Airbus A321XLR Completes First Transatlantic Flight
Posted by sanic55@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 160 comments
Iberia makes history becoming the first airline in the world to operate transoceanic routes with the new Airbus A321XLR. The aircraft arrived at Boston Logan International Airport (BOS) at around 2:30PM EST, completing its journey from Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport (MAD).
auxilary@reddit
early reports are that the galley is having a tough time providing the space and storage for multiple meals onboard. i believe the figure is that the galley in the rear is 50% smaller to accommodate two extra lavs, and that in the end, service is suffering nose to tail because of the lack of galley space.
seems we still haven’t figured out the narrow-body transatlantic thing
ilovejeremyclarkson@reddit
I feel like there are people trying to re-invent the wheel at airbus and Boeing, but a single isle transatlantic plane has existed since the 80-90s, the 757 is such a good plane for these missions. More spacious and more capacity than a 321xlr
Calm-Frog84@reddit
And likely also more fuel consumption => less profitable aircraft
Glass-Win6196@reddit
Well of course, a 40-year-old design wasn't going to win a fuel consumption race against a much more recent design.
The point being, an A21N might be too small for such flights to be operated comfortably.
Calm-Frog84@reddit
Yes, back to the usual uchronia: what would have happened if Boeing had invested in a 757Max?
Glass-Win6196@reddit
Again, that's not the point. Boeing didn't take this opportunity, end of the story.
One can however wonder if the A321NeoXLR is that well suited for long haul flights ? It is a rather compact airframe, which up until now had been a blessing. I believe that the A322 had been rumored to solve this issue.
Calm-Frog84@reddit
What would be an A322? I never heard about it.
RedditRedditGo@reddit
There was an unconfirmed rumor a few years ago that Airbus had a stretched and re-winged a321 ready to go in case Boeing launched the 797.
Calm-Frog84@reddit
Thanks, I guess at this point (new wing), it becomes a new aircraft!
Glass-Win6196@reddit
I don't think it was ever confirmed, it was mostly rumours. Most likely a slightly longer fuselage and redesigned interiors ? I'd like to know what was said in Airbus' conference rooms for this matter ahah.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
The same airlines that never wanted the 757 would ignore the 757 Max, too. It was getting low double/single digit orders in the last few years of its production run and that was nearly a decade before the upgraded engines would be available.
This post ad hoc analysis of the 757 and how “obvious” it was the re-engine the 757 falls apart the moment it evens comes close to reality.
CallOfCorgithulhu@reddit
Why did they start ignoring the 757? I would have guessed that it'd make for a great platform to modernize so that it can be an attractive transatlantic narrow body.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
The empty weight of the 757 is 17,000 lbs heavier than the 321XLR because of its beefy landing gear and large wings. That's a lot of extra non-revenue generating weight to lug around.
Drunkenaviator@reddit
Yes, and the empty weight of a 747 is 300,000+ lbs more, but if it fits more people inside, it's not exactly relevant.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
It is very relevant. Airlines stopped ordering the 757 because it was too big, heavy, and inefficent to do what they wanted to do compared with other narrow body options. Boeing didn't abandon the 757, airlines did.
Drunkenaviator@reddit
And yet, now those same airlines are holding on to those 757s because no other airplane can do what they do. The XLR is the closest thing, and now we're learning it can't really either.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
There is so much undeserved myth around the 757 that it is comical.
Less than 10% of 757 flights need the performance of a 757 (mostly just mountain towns to the east coast). All of the other routes flown by a 757 are also being flown just as well by 737/320/767/787/etc at lower CASM.
If airlines could snap their fingers and convert their tired old 757s to something else, they would. But they are old airplanes that are paid off, and the backlog for new airplanes is so long, that airlines keep flying the 757 despite their terrible economics. No different than the 40-year-old mad dogs that were still flying until recently.
Boeing begged airlines to buy the 757, but after two years with no orders, they shut down the line because no one wanted more 757s.
Drunkenaviator@reddit
Yeah, I'm sure that, say, EWR-EDI/OPO/AGP/ARN could very easily be done on a 737, but United just hates money, so they run 752s on there instead. I guess their route planners should have asked random people on Reddit.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
UAL has been trying to retire the 75/76 for a decade, and the only reason they are still flying is because Boeing is too incompetent to build airplanes.
UAL's most recent failed plan was to leave the 75/76 in the desert following Covid, but Boeing's incompetence means UAL has over a hundred fewer new airplanes than planned, so the 75/76 got a stay of execution. But now that UAL is taking delivery of 321s, expect those 757s to finally start heading off to the scrappers.
The 75/76 is an obsolete airframe, and that's why airlines stopped ordering them 20 years ago, and Boeing shut down the line.
Drunkenaviator@reddit
Or, condensed, "The 757 still makes money because no other airplane can do what it does".
The bean counters hate it because "old". But there's still been nothing to replace it. Supposedly the XLR was going to be that, but even that is looking iffy now.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
If what you claim is true, UAL would be upgrading their 757s, not turning them into beer cans.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
At the time airlines wanted 737/A320s, plus the post-9/11 crash hit them hard. Now the two families (A32X more so) have shifted into the niche that the 757 filled but without needing two types.
When the 737 is retired it will 1000% have a variant that will cover most of the 757s use cases with a stretch/LR variant under a single type rating, like the A320.
animealt46@reddit
Every time a thread mentions the 757, it's specs become 5% better than last mention.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
It is funny to see how it’s talked about nowadays, you’d think it was one of the most successful airplanes that Boeing unceremoniously dragged out back.
Glass-Win6196@reddit
Well, it still is a very successful airplane.
1050 built, an impeccable safety record, still flying today (and will probably fly cargo for the next 20 years), and now, more than 42 years since its first flight, there's finally an aircraft that can replace it on range+capacity, and it can't even do it that well.
animealt46@reddit
No, the design that makes the 757 so beloved by certain niches inherently makes it less efficient and that cannot be overcome by nebulous '40 year newer tech'. The A320 series isn't more profitable just because it's newer, it's lighter weight design and smaller capacity is the main reason why.
Glass-Win6196@reddit
Well, why exactly do you think it has a lighter wing design ? Partly because it is way more recent. And I won't even talk about engine tech. An XLR designed in the late 1970s wouldn't have fared much better.
Max. capacity is pretty much the exact same by the way, at 239 vs 235 (B752 vs A321)
RedditRedditGo@reddit
It has a narrower fuselage than the 737 which is narrower than the A320 family. If you like space the 757 is not where you're gonna find it.
auxilary@reddit
but the 757 has only been proven on a very select group of city pairs over the Atlantic. it doesn’t work in big markets, and the CASM when you include keeping the 757 ETOPS certified nullifies a lot of the RASM
Appropriate-Count-64@reddit
Yeah but I think his point was more “You had a blueprint. Why didn’t you follow it?”
FunkyBackplane@reddit
I hope we never do short of some low cost carriers. I love wide body jets and they’re so much more comfortable, I’d be truly sad if they ever fully replaced them with exclusively narrow body fleets.
StetsonTuba8@reddit
I don't understand this hate of narrow bodies. It's the exact same seat.you know what I hate? Getting stuck in the seats between the aisles, which don't exist in a narrow body
textonic@reddit
Clearly you don’t fly enough. Wide bodies have higher cieling , giving you the feeling of being in a larger space and as such more comfortable. There are also more places to stand and walk about
StetsonTuba8@reddit
I fly intercontinental once or twice a year. My longest narrow body flights was 7 hours from Ponta Delgada to Toronto. I've honestly never paid attention to the ceiling height in a plane, as long as it's tall enough for me to stand up in it's adequate to me. And are there really more places to stand and walk about? It's an aisle.
textonic@reddit
You literally made my point. You don’t fly enough to value the difference. I routinely fly 13-16 hour missions 4-6 times a year. It used to be 16-20 ultra long haul times a year but now I don’t fly enough. But the ability to walk about , stand in the galley without blocking anyone and be able to stretch without hitting the cieling is great
RedditRedditGo@reddit
The A321XLR doesn't fly that long so it doesn't really apply.
mexicoke@reddit
I've ridden on 50-70 flights a year for more than a decade. I've been on the longest flight in the world half dozen times, ride TATL 4-6 times a year and TPAC 2-4 times a year.
I don't notice a difference either. In fact, I really enjoy airlines like La Compagnie. Some people just don't care, I'm one of them. In fact, the 777 with 10 abreast or the 787 with 9 abreast is really uncomfortable in economy. I'd much rather be on a 321 or 757 with wider seats.
So you're a pilot?
70125@reddit
I have no idea why everyone is circlejerking to downvote your personal perspective which is perfectly valid even if people disagree.
Oh wait, actually I do know why--Reddit.
RedditRedditGo@reddit
It honestly doesn't make a difference unless you're in the premium economy and above and the A321XLR will have business seats as well. In economy most people are confined to their seat 99.9% of the flight. I don't really see the big deal.
Glass-Win6196@reddit
If you hate getting stuck in aircraft, picture this:
You want to get to the toilets, but meals are being served and therefore, the one and only aisle is blocked. The flight attendants either backtrack to the next space they can find (good luck in economy on an A321) or ask you to wait for them to pass your seat. When you get to the toilets, you have 3 people awkwardly waiting in line, which means anywhere there's space, and there isn't a lot.
This is the number one reason why people don't like narrowbodies on long-hauls.
StetsonTuba8@reddit
I've encountered this on wide bodies too, it's not special to narrow bodies
BillyBeeGone@reddit
Yeah but usually there is somewhere to stand waiting for the toilets. Where are you going to stand for the rear lavs? In the half size galley as FAs are working?
StetsonTuba8@reddit
The aisle? The same place I stand on a widebody?
Glass-Win6196@reddit
True, but in most situations, widebodies give you options. On narrowbodies, you get stuck very quickly.
auxilary@reddit
interior space is exceedingly larger on a twin aisle aircraft. while the seat might be the same, the ceiling and general openness of the widebody aircraft does make a comfort difference
animealt46@reddit
Why would they get replaced? Widebodies are more economical to operate than narrowbodies as long as you can get the passenger volume. They have an easier path to carbon neutrality too.
RedditRedditGo@reddit
That's not true. The A321 XLR is more economical than the 787 in a per seat cost.
Glass-Win6196@reddit
Won't happen, at least not while air cargo exists.
FunkyBackplane@reddit
Isn’t air cargo separate? Or are transatlantic wide body passenger jets carrying meaningful amounts of cargo on a regular basis?
HumpyPocock@reddit
IIRC just under 50% of all air freight is transported via the cargo holds of passenger flights, at least PRIOR to COVID, unsure what the split would be now.
Note that this so-called Belly Cargo Is a sizeable and very important revenue stream for passenger airlines.
bankkopf@reddit
Must have been significant pre-Covid, as during Covid airlines were repurposing passenger planes to transport cargo. It’s probably still significant even today for anything that’s time critical.
xxJohnxx@reddit
Many passenger routes are only profitable with additional cargo being transported.
Glass-Win6196@reddit
They are, and they do carry a LOT.
Meanwhile an A321Neo will barely have enough hold space for all its passenger bags. The XLR was supposed to fix this issue with smaller auxiliary center tanks, but it will never manage to carry a substantial amount.
DCS_Sport@reddit
It’s amazing how much flak I took for saying how the XLR was going to struggle to actually replace the 757. Yes the latter is heavier and less fuel efficient, but it also doesn’t have to operate under the compromises that the XLR does.
KiwiCassie@reddit
What compromises are those?
DCS_Sport@reddit
Additionally, if the initial reports are correct, the galleys are super tight and the passenger service isn’t ideal. Further, the Airbus is generally slower than the 757, and over the course of a year, means you can’t turn the airplane around as quickly.
Other considerations are performance in non-standard conditions, where the XLR may have to leave bags/cargo/pax behind vs the 757.
morane-saulnier@reddit
What's the speed difference between the 757 and the 320 when flown at the same cost index?
DCS_Sport@reddit
No idea. I fly the 757 and all I know is we cross the Atlantic significantly faster than JetBlue does in their A321s. We’re typically at M.80-81 and they’re back at M.76-77
I_COMMENT_2_TIMES@reddit
Woah. Now I can just imagine you guys zooming past that poor A321 laughing from above 😂
Glass-Win6196@reddit
In addition to the excellent answer above, performance is another big one. In ALL phases of flight (but range, although this has yet to be proven), XLRs are outperformed by B752s.
BillyBeeGone@reddit
Reduced cargo space, the rear aux tank and optional forward one eat up a lot of space and as others have pointed out some routes are profitable almost on belly cargo volumes alone- if they can barely carry passenger bags there will not be additional cargo as well!
KiwiCassie@reddit
Thank you for the in depth detailed reply! 🫶
Glass-Win6196@reddit
Amen to that.
Compromise truly is an unknown word to the 75.
Boring-Eggplant-6303@reddit
I flew this route with Iberia (A333) a few times this year and during the off peak season the plane is virtually empty. We were curious as to how they are still making money on the route off peak. We then saw the large amount of cargo being put underneath. Then in the peak season with a full flight there was less cargo at the ramp.
So you can still offset cost on flights that are light on passengers.
CaptainKursk@reddit
Unlikely, since the big airlines are so entrenched. I predict there'll be two tiers of transatlantic travel going forward:
Drunkenaviator@reddit
We figured it out years ago. It's called a 757.
auxilary@reddit
no, we most certainly didn’t
Drunkenaviator@reddit
As someone who flies them regularly, it seems pretty figured out to me.
auxilary@reddit
flies them or pilots them? the 757 is a niche TATL aircraft at best. it’s an awesome domestic jet, but ETOPs 757 are expensive to maintain and very old technology
Drunkenaviator@reddit
Pilots. And they're great TATL jets for long thin routes.
auxilary@reddit
bingo! that’s my entire point. the 757 isn’t a narrow body TATL solution. it’s works only on extremely specific markets, and the MX cost to keep them ETOPS certified is disproportionately expensive due to its age
Drunkenaviator@reddit
It's a "solution" for the exact same mission the 321xlr is. Which is low demand direct transatlantic. Nobody is going to run either one JFK-LHR 10x daily, it's for routes a 737 /320 doesn't quite have the legs for.
Overload4554@reddit
I thought it was called the 707
protocol13@reddit
Is this significantly different from the JetBlue A321LRs that are flying transatlantic? Seems like they should have the same problems but don't.
mexicoke@reddit
This isn't an issue with the airframe, it's an issue with how the airline configured the interior.
The airline could have easily added bigger galley areas and more bathrooms but that would have removed seats and cost them revenue.
Swimming_Way_7372@reddit
This is the real issue. There's enough room in the airplane to have a movie theater, a gymnasium and spa. The problem is when the airlines have to maximize profit by stuffing as many seats in as they can. Just remove 2 rows and add galley space.
animealt46@reddit
Maximize profit is one way of painting it, though I think reducing cost is the more standard way of talking about it. Successfully pulling off being a LCC is both well documented and popular amongst customers and operators.
Swimming_Way_7372@reddit
Yea but there are "LCCs" that cost as much as their full fare counterparts now. They offer a far inferior product and they have been able to creep their fares up. That sounds more like profit than lower cost being the factor.
mexicoke@reddit
I wouldn't say it's an issue, just the nature of a for profit business.
For most people, cost is the biggest decider. They don't care about comfort or service, just money. Airlines know this and roll with it.
Swimming_Way_7372@reddit
I think airline travel is a great study in taking away quality in favor of lower cost. When we first started flying it was about increasing speeds and creating a greater atmosphere of luxury than your competitors. Now it's all about outfits like RyanAir and Frontier. Lower quality, rowdy passengers and a bare bones fare is successful. Im glad there continues to be options of all kinds and we can all find a flight we like at the price we are willing to pay.
animealt46@reddit
The emergence of premium economy and the ever popular business class show that the demand for quality travel remains.
mexicoke@reddit
Amen.
Unlucky-Jello-5660@reddit
Don't those flights only do cold meal service?
auxilary@reddit
yes
Glass-Win6196@reddit
Not that different I guess, but the XLR have been envisioned to operate longer sectors than any A32X before them, which makes it a very valid concern.
fackmea@reddit
Narrowbody transatlantic shouldn't BE a thing. It should be an insult to the industry.
Habsburgy@reddit
How so? The industry exists to be profitable.
climbFL350@reddit
Where have you read/heard about this? Curious for my own info
auxilary@reddit
https://www.google.com/search?q=a321xlr+small+galley&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
as well as a personal contact with first-hand knowledge at Iberia
airwa@reddit
I may be wrong but I believe the FA need to move from their jumpseat in order for pax to get to the rear lavatory too.
Brave_Dick@reddit
How much does fuel cost contribute to the overall cost of operation for the airline?
sanic55@reddit (OP)
No idea, but it supposedly has 45% less operating cost per seat and 30% less fuel consumption per seat, if that helps.
Brave_Dick@reddit
That's quite a reduction.
CessnaBandit@reddit
I know that AerLingus has been sending A321LRs across the Atlantic for a while now and see 30% less fuel burn per seat than their A330s for the same route. The neos are crazy efficient just sitting up at Altitude for hours
fakefootballmaster@reddit
If this was true; everyone would have ordered the XLR by now. I guarantee on a per seat basis the XLR does not beat wide body aircraft
ripped_andsweet@reddit
enough that Delta has their own oil company and refinery to process jet fuel
Brave_Dick@reddit
Jesus. Didn't know that. Full vertical intergration😀
vorko_76@reddit
Usually around 30%
surprisinghorizons@reddit
And the passengers, again, lost out on comfort and convenience of wide bodies.
CaptainKursk@reddit
I mean, there's a huge market of people who would put up with flying on a smaller narrowbody if it meant a substantially cheaper airfare.
UnexpectedFisting@reddit
Funny that you think any airline wouldn’t just pocket the profit
Humble_Associate1@reddit
Where's the comfort in a modern 777 cabin? I felt more comfortable flying Ryanair. Where's the convenience in losing 3 hours in an airport transit when a narrow body could enable a direct flight?
Ecstatic-Garden-678@reddit
How many hours did the flight take?
sanic55@reddit (OP)
8 hours and 45 minutes apparently.
precense_@reddit
imagine 9 hours with no relief pilot lol
Wojtas_@reddit
A long time to spend on an A320, but if it finally enables low-cost transatlantic flights, then sign me up!
siouxu@reddit
Finally? I'm looking at a round trip DEN-KEF-BCN for less than $400. I've spent twice that going to Chicago. TATL fares skyrocketed 2022/2023 but they've been crashing down.
Wojtas_@reddit
WizzAir is gonna be using their A321XLR for direct links between western Europe and the Arabian Peninsula. Around 3000 miles (5000 km), almost the same distance as NYC/Boston from London/Paris/Dublin.
And they're selling those tickets for as low as 230€ round-trip. So yeah, I have high hopes for this machine.
siouxu@reddit
You can already fly East Coast to LHR etc on 321 LRs. The XLR is another 1,200miles of range and weight to accommodate.
thrownjunk@reddit
i mean you usually can do boston, nyc, or DC to major european airports on a A380 too
ivykoko1@reddit
I did Montreal-Madrid this summer on a 321LR. Much better than what I expected. Less time boarding than a wide body and overall felt less cramped.
sofixa11@reddit
That's with a layover, the A321XLR will enable new direct city pairings on the cheap/affordable.
Stuff like Nashville - Dublin. Or city pairs that only had service during the high season and none during the low season.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Right now Iberia isn’t even close to being price competitive on the current BOS-MAD route.
siouxu@reddit
Sure, but even BNA-DUB is going to funnel through traffic, it's not going to be just local. More city pairs will come online but as someone who analyzes revenue and costs, something is going to give on TATL. Flying a fuel tank of an A321 around for 8 hours on $600 fares is a ticket to just burning money.
bmalek@reddit
On a lot of those routes, KEF is right on the flight path anyway. Sometimes I prefer the break that it provides.
Moneyshot1311@reddit
I don’t understand why people say this. It’s just a long time to be on a plane not matter what size it is.
mdp300@reddit
Especially in economy, the seat is pretty much the same. 8 hours on a 737 or A320 isn't that different from 8 hours on a 767 or 777.
10tonheadofwetsand@reddit
Transatlantic flights have been ridiculously cheap for like, a decade at this point
Wojtas_@reddit
I might just be spoiled by European low-cost carriers and the ability to fly all around the continent for a 100€ round-trip, but 400€, while certainly not a bad price, is still far from low-cost.
FlankingCanadas@reddit
It may not be low cost for a short hop from Frankfurt to Paris or something but it's absolutely cheap to cross the Atlantic.
70125@reddit
It is almost by definition low cost compared to what TATL cost just a few years ago. That's like saying a used, great condition Camry is a horrible value at $10k because the Mitsubishi Mirage sells new for $8k.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Narrowbody transatlantic flights don't lower costs; they allow for more point-to-point flying so people can skip connecting through hubs. Non-stop flights are one of the best tools airlines have to get people to pay more for tickets.
Falcao1905@reddit
Ha, no obviously. It will just keep getting more and more expensive, at least until Easyjet decides to buy some of these jets.
Wojtas_@reddit
WizzAir holds 50 orders for the type. And they're already selling tickets for MXP-AUH (a distance almost identical to DUB-LGA) - for 240$ round-trip, operated by the A321XLR.
I have hope, especially since they've submitted a request for approval for US operations in 2022. It was rejected then, but hey, it might be time to revisit that application.
Falcao1905@reddit
MXP-AUH is doable in the 321neo. I think Air Arabia already operates BGY-SHJ now. I don't think Wizz will get approval just yet, they would be very damaging to the US legacy carriers. European budget carriers can offer extremely low prices due to the efficiency of their business model.
Ecstatic-Garden-678@reddit
Thank you.
ProudlyWearingThe8@reddit
This is it.
Boracraze@reddit
I do not want to take a transatlantic flight on a narrow body knee cruncher. I hope this is not where the industry is going.
S_Hurricane_Y@reddit
Doesn’t JetBlue fly in A321 from JFK or Boston to Heathrow? Is that not considered transatlantic?
metabee_zico@reddit
TAP also flies their A321 neos from Lisbon to Newark, JFK and also Boston and Miami I think.
Overload4554@reddit
Yes, but those are not XLR’s
Which also brings up another thought - why go to the expense of an XLR if a NEO does the job?
scottdwallace@reddit
Because the LR barely does the job. Lots of dispatch exemptions and tricks to make that route possible in the winter.
Igor_Strabuzov@reddit
Like what? As a dispatcher who only works with wide bodies I'm curious.
aerohk@reddit
Boeing could have launched a clean sheet design NMA with carbon composite airframe. But they didn't, instead they gave up the market. Airbus deserves to be the norrowbody king.
Katana_DV20@reddit
That extra fuel tank was cause for an FAA certification delay due to concern of a fire risk into the pax cabin.
I would find it interesting to know what Airbus did to the tank to make FAA happy.
increasingrain@reddit
I think SimplyFlying did a video on that...but I can't remember which one it was.
kazabodoo@reddit
Must a beautiful tank to make the FAA happy
Katana_DV20@reddit
Probably full of baguettes
VickyWelsch@reddit
I, personally, am not a fan of narrow body trans-continental flights. Don’t really care how nice the plane is, I get claustrophobic.
Old-Car-9962@reddit
Yay! Go bebe bus!
bmalek@reddit
Are they talking per passenger or for the aircraft overall? I really hope it's not the latter as that would be a profoundly stupid comparison.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
In the past the claimed savings are compared to the CEOs which were never operating on these routes to begin with.
quietflowsthedodder@reddit
CEOs or NEOs?
bmalek@reddit
I think they’re talking about fuel savings, not financial ones.
The financial savings are probably less given the fixed costs (landing fees, etc.) and the need for the same number of pilots for a lesser number of passengers. But maybe there are some other savings that I’m not accounting for.
tr00th@reddit
It’s amazing how far the technology has come to make this happen. Congrats to Iberia and Airbus.
JackedJaw251@reddit
Reddit doesn’t like nuanced statements
Glass-Win6196@reddit
What exactly do you mean ? To my knowledge there have been no particular technology advances with the XLR or this particular flight ?
sofixa11@reddit
The extra fuel tank is a structural component which is new on the A320 series, but one of the A340s had the same thing.
It's lots of small evolutions and advances to fit a particular niche which will probably work out for Airbus and the airlines.
Glass-Win6196@reddit
I would be hard pressed to call bolting a new fuel tank in the holds as an "amazing technological advancement" to be honest.
bmalek@reddit
Same, and we've had ETOPS for 40 years. I don't see what's new or exciting about this aside from that Airbus thinks there's a business case for it.
ponyrx2@reddit
It may not be very exciting, but 30% less fuel burn means 30% less carbon per person. Efficiency isn't always thrilling
bmalek@reddit
They claim 40%, but it wasn't clear if it was per person or overall (the latter would be very stupid). If it's really 30-40% less then that is indeed a great thing.
sofixa11@reddit
That's the LR. For the XLR it's an entirely new fuel tank which is part of the fuselage.
Glass-Win6196@reddit
Nope, that's the XLR alright.
The LR was a quick fix that existed for decades on A321ceos, where you just sled some ACTs in the holds.
Airbus did pretty much the same thing for the XLR. You're right, it is built this way from the factory, you get more fuel capacity while occupying less hold space, but it is more or less the same trick.
mark-haus@reddit
They have a pretty extreme new fuel tank which allows a single aisle craft (generally more efficient and cost effective in other ways) to fly for 11 hours incl. take-off and landing. This makes direct routes for small countries like Sweden profitable. So more flights across the Atlantic and potentially even Asia, I think Singapore is just barely 11 hours.
Glass-Win6196@reddit
Adding a fuel tank barely qualifies as a technological advancement, IMO.
Obviously, it was the right choice from Airbus to go to the simplest and fastest solution to get more range out of their aircraft, but this is just an A321Neo fitted with a camelbag. Nothing to write home about.
mark-haus@reddit
It does when you consider that they're quickly removable/deployable and that they had to change the whole wing base to accomodate this.
Glass-Win6196@reddit
Are they ? You might be confusing it with ACTs (which were on the LR)
As far as I know, the XLR new center tank is structural, and cannot be removed. Which also means that you will be carrying the extra weight around if you don't use it for long-hauls.
HairballJenkins@reddit
I'm not an expert but I would think there is a ton of certifications that are needed for both the aircraft and engine. Obviously we've been flying narrow body across the Atlantic for many decades and then it became more compliantly challenging with the introduction of ETOPS. It's kind of like a celebration of advancing technology within the safety structure that's in place.
Over-Conflict6231@reddit
Technology? All they did was take away from the passenger experience and undercut the labor force to make this happen. "Congrats" to them for that.