The Airbus A321XLR: industry game changer?

[reader]

Excerpted from CNN Travel

(CNN) — Boarding a long-distance flight today, travelers are accustomed to big jets with roomy cabins, two aisles and space to walk around. But the future of flying is going to look a lot more like the dawn of the Jet Age 60 years ago, when aircraft were considerably smaller.

 

Airbus is betting that this is how we'll travel in the future. Its A320 family has evolved over the last 30 years, adding bigger and smaller models capable of crossing continents.

Airbus has incrementally improved the A321 -- the largest of its one-aisle aircraft -- since it first flew in 1993. In 2013 it added "Sharklets" (what Airbus calls its winglets), new engines in 2016 and extra fuel tanks in 2018.

Extra Long Range

This summer's Paris Air Show saw the launch of the Airbus A321XLR, the latest in the line. The "XLR" stands for "Extra Long Range."

In a 175 to 200 passenger, three-class layout with business-class lie-flat seats, premium economy and economy cabins, the XLR will be able to range out as far as 4,700 nautical miles, or 8,700 kilometers. At the plane's maximum 244-seat passenger capacity, the range drops to 4,000 nautical miles, or 7,400 kilometers.

The XLR will be able to link cities like Rome and New York, London and Delhi, and Tokyo and Sydney. These extended international journeys are reminiscent of the start of global jet travel.

"I think we are really in a 'Back to the Future' moment here," says Henry Harteveldt, travel industry analyst and founder of Atmosphere Research Group.

In the late 1950s, travelers marveled at the speed and comfort of the early Douglas DC-8s and Boeing 707s. Those pioneering jetliners ushered in a new era in international travel, although sometimes the planes couldn't quite reach their destinations without a mid-route refueling stop.

 

Douglas and Boeing quickly began improving the planes' range, and it wasn't long before passengers had non-stop service between distant cities, including ocean-spanning hops.

 

American Airlines has chosen the A321XLR to replace its aging 757s, with 50 of the new Airbus jetliners on order.

 

"The A321XLR is exceptionally versatile, and I think that's the key piece for the airlines," says Jeff Knittel, chairman and CEO, Airbus Americas, in an interview with CNN Travel.

"What the XLR does is it gives [airlines] a broader set of alternatives to use the airplane. This is more of an expansion of the single-aisle capabilities than anything else. It's not a replacement of wide-body aircraft."

 

Thanks to the efficiency and flexibility of the XLR, Knittel explained that airlines will be able to schedule the plane on a short connecting flight, say Miami to New York, and then fly to Paris on its next flight.

 

To reach distant destinations, the A321XLR will be equipped with a newly designed rear center fuel tank, located in the fuselage behind the wing. The plane's landing gear has been beefed up to handle the extra weight of the fuel, with the plane's overall takeoff weight increased compared to other A321 models.

 

Airbus has experience making the longest trips on Earth with its bigger A350ULR ultra-long-range jetliner, which is now flying for Singapore Airlines on routes such as Singapore to New York, a 19-hour plus airborne marathon.

 

According to Knittel, that experience has been applied to the A321XLR.

 

"We've used all of the talents of Airbus to come together on the XLR and really optimize the airplane from a passenger experience perspective. The airplane in terms of systems has been optimized for longer-range flights for up to 10-hour flights, whether it's [lavatory] holding tanks, water storage or trash," he says.

 

The XLR will be equipped with the latest Airspace by Airbus interior fittings, including re-contoured sidewalls, programmable LED-lighting and larger overhead luggage bins, that Knittel said are "about 40% bigger in volume" than previous designs.

 

But no matter what airlines do to optimize the in-cabin passenger experience, they can't speed up the plane -- the A321XLR cruises at a lower airspeed than its wide-body cousins. For example, a westbound flight from Paris to Boston could take up to 50 minutes longer in an XLR than an A350.

 

"I think passengers will look more at departure time, price and on-board amenities. And to be very honest, there's so many other factors that go into a flight's total travel time," says Harteveldt.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/airbus-a321xlr-extra-long-range/index.html

 

[vinapu]

25 minutes ago, reader said:

 

 

"I think passengers will look more at departure time, price and on-board amenities.

as far as I'm concerned he is right, I can't recall even one case that I picked up flight based on type of aircraft scheduled. At end of day all are cramped, flight is boring but it's destination what counts

[joshhb]

Thank God it does not have the range to do London - Bangkok.

My selection criteria is different to the OP article and Vinapu. Apart from timings and price, aircraft type is an important criteria for me. If I'm not treating myself to Business then I'd rank them in the following order for long flights

1. A380 / A350

2. Increasingly rare 3 - 3 - 3 777s

3. 787

4. 3 - 4 - 3 777s  Horrible

5.  Any narrow body aircraft

For 1  or 2 I'll pay more.

[paulsf]

I’m with you. Aircraft type is important to me.   I’m doing less Business now and more Premium Economy.   777’s are good for this.  Lots of room.  

[captainmick]

11 hours ago, joshhb said:

Thank God it does not have the range to do London - Bangkok.

My selection criteria is different to the OP article and Vinapu. Apart from timings and price, aircraft type is an important criteria for me. If I'm not treating myself to Business then I'd rank them in the following order for long flights

1. A380 / A350

2. Increasingly rare 3 - 3 - 3 777s

3. 787

4. 3 - 4 - 3 777s  Horrible

5.  Any narrow body aircraft

For 1  or 2 I'll pay more.

I’m with you on this.  I look carefully at aircraft type and flying experience on A350 and A380 is so much better than anything from Boeing or the A330 which is cramped.  #Imnotgoingboeing is becoming a real issue for the Seattle behemoth which has been left behind in terms of design, comfort  and more recently safety.

[PeterRS]

Add me to the "aircraft type is important" column. In fact very important. I will change dates if necessary to avoid an aircraft I just do not wish to fly in. I loved the 747 in it various versions, although have not yet tried the extended upper deck 747-800 which only Lufthansa seems to operate. I can not imagine any long flight like Europe to Bangkok and Japan to New York on a narrow body. For the same reason I absolutely love the A380 in both economy and business but especially business when I can afford it. Business, that is, with the exception of British Airways dreadful and dreadfully outdated 8 across biz class seating on its 777s and A380s. Anyone who has flown London/Asia or in the other direction knows how awful these planes are. 

It was not so long ago that most long haul flights were operated at night. With most people trying to sleep or just watch movies, perhaps I might be less concerned about a single aisle plane - but I doubt it. On a daytime flight the thought fills me with horror. The great thing about the jumbos is that there was plenty space to move around and you never felt cramped.

I dont like the 777, the 787 Dreamliner and the A330 which many airlines seem to be converting for long haul. The A350 is by far the best of the twin engine lot.

[joshhb]

For really long flights i.e. London - Bangkok I much prefer night time flights when flying business class, and get a decent night's sleep. For me EVA is the best for night flights. I really hate long daytime flights - its so utterly boring, but Premium Economy is just fine daytime.

I recently did London - Vienna - BKK on Austrian, business class. Night flights both directions, and £500 cheaper than the cheapest non-stop. On the outbound, the Austrian arrival into London was late so I was moved to the EVA. A result!

I agree about British Airways - to be avoided is at all possible. (Unless the new A350).

For short flights I love the low cost airlines - Air Asia is great for hopping to other cities and nearby countries for 3000 - 4000 BHT return.

[reader]

I don't think the new A321XLR will be spotted all that often at BKK.  It's much more likely to be seen as niche type more suitable for trans-Atlantic use. Because of its range, it could open up new routes between secondary American cities and the Euro zone. It may also be well suited for Euro-mideast traffic.

When it comes to aircraft types, I give preference to the A350 and 787 if for no other reason that the improved cabin pressure and comfortable size. Having flown the 380 a few times, I've learned to avoid it because it's simply too many souls in a single tube. And it's already obsolete.

The 777 remains the primary long-haul workhorse of the majority of carriers. I'd never hesitate to fly it. It's the ideal size for those 10+ hour flights.

 

[DivineMadman]

I try to check the type of plane for domestic or flights in the region. Some of the local carriers operate turbo props and I try to avoid those if at all possible. For example it used to be that Bangkok Airways flew turbo props and jets to Samui, so selection of which flight during the day was essential. 

[PeterRS]

2 hours ago, reader said:

When it comes to aircraft types, I give preference to the A350 and 787 if for no other reason that the improved cabin pressure and comfortable size. Having flown the 380 a few times, I've learned to avoid it because it's simply too many souls in a single tube. And it's already obsolete.

Ive flown the 787 several times and never once noticed any difference in air pressure from any other aircraft. On the other hand I do feel a difference on the A350s.

As for the A380 being obsolete you are correct that it houses a lot of bodies. Emirates has reconfigured some of its large stable of A380s into 2 class biz and economy. That totals 615 passengers! But thats far from the most squeezed into an aircraft. When the 747s became popular the Japanese carriers had around 700 economy passengers for domestic flights. Fortunately most Japanese are pretty slim 

But the A380 is hardly obsolete. Airbus will continue making it till 2021 and the life of the several hundred existing aircraft will continue for quite a few more years. Emirates plans to continue with some of its fleet until the early 2030s. British Airways seems to be considering purchasing second hand models to replace its fleet of old 747s. Air France is spending €45 million per plane on refurbishing 5 of its fleet. Hardly likely it would commit that expenditure unless it planned to continue flying them for a lot more years.

[paulsf]

Air France announced this week it is phasing out it’s A380s by 2022. 

[reader]

3 hours ago, PeterRS said:

British Airways seems to be considering purchasing second hand models to replace its fleet of old 747s. Air France is spending €45 million per plane on refurbishing 5 of its fleet. Hardly likely it would commit that expenditure unless it planned to continue flying them for a lot more years.

Second-hand 380's are widely available at deep discounts because the only alternative is the tear-down value. The biggest thing used 380's have going for them is that they're immediately available while Boeing and Airbus are well backlogged with firm orders for new models of the 330, 777, 787 and 350.

Although not often discussed is the huge investment airports world wide made in installing special gates especially for the 380. Many airports had to widen taxiways and reinforce  taxiways and aprons to accommodate the aircraft.

Air France may well be reconsidering the refurbishing in light of what Paulsf just posted.

I find this Wikipedia commentary on the super heavy (the descriptor pilots must use when talking with controllers) of interest:

In February 2019, Airbus announced it will end the A380 production by 2021, after its main customer, Emirates, agreed to drop an order for 39 of the aircraft, replacing it with 40 A330-900s and 30 A350-900s......Airbus would have needed more than $90 million from the price of each aircraft to cover the estimated ~$25 billion development cost of the programme. However, the $445 million price tag of each aircraft was not sufficient to even cover the production cost, so with Airbus losing money on each A380, and orders evaporating, it makes economic sense to shut down production.

One reason that the A380 did not achieve commercial viability for Airbus has been attributed to its extremely large capacity being optimised for a hub-and-spoke system, which was projected by Airbus to be thriving when the programme was conceived. However, airlines underwent a fundamental transition to a point-to-point system, which gets customers to their destination in one flight instead of two or three. The massive scale of the A380 design was able to achieve a very low cost for passenger seat-distance, but efficiency here within the hub-and-spoke paradigm was not able to overcome the efficiency of fewer flights required in the point-to-point system. Consequently, the orders for VLAs (very large aircraft with more than 400 seats) slowed in the mid-2010s, as widebody twin jets now offer similar range and greater fuel efficiency, giving airlines more flexibility at a lower upfront cost

[PeterRS]

8 hours ago, paulsf said:

Air France announced this week it is phasing out it’s A380s by 2022. 

Thanks for the update. My information was from some months before the latest announcement. 

When Concorde was first conceived  in the 1950s, it was assumed that it would find a small niche market prepared to pay high prices for speed. Despite using 1950s technology that view was largely correct even as the price of oil rose massively during its life. When the 747 was introduced, it was assumed it would open the door to mass air travel. It, too, survived the various oil crises and the massive rise in the cost of fuel. It even outlived the cheaper to operate three engine jumbos quickly introduced by Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas - the Tristar and the DC10. It seems Airbus just got its calculations wrong. I for one thought it was a wise move as air traffic continued to increase and airport landing slots continued to be limited. I will certainly be sorry to see it go.