A disclaimer before the question: I KNOW THIS IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS AND UNFEASIBLE. So let's pretend for a sec. Also yes this came up because of the WOW KEF-LAX A321neo flight.

So, after that flight, Airbus talked quite a bit about the A321neo, and even more so about the A321neo LR. They said it could do LAX-PAR, with restrictions, of course, but still. They also mentioned that an airline was in talks with them for the range of a 100-seater all-J A321LR.

Also, Thompson will soon be offering its Vantage Solo seat, which is designed for the A320neo and 737 MAX families.

So if we had an A321neo LR with an all-Vantage Solo layout (54 seats with the ACF layout) (again I know this is completely unrealistic, but just roll with it), what would its maximum range be? Is there a way to calculate it? Keep in mind that Airbus has said the LR could make DXB-PEK and SIN-SYD on a normal layout, and it's suspected that the KEF-LAX on a regular neo was flown with 150 seats.

When did Airbus day the A321LR could do LAX-PAR? That is over a 1000nm longer than LAX-KEF, which had about 118 people on board. Are you sure you are not misremembering Airbus’s NYC-PAR graphic?

The A321LR is going to do 4,000nm still air with normal 2-class loads. (Not ULCC densities). So if we do a 48 to 100 seat layout, yes, there will be more weight available. The question is, will Airbus looking into another ACT? With 100 or fewer passengers, there is cargo volume for a 4th ACT. However, I"m not sure about weight/balance considerations (I do not know the A321LR fuel system).

BWIAirport wrote:

I think something like 118 of those seats were filled on KEF-LAX-KEF. So a 100-seat layout might be around that distance as well. However, I don't think airlines would go for that. If all-J aircraft were successful, you'd see a lot more of flights like BA1/2 (A318 LCY-SNN-JFK-LCY), and SQ21/22 (A345 SIN-EWR-SIN) would have stayed around.

Your two examples are high cost per seat all J configurations. SQ21/22 was extremely high cost flights that wouldn't compare to the A321LR as they required multiple crews with rest areas for the added crews in the lower hold. For ULH is tankering fuel for the last bit of the flight.

So an A321LR with a 4th ACT should have a 4,800nm still air range or about 4,000nm great circle range. That isn't much more than LAX-KEF (3,749nm great circle) Why? For the first 3,749nm of the flight, the added ACT is just pulling the aircraft down to a lower cruise (higher density air is more drag).


My assumption is 3 (or fewer) pilots: double checking.

So lets look at the A321LR. We have about a 460kts cruise speed. Due to lack of accommodations, we're looking at 3 pilots (1 relief pilot). Here is an old thread discussing pilots:
viewtopic.php?t=370273

Basically, up to 9 hours, captain and co-pilot. Up to 12 hours with 3 pilots. So pilots will limit you to 12 hours or 5,500nm still air which is about 4,500nm actual.

Oh, KEF-LAX is really pushing 2 pilot operations. Was it two pilots or three?

Lightsaber

Well, it is not that much unfeasible. There are already airlines using 737 700ER, BBJ2, and A319LR to operate all business or half business long range flights connecting very long thin routes with high business demand, including for example Mid-America-Europe, Europe-India, Europe-Central Asia, or Japan-India.
=================
This is the payload range chart in ISA condition for A321neo (see attached screenshot), which indicate the aircraft would have 3600nm still air range at 5000 kg payload and then with 1 additional central tank it could go up to 4000nm. But then I think A321LR offer up to 3 additional central tanks? That would bring the figure up to about 4800nm?

=================
But then, note that above figure is based on existing A321LR, while all the jets currently or previously in use in this kind of role I mentioned previously are based on business jet versions which allowed fitting in even more additional central tank. A319LR have up to six additional central tanks. Airbus launched the corporate jet version for A319neo/A320 neo which have options for up to 5/4 additional central tank respectively, but airbus hasn't launched a corporate jet version for 321neo yet. Maybe if and when they launch it, it could be able to fit with even more central tanks and such kind of operator can extract even more ranges from it? Also, note that, the "ACJ320neo can carry 25 passengers for over 13 hours, or 6,000 nm/11,100 km".
=================
Edit: After a little bit of search, seems like on A321ceo's ACJ version, only up to two ACT are offered, although a third ACT installation is offered by a third party company? So is it already the limit for A321 to have three additional central tank?

c933103 wrote:

Well, it is not that much unfeasible. There are already airlines using 737 700ER, BBJ2, and A319LR to operate all business or half business long range flights connecting very long thin routes with high business demand, including for example Mid-America-Europe, Europe-India, Europe-Central Asia, or Japan-India.
=================
This is the payload range chart in ISA condition for A321neo (see attached screenshot), which indicate the aircraft would have 3600nm still air range at 5000 kg payload and then with 1 additional central tank it could go up to 4000nm. But then I think A321LR offer up to 3 additional central tanks? That would bring the figure up to about 4800nm?

=================
But then, note that above figure is based on existing A321LR, while all the jets currently or previously in use in this kind of role I mentioned previously are based on business jet versions which allowed fitting in even more additional central tank. A319LR have up to six additional central tanks. Airbus launched the corporate jet version for A319neo/A320 neo which have options for up to 5/4 additional central tank respectively, but airbus hasn't launched a corporate jet version for 321neo yet. Maybe if and when they launch it, it could be able to fit with even more central tanks and such kind of operator can extract even more ranges from it? Also, note that, the "ACJ320neo can carry 25 passengers for over 13 hours, or 6,000 nm/11,100 km".

The A321LR as offered can have a total of 3 ACT, so it would be 2 more than what is shown on the chart.

The A321neo non LR can have up to 2 ACTs (so 1 less than the LR).

Each full ACT adds just under 3T to the takeoff weight. This is similar weight to 30 passengers. There are also 10 total LD3-45 positions.

At maximum takeoff weight the A321LR could do:
185 passengers 4000nm still air with 3 ACT tanks
155 passengers 4400nm still air with 4 ACT tanks
115 passengers 4800nm still air with 5 ACT tanks
85 passengers 5200nm still air with 6 ACT tanks
55 passengers 5600nm still air with 7 ACT tanks

Knock 5% off those numbers to allow for diversion and westbound flights.

So the A321LR could in theory do London to Los Angeles with 100 passengers and 6 ACT's. Maybe even 110 passengers with 5 ACT's

It is interesting that you won't actually run out of cargo space for bags regardless of how many fuel tanks you install. With 185 passengers and 3 ACT's there are 7 ld3-45's left for bags or 26 passengers per container.

With 55 passengers and 7 ACT's there would be only 3 containers left but that is still 18 passengers per container.

RJMAZ wrote:

Each full ACT adds just under 3T to the takeoff weight. This is similar weight to 30 passengers. There are also 10 total LD3-45 positions.

At maximum takeoff weight the A321LR could do:
185 passengers 4000nm still air with 3 ACT tanks
155 passengers 4400nm still air with 4 ACT tanks
115 passengers 4800nm still air with 5 ACT tanks
85 passengers 5200nm still air with 6 ACT tanks
55 passengers 5600nm still air with 7 ACT tanks

Knock 5% off those numbers to allow for diversion and westbound flights.

So the A321LR could in theory do London to Los Angeles with 100 passengers and 6 ACT's. Maybe even 110 passengers with 5 ACT's

It is interesting that you won't actually run out of cargo space for bags regardless of how many fuel tanks you install. With 185 passengers and 3 ACT's there are 7 ld3-45's left for bags or 26 passengers per container.

With 55 passengers and 7 ACT's there would be only 3 containers left but that is still 18 passengers per container.

Thank you. That is more linear than I expected though...

Lightsaber

RJMAZ wrote:

Each full ACT adds just under 3T to the takeoff weight. This is similar weight to 30 passengers. There are also 10 total LD3-45 positions.

At maximum takeoff weight the A321LR could do:
185 passengers 4000nm still air with 3 ACT tanks
155 passengers 4400nm still air with 4 ACT tanks
115 passengers 4800nm still air with 5 ACT tanks
85 passengers 5200nm still air with 6 ACT tanks
55 passengers 5600nm still air with 7 ACT tanks

Knock 5% off those numbers to allow for diversion and westbound flights.

So the A321LR could in theory do London to Los Angeles with 100 passengers and 6 ACT's. Maybe even 110 passengers with 5 ACT's

It is interesting that you won't actually run out of cargo space for bags regardless of how many fuel tanks you install. With 185 passengers and 3 ACT's there are 7 ld3-45's left for bags or 26 passengers per container.

With 55 passengers and 7 ACT's there would be only 3 containers left but that is still 18 passengers per container.

26 pax per a LD3-45 is pushing it I believe. I suspect most LRs will be bulk loaded to maximize cargo space.

lightsaber wrote:

Thank you. That is more linear than I expected though...

Lightsaber

No problem, It would be nearly perfectly linear. At the 4000nm range point all aircraft would be the same weight and have burned the same amount of fuel up to that point.

The fuel+payload carried are all equal just the ratio between fuel and payload is changed.

In fact it would be very slightly exponential. The landing weight would be lowest for the 7ACT version. After a very long flight and only 55 passengers it would be landing at below 60T. That is empty weight plus 5T of passengers plus reserve fuel. So it's fuel burn per hour would have been the lowest on that last hour of its flight.

The standard A321LR with 185 passengers after a long flight would be landing at just over 70T. Empty weight plus 17T of passengers plus reserve fuel.

So each additional ACT in theory might be adding 420nm 440nm, 460nm and 480nm. This makes my original range numbers slightly conservative.

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Ameri ... 21_new.php

The seating above with 5 ACT's would probably do London to Los Angeles.

Extra ACT's will definitely be in Airbus's bag of tricks when Boeing launches its MOM.

RJMAZ wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Thank you. That is more linear than I expected though...

Lightsaber

No problem, It would be nearly perfectly linear. At the 4000nm range point all aircraft would be the same weight and have burned the same amount of fuel up to that point.

The fuel+payload carried are all equal just the ratio between fuel and payload is changed.

In fact it would be very slightly exponential. The landing weight would be lowest for the 7ACT version. After a very long flight and only 55 passengers it would be landing at below 60T. That is empty weight plus 5T of passengers plus reserve fuel. So it's fuel burn per hour would have been the lowest on that last hour of its flight.

The standard A321LR with 185 passengers after a long flight would be landing at just over 70T. Empty weight plus 17T of passengers plus reserve fuel.

So each additional ACT in theory might be adding 420nm 440nm, 460nm and 480nm. This makes my original range numbers slightly conservative.

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Ameri ... 21_new.php

The seating above with 5 ACT's would probably do London to Los Angeles.

Extra ACT's will definitely be in Airbus's bag of tricks when Boeing launches its MOM.

I doubt extra ACTs will be in their bag of tricks for the reason you highlighted in your previous post. As you add more ACTs without an increase in MTOW (which is likely close to max the platform can support with the LR) you need to take out more passengers so you can carry the weight of the fuel. So yes you are increasing the range, but you are also moving further from MOM capacity The number of highly premium long range routes that don’t need or benefit from support of large Y pax capacity to make numbers work is very niche, and will no longer be competing against the 797 as Boeing’s plane will probably be making the flight with far more passengers. High premium configs with high range also doesn’t really help those LCCs with intercontinental ambitions all that much. There is a reason we never saw tons of A321ceos loaded up with ACTs and low pax densities plying all across the Atlantic (as that is also technically doable).

The A321 needs a new larger wing to move that fuel out of the cargo hold and to support higher weights and a larger but shorter range variant. That will be Airbus’s trick.

With equal fuel burn per passenger airlines will nearly always pick the smaller aircraft.

If the A321LR has two thirds of the takeoff weight with two thirds of the passengers then it will be very competitive against the larger 797.

A 4th ACT would give the A321LR approx 4500nm range with 150 passengers in a medium density cabin. By comparison the 797 might have 225 passenger in a similar medium density cabin but with a takeoff weight of 150T. In this case it is two thirds the passengers and two thirds the takeoff weight.

However going to the 7ACT option with only 55 seats in ultra low density is clearly a non starter. The 797 might seat 110 passenger in similar density. 100% more passengers for 50% more trip costs.

I could see a 4th ACT coming to the A321LR with the current wing as airlines already have below 140 seats cabins on long distance A321 flights. Airlines can then equip the A321LR with 220 seats and 2 ACT's. 180 seats with 3 ACT's. 140 seats with 4 ACT's. To give 3500, 4000 and 4500nm ranges.

A simple stretch to the A322 with no ACT's would create a 250 seat 3000nm range people mover.

Polot wrote:

The A321 needs a new larger wing to move that fuel out of the cargo hold and to support higher weights and a larger but shorter range variant. That will be Airbus’s trick.

They could put a tank in the vertical and/or horizontal stabilizer, they could offer factory build in "ACT" and have the fuel of 3 ACT in just 2 container positions (Water Volume per LD3 position and surroundings is about 5000 liters).

26 pax per a LD3-45 is pushing it I believe. I suspect most LRs will be bulk loaded to maximize cargo space.

It would be advanced Tetris, but in an ideal world even the biggest permissible suitcase is quite a bit smaller than LD3-45/26.

But any spillover will sure go into bulk, that is pretty much 2x LD3s of volume otherwise going to waste.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Polot wrote:

The A321 needs a new larger wing to move that fuel out of the cargo hold and to support higher weights and a larger but shorter range variant. That will be Airbus’s trick.

They could put a tank in the vertical and/or horizontal stabilizer, they could offer factory build in "ACT" and have the fuel of 3 ACT in just 2 container positions (Water Volume per LD3 position and surroundings is about 5000 liters).

26 pax per a LD3-45 is pushing it I believe. I suspect most LRs will be bulk loaded to maximize cargo space.

It would be advanced Tetris, but in an ideal world even the biggest permissible suitcase is quite a bit smaller than LD3-45/26.

But any spillover will sure go into bulk, that is pretty much 2x LD3s of volume otherwise going to waste.

best regards
Thomas

LD3-45s reduce useable volume and also add weight. In long haul configuration with aux tanks installed, bulk loading would likely be beneficial for an airline.

A tail tank in a stretched narrowbody would likely cause weight and balance challenges

Unless you are carrying sports teams all the time, a good baggage agent will get 30, maybe 35 average bags in a container

I think most of the ideas here have relevance.The A321LR is (in effect) a 757 less 30% fsc.That latter number opens up all sorts of profitable possibilities.But some are of course more practical/realistic than others.And yes Thompson and others will be innovating to maximise the opportunities it represents.
But in terms of stretching ranges beyond 4knm still air one has to be very careful as we do not know the mechanical/technical limitations of the aircraft.There may well be a very good set of reasons that Airbus has set the ACT limit at 3.If not why not offer more as an option.
Similarly the MTOW of 97Tons.This may be right up on the limits of this undercarriage and perhaps on the limits of pavement loading.
Then there is takeoff length requirements and climbing to altitude requirements.These too could be at their limits.

Of course Airbus may have left 'something in the bag' but I am not sure why they should.In any case we will see shortly as they real World test the aircraft over the next few months.

There is no doubt many legacy airlines will drop below the 2 class 200(206) pax standard configuration.But to state the obvious ,flat business and first class seats are way heavier than Y/Y+ seats.I don't know the numbers but perhaps the equivalent of an extra person?So it's swings and roundabouts.The range may not vary that much.

With so much interest in this aircraft ( how many A321NEO orders will be swapped out to LR's I wonder) there is no pressure for Airbus to confuse the situation with new product ( they just need to make them as fast as they possibly can - GTF engines allowing!).

It was interesting that Airbus pointed out recently that the new exit config' allowed for 250 pax.Because its 100% obvious you cannot cram more than 240 pax into the existing (new) fuse.So it can only be referring to a small stretch as mentioned above - to 250 pax LCC).
But extra pax and extra fuse is extra weight.So all of it has to be found by less fuel (unless the MLG can indeed take more).
So range will come crashing down (I think) to below 3knm.More like 2750 nm.But this still allows most transcon on most continents.
250 is the absolute limit for LCC's due to turnaround times ( even too much?).
But in a 2/3 class layout it gets quite interesting -(200+pax) as then you are encroaching on 767 territory....(is that the 'plus'?)
But as said,can't see them confusing matters at the moment,they just dont need to.

The extra people in the same “fuse” is due to the removal of the L2R2 doors which required excess pitch in that row for evac purposes... same with the L3 R3 door which is now a plug.

As for the MLG, it obviously can handle more weight because the LR allowed for yet another MGTW increase over previous a321s.

Where we could see some problems soon is actual field limits at some airfields. The a321LR at MGTW can exceed the concrete strength limitations at some airfields because Of its double bogie. Any further increase in MGTW might consider bringing back the four wheel 757 style wheel config that was offered to airbus operators in the past. Of note, the concrete limit isn’t at a ton of airports, but off my head I remember KBDL had some kind of 200,000lb limit.

RJMAZ wrote:

With equal fuel burn per passenger airlines will nearly always pick the smaller aircraft.

If the A321LR has two thirds of the takeoff weight with two thirds of the passengers then it will be very competitive against the larger 797.

A 4th ACT would give the A321LR approx 4500nm range with 150 passengers in a medium density cabin. By comparison the 797 might have 225 passenger in a similar medium density cabin but with a takeoff weight of 150T. In this case it is two thirds the passengers and two thirds the takeoff weight.

However going to the 7ACT option with only 55 seats in ultra low density is clearly a non starter. The 797 might seat 110 passenger in similar density. 100% more passengers for 50% more trip costs.

I could see a 4th ACT coming to the A321LR with the current wing as airlines already have below 140 seats cabins on long distance A321 flights. Airlines can then equip the A321LR with 220 seats and 2 ACT's. 180 seats with 3 ACT's. 140 seats with 4 ACT's. To give 3500, 4000 and 4500nm ranges.

A simple stretch to the A322 with no ACT's would create a 250 seat 3000nm range people mover.

What airlines have <140 seat cabins on long distance A321 flights (or any A321 in general)? AA’s transcon A321s are for a niche highly premium market. They are not going to want 10 F seats on their intercon flights and ideally would probably want the plane configured similar to their international 757s.

That is not ideal. Most premium/legacy carriers are going to want around 180 seats, and most LCCs as many seats as possible.

Also would the 797 really need ~50 T more to operate the flight?

As I understand it - the LR is bulk load only. But I think that was from a Leeham analysis some time back so it may have changed.

RJMAZ wrote:

With equal fuel burn per passenger airlines will nearly always pick the smaller aircraft.

If the A321LR has two thirds of the takeoff weight with two thirds of the passengers then it will be very competitive against the larger 797.

A 4th ACT would give the A321LR approx 4500nm range with 150 passengers in a medium density cabin. By comparison the 797 might have 225 passenger in a similar medium density cabin but with a takeoff weight of 150T. In this case it is two thirds the passengers and two thirds the takeoff weight.

However going to the 7ACT option with only 55 seats in ultra low density is clearly a non starter. The 797 might seat 110 passenger in similar density. 100% more passengers for 50% more trip costs.

I could see a 4th ACT coming to the A321LR with the current wing as airlines already have below 140 seats cabins on long distance A321 flights. Airlines can then equip the A321LR with 220 seats and 2 ACT's. 180 seats with 3 ACT's. 140 seats with 4 ACT's. To give 3500, 4000 and 4500nm ranges.

A simple stretch to the A322 with no ACT's would create a 250 seat 3000nm range people mover.

Also to add on, just because fuel burn is similar doesn’t mean airlines prefer the smaller aircraft. If that was the case the A332, 788, 73G MAX, and A319neo would all be the most popular variants of their family. If trip costs are similar, airlines prefer the larger aircraft as they can essentially carry the extra seats for “free” and get more revenue if filled, or same amount of revenue if plane only filled as much as smaller plane. I doubt the 797 will have trip costs 33% higher than the A321.

The LR belly loads containers like all neo-family not bulk.

Anyone here know why A319LR were given options to fit up to six ACT, but ACJ319neo are only given options up to five ACT?

N757NT
Are you saying that there is more available space in the new A321LR?.I am not arguing with you it's a question.
My understanding is that you can put 240 in with slimline seats at a 28"( the minimum) pitch.I am not aware that there is any further room.
Even though they have recently stated that the revised exit layout can cater for 250 pax.Hence the 'small stretch' comment.

There’s no more space, but you can fit more rows into the airplane because you don’t have to accommodate the nearly 3 feet of seat pitch requirement in the L2 and L3 rows. Also, this includes the space flex lav which places 2 lavs in the aft bulkhead.

The be certain though, there is 0 stretch on this frame.

Here’s an illustration:

https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... Layout.png

Noshow wrote:

The LR belly loads containers like all neo-family not bulk.

The LR has the option of using containers, like all neo-family. Not all neo-family fliers use containers.

c933103 wrote:

Anyone here know why A319LR were given options to fit up to six ACT, but ACJ319neo are only given options up to five ACT?

The ACJ, being a business jet, doesn’t need the payload capacity that an airliner needs. No carrier is seriously considering a 55 passenger plane.

GF

Thx N757ST.Yup the illustration is perfect.240 is the absolute max - even though as they recently stated their new exit arrangement would legally allow up to 250.If they wanted to achieve this number they would need ( if they could) to add a small stretch.2-3 rows.

As an aside.There are a few contributors here who would love to see the A320 max move up to 200 pax.Perhaps the same stretch could be applied to the shorter body to accommodate this? Afer all the competition the 738 max is the cornerstone of the Boeing lineup!

Polot wrote:

Also to add on, just because fuel burn is similar doesn’t mean airlines prefer the smaller aircraft. If that was the case the A332, 788, 73G MAX, and A319neo would all be the most popular variants of their family. If trip costs are similar, airlines prefer the larger aircraft as they can essentially carry the extra seats for “free” and get more revenue if filled, or same amount of revenue if plane only filled as much as smaller plane. I doubt the 797 will have trip costs 33% higher than the A321.

The aircraft you listed all have significantly worse fuel burn per passenger.

I said if they had similar fuel burn per passenger airlines will nearly always go with the smaller aircraft.

As you point out the larger members of the family get extra seats essentially for free. A larger family member might allow 20% more seats with only 5% more fuel burn. That means the smaller member is at a 15% disadvantage. That is not similar fuel burn per passenger.

There is a very strong relationship between trip fuel burn and takeoff weight. The 767 takes off 50+% heavier than the A321 for example. So for the 797 to have a trip cost 33% higher than the A321 it must weigh 130T or less. Weight of an aircraft goes up fairly consistently with the cabin area increase.

The 797 will fly further than the A321. You can't expect it to be able to carry 50% more passengers with only a 33% weight increase. That would require 30+ years of engine and tech improvements.

c933103 wrote:

Anyone here know why A319LR were given options to fit up to six ACT, but ACJ319neo are only given options up to five ACT?

The NEO engines are much heavier. So the aircraft hits maximum takeoff weight with slightly less fuel weight.

The ACJ319NEO could only fill a sixth ACT if the aircraft was empty. The A319LR could fill it's sixth ACT and still carry 15-20 passengers. So they removed the sixth ACT as it would never get filled in service.

RJMAZ wrote:

Polot wrote:

Also to add on, just because fuel burn is similar doesn’t mean airlines prefer the smaller aircraft. If that was the case the A332, 788, 73G MAX, and A319neo would all be the most popular variants of their family. If trip costs are similar, airlines prefer the larger aircraft as they can essentially carry the extra seats for “free” and get more revenue if filled, or same amount of revenue if plane only filled as much as smaller plane. I doubt the 797 will have trip costs 33% higher than the A321.

The aircraft you listed all have significantly worse fuel burn per passenger.

I said if they had similar fuel burn per passenger airlines will nearly always go with the smaller aircraft.

As you point out the larger members of the family get extra seats essentially for free. A larger family member might allow 20% more seats with only 5% more fuel burn. That means the smaller member is at a 15% disadvantage. That is not similar fuel burn per passenger.

There is a very strong relationship between trip fuel burn and takeoff weight. The 767 takes off 50+% heavier than the A321 for example. So for the 797 to have a trip cost 33% higher than the A321 it must weigh 130T or less. Weight of an aircraft goes up fairly consistently with the cabin area increase.

The 797 will fly further than the A321. You can't expect it to be able to carry 50% more passengers with only a 33% weight increase. That would require 30+ years of engine and tech improvements.

Well one issue is I don’t think anyone is expecting the 797 to carry 50% more passengers than the A321. Of course when you artificially lower the pax count of the A321 to 150 seats yes technically, but that aircraft is still carrying all the structure to be a ~200-240 seat aircraft.

The 762A weighs about 45 tons more at MTOW than the A321LR, and A) is nowhere near optimized for its size and mission, B) is using last gen materials, and C) flies almost 4000 nm with old engines (needing about twice as much fuel than the A321) and just overall is D) a 70s era design. The larger 763A is about 60t heavier than the A321. I think your 150T take off weight for your 797 is on the very high side.

Polot wrote:

Well one issue is I don’t think anyone is expecting the 797 to carry 50% more passengers than the A321. Of course when you artificially lower the pax count of the A321 to 150 seats yes technically, but that aircraft is still carrying all the structure to be a ~200-240 seat aircraft.

I guess one of the problems here is that, given that 321 is a narrowbody and 797 will most likely be a widebody, one would have different expectation on the quality of business/Y+ seats fitted onto both aircrafts. In the same way that most business class on 767 are lie flat like those that are on 777/330 and most business class on 757 are just more reclining seats like those that are typically seen in 737/320.

Therefore, in order to have an apple-to-apple comparison, if one would expect airlines to install regular widebodies business class seats onto 797, then they would also have to compare with configurations that widebodies seats are installed onto 321 like 321T's configuration. Otherwise, maybe they can compare 797 to 321 by assuming or having airlines install narrowbody business class seats onto the 797. This way, even if the on-paper seat count is closer to 787, the available capacity would still differ quite a lot due to the size of each premium seats.

c933103 wrote:

I guess one of the problems here is that, given that 321 is a narrowbody and 797 will most likely be a widebody, one would have different expectation on the quality of business/Y+ seats fitted onto both aircrafts. In the same way that most business class on 767 are lie flat like those that are on 777/330 and most business class on 757 are just more reclining seats like those that are typically seen in 737/320

I don't think cabin density has much to do with widebody or narrowbody but rather the duration of the average flight.

Widebody aircraft that operate only short haul domestic flights usually don't have lie flat seats, or a much smaller percentage of them. Ultra long haul flights often has a larger percentage of lie flat beds.

So the Boeing 797 and A321LR both being medium haul aircraft would on average have a similar lower density cabin than your typical narrowbody doing 1 hour flights.