Get 20% discount on the yearly subscription of Brilliant by using this code 👉🏻 brilliant.org/MentourNow/ Thank you BRILLIANT for sponsoring todays video!

@soulsbourne

Жыл бұрын

A long haul across the globe a321 ulr between say US and India with hub-spoke model (8+8hrs) would be awesome

I love how people say that they don’t want to spend 8 hours on a narrow body A320 but they’re completely fine about spending 16 hours in a 10-abreast Boeing 777

@exiletsj2570

Жыл бұрын

I am most definitely not.

@mishasawangwan6652

Жыл бұрын

i love how people say “i love how people say”

@roichir7699

Жыл бұрын

I am not, but there is no alternative.

@Chatta-Ortega

Жыл бұрын

I much prefer wide body aircraft over a single aisle plane for anything longer than 4 hours. Maybe it is psychological, but more space equals more comfort and less claustrophobia.

@alessandrovisconi1079

Жыл бұрын

I don't get the point of this statement. Wide bodies are, like the word suggests, wider thus you have more space to walk and stretch during cruise. Also the spacier cabin makes most of the passengers on board feel less claustrophobic

Once again, an excellent breakdown of a highly anticipated excellent aircraft. I work on the 320 family and they are an incredibly well built and designed airframe. The positives and negatives really need to be considered for the XLR though. For myself, I would prefer wide body for any long haul trip. But that's me.

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I prefer the wider ones for long haul myself as well

@ThomasKossatz

Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow As a shareholder you might develope a different perspective. Did anyone forsee the big market for the A220? Predictions are difficult, specially if dealing with the future.....

@Khemani_RL

Жыл бұрын

I agree with you here

@Mark13091961

Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow how much of that though is just psychological? We are all used to long haul in a wide body because theres effectively no choice until now, but once your strapped into your seat and the food entertainment are of a long haul quality/standard will we really care? I dont think I would

@Progan666

Жыл бұрын

@@Mark13091961 I think it certainly is psychological, most people would rather be in a larger cabin.

I flew the Aer Lingus A321 LR transatlantic twice last week. I was very surprised just how well they had it configured, including a decent economy seat product. They’ve made the seat better than most wide body even if I’d still prefer one! I can’t argue if it means more routes. Big plus, baggage collection and check in!

@TheTechYTA

Жыл бұрын

Take a look on our channel! We also have nice aviation videos!

How history repeats itself especially with the transatlantic equipment over the decades. We went from the single aisle DC-8/707s to twin aisle tris and quad engine 747/DC10/L1011 to the aviation pinnacle the Concorde. Then back to twin aisle twins like the A300/767/A330, back to tri and quad jet twin aisles like the MD11/A340s (yes the A340 came out with the a330 technically but the more efficient 500 and 600 variants came out later). We continued back to the twin aisle twin king the 777 only to then go back to even bigger quads with the A380. All this and here we are back to single aisle again albeit with 2 less engines.

@stephendoherty8291

Жыл бұрын

The added factor is the clearance for two engines over bigger oceans distances. Without that, the market is much smaller. The A220 is a godsend to regional airports. If the A380 could be made for fuel efficient- it would remain in the skies but Airbus has given up. Why not offer a weight saving upgrade to airlines stuck with near new planes sitting in deserts. As airport capacity rises, more planes does not work on many high demand routes. Its the capacity factor and fuel costs that drive new plane purchasing.

When I have multiple options I always choose an aircraft that offers a higher cabin pressure. (787, A350, A380). I feel this doesn't really get talked about much but for me it makes the flight definitely more comfortable. The increased humidity helps too. Twin-aisle / wide body also makes it easier to get up and walk a few steps if you need to because there is simply more space. Can't say I like the idea of using narrow body jets for long-distance flights.

I'd say it depends, narrow body long range aircraft are the ultimate expression of a point to point system, at the moment that seems to have won over hub and spoke. However if certain critical airports become more and more overloaded, airlines might want to service them with wide bodies to make use of limited slots. I can imagine narrow bodies used for most of the trans Atlantic routes and Wide-bodies for some of the large transfer airports, via Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore etc.

@golemer

Жыл бұрын

Also London, like it was the main airport in hub and spoke

@CaptainKremmen

Жыл бұрын

There's not only the slot limitations but the pilot shortage to consider.

@Hybris51129

Жыл бұрын

Exact a point I raised with the Mexico city video. Point to point is nice if you can handle the sheer number of flights and planes but hub and spoke is just so much more efficient not just in staff and number of planes coming and going from a given place but I would think that fewer planes also means less fuel spent and less money spent on maintenance.

@fuzzylon

Жыл бұрын

As a passenger, I like the idea of more point-to-point flights. So much time can get wasted while waiting at hub airports and there's increased risk of disruption due to increased likelihood of delays and cancellations. Even extending the range of flights from a hub would help the people now flying spoke-hub-hub-spoke journeys.

@frankpinmtl

Жыл бұрын

airlines might want to service them with wide bodies to make use of limited slots. Which was the thinking when the A380 was launched...

I live in the west of Ireland and recently took the Aer Lingus beautifully simple service from Shannon airport to Boston with the A321 LR. Very comfortable flight and pretty quick for transatlantic. Went home to see Mum and sis in the states!

@th8257

3 ай бұрын

I imagine that was a really nice flight. Not too long and sometimes those smaller planes feel a bit more friendly.

If anyone had told me five years ago that I'd be looking forward to hearing tech talk about airliners and would understand most of it I would not have believed it. Thank you, Petter, for sharing your knowledge. 😊

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

I’m so happy to get comments like this! Thank YOU for supporting.

@charlesjay8818

Жыл бұрын

you could have googled any info in any of his videos, nothing he says is ground breaking, it's all common knowledge and on the net

@mbryson2899

Жыл бұрын

@@charlesjay8818 How would I know to even look? In addition, I'm not sure if you are aware but there are many questionable sources and facts on the internet in addition to the fact that Google certainly does not rank returns by truth or quality. edit: So this was your first and so far only comment on this channel. I wonder what caused you to post your useless drivel here. Do you have some personal problem? If so, have you Googled possible solutions?

@roderickcampbell2105

Жыл бұрын

@@charlesjay8818 Charles Jay, sadly you miss the point. But since you know so much, I don't think I should point out what it is. I completely concur with M Bryson.

@rohanbaty3155

Жыл бұрын

@@mbryson2899 EXACTLY right M B I agree with wat u said.

Crew duty times are going to be the limiting factor when it comes to long range single aisle aircraft. This limit is about 8-10 hours. To go to longer ranges the airplane will need to be equipped with crew rest facilities and a second set of flight crews. Another thing Petter doesn't talk about are the increases in cargo fire suppression that is required for ETOPS and the increases in galley size, potable water and sewage. All of these things added together reduce the single aisle aircraft efficiencies over the larger competitor aircraft. This is on top of the fuselage tank certification problems with the fuselage fuel tank. The real issue with the tank is fire and crashworthiness. Being integral with the fuselage makes the fuel tank susceptible to fracture and fire in the event of an otherwise survivable crash. Fuselage tanks have been around for many years. They have always been separate structure from the fuseslage.

@dknowles60

Жыл бұрын

wrong

Any increase in economy passenger space is a plus to me! Love seeing airlines taking seats out instead of squeezing more seats in.

@jean-yvesmartin6934

Жыл бұрын

Agreed...Most Airlines treat People like cattles.

@MsJubjubbird

Жыл бұрын

but then they will charge you more for those seats

@kazedcat

Жыл бұрын

@@MsJubjubbird People are more willing to pay higher fare for a direct flight. Airlines see the point to point potential of this plane.

@ak5659

Жыл бұрын

Peeple will be willing to pay for for an economy seat with more legroom. Literally everybody I know who flies/flew business class has said the the additional legroom was the main reason.

@kazedcat

Жыл бұрын

@@ak5659 And that is why they keep economy without legroom so that people will pay for business class.

Flying in a widebody is great if you're sitting next to a window or aisle. I'd been in a B777 with a 2-5-2 seating row. I bet those sitting right in the middle of that row felt far more restrained than in a narrow-body.

@Dirk-van-den-Berg

Жыл бұрын

IMHO, single aisle planes are more in demand since the pandemic started and most businesses conduct their international matters mostly by Zoom or Teams. It is the businesstraveler who requires more luxury that airlines have to provide for, so they have to reconfigure their fuselages with 3 classes, not 2. Tourists mostly don't care about luxury, they want to fly cheap and being crammed into economyclass is bearable.

@dicktiionary

Жыл бұрын

@@Dirk-van-den-Berg not sure i agree. I recall being in the centre of a 353 b747-2, and it was at least airy and roomier than pinned against the window in a 3-3 narrow body. But both suck tbh.

@michaelosgood9876

Жыл бұрын

Oh! 2-5-2. The worst seating arrangement I've ever come across! On a Canadian DC10-30. Give me the 3-3 of the XLR anyway.

@IamCec

Жыл бұрын

I’ve sat in the center of the center isle on a 777. It was hell.

@wiredforstereo

Жыл бұрын

Oh man, I flew from Rio to Miami in a 777 in the EFFING MIDDLE SEAT!!!! Two large people on either side of me. I was completely constrained in pretty much every way. I could not move at all. It would have been worse but it was an overnight and I had doped myself on sleeping pills so I slept for SOME of it.

So far if you don't live near a large international hub airport a long haul flight start with a regional flight to this hub and then a long haul flight with a wide body aircraft. Few companies are offering low cost long haul flights from regional airport but many are struggling to fill their wide body aircraft. This A321 XLR is a game changer enabling long haul flight from regional airport.

@yoironfistbro8128

4 ай бұрын

Just as long as that regional airport has a long enough runway...unlike ORK :'(

Don't forget that long-haul jet flying started with the DH Comet, well before the 707 and DC-8.

@fjp3305

Жыл бұрын

And I guess with DC-6 and 7 and Constellation, too.

@blatherskite9601

Жыл бұрын

@@fjp3305 Not by jet power it didn't.

@shrimpflea

Жыл бұрын

True but it was a huge failure.

When first ordered, Qantas Group was planning to send their A321XLRs to Jetstar for use on the Australia-Japan and possibly Hawaii routes, which would then allow Jetstar to send their 787-8s to Qantas. Since then, Qantas has ordered more A320 family aircraft with 109 now on order (36 XLRs) with plans to replace the mainlane carriers 75 737s with A320s.

@TheTechYTA

Жыл бұрын

Take a look on our channel! We also have nice aviation videos!

I flew Aer Lingus last month, from Manchester to JFK. It wasn't too bad but it felt a little claustrophobic, especially for the cabin crew who barely had any galley space to do a full meal service. They had to use the back row of seats as extra space. I preferred the A330 we took on the way home, from Boston to Dublin. Much more comfortable especially for sleeping.

@fjp3305

Жыл бұрын

One of the worst flights I ever had was going from MAD to JFK, with a stop in Gander, on a B-757. Never again, unless I fly business class.

@rafaellavratti

Жыл бұрын

Lol, I was in a Max flight from Punta Cana to São Paulo, Brazil. A 7h-8h trip. I can tell u it was terrible. It was almost like traveling by cheap bus, but the bus was brand new. I don't understand people. They are cheering a worst product just because it's new. These economics won't cheap the tickets, they will only get the companies CEOs checks fatter. But I understand, the world is full of stupid people. They should get every advantage they can.

Anyone else remember the Douglas DC-8? It was a single aisle jetliner popular in the '60's & '70's? The DC-8 Super Sixty and Super Seventy would take up to 259 seats, unheard of back then! The more things change...

In my opinion as a ramper I think boeing also has the problem that they lack container possibilities on narrow bodies. It saves a lot of time in loading and allows for much larger weight cargo pieces to be loaded, as ramp crews can only lift so much. Also the hold doors are too small for any larger cargo even if it wasnt heavy on the 737

I live in Boston, Massachusetts and this fall, I'm likely going on my first international trips since Feb. 2020. I'm hesitant of going on a narrow-body, but that is quickly becoming the norm for routes to Europe from Boston without connecting in NYC, and JetBlue basically owns all of the slots at Boston Logan, and I've had a pretty good experience for domestic work travel with JetBlue, though United is my preferred domestic carrier. I'm going to Berlin in October, and likely to Portugal in spring 2023, and TAP Portugal basically only ever uses the 321LR including flights out of NYC. I've always wanted to try the 757, but that is likely to never happen. Great video as always Petter!

What might be appealing the most for airlines is that the 321XLR is still basically a member of the A320 family. That means that no additional (maybe a quick difference course) training will be required for A320 rated pilots to fly on the XLR, hence a big save on training and more flexibility for the airlines. The same pilots will be able to fly medium and long haul routes with the same qualifications. And this will open up new routes options for low cost airlines depending on the season. Pilots however will have to adapt to the different flying conditions on a week to week basis. Flexibility is the key here.. Thanks Peter for yet another very informative video.

@tomstravels520

Жыл бұрын

I think the biggest change apart from the fuel tanks is the electrically operated rudder which is now being fitted to all new NEO's anyway. That's how similar it is

@JacquesZahar

Жыл бұрын

@@tomstravels520 Yeah I read about the new electrical rudder. No more mechanical, saves in maintenance costs and a few dozens of kilograms. Never flew these Neo though.

I spent a good chunk of this video thinking that a great response from Boeing would be a pair of type-compatible aircraft, one widebody and one narrowbody, allowing airlines to arbitrarily change the equipment on a route without having to worry about changing out the pilots as well. And then I remembered that they did this, it worked great, everybody _loved_ the narrowbody, and then they abandoned it. I'm more and more getting the feeling that Boeing should have ditched the 737 long ago and made the 757 the core of its narrowbody strategy. The 737's just been pushed too far beyond where it was ever supposed to go, and so the 737 MAX debacle is really no surprise. Whereas the A320 started out with a little more room to grow and is doing well in roles where the 737 struggles.

@tomriley5790

Жыл бұрын

Agree cancelling the 757 was probably a mistake, however I recall that the 757 caused disproportionately large amounts of wake turbulence and had to have consequently larger separations which might have been why boeing didn't go this route.

@NicolaW72

Жыл бұрын

Indeed.

@Curt_Sampson

Жыл бұрын

@@tomriley5790 I wonder, though, how much putting more reasonably sized engines on the 757 would help with wake turbulence. Everybody seems to say that the 757 was over-engined.

@MsJubjubbird

Жыл бұрын

the 737 was a cash cow for a while

@nntflow7058

Жыл бұрын

You cannot compete with A321XLR with a widebody. It's an oxymoron. The only way Boeing could compete with A321XLR is to use a new Narrowbody that could carry more people, fly further at a more efficient way + a combability with their other narrowbody products. Other than that, they would never won.

Airbus XLR - now compatible with professional dynamic and condenser mics :)

@dfgdfg_

Жыл бұрын

I understood that reference 🙃

The XLR, I believe would work in great with the other wide bodies as they all (except 767) carry the same cargo containers. So if there's a light load of both passengers & freight, the airline can easily swap for an XLR, if they're so equipped. Why larger airlines love their A320 types. Versatility.

@TheTechYTA

Жыл бұрын

Take a look on our channel! We also have nice aviation videos!

Also it seems a good selling point for the XLR is that you can connect big airports (big hubs) with small ones. Normally you have to use a big aircraft to cross the pond and then take a smaller to get to a smaller airport.

@PostWarKids

Жыл бұрын

but with so many small ones it would take up landing slots of already busy airports, remains to be seen

@mart1jin509

Жыл бұрын

Maybe an even bigger selling point is that you will be able to fly from regional hubs to regional hubs. Say London standstead to secondary cities in Asia, like Ahmedabad, Amritsar to serve the large Indian diaspora in Uk.

@jace1113

Жыл бұрын

It certainly opens up new routes to second tier Asian cities for airlines like Qantas.

@jace1113

Жыл бұрын

@@PostWarKids True but normally cities with congested airports would have another airport.

@PostWarKids

Жыл бұрын

@@jace1113 yeah I guess small parts of south east asia is in the range of this aircraft from syd and mel. Though I think this is more geared to the US/EU crowd and maybe hubs in the mid east

There's so many airlines operating wide bodies in routes where an A320 200 would have no problem flying. Even if we get a narrow body with a range anywhere as good as wide bodies, wide bodies will still continue to thrive. The a321xlr just has a range that wide body aircraft from 1960s had, it's pretty much just a more efficient 757 200 with commonality for a320 users.

I flew the Aer Lingus A321 Lr twice not too long ago it was a great experience the plane was smooth and comfortable

Not exactly . Great for opening new routes that where economically impractical before but still have a lot more challenges up ahead . Using smaller single aisle for long haul will increase pilot shortage , increase airport congestion and will not be as comfortable as wide bodies . My opinion

@JeanClaudeCOCO

Жыл бұрын

Especially with the pilot shortage. Two pilots for 140 passengers, limited freight movement on a single aisle or 3 pilots for 300 passengers plus huge volume freight movements on a wide-body.

I always considered myself an aviation geek but I never cease to be amazed by your technical knowledge and just common sense. And I learn something knew every day that I bore my friends with the next day. Good stuff, keep it up ❤️

Yes, finally a new video from my favourite KZreadr!! 😁

The question of fuel capacity versus baggage or cargo space came up in the mid-1980s when airlines like Cathay Pacific had 747-200s and were keen to introduce longer range aircraft, but didn't want to wait for 747-400s to be ready. Cathay arranged for a few of their 200s to have extra tanks fitted and introduced them on routes like London-Hong Kong with publicity aimed at these new services being the only ones non-stop on that route. I flew on one such service and noticed that the one-stop flight via Bahrain, which was boarding at the next gate at Kai Tak, was taking far more passengers on board. We took off with a half-empty plane - and that meant that passengers in the rear economy cabin could spread out and get more space to sleep - I remember stretching out across three seats and some managed to bag 4 seats. I also remember that Cathay were very strict about enforcing baggage limits - all in the name of fuel economy (though they didn't say that publicly).

I think the question is not to know if the a321XLR will compete with wide body aircraft. The aim is actually to complete the offer with a different type of aircraft. It can for instance fly between airports that are not usually connected because the demand was too low to create a connection using wide bodies. For me it looks more like 1 more piece to the puzzle.

@YekouriGaming

Жыл бұрын

Its for the direct link model. They will fly from medium size airport to medium size airport across the atlantic, so you dont have to do connection flights.

The XLR is said to be mostly planned for long-range low-pax routes (between "secondary" cities), so there is no case where it is going to be competing with wide-bodies for hi-pax/hi-cargo routes. This is in regard to Petter's Conclusions section. For the wide-body preference, well, if they install a premium-economy-only cabin (apart from business) or similar seats with increased pitch and width, then it's going to be easier on a long flight. What you don't want most is a slim ultra-economy seat, not a smaller cabin. I.e. having comfy seats in a narrow-body is better than having economy seats/pitch in a wide-body. Depends on the individual, though

I had no issues flying from Edinburgh to New York (2019) on a 757 with United. For the 6/7 hour flight it was fine and that was on an aircraft that was 23 years old on the way out and the return aircraft was 27 years old. They are still using 757 aircraft on that route today.

@dknowles60

Жыл бұрын

and Edinburgh is a lot better Airport then Heathrow

@NicolaW72

Жыл бұрын

Indeed.

@afcgeo882

Жыл бұрын

Same here.

The most comfortable plane ✈️ I’ve flown in is the A380. I’ve flown in the 747, 737, 757, 717, MD80, A320 and other small aircraft. For comfort and space, A380. Unfortunately it’s damn expensive for airlines and limited where it can fly to. I suppose smaller aircraft have their place in long haul aviation.

@martian9999

Жыл бұрын

A380 = most civilized air flight experience ever. Quiet, steady, roomy. I took one from Paris to Tokyo and it was a dream. Such a pity that four engines seem to be inherently less efficient than two.

I hope more airlines will use the extra space in the XLRs to have more room per seat rather than cram in more people.

@vbscript2

Жыл бұрын

It doesn't really have extra space. Just more fuel. The passenger cabin size is the same as other A321neos, just the cargo deck is rearranged. How airlines will use that cabin space will vary by airline, but it's doubtful that many will allocate more space per seat in economy. Instead, they'll install business class and/or premium economy if there's enough premium demand.

@ethansaviation2672

Жыл бұрын

Even if they had more space, they WILL cram more people in😂

Could be a seasonal choice to non priority cities for airlines, and maybe some high demand ones like Dublin/London/Oporto to NYC. But long haul and with the market recovery surely belongs to big birds

a few months delay on the XLR being certified shouldn't be a big deal i feel, better to work out fly safely then rush production to meet customer demand cough Boeing 737 MAX cough, for comfort level i doubt i would fly on a single aisle plane long haul personally

@jaysmith1408

Жыл бұрын

Especially a shot across Boeing’s bow, who’s still playing tiddlywinks in Chicago over the 737. Airbus had the replacement for the 757 up their sleeve before Boeing did, and really pushed them ahead. The only advantage Boeing would have is if they update the 757, but keep comparability, for parts and labour purposes (though this, sounding awfully familiar, leads me to believe it probably won’t work, though the 5 being a similar design to the A321, it might be able to tolerate it). However with Airbus blowing the doors off Boeing, those advantages will be moot since the major 757 operators, even Delta, is in need of replacement, and can’t wait for Boeing to get their butts into gear. When they jump to Airbus, the commonality will be moot, even if a 757 update comes falling from the sky (poor choice of words).

@shi01

Жыл бұрын

@@jaysmith1408 There will be no 757 update. The 757 is out of production for more than a decade now. And if you look and the A320NEO familiy, these aren't old converted aircraft, these are all brand new ones. Boeing on the other hand has already scraped the tooling for the 757 production, so there's no financially viable way anymore to produce an improved version of the 757.

Mentour Pilot, you are a great teacher: one of those whose explanations are so well crafted that the students get more and more interested the more they hear. Wishing you and your team a Happy 2023.

Thank you very much for this very interesting video!👍 It will be an interesting competitor on some routes for some airlines, indeed. But it will definetely not eat the 787 and the 350 out of business.

Insightful and enjoyable, as usual!

I think companys will start to favor the garentee of filling 1 narrow body than risk only filling half a wide body

Fascinating post as always....... We all know you have a 'conflict of interest' but you give your subscribers a genuine and honest view and share your thoughts on what is a challenge to your company & employer. 10/10 as always Petter.......... I wish all people on KZread were like you

Lovely video! Just a FYI, according to the FCOM that I have, the ACTs are called Additional Center Tanks and not Auxiliary Center Tanks. I hope that helps! If you have any other question, please feel free to ask.

Awesome job as always mate, love the videos, love the channel..... well done!!

Good job! very well explained!

Correction: the LR also has added center structural fuel tanks behind the wing box. The difference between the LR and XLR is that the LR has two seperate added center fuel tanks: one in the center section behind the wing box, and one in the front of the aft section. With the XLR they fuse the structural space of the added fuel tank in the center section to the one in the aft section making one big structural added center fuel tank. That, of course, added some complexity, because that fuel tank requires sealing right where the two sections are fused together. Also, the auxiliary fuel tanks are optional on the 321 ACF as well

One important consideration with respect to cargo carried on narrow vs. widebodies is that the widebody containers are physically larger which means they can carry cargo in the hold that would simply be too large for that carried in a narrowbody. One question I have is that I haven’t seen any combi aircraft in quite a while. Back in 1983, I traveled from Tokyo to Vancouver on a combi DC10 which, even then had a light passenger loading as there were plent of empty seats. Could we see an increase of combi aircraft again? Regarding cargo, I have a poster of a humorous advertisement for SAS cargo from the early 1950s which has a giraffe riding on the horizontal stabilizer of a DC6.

And here I was thinking we'd finally get an airliner with microphone inputs 😅

great video pettter , Thank you . regards liz.

Such a valuable video! Thanks a lot Petter, been following you for years now :) I do have a question that stems out of curiosity: do also low cost companies (EasyJet, Ryanair etc) carry - and profit from - additional cargo that they carry around with us passengers?

Great Video, thank you. What is Chester/Broughton going to do with their wing A380 assembly hall?

I think you completely missed the point. The XLR opens new long haul routes that wide bodies cannot serve economically. Routes between smaller city pairs that now require a connection. People pay a premium for direct flights and this premium is captured by operators of the XLR on long, thin routes.

Thanks Mentour, always interesting !

Couldn't they offset the weight of the extra hardware by increasing the use of composite materials in the new A321 XLR ? Like the whole fuselage of the A350 ? They now have the capability in place to deliver. That would be the next natural step for the a320 to become even more efficient.

very excellent video! Thank you.

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Glad you found it interesting

Thanks so much, I learn a lot and treasure the knowledge you impart!

I will always be a fan of 2 aisles and 4 engines.

@nickolliver3021

Жыл бұрын

4 engines are no more

The Boeing 747 was originally designed as a rival for the Lockheed C5 Galaxy. This is probably me but I always wanted to see a version of the Antonov An225 with the military-style giant cargo bay replaced by either two passenger 'decks' and the lowest level with an airline-standard cargo deck or a three-deck cargo space for airline standard freight pallets. Four high-efficiency turbofans to replace the existing six An125-standard units as well. However, it could possibly change the face of air freight in the same way that large-capacity container ships changed the face of sea freight. The mixed passenger/freight model would require completely new airport buildings, of course. The wingspan would be too long for most air bridges. You could also see new container lorries appearing to take cargo containers directly from the airport to the customer rather than requiring unpacking at the airport.

Really interesting. 2 immediate thoughts. One of the current issues is the lack of capacity hence reintroduction of A380 and 747; so this feels counter intuitive although by the time 2024 comes around the market may well have changed further. Also, if cargo is a premium what impact does this have on say A220 which I understand has minimal cargo capacity

@connorhale599

Жыл бұрын

A220 is a short and sometimes deployed on medium haul routes, air cargo is very expensive compared to over the road trucks and for shorter distances, the market demand isn't really there.

@AaronOfMpls

Жыл бұрын

@@connorhale599 "air cargo is very expensive compared to over the road trucks" -- and cargo ships. But clearly the demand _is_ there on routes, or passenger airlines wouldn't be carrying cargo along with the luggage.

As a passenger I don’t care about the body width as long as I can stand upright in the aisle. But I do care about my personal space! A squeezed row is a squeezed row, no matter how wide the airframe is.

@afcgeo882

Жыл бұрын

@@roberto-6256 No, they FACTUALLY are not.

@afcgeo882

Жыл бұрын

The A321 gives you 18” seats. The 777 and 787 give you 17” seats. There’s the reality.

@_qwe_fk_1700

Жыл бұрын

That is such a dumb comment. Narrow body aircraft are narrower but there are also fewer seats

To me single or double aisle does not matter. It is how comfortable - really how big the seat is - the entertainment system and the catering. personally I would like an area to stand up, I found the staircase on the back of the A380 a great place to stretch one's legs.

Excellent video. Thanks.

Here is what I don't get...pilot staffing situation is already dire....how do you staff a fleet of narrowbody long-haul planes that will require an airline to double or triple pilot staffing per passenger for a particular route.

@nealcgrab

Жыл бұрын

Agree

The XLR has TWO internal fuel tanks that take up the space of 4 standard LDs. In fact, when fully fueled, the XLR will hold LESS baggage and freight than a fully loaded LR. Unlike the LR, where you can remove the added fuel tanks and operate it as any other A321neo, the XLR doesn’t have those tanks removable.

How about the landing and take-off distance? I'd imagine one advantage the XLR could have over bigger widebody aircraft is that it opens up the possibility of long haul point to point routes between airports that have neither the amount of demand or the infrastructure for bigger jets. I believe a lot of the financial success of many newer low and mid cost airlines is in "discovering" routes no one else is flying and making them profitable. Expanding that "game" to long haul seems a good idea from a business perspective and would also be great for the traveling public.

@afcgeo882

Жыл бұрын

The runway needs of the XLR are actually way bigger than of an A330-200. It’s just very heavy for its wing size.

Don't know... that 35,8m wing is already ultra-explored... you can fly from fco to ewr, yes... at FL280 until the Azores... tricky plane to fly NAT and ITCZ.

So how will it do flying west bound transatlantic in the winter into a strong jet stream? I was on a 757 Oslo to ewr, they first thought they had to stop in gander, which would have required an overnight, but then said they could make it to Albany, where we waited for a new crew

I don't think the XLR will compete with widebodies, I think it is going to complement them, covering lower demand long haul routes as you said.

It may be possible to open new markets with the 321XLR since it could support point to point travel between secondary European airports and secondary US airports if regulations permit. The same could be the case in Asia. There is probably a market for passengers, who want to fly from smaller airports closer to their home to destinations not necessarily close to large cities whether in US or Europe. There are many airports that do not support wide body airplanes, which could be used for international travel. It could potentially also free up some of the congestion in many major international hubs.

@RB747domme

Жыл бұрын

Right, exactly. For example, Kansas City doesn't have a direct Europe flight, with passengers having to go via New York, Chicago, or even Dallas, which seems crazy. Kansas City (MCI) to Manchester City (ECGB), or maybe New Orleans (MSY) to Dublin, Amsterdam, or Frankfurt. The E192 can already fly into London City (LCY), Gatwick (LGW), and LHR on the St Johns - London route, which seems popular, being a short stopover from New York, to refuel, and pick up passengers from the far East coast of Canada on their way through to Europe. So I would imagine there are lots of City pairings that would benefit from the neo.

@kenoliver8913

Жыл бұрын

There are a lot more places in the world than the US and Europe too. Southeast Asia and the Pacific is full of "long thin" routes. My own country has Perth - a city of a million people which is over 2500km (1800 miles) from the nearest other city of a million - and that city is in Indonesia. I think the A321XLR will gradually get many more sales than anyone expects as airlines will discover routes that are currently unused but will now be profitable.

This month I flew AerLingus A321 LR Toronto-Dublin-Toronto in economy. I found it very tight and uncomfortable for such long trips, with the cabin crew closing off the rear toilet each time the service trolley was used. Wide body next time for me.

@garyquan5575

Жыл бұрын

I did a 2-week Globus-Gateway tour of Spain, Morocco, and Portugal with my mom and dad back in Sept. of 1983. We took AC B727's on the YYZ-YMX sectors both ways. Our outbound sector to Europe was on TP301 (routing YMX-Azores-LIS) on a B707. Dad being able to get the emergency exit row seats over the right wing and our 90 minute stopover in the Azores made a potentially miserable flight at least bearable. At the end of the tour, our return flight (IB971) was on a B747-200 operating the MAD-YMX sector. Yes, a widebody plane does make a difference (at least for me).🙂🙂🙂

Not all airlines have big cargo operations because of limited route network/frequenciies on each city pairs. Air Transat in Canada has flights to many cities on different days so a shipper less likely to see them as viable due to lack of daily service between 2 cities. Air Transat is already using 321s on trans atlantic routes from Montréal to various cities. And with narrowing of seats on 787/777/350 when they densified coach by adding extra row of seats, the widebody comfort advantage is gone so the 321 is just as comfortable if not better.

@cr10001

Жыл бұрын

That is one advantage of a narrowbody like the A320 series - 3-3 is the maximum they can fit in, no airline can have an attack of the greeds and squeeze in an extra seat. (Of course they can do the nasty on legroom, but not seat width).

I flew from NY to Hamburg and back on a 757 in 2018. They had full reclining bed seats in business class. So, they know how well this will or won't work.

@afcgeo882

Жыл бұрын

You flew on a United 757-200. The 757s were larger and much more powerful. They carried lots of cargo too.

As I have said many times before in different contexts, a single aisle aircraft on the Atlantic run is simply foolish. On a twin aisle aircraft, it's easier to walk around during a long flight. With a single aisle, all "traffic" is stuck in that middle aisle. I've sat in the center rows and the window rows. Either is fine. But after a flight on a single aisle aircraft from Stockholm to Philly and back, I said: Never again on a single aisle aircraft for a flight that long.

You're the best story teller ever

Love this content. Would be great if you could do a video why airlines don't use some sort of text messaging system. Often see videos where pilots talk over each other and miss key statements or language or accents cause issues. Seems all this can be removed if you have a messaging system with preset messages (because most communication is standard) that can go out as a message or even a text to voice clip (so that the accents issue is not there). And leave the actual radio for emergency or non standard communication?

@tomstravels520

Жыл бұрын

Speaking is faster than typing. That’s the main reason and doesn’t require a pilot to take eyes off the outside/instruments and check what they’re typing

@desh9164

Жыл бұрын

@@tomstravels520 no, they shouldn't have to type, the messages should be present.. and they enter only some parts that vary. Like if they are asking for landing clearance, if the pilots have already entered the runway and all, the computer should be able to prepare the message for the pilot to send

@tomstravels520

Жыл бұрын

@@desh9164 pilots don’t ask for landing clearance, ATC gives them the clearance and they respond. But that still means a pilot taking their eyes off what they should be doing at that critical moment to reply back. And even then saying “Cleared to land, runway ___” is rarely confused with anything else

Dear Petter. You are doing a magnificent job..! As a pilot myself, mostly business jets and Embraer 195 LR's and CRJ's, I do think I am in sync with at least a part of the industry's ongoing development. But you deliver an amazing amount of wealth of knowledge, and I have not seen one of your videos that did not teach me something new. On another note - I believe that the 321 XLR will provide more point to point long-haul connections, and that with airlines were every bit of "add-on" will be priced separately (checked in luggage etc.) - which properly will leave room for enough cargo space available for those routes to be financially viable ... Keep up the good work - it is a true enjoyment every time you launch a new video.

Very insightful video. Thank you. I do have one nitpick. If you are using an A321LR to cross the ocean, that same airplane cannot be efficient at shorter flights unless you remove the auxiliary tanks. Further, an aircraft like the A321 that efficiently flies a 4,000+ mile route will be efficient for that route, but a Boeing 737 MAX will be more efficient in its range, which is 3,300 miles or less.

Here in Brasil, GOL use 737s for all their flights. Copa also use 737s ...keeping the same type on fleet means interchangeability and less overheads....

The XLR can be connected to a longer cable run without signal loss or hum.

I did 13hours in an Airbus A380. With all 3 seats in front on full recline for 11 hours I could not move after that flight. With its 31 inch seat pitch. There were lots of 8 hour flights in the late 1960’s & 70’s , . They were far more comfortable than today.

Great video... could you explain a bit better Boeings claim that the single isle planes will only compete with a small fraction of widebody traffic...it looks to me in places like Hawaii, narrow bodies are taking over when their range expands.

I practically grew up riding on L-1011 and MD-80 aircraft.

Perhaps an update is merited to discuss the optional center tank and the thermal properties of the rear tank. I have read that the behavior of the center tank in an emergency is a subject of concern to EASA, A wag has speculated on the giant ice cube that the rear tank will become at high altitude. Supposedly there isn't much space around the rear fuel tank, so what you see is what you get.

No aircraft can beat a330 seat configuration in term of comfort..its just perfect

I liked those business seats that are all both aisle and window at the same time, that must be a valuable product for some customers

I'd never fly a 10 h flight on a narrow body

where did you put the extyra fuel tanks?

Petter, What about the long haul versions of the Constellation?

l want to see an A380 neo. maybe retrofit old ones with new lighter wings and newer engines with a higher bypass ratio. there could be a valid use case for it in the future

I just discovered your channel and I'm watching your videos one after the other :)

Nice flying ship. :) Not on par with concorde but she has truly nice lines

Well JetBlue A321 LR flies to london gatwick ... 737max 8 flies from Buenos Aires to miami... Tap flies from NY to London A321... Aer lingus A321NX from Manchester to NYC... Milan to Ny , London to Boston to washington... and theres more.. these routes usually favored by 787 a330 747 a350 widebodies but seems narrowbody are becoming a thing nowadays... wonder whether its comfortable?

@michaelchamberlain1441

Жыл бұрын

I want to take JetBlue from JFK over to London

very interesting!

It's sad that the era of the double-decker wide body aircraft is over. A flight from L.A. to Frankfurt was super relaxing even in Economy Class because there are these spaces between the compartments where you can even move around a bit and stretch. Then in the future, on 8-hour flights, the comfort of a budget airline.

I don't think this will do well in Australia. When airlines here want long range, they want seriously long range. I assume the original A320s are cheaper to buy for cross country flights. Whether Qantas orders the A321 or the Max to replace their aging 737s when they want to carry slightly larger numbers is the question

Makes me wonder if it would be viable for conformal external fuel tanks to be designed for certain aircraft, similar to some military aircraft

@stephenspackman5573

Жыл бұрын

More likely they'll do that with the seating, the amount of respect many airlines have for passenger experience nowadays ;).

Great video:)

Dear petter, could you please do a video with your opinions about the Qantas plan to use A350s to do non-stop flights from SYD to New York and London?

The flattened elliptical cross-section of the Boeing NMA, intended to achieve a higher ratio of passenger capacity to cargo capacity than a circular widebody, seems like such a bad idea now. The cargo holds are keeping passenger airlines afloat.

@PrzemyslawSliwinski

Жыл бұрын

Yup. But the elliptical cross-section would result in a smaller drag, wouldn't it?

@roichir7699

Жыл бұрын

@@PrzemyslawSliwinski No they won't. The surface is higher compared to the volume and therefore more drag. Also, the round shape is structurally the best one for a pressure vessel, which means any deviation from round will add weight.

There is a value to the 321 XLR for freight. Assume a route which can't support a daily wide body, but it can support an A321XLR and a wide body in an alternating scheme. While not adding that much to the capacity, it is now a daily route. More suitable for express cargo and thus more cargo with higher freight rates.