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
A big problem is that there is very very little O/D demand between Anchorage and Asia. Alaska tourism isn’t centralized like it is in Iceland


What about using Hawaii instead of Alaska? Say what you want about Hawaii, but it does draw tourists. On an A320XLR Japan, South Korea and parts of China are well within reach from let's say Honolulu.


Those Japan-Hawaii flights can fill a widebody so why would you use a narrow body?



How about some of the smaller airfields outside of HNL? The way I understand it, you have to use HNL as a layover to catch a flight to the smaller islands. Why not go all out BA001/2 type of flight? I'm not really familiar with the islands, so any corrections will be appreciated.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:08 pm

estorilm wrote:
I feel like I remind you of this in every single one of these threads lol! :lol: .

And I ignore it because you often say things that are wrong.


estorilm wrote:
Everyone keeps saying "we have no idea what the LR can ACTUALLY do" and "well, that remains to be seen - it probably can't do x/y/z anyways" etc etc etc. .

We know the fuel burn of the A321NEO and know exactly how much further it will fly with an additional ACT. We can then estimate what the LR can do with enough accurate to determine if a route will work or not.

estorilm wrote:
New Airbus A321LR Claims Long-Distance Record With 4,750-Nautical-Mile Flight
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2018/04/12/new-airbus-a321lr-claims-long-distance-record-with-4750-mile-flight/

That was with 178 pax - even 10% off that is 4,275, a far cry from your 3,600mi estimate. Granted in complete real-world conditions I'd say 4k is a safe bet, and very impressive.

The flight was at mach 0.72. The A400m turboprop aircraft can go faster than that. It is common knowledge the slower you go the less fuel you burn.

Airlines arent going to do an 11 hour transatlantic flight in an A321 when a 787 can do it in 9 hours. You are at the edge of crew limits for a single crew. That extra hour flying slow just cost you a second set of crew which just blew the economics out of the water.

The A321LR will need to go full speed to ensure the crew doesn't time out. At full speed it wont be able to fly 4000nm.

estorilm wrote:
In any event - these aren't intangibles anymore. This is a real aircraft and we DO know a decent amount about its' performance. I can't help but feel like most people are trying their best to remain in complete denial about it, probably based on its obvious implications to other projects/aircraft everyone is obsessed with on these forums *cough cough*.

As multiple posters have already said the A321LR wont be able to do the transpacific routes mentioned. It is fairly black and white. No hidden agenda or bias.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:52 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The benefits all disappear.

You forgot the main benefit. The one stop model does connect small cities with small cities. Like the two stop model. Direct flights will never be able to cover that kind of traffic. E.g. Columbus (CMH) to Nice (NCE), or Tulsa (TUL) to Brussels (BRU). So the one stop model competes with the two stop model. The direct flight model is no competition. If 100% is the fullness of all long haul relations, direct flights maybe cover 0.2% of that (by guesswork, value just taken to illustrate the market dimensions). So even if MOM and A321LR double that part, the overwhelming number of routes remains to be covered by one or another kind of hub-model.

How do I get the 0.2%? Assume a small airport like e.g. Ljubljana LJLJ. From there with the two stop model you can reach probably 5000-10000 other airports (most of them small too). So the resulting number of relations would be 12.5 million (= n * (n-1) / 2). The number of direct long haul relations world wide hardly could be more than 20000. That makes 12.5 million routes, that require a hub vs. 20000 routes, where you can enjoy direct flights.

So the one stop model competes mostly with the two stop model, while the direct flight model is and will be no competition for 99% of all possible relations. Of course the one stop model will also never cover the 12.5 million relations. But maybe up to 1 million. A huge chunk for airlines to go for. The one stop model is what EK does for long haul. But it was also used for short haul. Crossair had a hub in the middle of Europe in the nineties and connected from there with regional aircraft (Saab 2000) a large number of really small cities. E.g. Lyon to Nurenberg was a relation that was best served with Crossair through Basel. Business men walked by feet over the tarmac between connecting aircraft.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4096
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:36 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The flight was at mach 0.72. The A400m turboprop aircraft can go faster than that. It is common knowledge the slower you go the less fuel you burn.
Less fuel per unit time but definitely not less fuel per unit distance and as we are talking about range then surely this is what counts.

The slower you go the fuel flow rate may well go down until you get to L/Dmax for max endurance (time) but that sure doesn't increase the range. The maximum range speed is basically at UL/Dmax and you would effectively see an aircraft cruise speed normally 2-5% above this for Max Economic speed.

My understanding of the long range referenced is that is was done in order to test how the cabin environmental systems worked over a long flight so was likely done at or indeed closer to max endurance speed than max range speed actually somewhat lowering its max range!

Edit: 4750nm in 11hrs is mach 0.75 not 0.72 and this is the total flight time so includes takeoff and lending phases so my guess is that it probably did cruise at 0.78 (the design cruise speed of the aircraft).

Fred
Image
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:31 am

As mentioned above the crew 'time out' is obviously critical if the economics of the flight are going to work.If that is 9 hours then that's your natural limit.I guess that's about 4,500 nm (less taking all weather/wind/ fuel reserves etc into account).If in the future an 'XLR' version of the 321neo can do this with 200 pax (2 class) then they will be on to a winner.But even the LR at 4knm is pretty impressive frankly.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14274
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:13 am

A while ago I concluded a Boeing 5000NM MoM would have an advantage over a pumped up A320NEO version.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1365577
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:52 am

Thing is Keejse one is then getting awfully close to the 778 and 338 performance.Furthermore those aircaft are far more flexible,they also carry far more cargo (a major request from Asia)and are available nowish at a reasonable price.They are both (effectively) brand new state of the art aircaft with all the snagging done.
Imho once you go to 5knm+ you are not talking MOM at all but that's just an opinion.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:29 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Less fuel per unit time but definitely not less fuel per unit distance and as we are talking about range then surely this is what counts.
That is definitely not correct. It is less fuel burn by both time and distance.

The acap data ranges are all at maximum cruise speed. They don't show just how much extra range you get flying slow. However business jets do provide that range info as billionaires dont mind wasting fuel. For instance the G650ER has really good data on fuel burn at different speed. Heres the data:

How far AND FAST can you go?
Fly eight passengers 15.5 hours, covering 7,500 nautical miles/13,890 kilometers at a long-range speed of Mach 0.85.

At a high-speed cruise of Mach 0.90, the G650ER still reaches 6,400 nautical miles/11,853 kilometers.

The maximum speed of the G650ER is Mach 0.925—that’s more than 530 nautical miles per hour/982 kilometers per hour.

As you can see there is a massive 15% boost in range by dropping from mach 0.9 to mach 0.85.


flipdewaf wrote:
Edit: 4750nm in 11hrs is mach 0.75 not 0.72 and this is the total flight time so includes takeoff and lending phases so my guess is that it probably did cruise at 0.78 (the design cruise speed of the aircraft).

It was definitely slower than normal. It was mach 0.72 as far as i could tell.

I was watching the flight and it was being overtaken by widebody aircraft. So travelling 0.05 mach slower definitely explains the extra range.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... el-447220/

The great-circle route between the origin and destination is just over 4,100nm.

But Airbus says its flight-test engineers have calculated – when factors including headwinds on the route are taken into account – that the aircraft effectively flew 4,700nm.

4100nm in 10 hours and 50 minutes is really really slow.

This pretty much confirms what im saying. The A321LR will never be able to fly across the pacific with 150+ passengers.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:44 pm

Really slow -yup but they talk in the article about headwinds etc making the trip longer.
No doubt they will release the actual performance figures with the EIS which is soonish I believe.
Wouldn't be surprised if it's a smidge more that 4knm.4.1?
 
estorilm
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:58 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
estorilm wrote:
I feel like I remind you of this in every single one of these threads lol! :lol: .

And I ignore it because you often say things that are wrong.

Well, why don't you tell me how you really feel? :lol:

If you really want to sit there and tell me the A321LR has a range of 3600mi, then you have fun with that. :rotfl:

Also where did you get your .72 mach number from?

Everything I've seen points to .79-.80 for that flight - and no, I'm fairly sure if you slow down to .72 it'll actually degrade efficiency. Nothing about the airframe (from winglets to the engines) is designed for .72 cruise. Sure, it's not going to be .85, but then again I don't think anyone expected it to be either. The entire point of the flight was real-world data for their engineers and for sales literature, probably good PR too. It would be pointless on all three fronts if they flew it at .72.

For good measure I'll add that it was without the Pratt engines and they had 2 tons fuel remaining when they landed.

PS: There's mention of a 100kt headwind for that flight, and of course it'll get passed by a widebody.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4096
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A321XLR: Seattle-Asia?

Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:10 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Less fuel per unit time but definitely not less fuel per unit distance and as we are talking about range then surely this is what counts.
That is definitely not correct. It is less fuel burn by both time and distance.

The acap data ranges are all at maximum cruise speed. They don't show just how much extra range you get flying slow. However business jets do provide that range info as billionaires dont mind wasting fuel. For instance the G650ER has really good data on fuel burn at different speed. Heres the data:

How far AND FAST can you go?
Fly eight passengers 15.5 hours, covering 7,500 nautical miles/13,890 kilometers at a long-range speed of Mach 0.85.

At a high-speed cruise of Mach 0.90, the G650ER still reaches 6,400 nautical miles/11,853 kilometers.

The maximum speed of the G650ER is Mach 0.925—that’s more than 530 nautical miles per hour/982 kilometers per hour.

As you can see there is a massive 15% boost in range by dropping from mach 0.9 to mach 0.85.
I see what you did there, you have made a mistake in assuming that the trend continues linearly and that is not how it works, there is an optimum of 0.85 for the G650ER and 0.78 for the A320 series. Ever cross your mind why jet aircraft aren't flying around at M0.1? The clue is in the drag polar

flipdewaf wrote:
Edit: 4750nm in 11hrs is mach 0.75 not 0.72 and this is the total flight time so includes takeoff and lending phases so my guess is that it probably did cruise at 0.78 (the design cruise speed of the aircraft).

It was definitely slower than normal. It was mach 0.72 as far as i could tell.
well 4750nm is a distance and if you divide that by the time you will get a speed. The ratio of that speed to the speed of sound is 0.75 and not 0.72. Just maths my friend, no having to "tell" required

I was watching the flight and it was being overtaken by widebody aircraft. So travelling 0.05 mach slower definitely explains the extra range.
Widebody aircraft like A330s and 777s and A350s and 747s which have the optimum cruise speed somewhere in the region of 0.04-0.07 mach faster than the A320? Wonder why they were going about 0.05mach faster?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... el-447220/

The great-circle route between the origin and destination is just over 4,100nm.

But Airbus says its flight-test engineers have calculated – when factors including headwinds on the route are taken into account – that the aircraft effectively flew 4,700nm.

4100nm in 10 hours and 50 minutes is really really slow.
as opposed to the widebodies which were doing it in....?

This pretty much confirms what im saying. The A321LR will never be able to fly across the pacific with 150+ passengers.
Right, who on here said it would? It also wont be flying to the moon.

Fred
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: HowardDGA and 20 guests

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