NLG.What is the limitation/constraint?Not questioning just curious.MLG does anyone know the max pavement loading?
97 tons is where they are now,but one assumes The rumoured 'plus' may up this.
But then there is the question as to where they could put additional fuel.
They have designed and built a new carbon monolithic central box structure.Could this be 'wet'?

However, we still have the rather small wing. Am I right in assuming that 97t MTOW pretty much MAXes the wing out? Initial cruise altitude can't be stellar.

I am impressed that the A321neo can fly that route. I believe MNL-MEL is 500nm longer than the current longest A321neo route which is KEF-TLV. This route is also 100nm longer than the current longest route announced so far for the 737-8 which is BSB-MCO. I believe the longest routes by the CEO/NG families are IST-DAR and PTY-MVD which are both a few miles short of 3000nm.

It is awesome to see the potential as the narrowbody ranges continue to increase.

8 hours in a 321? Do uou get a shoe horn to pry yourself out of the seat on arrival?

Why the hatred of long range narrowbodies? That is how long haul travel started! (comet, 707, and DC-8). I *really* dislike double hubbing (aka bridge hubbing). The time such connections take are exhausting. Get me to my destination those few hours earlier and let me sleep in a real, static, and properly a/c'd and proper humidity bed.

And people complaining because they want space while paying for cheap seat... You get what you pay for. As noted:

airbazar wrote:

downdata wrote:

Wow 8 hrs in a nb is going to be rough... maybe long range nb isnt that great of an idea afterall...

We've had 8 hour narrowbody flights for decades. If anything 8 hours in an A321NEO ought to be a lot more comfortable than 8 hours in a 757 or 707.

I'll take 8 hours in a little less space if it means skipping that 2+ hour wait in an airport that doesn't have enough seats for my entire family to sit, so as the father I have to stand. Thank you, but get me onto the plane and moving. I am so looking forward to the A321LR providing more connections across the Atlantic so when I book say a Baltic cruise, I get the to port hubbing in one of the easy hubs.

I can't wait until the high occupancy A321NEOs hit the fleet, we'll have complaints...
https://www.google.com/search?q=leap-1a ... 80&bih=751

reidar76 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

I reckon this is with three auxiliary fuel tanks in the cargo compartments? (A321LR)

Just 2 additional fuel tanks (ACTs). PAL does not have the LR on order. The A321neo is capable of flying 8-hour sectors.

Impressive. Manila - Melbourne is 3400 nm great-circle distance. This bodes well for the performance of the A321LR.

This does bode very well for the A321LR. Has CFM been approved yet for the A321LR? Airbus had strict maximum fuel burn requirements (forced Pratt and CFM to PIP, normally engine companies will *not* do a new casing, but when it is the only way to meet fuel burn timely by doing a better low turbine...).

Specifically, it implies the rumors on the great fuel burn of the PW1100G are true, as that is what PAL ordered:
http://www.utc.com/News/PW/Pages/Philip ... -Fami.aspx

Sorry, but until CFM fixes the fuel burn on the LEAP-1A (new low compressor), I literally cannot find out if the fix worked, is certified, or what? I love how the fix for the 6% fuel burn miss is sold as an improvement (it is, more efficient compressors mean cooler operation and thus longer time on wing):
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... in-424985/
Note, this link says 5%, my math says 6% LEAP shortfal (the LPC bleed is pinned open!).
https://seekingalpha.com/article/305388 ... us-a320neo

cedarjet wrote:

People who think a narrowbody is “cramped” or “claustrophobic” are idiots, end of story. The seat is the same as on a widebody (unless if the widebody is a 9-abreast 787 or a 10-abreast 777, in which case the offering in the narrowbody is the more generous). But on the narrowbody, you have 150 people instead of 300 at check in, boarding, deboarding, baggage claim etc.

I agree, I prefer the quicker bags at the claim, if nothing else.

If someone doesn't want to fly on the 'little plane,' they won't.

We heard the exact same discussion on TCON narrowbodies
We heard the *exact* same discussion why there wouldn't be RJs.

Somehow it seems as if there are a whole bunch of the above flying. It seems that customers like frequency and fragmentation (in other words, not wasting the customers time).

Lightsaber

727200 wrote:

8 hours in a 321? Do uou get a shoe horn to pry yourself out of the seat on arrival?

In a seat wider than your namesake's?
PAL A330V3: Y 17" wide, 32" pitch There is a seat you need the shoe horn!!!
PAL A321: Y 18" wide, either 30" or Y+ 34"

So where is the problem with the seat? I'll take the inch more width and 2" more legroom of the Y+, thank you very much. Y on an A321 has lower costs than Y on the A330, pick your poison.

LIghtsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Why the hatred of long range narrowbodies? That is how long haul travel started! (comet, 707, and DC-8). I *really* dislike double hubbing (aka bridge hubbing). The time such connections take are exhausting. Get me to my destination those few hours earlier and let me sleep in a real, static, and properly a/c'd and proper humidity bed.

And people complaining because they want space while paying for cheap seat... You get what you pay for. As noted:

airbazar wrote:

downdata wrote:

Wow 8 hrs in a nb is going to be rough... maybe long range nb isnt that great of an idea afterall...

We've had 8 hour narrowbody flights for decades. If anything 8 hours in an A321NEO ought to be a lot more comfortable than 8 hours in a 757 or 707.

I'll take 8 hours in a little less space if it means skipping that 2+ hour wait in an airport that doesn't have enough seats for my entire family to sit, so as the father I have to stand. Thank you, but get me onto the plane and moving. I am so looking forward to the A321LR providing more connections across the Atlantic so when I book say a Baltic cruise, I get the to port hubbing in one of the easy hubs.

I can't wait until the high occupancy A321NEOs hit the fleet, we'll have complaints...
https://www.google.com/search?q=leap-1a ... 80&bih=751

reidar76 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Just 2 additional fuel tanks (ACTs). PAL does not have the LR on order. The A321neo is capable of flying 8-hour sectors.

Impressive. Manila - Melbourne is 3400 nm great-circle distance. This bodes well for the performance of the A321LR.

This does bode very well for the A321LR. Has CFM been approved yet for the A321LR? Airbus had strict maximum fuel burn requirements (forced Pratt and CFM to PIP, normally engine companies will *not* do a new casing, but when it is the only way to meet fuel burn timely by doing a better low turbine...).

Specifically, it implies the rumors on the great fuel burn of the PW1100G are true, as that is what PAL ordered:
http://www.utc.com/News/PW/Pages/Philip ... -Fami.aspx

Sorry, but until CFM fixes the fuel burn on the LEAP-1A (new low compressor), I literally cannot find out if the fix worked, is certified, or what? I love how the fix for the 6% fuel burn miss is sold as an improvement (it is, more efficient compressors mean cooler operation and thus longer time on wing):
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... in-424985/
Note, this link says 5%, my math says 6% LEAP shortfal (the LPC bleed is pinned open!).
https://seekingalpha.com/article/305388 ... us-a320neo

cedarjet wrote:

People who think a narrowbody is “cramped” or “claustrophobic” are idiots, end of story. The seat is the same as on a widebody (unless if the widebody is a 9-abreast 787 or a 10-abreast 777, in which case the offering in the narrowbody is the more generous). But on the narrowbody, you have 150 people instead of 300 at check in, boarding, deboarding, baggage claim etc.

I agree, I prefer the quicker bags at the claim, if nothing else.

If someone doesn't want to fly on the 'little plane,' they won't.

We heard the exact same discussion on TCON narrowbodies
We heard the *exact* same discussion why there wouldn't be RJs.

Somehow it seems as if there are a whole bunch of the above flying. It seems that customers like frequency and fragmentation (in other words, not wasting the customers time).

Lightsaber

Also lower probability of medical diversion.

parapente wrote:

97 tons is where they are now,but one assumes The rumoured 'plus' may up this.

Admittedly, ULR may be too much...ELR (for extra long range) sounds more apt.

lightsaber wrote:

This does bode very well for the A321LR. Has CFM been approved yet for the A321LR? Airbus had strict maximum fuel burn requirements (forced Pratt and CFM to PIP, normally engine companies will *not* do a new casing, but when it is the only way to meet fuel burn timely by doing a better low turbine...).

Will the PIP'd iteration of the GTF be up to the task...nonstop MNL-AKL I mean? It could be the seed of the long bruited about A322 on these boards.

lightsaber wrote:

Y on an A321 has lower costs than Y on the A330, pick your poison.

This is why I think the CASM advantage of bigger aircraft is overrated.

lightsaber wrote:

727200 wrote:

8 hours in a 321? Do uou get a shoe horn to pry yourself out of the seat on arrival?

In a seat wider than your namesake's?
PAL A330V3: Y 17" wide, 32" pitch There is a seat you need the shoe horn!!!
PAL A321: Y 18" wide, either 30" or Y+ 34"

If I'm not mistaken, the PAL A330V3 SeatGuru is referring to is the new A330 configuration with 8 abreast in economy, which usually have 18" of seat pitch, so the info is probably inaccurate. It might be referring to the old A330 two class product, which is 9 abreast in Y.

Which aircraft is more comfortable for passengers...the 757 or A321neo?

Perhaps the one which sold almost 4 times more units than the other

RalXWB wrote:

Perhaps the one which sold almost 4 times more units than the other

What amazes me is that the A321NEO, with greater engine reliability risk, is already 32% of NEO orders. The A321CEO was 23.6% of CEO orders, with many being a late surge 2010+.
Not so many A319NEO orders... The A319CEO ended up at 18% of CEO orders. It was a far higher fraction, but the end production run, again 2010+, upgauged with relatively few A319s.
The A319NEO is just over 1/2% of NEO orders and falling (mere 33 orders, I'm not even expecting more than 2 or 3 more A319ACJNEO orders, everyone should recall the very low production rate of the type and now certified SHARP kit for the A320NEO).

I really like the 757, but I fully accept the A321 is its replacement. 1,798 CEOs and already more NEOs (1920 A321NEO orders so far). I will be surprised if less than the total 757 delivery quantity of A320NEOs aren't upgauged to the A321NEO. It is just weird thinking there are almost 4X as many A321s ordered as 757s...

We should put it into perspective:
A321: 3,718 ordered
777: 1,962
A330: 1,487CEO+220NEO=1,707
747: 1,554
787: 1,294
767: 1,204
757: 1,049 (note, narrowbody)
A350: 854
A380: 222

Or the A321 orders are under half of today's widebody orders (yea, I neglected the Douglas widebodies, A340, and A300 built). I also didn't put in the 737... eh.

CAPA has a link on long haul narrowbody flying.
https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... rks-347944

We have Norwegian with -8MAX over the Atlantic and 30 A321LR on order. Speculation that JetBlue will take Mint TATL (Yea!). Oh, there is a table with more operators (TAP, Air Lingus, SATA, Air Astana).



Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I'll take 8 hours in a little less space if it means skipping that 2+ hour wait in an airport that doesn't have enough seats for my entire family to sit, so as the father I have to stand. Thank you, but get me onto the plane...

Lightsaber

This made me smile because it is so true!

No doubt that these Aus connections are a very good use of the A321NEO's abilities and I am sure we will see a steady flow of new ones.But that will become a flood when the LR's start to actually get delivered in about 18 months time.
I think I am right in saying that BA have expressed an interest.I can think of one or two US destinations that I had to do for Biz that might now be flown directly.
Not relevant to this thread but we have just seen the fully revised A321NEO with 240 sardines capabilities.This also appears to be a game changer.LCC's that would not have considered it a short while ago now have stated they are -because their competition have bought it and because it lowers CASM costs even further.Indeed the same is true of the 737-10 as well.

This sounds like an interesting aircraft for the QF group. PER, ADL and CBR to SIN with lie flat J. JQ to take the 788s off DPS in favour of 321Neos.
I suppose for these guys its down to what Boeing can provide for this MOM option. Otherwise Im sure theyll go 321neo

It appears A.net is on the ball above regarding possible enhancements to the A321LR for it to effectively compete with Boeing's nascent NMA..... .....

https://www.reuters.com/article/aviatio ... SL8N1PH5OX

Quote:
"Officially, Airbus says its 185-240-seat A321neo dominates the 'middle of the market' just above 200 jets, something Boeing denies.

But it is also studying a new version capable of lifting more weight, Plueger told Reuters. Extra carrying capacity typically allows airlines to carry more payload or fly further.

A person familiar with Airbus’s plans said it was studying two main options to respond to the new Boeing mid-jet, but was pausing decisions to try to force Boeing to show its hand first.

The first would involve raising the maximum take-off weight to about 100 tonnes from the 97 tonnes on the already enhanced A321LR version, now being prepared for its maiden flight.

That calls for changes to the existing wing and a stronger landing gear but could need more engine thrust, the person said."


Owing to its geographical location, MNL could be a good testing ground for this potential MoM competitor. And in view of their requirements, PAL might be the "guinea pig"!