While the A321NEO has been selling well over the last couple of years, there are obviously some weak spots on the LR from an airline perspective.

1. Range. TATL is being promoted but the 4000NM clean/still air range proved short for the 757 under real conditions. Why would the A321LR do any better?
2. Longer flights mostly require crew rests for cockpit & cabin crew. Limited options seem available without cutting passenger seat capacity.
3. Early stage cruise performance: the limited wing area limits early cruise levels, leading to sub optimal fuel consumption
4. Luggage space. With the 2 ACT's required for longer flights, available space for luggage / cargo seems low. specially with >200 passengers.
5. Cruise speed. Mach 0.78 is a kind of low for 4-7 hr flights. hurting utilization. E.g. a 787 is 10% faster.
6. Cargo: longer flights are dominated by containerized full LD3 / pallets. An A321 can't take them.
7. Capacity, with todays sleeper seats & premium economy cabins required for medium flight commonality, capacity seems limited to 150-170 seats, low for 5-7 hr flights.
8. Limited future growth perspective when buying A321LR's. No family concept / future growth option.



The A321LR is more efficient than the 35 yr old 757, congratulations. But apart from that.. Maybe the A321LR is the best Airbus can do right now, but there's seems definitely room for improvement.

keesje wrote:

While the A321NEO has been selling well over the last couple of years, there are obviously some weak spots on the LR from an airline perspective.

1. Range. TATL is being promoted but the 4000NM clean/still air range proved short for the 757 under real conditions. Why would the A321LR do any better?
2. Longer flights mostly require crew rests for cockpit & cabin crew. Limited options seem available without cutting passenger seat capacity.
3. Early stage cruise performance: the limited wing area limits early cruise levels, leading to sub optimal fuel consumption
4. Luggage space. With the 2 ACT's required for longer flights, available space for luggage / cargo seems low. specially with >200 passengers.
5. Cruise speed. Mach 0.78 is a kind of low for 4-7 hr flights. hurting utilization. E.g. a 787 is 10% faster.
6. Cargo: longer flights are dominated by containerized full LD3 / pallets. An A321 can't take them.
7. Capacity, with todays sleeper seats & premium economy cabins required for medium flight commonality, capacity seems limited to 150-170 seats, low for 5-7 hr flights.
8. Limited future growth perspective when buying A321LR's. No family concept / future growth option.



The A321LR is more efficient than the 35 yr old 757, congratulations. But apart from that.. Maybe the A321LR is the best Airbus can do right now, but there's seems definitely room for improvement.

I just can't see where you are coming from, apart from looking like a deliberate knocking of the A321NEO.

Firstly you say its short of range, then its short of crew rest, no need for crew rest surely if it doesn't have the range to start with

Then you say its short of cargo space for 200 passengers, but later say in reality it only seats 150 - 170

As for no family concept, what exactly is the A320 series if not a family ?

The A321 is what it is, the ultimate stretch of an exceedingly successful single aisle airliner, with the capacity to operate thin routes of around 3500 miles, if airlines want something faster with twin aisles and more seats they'll buy a 787-9. Many of course will want both.

I'm sure the airlines haven't mistakenly overseen your points until now. The one about crew rest is a non-starter as crew FTLs allow duties of up to 12 hours without need for rest (either on the ground or in the air) with the same amount of crew as would be expected on any domestic or mid haul flight (2 pilots, 4/5 cabin crew, depending on the amount of seats fitted).

keesje's points are about various stage profiles, but mostly about long haul compromises in the A321 design. I drew the inference that the B757 is better suited for long-haul, putting aside fuel consumption. Thus... the MOM as A321-killer. Now, that statement lacks all controversy.

Flyingabout wrote:

I'm sure the airlines haven't mistakenly overseen your points until now.

I think you mean "I'm sure the airlines haven't mistakenly overlooked your points until now." I don't think the airlines are supervising keesje.

WPvsMW wrote:

keesje's points are about various stage profiles, but mostly about long haul compromises in the A321 design. I drew the inference that the B757 is better suited for long-haul, putting aside fuel consumption. Thus... the MOM as A321-killer. Now, that statement lacks all controversy.

as the A321LR hauls the same passenger load further using 25% less fuel, I would say it answers the should Boeing revive the 757 question nicely. Of course being 35 years newer so it should really.

Some simple passenger POV questions: given this analysis, the A321NEO (which is also LR?) wouldn't be able to replace the 757's United uses on TATL missions? Therefore if United were to convert A350's orders into A321NEOs they would potentially replace domestic 757 flying?
I love this plane and would enjoy flying her more!

You don't need crew rest areas for 8-hour flights.

Lack of crew rest areas have never been an issue on the 757, why would it be a problem on the A321LR?

The A312NeoLR is, as we all know, a stretch of a shorthaul single aisle. It is trivial and obvious that a purpose-built MoM will outperform a derivate of a shorthaul aircraft. The questions, however, will be, by which margin it outperforms the stetch, how much it costs to develop, if the Airlines are willing to pay for this development by higher purchase price and fleet complexity, what the optimal design of a MoM will be, and how large the overall market will be.

I mean yes, I want the MoM as well, but many of these problems exist on the 757 as well.

Not quite sure what relevance a picture of 737 in the OP has..

If you see a 737 in the OP, you need to see someone...

The A321LR is a niche aircraft, will it solve every problem, no, but it will find some buyers whom will be happy with it, despite its drawbacks.

Does Norwegian have problems with flying the B737-8Max across the pound?

If the Boeing MoM will become a reality and address all these things, I don't know, perhaps we'll see.

As for your points, Kees:

1. It would not, probably more a 3.500nm machine under real conditions.
2. Not with a 4-8hour flight.
3. Yes, but suboptimal to what? It will be more economical than the 757.
4. Luggage space. With the 2 ACT's required for longer flights, available space for luggage / cargo seems low. specially with >200 passengers.
5. Yes, indeed.
6. Cargo is only a problem for legacy carriers, I can see the A321LR with LCC and there seems to be a lot of extra capacity in the marked for cargo, so that makes it less relevant.
7. Ok, 150-170 seats, if an airline can make money with that, why not?
8. If you operate the A32X Neo on short to medium haul flights, why not add long-haul with the A321LR? BA did it with its A318's and ANA Boeing 737-700ER. I don't see what you are getting at with this point. Sure if an airline wants to upgrade, another type has to be put on a route, but why would that matter?

It will work very well as an add-on for thin LR routes operated by airlines with already sizeable A320 family fleets - see EI or TAP as examples, maybe LCCs like Easyjet in due time. It will enable them to serve additional markets with very little by way of additional costs. There are enough airlines in this position for Airbus to make good profits on its marginal investment in the A321neoLR.

But it is not a full solution for the alleged potential 4000-unit MoM market. The big question is whether it will soak up enough of that market to make Boeing's clean-sheet high-investment approach not economically feasible to pursue.

Folks how many times do we have to beat the horse dead. THE A321NEXT MILENIUM will never make it to B757 performance of 35years ago! Put it to rest....
Perhaps if Airbus called it the A329 it would be easy to see the next performance level is the A332.

Starting another A vs B flame post is absolutely pointless. Nobody is forcing an airline to buy anything.
And people are buying dacias despite the fact that there are Mercedes and BMW's out there.....

This is kind of a weird thread. The A321LR is simply an A321NEO with a 7,000lbs MTOW increase. It is not that earth shattering. The A321neo is selling very well. Only a fraction of the A321neos will probably be the LR version. The average A321 stage length is only about 2 hours and 1000 miles.

What I am predicting is that Keesje will shortly be posting a picture of the A322/A323 that address all the weak spots he mentioned even though as others have said, they aren't problems for most airlines.



On the other hand, John Leahy sees no deficiencies in the A321. He sees no reason to change things.

The A320 line is Airbus’ “home run.” Of the 609 orders, 223 were for A321(ceo and neo). Of the total of 545 delivered aircraft, 222 were A321, or 41% of the total. “This will grow to 50% during 2017,” said Leahy. “Our A321 is our “Middle of the Market” aircraft, and at up to 240 seats, it is doing a fantastic job,” continued Leahy. He saw no reason to extend the aircraft to an A322. “At 240 seats, all 18 inches wide, I see no reason to change things,” Leahy said. “At 80% market share, we own this market.”

https://leehamnews.com/2017/01/11/airbu ... um=twitter

Newbiepilot wrote:

What I am predicting is that Keesje will shortly be posting a picture of the A322/A323 that address all the weak spots he mentioned

My feeling is as well that this thread has been started with the A322 in mind...

But why not. we have the silly season right now...

N14AZ wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

What I am predicting is that Keesje will shortly be posting a picture of the A322/A323 that address all the weak spots he mentioned

My feeling is as well that this thread has been started with the A322 in mind...

But why not. we have the silly season right now...

Well the A322 would address those weak spots.... this comment Seems to setup an A322 because it doesn't make sense since the A321 is part of one of the most successful families ever produced

8. Limited future growth perspective when buying A321LR's. No family concept / future growth option.

Well, the 757 was a newer original design than the 737, so if Boeing had gone to NG and then MAX, we'd be talking an aircraft better for these longer sectors than what's on the market. But alternate history is always more fun than real history, so A321LR is what we'll have to make do with.

WPvsMW wrote:

keesje's points are about various stage profiles, but mostly about long haul compromises in the A321 design. I drew the inference that the B757 is better suited for long-haul, putting aside fuel consumption. Thus... the MOM as A321-killer. Now, that statement lacks all controversy.

757 design wasn't targeting long(er) range either. IMU the design objective was a short field capable, no/low infrastructure "bus stop" commuter.
Airlines going TATL with the 757 was a result of having the frames on hand while the original use case has shrunk or even vanished.

Newbiepilot wrote:

On the other hand, John Leahy sees no deficiencies in the A321. He sees no reason to change things.

Oh I'm sure he sees them but he has no reason to change things because there is no competition for that segment so he's happy to laugh all the way to the bank.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Well the A322 would address those weak spots.... this comment Seems to setup an A322 because it doesn't make sense since the A321 is part of one of the most successful families ever produced

I think we all know that an A322 is coming, just like we knew that the A321NEOLR was coming, or that the A330NEO was coming. Which is why it's fun to speculate about it.

Crew rests is up to the airline crew contracts. Delta e.g. has crew rest on their (large) 757 fleet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKDsrwiAGDE

About the family concept. If an airlines buys the A321LR sized aircraft for the next 20 yrs, but 170 seats is a kind of the bottom of the requirement and they grow 4-5% per year, that might trigger the fleet planners to include something 15-20% larger as an option in their RFP, for their future fleet purchases. The A321LR is a kind of one trick pony for longer flights.

I think the A321NEO hits all the right buttons for todays regional, transcon and intra Asia markets. But for LR it's compromised for the reasons I addressed.

keesje wrote:

Crew rests is up to the airline crew contracts.[/url]
.

It is pretty clearly defined under FAR 117 as we discussed in your prior thread. The good news is that 13 hours of duty time with a Class III crew rest exceeds th A321LR range. The crew contracts can be more restrictive as you say.

viewtopic.php?t=1360865





a. Class 1 Rest Facility. Means a bunk or other surface that allows for a flat sleeping position and is located separate from both the flight deck and passenger cabin in an area that is temperature-controlled, allows the flightcrew member to control light, and provides isolation from noise and disturbance (§ 117.3, "sound" definition Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aerospace Recommend Practice (ARP) 4101/3 and "horizontal flat" definitions, SAE ARP 4101/3).

b. Class 2 Rest Facility. Means a seat in an aircraft cabin that allows for a flat or near flat sleeping position; is separated from passengers by a minimum of a curtain to provide darkness and some sound mitigation; and is reasonably free from disturbance by passengers or flightcrew members (§ 117.3).

c. Class 3 Rest Facility. Means a seat in an aircraft cabin or flight deck that reclines at least 40 degrees and provides leg and foot support (§ 117.3).

f. Significance of Rest Facility Classification. Each rest facility has a classification ranking from one through three that defines the maximum flight duty period (FDP) limits predicated on the flightcrew member's start time, the number of pilots and the classification of rest facility to be used for augmented flightcrew operations. A class 1 facility provides for the longest FDP, a class 2 provides for the second longest FDP, and a class 3 provides for the third longest FDP.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... _117-1.pdf

WIederling wrote:

757 design wasn't targeting long(er) range either. IMU the design objective was a short field capable, no/low infrastructure "bus stop" commuter.
Airlines going TATL with the 757 was a result of having the frames on hand while the original use case has shrunk or even vanished.

757s began flying TATL routes over a decade ago. The NYT article says that the winglets extended the 757's range to operate these routes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/trave ... ml?mcubz=0

To my memory, Glen Hauenstein had the idea to operate long thin routes with a narrow body.

David

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Crew rests is up to the airline crew contracts.[/url]
.

It is pretty clearly defined under FAR 117 as we discussed in your prior thread. The good news is that 13 hours of duty time with a Class III crew rest exceeds th A321LR range. The crew contracts can be more restrictive as you say.

viewtopic.php?t=1360865





a. Class 1 Rest Facility. Means a bunk or other surface that allows for a flat sleeping position and is located separate from both the flight deck and passenger cabin in an area that is temperature-controlled, allows the flightcrew member to control light, and provides isolation from noise and disturbance (§ 117.3, "sound" definition Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aerospace Recommend Practice (ARP) 4101/3 and "horizontal flat" definitions, SAE ARP 4101/3).

b. Class 2 Rest Facility. Means a seat in an aircraft cabin that allows for a flat or near flat sleeping position; is separated from passengers by a minimum of a curtain to provide darkness and some sound mitigation; and is reasonably free from disturbance by passengers or flightcrew members (§ 117.3).

c. Class 3 Rest Facility. Means a seat in an aircraft cabin or flight deck that reclines at least 40 degrees and provides leg and foot support (§ 117.3).

f. Significance of Rest Facility Classification. Each rest facility has a classification ranking from one through three that defines the maximum flight duty period (FDP) limits predicated on the flightcrew member's start time, the number of pilots and the classification of rest facility to be used for augmented flightcrew operations. A class 1 facility provides for the longest FDP, a class 2 provides for the second longest FDP, and a class 3 provides for the third longest FDP.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... _117-1.pdf

How does duty time exceed any aircrafts range? I think you meant flight time.

Flight time (in FAR117 Table A shown below) is a factor be it unaugmented or augmented. So except for the Ireland or the U.K. from the USA during the summer months, most of Western Europe would require augmentation westbound as the pilots would not be acclimated to the Euro time zone unless they had an extended layover (36+ hours I believe)

Time of report flight time
(acclimated) (hours)

0000-0459 ................................ 8

0500-1959 ................................ 9

2000-2359 ................................ 8

So in all likelihood the 321LR would have a pilot crew rest just like the 757 does today. A first class seat which in today's world means a lie flat seat. Could be class 2 or 3 depending if there is a sound and light deadening curtain installed. United had to install 2 special seats on its 737 Guam-HNL island hopper service to comply with the minimum rest seat provisions above.

Under FAR 117 duty times can be extended, however Flight times can not be extended. They are a hard number/limit unless already airborne. So in all likelihood anything over 8 hours, even if allowed, would be augmented to allow up to the next limit of 12-13 hours flight time for operation reliability.

DC

diverdave wrote:

WIederling wrote:

757 design wasn't targeting long(er) range either. IMU the design objective was a short field capable, no/low infrastructure "bus stop" commuter.
Airlines going TATL with the 757 was a result of having the frames on hand while the original use case has shrunk or even vanished.

757s began flying TATL routes over a decade ago. The NYT article says that the winglets extended the 757's range to operate these routes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/trave ... ml?mcubz=0

To my memory, Glen Hauenstein had the idea to operate long thin routes with a narrow body.

David

Try all the way back to 1993 or so for 757's across the Atlantic. So much early then a decade ago. Even before winglets became an option.

viewtopic.php?t=21199

diverdave wrote:

WIederling wrote:

757 design wasn't targeting long(er) range either. IMU the design objective was a short field capable, no/low infrastructure "bus stop" commuter.
Airlines going TATL with the 757 was a result of having the frames on hand while the original use case has shrunk or even vanished.

757s began flying TATL routes over a decade ago. The NYT article says that the winglets extended the 757's range to operate these routes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/trave ... ml?mcubz=0

To my memory, Glen Hauenstein had the idea to operate long thin routes with a narrow body.

David

I'm not certain it was Glen who had the idea but the capability was born from granting ETOPS certification in the 1980's. Most airlines had bought the 757 as a 727 replacement so there was no real thought into using it transatlantic. As the CO EWR hub grew that's when it started but I'm not sure if CO was first to use it Transat or if it was NWs BOS-AMS or something else. I know it wasn't the winglets as TWA was using it for a couple JFK flights and they could barely afford a chicken wing, let alone a winglet.

keesje wrote:

While the A321NEO has been selling well over the last couple of years, there are obviously some weak spots on the LR from an airline perspective.

1. Range. TATL is being promoted but the 4000NM clean/still air range proved short for the 757 under real conditions. Why would the A321LR do any better?
2. Longer flights mostly require crew rests for cockpit & cabin crew. Limited options seem available without cutting passenger seat capacity.
3. Early stage cruise performance: the limited wing area limits early cruise levels, leading to sub optimal fuel consumption
4. Luggage space. With the 2 ACT's required for longer flights, available space for luggage / cargo seems low. specially with >200 passengers.
5. Cruise speed. Mach 0.78 is a kind of low for 4-7 hr flights. hurting utilization. E.g. a 787 is 10% faster.
6. Cargo: longer flights are dominated by containerized full LD3 / pallets. An A321 can't take them.
7. Capacity, with todays sleeper seats & premium economy cabins required for medium flight commonality, capacity seems limited to 150-170 seats, low for 5-7 hr flights.
8. Limited future growth perspective when buying A321LR's. No family concept / future growth option.



The A321LR is more efficient than the 35 yr old 757, congratulations. But apart from that.. Maybe the A321LR is the best Airbus can do right now, but there's seems definitely room for improvement.

I generally agree with your points and also agree the A321NEO LR is a compromised design. But...and it's a big but....The A321NEO LR is currently best alternative to replace the 757 on shorter TATL sectors where wide body capacity is not needed.


Until or if Boeing or Airbus develop a true 757/767 replacement I believe the A321NEO LR is the best alternative. Does the A321NEO LR have the some capability of the 757? Clearly....no. But as one airline executive stated....."it's about 90 to 95% of what a 757 can do."

The anticipated fuel burn numbers are much improved over the 757, and I think an airline like Aer Lingus acquiring the A321NEO LR to replace the 757 on TATL routes and open up new opportunities is very smart.

TWFlyGuy wrote:

I'm not certain it was Glen who had the idea but the capability was born from granting ETOPS certification in the 1980's. Most airlines had bought the 757 as a 727 replacement so there was no real thought into using it transatlantic. As the CO EWR hub grew that's when it started but I'm not sure if CO was first to use it Transat or if it was NWs BOS-AMS or something else. I know it wasn't the winglets as TWA was using it for a couple JFK flights and they could barely afford a chicken wing, let alone a winglet.

Airlines have been flying TATL with the 757 since the early to mid 90s. TWA flew some, I believe BA did, CO did starting in 97? plus a whole bunch of European charter carriers. CO really popularized it (under Glen Hauenstein as VP of Network) in the early-mid 2000 though as they started expanding their TATL 757 operations and decided to convert all their 752s to the international configuration, but I wouldn't say Glen was the one who first came up with the idea.

diverdave wrote:

To my memory, Glen Hauenstein had the idea to operate long thin routes with a narrow body.

Correct. Glen the Genius Network Planner. Saved CO, then saved DL, and international, long haul, thin routes were key to both.

@Polot. Glen did not "invent" ILHTR as a network strategy, since ILHTR is essentially what a TATL charter/supplemental air carrier is, but he was first to implement it as a primary operational strategy in major airlines.

VC10er wrote:

Some simple passenger POV questions: given this analysis, the A321NEO (which is also LR?) wouldn't be able to replace the 757's United uses on TATL missions? Therefore if United were to convert A350's orders into A321NEOs they would potentially replace domestic 757 flying?
I love this plane and would enjoy flying her more!

So let that old fat lady die with all the respect and dignity she really deserves. She has done a great job at her time, but by today's standards she has to lift the weight equivalent of some 100 fare dodgers at every take-off.

757 cockpit crew rest area


757 cabin crew rest area (rows 34, 35)

Didn't BA pioneer B757 TALT back in the late 80s? (1989 I think??)

Bjorn is also taking a look: https://leehamnews.com/2017/08/03/can-airbus-improve-a321neo/

I do remember some 757 haters on this site regarding across the Atlantic flights. They treated the occasional need for a fuel stop when west bound almost as serious as a mid ocean forced landing.

keesje wrote:

757 cabin crew rest area (rows 34, 35)

Really? Is that a twin aisle 757? And Alitalia headrests?

VSMUT wrote:

Really? Is that a twin aisle 757? And Alitalia headrests?

LoL

Oeps wrong picture lol.

Here is a review of the 757 cabin crew rest that's not required but eats a good amount of revenue passenger seats non the less.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uKDsrwiAGDE

The wing loading on the A321LR at MTOW is only about 1.2x that of the 757 at MTOW. Yeah, it can't climb right up to 380 at MTOW, but it's also not going to hang out at 150, either.

In a prior thread, we went over the available information on the A321LR and we are confident that it will be able to perform its mission at least as well as the 752 and perhaps a little better. It will have a slightly smaller payload, but about 30% lower fuel burn and it seems to be able to eke out about 50-100 nmi more than the 752.

Here is a link to that thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=775119&start=50

keesje wrote:

1. Range. TATL is being promoted but the 4000NM clean/still air range proved short for the 757 under real conditions. Why would the A321LR do any better?

~100nm or so more range than a 757.

4. Luggage space. With the 2 ACT's required for longer flights, available space for luggage / cargo seems low. specially with >200 passengers.

That leaves 8x LD3 plus bulk. With a realistic 160 to 180 pax on longer haul that is plenty enough of space for luggage. Not much room for cargo on top, but fully fueled there ain´t weight left for it anyways.

5. Cruise speed. Mach 0.78 is a kind of low for 4-7 hr flights. hurting utilization. E.g. a 787 is 10% faster.

It is, but 4000 nm leave probably not really enough to squeeze an additional flight into the day anyways

6. Cargo: longer flights are dominated by containerized full LD3 / pallets. An A321 can't take them.

good point, also the reason why the 767 was such a colossal failure for Boeing... no.. wait...

7. Capacity, with todays sleeper seats & premium economy cabins required for medium flight commonality, capacity seems limited to 150-170 seats, low for 5-7 hr flights.

for a 5 to 7 hour flight you won´t need an LR, the stock A321neo +1 ACT does 7 hour flights with full squeeze them in economy only cabin. Below that you don´t even need a neo to load up to the exit limit.

8. Limited future growth perspective when buying A321LR's. No family concept / future growth option.

In the same sense that is true for the A351, the 779 ....

The A321LR is more efficient than the 35 yr old 757, congratulations. But apart from that.. Maybe the A321LR is the best Airbus can do right now, but there's seems definitely room for improvement.

Yup, they should look at new, lighter, larger ACTs and perhaps have a hard look at a tank in the vertical fin. Maybe holds half an hour worth of fuel and should score some fractions on fuel burn due to trimming possibilities. But at some point they probably will have to slap a new advanced wing on it to advance further.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

4. Luggage space. With the 2 ACT's required for longer flights, available space for luggage / cargo seems low. specially with >200 passengers.

That leaves 8x LD3 plus bulk. With a realistic 160 to 180 pax on longer haul that is plenty enough of space for luggage. Not much room for cargo on top, but fully fueled there ain´t weight left for it anyways.

It should be noted that you need 3 ACTs for 4000nm flights, not 2 (which is the max in the standard A321 to get its max range, not 1). Luggage space might get tight if using LD3-45s, should be fine if bulk loading the plane.

To really resolve the A321LR restriction and create some room for growth, Airbus could go for a more radical upgrade.

The A321 weakpoints could be solved / reduced to some extend. While still benefitting for NB cost levels.

Obviously this would take serious investment and lead time compared to an A322.

1. Range. Could be extended to a suitable one.
2. Crew rests for cockpit & cabin crew. Changing the cockpit set up to integrate a CCR.
3. Early stage cruise performance: Specify a suitable wing
4. Luggage space. Remove the ACT (wing fuel capacity) creates additional space for revenue cargo.
5. Cruise speed. Mach 0.78 is a kind of low for 4-7 hr flights. The wing, tail & cockpit could be redesigned for higher cruise speed.
6. Cargo: longer flights are dominated by containerized full LD3 / pallets. This one still couldn't...
7. Capacity, with todays sleeper seats & premium economy cabins required for medium flight commonality, 5 meters extra helps.
8. Limited future growth perspective when buying A321LR's. It would be a family on it's own with new range-load-length combinations.

Airbus probably wouldn't name it A32x anymore.

This all changes with the C-Series tie in. If Airbus go for an iterative approach rather than a new design then both the A320 and A321 can grow up a bit. New, bigger wing with more fuel capacity and both a longer fuselage. Make the most of having two product ranges for a broader coverage of the NB market.

tommy1808 wrote:

~100nm or so more range than a 757.

are the A321LR specs given for the current GTF or for the pimped (3%) 2019+ version?

I tried a relative simple stretch A322. But configurating a typical medium range cabin with product commonality with the twin aisles takes a lot of space.

Either a reduction of seat count, driving up seat cost, or making sure a significant stretch is possible seems required for a valid NMA like specification.

I took normal seat dimensions for M, M+ and C class. But you probably need more galley, crew rest space etc.

WIederling wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

~100nm or so more range than a 757.

are the A321LR specs given for the current GTF or for the pimped (3%) 2019+ version?

Since it will only be delivered with the PIP'd (although pimped was funn) GTF, it is expected to be with that. However, the PIP'd engine is expected to slightly beat fuel burn promise and Airbus will likely slighlty beat promised aerodynamics.

It will be just over 100nm of more range than a 752. Not earth shattering, except the economics are much better. AA has been asking for the A321LR, so I'll be curious if they order/convert for the type. It will be ideal for CLT, IAD, JFK/EWR, and BOS for TATL on the US side, DUB, LHR/LGW, AMS, and MAD should do well with the type. German hubs or further east, not so much...

I could see a new wing from Airbus. But for that they would need new engines to compete with the MoM. Yes, already. The MoM engines will be at least 4% lower fuel burn than the LR engines as the technology has progressed (note: I assume more NEO PIPs to put in new technology).

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

German hubs or further east, not so much...

Berlin or Munich may be pushing it, but HAM/DUS/CGN/STR shouldn´t be a problem.

best regards
Thomas

lightsaber wrote:

WIederling wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

~100nm or so more range than a 757.

are the A321LR specs given for the current GTF or for the pimped (3%) 2019+ version?

Since it will only be delivered with the PIP'd (although pimped was funn) GTF, it is expected to be with that. However, the PIP'd engine is expected to slightly beat fuel burn promise and Airbus will likely slighlty beat promised aerodynamics.

It will be just over 100nm of more range than a 752. Not earth shattering, except the economics are much better. AA has been asking for the A321LR, so I'll be curious if they order/convert for the type. It will be ideal for CLT, IAD, JFK/EWR, and BOS for TATL on the US side, DUB, LHR/LGW, AMS, and MAD should do well with the type. German hubs or further east, not so much...

I could see a new wing from Airbus. But for that they would need new engines to compete with the MoM. Yes, already. The MoM engines will be at least 4% lower fuel burn than the LR engines as the technology has progressed (note: I assume more NEO PIPs to put in new technology).

Lightsaber

Fuel burn is always relative to engines in the same thrust class. the MoM engine might be 4% better per kn thrust provided, but still burn more fuel as it produces more thrust. With a new wing, the A322 should be doing okay with the current engines, as you would not extend the range by much, another 300-500nm would be enough.

How much wingspan ( actually aspect ratio increase ) would an "A322"
( slightly longer than A321 ) need to cope well with the current 35k GTF engines?