How the Airbus A321XLR is changing the air map of the world | CNN

Posted by bucajack@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 11 comments

Does anyone else think that the A321 XLR is too small for long haul flights? I just flew it return from Toronto to Dublin and found it so cramped and uncomfortable. I can see why airlines want to roll it out but it really wasn't that pleasant an experience at all for 7 hours.

[-]

Exotic-Sale-3003@reddit

You can always pay more for a ticket on a route served by a wide body. I suspect most won’t.

[-]

massagistadegrelo@reddit

People tend to fly on the cheaper one and don’t care about a wide body or narrow body. And Business who selects the best product onboard. Just Avgeeks take into consideration that. That’s the truth.

[-]

Necessary-Papaya1338@reddit

No, no es más barato volar en un A321 XLR de Iberia que en un A350 de la misma aerolínea. Cuesta exactamente lo mismo

[-]

nilsmf@reddit

Being from a minor city, these are awesome. They offer more direct flight to further away destinations.

Not having to go through feeder flights and time-consuming airport transfers are definitely worth it. Less time travelling gives me more time at the destination.

[-]

shiftyjku@reddit

I don’t really understand comments like this. You only get the seat 💺 you pay for so it doesn’t matter much if it’s a big or small plane. The amount of seat pitch is determined by the airline. My experience in coach on a 747 (Virgin Atlantic) was pretty darn snug. It’s not a cruise ship; you’re supposed to stay in your seat for the most part.

[-]

PlaneNorth9849@reddit

I've flown transatlantic on an A321LR and a B777-300 and the narrow body has been always more comfortable.

[-]

no_sight@reddit

I honestly don't understand the wide/narrow debate for this. The seat is the seat. The ceiling being taller or the extra aisle doesn't really change much of the flight experience.

[-]

cwhitt@reddit

For people who travel a lot, there are notable differences.

Small differences, accessible to most travelers:

more bin space, so higher chance you can have some foot room to recline and sleep
more restrooms, so higher chance one will be open at any given time
not true on all airlines, but legacy carriers tend to have better interiors on their bigger planes: nicer seats, seat-back screens, etc.
two aisles means boarding and meal services can be slightly faster, all things equal. You can also walk a little bit to stretch your legs more easily than on a narrow body
larger aircraft can handle turbulence slightly more smoothly, and can also be quieter (though this varies)
larger passenger and cargo capacity means more revenue and lower per-person costs, so if routes support sufficient passenger volume, a larger plane can be profitable at lower ticket prices (assuming no other factors dominate the pricing on a given route)

Large differences, perhaps mostly relevant to frequent fliers or people flying in premium cabins:

business class seats will probably be better. Some airlines are putting lie-flat pods into narrowbodies, but that is still somewhat uncommon, and even when it becomes common, a widebody plane will still have more seats, making upgrades more affordable (depending on the route)
a narrowbody will not likely even have the option of premium economy, which is a more affordable way to get more space and comfort than full-on business class pods
if you are nearer the front of the plane, it's probably further ahead of the engines, and quieter in the cabin
bigger galleys means more catering options and better food choices (again, airline dependent)
using two or three doors for boarding means first and business class are probably WAY quieter during the boarding process

I will take a connection out of my way in the wrong direction to be on a widebody over a narrowbody direct, but I realize my travel preferences are unusual. If I am in a plane for 1-2 hours, sure, I'll take a middle seat with no legroom if it means getting home in time for a special event or occasion. If I'm in a plane for 6, 7, 8 hours, then the environment matters a lot more to me. Where I live there are several domestic routes that are served by a mix of widebody and narrowbody aircraft, and I take the big plane over the small one as often as I can, unless the narrowbody flight is WAY cheaper and/or WAY better timing.

There is a lot more to air travel than just the seat for many people, not just people with preferences as specific as mine.

[-]

248-083A@reddit

I had this exact conversation with an IRL Airbus A319/320/321 pilot. I remember him trying to convince me that it would be quite comfortable! LoL! Maybe up front buddy, but down the back is a shit sandwich!

I've done far too many fifo flights on the A320 and B737 to get into an argument with an A320 pilot. Obviously their experience up front is completely different to what I'm experiencing in the back. So I agreed with him and said that's nice....I'm sure it will be perfectly comfortable for 7+ plus hours...

The width of the seat would be my biggest complaint. The wide bodied aircraft tend to have a minimum of 25mm extra width. It doesn't seem like much, but on a 7 hour flight, you need all the luxery you can get!

Thank you to the original poster for confirming this for me. I will personally stay away from the narrow bodied aircraft for crossing the pond.

[-]

cowsruleusall@reddit

I'm not sure how folks don't notice or are able to ignore the huge difference in cabin comfort between a narrowbody and a widebody. A 3-3 economy configuration with a given width and pitch feels far more cramped than a 3-3-3 or 3-4-3 or 2-5-2 with the exact same width and pitch. The taller ceilings and wider fuselage definitely make the flight feel roomier, even if the seats aren't.

[-]

avi8tor@reddit

I wouldnt want to fly a longhaul flight on narrowbody for 8+ hours. I would rather choose an airline that uses widebody on the route than A321XLR. 6,5 hours on an A320 was torture. I know legacy airlines wont give more genrous seat pit h on economy in A321XLR compared ro widebody on same route.