I wouldn't imagine pilots trying to nap in the back of economy class with a screaming child right next to them would do much good for safety

@skyserf

2 жыл бұрын

That used to be the case on some 757s. Pilots had to set up a curtain over 3 economy seats. Currently at least at my carrier on a 757, a business class seat is set aside for pilot rest. Unfortunately for flight attendants they still have a row in economy.

@invisibility1987

2 жыл бұрын

"Screaming child"is sooooo real ........when i did red eye flights before the pandamic we had to rest in the cabin and the worst nightmares were the "screaming children"

@Republic3D

2 жыл бұрын

Good thing they usually block seats in First Class / Business Class for crew rest.

Flying the 757 across the Atlantic on many occasions, the company would block off a first class seat for us. For a while in order to sell the extra first class seat, they tried blocking off an emergency exit row. It was weird going back there and on one occasion I woke up with a kids finger in my eye. It was totally unacceptable.

@bynokia20

2 жыл бұрын

What an interesting story. Did the company do something to prevent this situation in the future?

@jap1378

2 жыл бұрын

@@bynokia20 Yes, eventually they succumbed to flight crew pressure and gave us back the first class seat. I only used the coach seats that one time, I would nap in the cockpit until the stars quo was resumed.. We were carrying Air Marshals regularly during that period as I remember, so another first class seat was lost.

@johniii8147

2 жыл бұрын

That was just a poor job from revenue management. You just reduce allowed bookings by one in the res system. Sounds like they were aggressively overbooking business class.

@jap1378

2 жыл бұрын

@@johniii8147 You are right, but I think they figured the profit on a first class seat was worth several coach seats. So from a numbers point of view it made sense.

@sebastianfloyd372

2 жыл бұрын

@@johniii8147 A321XLRs and A321LRs are not long enough

Another option is a "container" on cargo deck used as crew rest with starirs up to main deck. I beleive this was done on early 340s. Either way, this reduces $$$ revenue per flight, so changes the economics. I thin the 321 might do OK on trans-atlantic 7-8 hour flights max, but may not be so commercially profitable on longer routes that require crew change. On the other and, it would be a perfect VIP transport aircraft.

@joewileman4480

2 жыл бұрын

The unit load devices that fit into a320 family jets have a height of just under 4 feet and a width of just over 6 feet at that height. I know it's a rest area, but a room that size sounds pretty cramped even if set up with a single bed.

@grahamebond3597

2 жыл бұрын

The Crew rest in a loft works at 4 foot high in the centre because the curve widens at the base but in the hold the reverse is true so you wouldn’t be able to fit in a rest either side of a corridor

@Danilo-lm2kg

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

@williamhuang8309

2 жыл бұрын

@@joewileman4480 4ft tall? That's tiny! I think the best arrangement would be to put the crew horizontally, such that the beds are perpendicular to the fuselage. Then have 80cm beds and a 50cm corridor area. Two beds in this arrangement would take up 210cm of space. If required, Airbus could also rip up the floor of the cargo hold.

@Chrisi77W

2 жыл бұрын

Its not like that the A321xlr already struggles with cargo capacity due to the fuel tank expansion.

As a for former A320 pilot I think the best crew rest is to not come to work anymore at all under such conditions. Every year the airline management find new ways to bend the rules. Good luck sleeping amongst passengers and not getting paid properly. Now I just fly a biz jet 6 months a year. Can’t be bothered. Life is to short.

Thank you for sharing. I remember having flown the 757-200s from L.A. to Hawaii the crew would just rest on the jump seats only. That would be the rest space. But if I flew Chicago to Hawaii then we had the 747s and then later on the 777s two class. It was and is nice to have the crew rest bedding area for us. I do like the fact we could and can have a separate crew rest area from the passengers.

@LMays-cu2hp

2 жыл бұрын

Secondly, we will see how the smaller narrow body aircraft are built to give the crews a good rest on those long haul trips.

@johniii8147

2 жыл бұрын

LAX-HNL is only about a 5 hour flight, so not a big deal.

@LMays-cu2hp

2 жыл бұрын

@@johniii8147 Yes, coming from LAX is nice but I like the larger aircraft to fly the distance. I have helped out the LAX Base before on the 757s but having being based in ORD then 777s with crew rest is needed. I use to love the old DC-10 S flying the routes. They were nice as well.😊😊😊

9 to 10 hours in a single-aisle narrow-body plane is not my cup o' tea! I will find an airline that flies larger aircraft. I once flew an Airbus A321 to Hawaii from Los Angeles, and that is my limit in a single-aisle plane!

@andersonrodriguez8258

2 жыл бұрын

Pass ur limit **

From personal experience, any crew rest area in the passenger cabin is never acceptable as you are continually woken up by passengers/crew members walking about and making noise. A designated area away from this should be made available and I hope that the authorities mandate it.

I just recently flew a 7.5 hour leg on an A321LR. The very last row in economy was reserved for crew only and they actually used it during the flight to get some rest.

When CO started flying B752s TATL, particularly those really long flights (Berlin/Newark), seats in the business cabin were designated and dedicated for crew rest.

So what I have learnt from this video is Im going to avoid this plane like the plague if its a long haul flight. Cant say Im keen on the idea of being on a plane with exhausted crew that dont have anywhere private to rest either.

It's not uncommon on 767's to have a business class seat curtained off for pilot rest on routes that require it. Presumably something similar would be used on the XLR. Flight attendants on such 767s presumably have to make do with 3 seats in the back ("poor man's business class").

@skyserf

2 жыл бұрын

There likely isn’t enough room on an XLR for a curtain. Depending on contracts I think it’s likely any XLRs will follow a similar plan to 757s and use a regular business seat in the last row for pilot rest.

@andersonrodriguez8258

2 жыл бұрын

Let’s b honest 321 is to small for long travel 787-8 is the way to go

@skyserf

2 жыл бұрын

@@andersonrodriguez8258 I just got my 787 type today. It truly is a remarkable aircraft. That being said, it’s expensive. Unless a route needs the 3000 nm extra range I doubt airlines will opt for 787-8s, especially on thin transatlantic flights. Although cargo capacity could be a area where the 788 could earn airlines enough revenue to justify the expenditure.

@asystole_

2 жыл бұрын

@@andersonrodriguez8258 There's obviously a market demand for a 321-sized long haul A/C, otherwise they wouldn't be building them.

@parimal7528

2 жыл бұрын

@@andersonrodriguez8258 Those B787 are more grounded than in air!

Our pilot contract will require one first class seat to be blocked for crew rest.

@TUMBA0

2 жыл бұрын

Some of the biggest orders are ultra low cost carriers

@dubrovink66

2 жыл бұрын

But there isn't / probably won't be in the A321...

"Crews will find smaller gallies, and common spaces" -- And they'll also find less pax. Thanks for explaining how NB vs WB aircraft work

Guess I won't be flying the A321XLR for anything longer than LAX-HNL in the future. A ten hour flight would be mind numbing in a 3+3 config.

I don't understand why people let the number of aisles determine their level of comfort as if an economy seat in a 9 abreast 777 is any different from a seat in an A321 or 737. If anything, narrow-bodies mean higher chance of getting either a window or aisle seat, shorter meal service time, shorter loading and unloading, and cheaper tickets. As for the airlines, it allows them to launch new routes that were previously unjustifyable due to the low chance of being profitable on a large wide-body, and allows for more versatility by further bolstering established routes and being able to use these aircraft on shorter/domestic flights as well. Unless you fly business class or first class, it will pretty much be the identical experience, determined primarily by how the airline chooses to configure their planes. If you're a business or first class flyer, you already know which type of planes specifically to fly and with which airlines.

@magnustan841

2 жыл бұрын

It’s not all rosy, just one aisle means moving between toilets will be a problem on a longer flight, with flight attendants sharing the same space. Some LCCs are going to use the XLR and pack 230+ seats into it, so that’s a lot of trips to the toilet on a 8 hour flight. So i believe XLR operators should instal a toilet at door 3 just behind the wings, so you don’t have to go all the way in front or all the way to the back to use the toilet. But i do agree that people are being too hard on this aircraft before they even set foot in it or there’s too much hate around this narrowbody longer haul revolution that’s coming. This is not a 757 or 707 that is previous generation stuff, this is the latest and greatest with the AirSpace by Airbus cabin fitted, with modern ergonomics and what not. So while not on par with a widebody for perceived space and comfort, it should be better that what most long-haul fliers on narrowbody aircraft are used to.

I think the crew needs a separated rest area to relax well

@Kaktus965

2 жыл бұрын

To do the HumptyHump

@bluemilk4909

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kaktus965 What the hell? My guy, people resting after long hours of work should not be associated with that at all...

@Kaktus965

2 жыл бұрын

@@bluemilk4909 nooo, not raw dogging! Some of them wrap it first

@Kaktus965

2 жыл бұрын

@@bluemilk4909 Never heard of the mile high club? Flying circus? Canadian Porch swing? Cloudy sanchez? Aye aye aye.....

Crossing the Atlantic on a narrow body aircraft for 5-6 hours we are back to the DC-8 and B-707 era

@augusth2212

2 жыл бұрын

Yes it is

I remember crews using open passenger seats on the older long-range planes like the 707s and DC8s. Not the best situation.

The best solution is to keep this aircraft for short haul flights. They were never designed to cross the Atlantic on regular basis. If you compare A320 systems with A330, you will realize that although they look almost the same. The redundancy on A330 is much much better. We are going in a wrong direction yet again. But as long as passengers look at the ticket price only and don’t care who suffers for that price. This is the future of aviation.

@hanskaesbohrer2809

2 жыл бұрын

there is also something called "clima change": We have to reduce the consumption of fossil fuel - thats why narrow body planes are the first step into the right direction - to fly around will be very differnt in a decade...

@mdleweight

2 жыл бұрын

American have introduced their 777s to their domestic longer flights since they are not using them internationally. Everyone loves them. This demonstrates that the flying public prefers the wide bodies for most flights.

@andriiyeromenkov6337

2 жыл бұрын

What do you mean by saying that redundancy in a330 is much higher than in a320? Can you give some examples?

@torben6137

2 жыл бұрын

@@hanskaesbohrer2809 sure… climate stuff is a thing ofcourse. But aviation is only acountable for 8% of the co2 from the entire trasport sector. And … the transport sector is only 15% of the entire pool of co2 contributors. In the grande scheme its not a huge polutor. That said, aviation still has to work on bringing down emmisions

@Cactus732

2 жыл бұрын

@@andriiyeromenkov6337 there isn’t less redundancy on the A320 family, it’s just someone who doesn’t know anything making stuff up.

Do the 757’s have these issues? And the C Series are regional jets, what do they need crew rest?

It all depends on what is in the union contracts. For example, United will require first class seats to be available for pilots, the seat next to them will have to be blocked. This usually comes up on 737 routes with multiple stops between bases.

Narrow aircraft are very uncomfortable in every way after 3.5 hours. Even in the 757.

@marcusianaviation9372

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine flying triple that time Also on a narrow body

@spongebubatz

2 жыл бұрын

It depends on the configuration. Long haul aircraft have long haul cabins, that’s also the case with the 757 and A321. I crossed the Atlantic several times on a 757 and the seats weren’t different to those that you could find on a widebody

@kimjong-il1547

2 жыл бұрын

Flown the United 757 from Kona to Denver. It was very cramped

@marcusianaviation9372

2 жыл бұрын

@@kimjong-il1547 I thought you're dead HAHAH

@9999AWC

2 жыл бұрын

I guess you've never flown on a 9 abrest 777. I much rather fly on a narrow-body because meal service takes less time to complete, WAY higher likelihood of getting a window seat, or aisle seat, and usually the seats and pitch are very similar if not identical to widebodies. Why the number of aisles determines your comfort, I do not know.

I recently read an article about ACF V2. It's about utilizing the wasted space at the back of the cabin to create more toilet. Due to the curve of the aft fuselage, it haven't been possible to make use of the space. So I think Instead of adding an extra 1-2 toilets, Airbus should rather redesign the space for crew rest, and move the extra toilet forward.

@isaactxn

2 жыл бұрын

This is actually smart…

@kazedcat

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-cc7vx7sw4z XLR could not fly long haul at max pax. They needed to reduce passenger anyway to reach their destination.

@enemyofthestatewearein7945

2 жыл бұрын

@@kazedcat This is the point the everybody seems to be missing!

British Airways removed their loft crew rest on their Gatwick based B777 on their Caribbean routes. The flight crew use the back row window seat in business class for their rest . The cabin crew use the last row of seats in the middle with a curtain across it . The flights are around 10 hours

@NaenaeGaming

6 ай бұрын

Why did they remove the loft crew rests? Weight saving?

The crew will need 2 to 3 empty rows of seats in the back of the plane so they can lie down flat to rest. It will not be comfortable for passengers and crew on narrow body plane for 9 to 10 hours.

10 hours on a packed 777 is hell. This wont be worse.

@christophbucker904

2 жыл бұрын

Full A350 is worse...

@rockerobertson4002

2 жыл бұрын

@Boeing 737 MAX 8 better mileage per seat! That's a boeing trick

@rockerobertson4002

2 жыл бұрын

@@christophbucker904 at least it will be quieter :)

@dubrovink66

2 жыл бұрын

This will be worse. (as one aisle less...)

@dubrovink66

2 жыл бұрын

@Boeing 737 MAX 8 yep, totally uncomfotable already with 3+3+3 config! Understood first designs of A350 & B787 were based on 2+4+2 = 8 abreast. But that was phased out at light speed by airlines "valueing customer feedback"..... [searching for wall to bang head to]

Perhaps a pressurised part of the cargo area, with direct access from the back galley of the plane, will be made available for crew rest?

what did we do with the Dc8 73 that had a range of 4600 miles and held 260 people

What was possible in the Boeing 757, as the aircraft is supposed to be replaced by the A321XLR?

@sebastianfloyd372

2 жыл бұрын

The 757-300 is longer than the A321XLR so the A321XLR won’t be a replacement for the 757-300 just the 757-200. There’s no plans to replace the 757-300

When I was flying on a A320, we blocked off the last 2 rows for crew rest

How about blocking a small portion of cargo section at the front or at the back and use that for crew rest just like Lufthansa a340-600 does with the toilets?

@spongebubatz

2 жыл бұрын

You forget that the A321 is narrow body, needless to say there’s much less space. Also, even more cargo space is unusable due to the added fuel tanks

Didn't you guys do this video a year ago?

Well what did they do on the 757?

I would think that those planes used for long haul flights, would have a special area somewhere on the plane to rest. Maybe at the front of Business/First class. Otherwise, not having an enclosed secure area for crew to rest, would be asking for trouble. To make up for the crew areas and extra crew on the longer flights, small increases in ticket prices may be needed. Or use wide body aircraft that have those crew rest areas already built in. But that might need to be a wide body that can fly those routes with engines that are state of the art in fuel savings. Another words, new model aircraft might need to be designed with the latest engines and extra fuel tanks. Crew comfort is a safety issue that has to be taken in hand.

have a compartment behind the avionics bay in the cargo area for flight deck to rest and near to the rear of the plane for cabin crew

I am not understanding why an "air wall" couldn't be erected sectioning off an area for crew rest. (I am referring to air walls in a traditional building --- such as a conference room where only 1/2 of it is required for an event.

Even as a pax I would not spend that many hours on a narrow body jet when I can get the comfort and breathing space on a widebody. Which makes me believe many crew members will feel the same. A curtain wont offer any privacy at all. What you can't see doesn't mean you can't hear it.

@sithabelamandlawenkosiwodu6298

Ай бұрын

What breathing space with hundreds more people?

lovely questions

I don’t think it matters too much, as long as the flights are cheap. DFW to Rio for half the price. I know people will take if

@werner2503

2 жыл бұрын

That’s for sure! But the crew resting remains an issue.

@precumming

2 жыл бұрын

This isn't about you, it's about the crew.

You guys uploaded this same video 8 months ago

Crew rest space would be the last row of economy class seats for cabin attendants like in the days of medium to long haul flights on the B707, DC8, etc and one business class seat for flight crew. The A321xlr crew would 5 flight attendants 1 dedicated to business class, 3 dedicated to economy and 1 floater to help out in both classes as required, There will be 3 flight crew 2 in the cockpit and 1 reliever. Airlines will factor in the loss of 1 row of economy seats and 1 business class seat in the th eoperational costs of the flight, so I don't see its as an issue.

@chingweixion621

2 жыл бұрын

It will be interesting to see how airlines bypass the regulations on this

@chrismckellar9350

2 жыл бұрын

@@chingweixion621 - Jetblue will be or is using the A321lr in 138 passenger seat configuration on transatlantic services, so it seems they meet the regulations and the unions. The rule usually is 1 flight to up to 50 passengers. Air NZ has 4 flight attendants sometimes 5 depending on passenger loading's on their 214 seat A321neo's.

@chingweixion621

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrismckellar9350 that is the crew to passengers ratio. And on top of that the lhr flight its right at the limit and does not exceed 8hrs. If longer flight is operated, it will be interesting to see how the airlines bypass the regulations.

@chrismckellar9350

2 жыл бұрын

@@chingweixion621 - I agree. I don't see a lot of flights using A321lr/xlr going above 8 hours in flight time but you never know.

@sebastianfloyd372

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrismckellar9350 A321LRs and A321XLRs are not long enough

rotate two rows of seats with special bedding and give crew a rotation of laydown on row

Well, if you look backwards, the quality of service was at it’s peak perhaps sometime in the 1950’s. Ever since then it’s pretty much been going more or less down hill. So no surprise to see that they have found yet and still another way to make it less good. Next they’ll be having no windows. You know, to save weight. And how about some seats in the hold? What class shall we call that? Steerage?

Ha, I don't know why this is really even a question. Crews have been doing rest in the passenger cabin for years. They usually install a curtain device over the row. I've seen this a million times on flights between North America and South America.

I flew London Stanstead to Newark on a 757. I don’t recall it being a problem. Flying on an a320 Frankfurt-Astana or Astana-London was worse mainly because the entertainment was so awful in the early 2010’s on that route. Long haul narrow bodies will be no more problematic than a packed 777.

If required the airlines will seperate a part of the cabin for crew rest. Tried it before where the last row DEF seats were used on a 737. Other is just controlled rest as pilot in the cockpit, taking turns to nap on the NY to UK flights.

It may well be that a new breed of long haul narrow bodies are required to comply with regulations. If dedicated rest areas are required, and these have to be within the main passenger compartment, I could see them more likely to be behind the cockpit with the possibility of the passenger doors being re-located aftwards rather than at the rear where they would interfere with the location of toilet facilities. Alternatively, if these aircraft are to be used for much longer flights, we may see the introduction of an intermediate stop for a crew change and possibly additional fuel, although this may well move the economic argument towards the use of a conventional wide body, or perhaps the introduction of a efficient, but much smaller twin aisle for those long moderately subscribes routes.

I am worried a little more about passengers confort I am 1,87m (6'2) and struggle in the seat to rest. It has to better as well...

What about the 200-Liter potable water tank? Is it enough for longer flight? Are they going to add extra potable water tank?

@Tsavtech

2 жыл бұрын

this is actually a really good point, I'm cabin crew on the A321 and quite often we run out of water on flights as short as 4 hours, let alone 10. It would be interesting to see how they manage this...

Let me ask a question. I have flown a lot. From small Embraer 145 to Boeing 747. I have not found any difference between a 747 and 320 seats. They have the same legroom, same tables, armrests and so on. 8 hours in 747 is just as comfortable or annoying as 8 hours in 320. So why people say long flights in narrow body aircrafts are worse? They are just the same.

@spongebubatz

2 жыл бұрын

Because they have no idea. They probably assume to find the same seats as they would do on their go to holiday low cost airline. The only problem I see is proper crew rest

@ant2312

2 жыл бұрын

its not about the seats, its about the general feeling of space that a narrowbody doesn't have

@Chrisp707-

2 жыл бұрын

@@ant2312 exactly. Having flow on everything from a CRJ to a 777 and A350. It’s about the feeling of space.

@OraStafari610

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe you underestimate the psychological aspect. Flying is already taking away the basic feeling of control for a lot of people and putting them in a confined space. The idea of sitting in a smaller cabin doesn't sound appealing to me. Basically, on some routes or airlines, that would mean that you have the same amount of people in a smaller cabin. I personally like taking that walk during a longhaul flight and stretching my legs in the back galley. Good luck with that on a single isle.

@Chrisp707-

2 жыл бұрын

@@OraStafari610 lol man even on short routes say 2 hours or less I much prefer say an A320 or 321 over taking a CRJ

Personnally, I don't really think long haul narrow body will be as good as advertised, the fact, as mentionned of smaller galleys, smaller cabins etc might be a huge drawback on this new travel type. I might be criticising because I'm not a fan flying narrow body but still... Airline might need to use two flights for the same route, being unefficient. We'll let time tell us if I was right or wrong. I'd love to hear your point of views to see wether you agre or disagree with me.

@MarcusNesbitt4

2 жыл бұрын

They're to open new long and thin routes, not to replace routes previously used by wide bodies.

@benghazi4216

2 жыл бұрын

@@MarcusNesbitt4 Absolutely, but I think they also can compete with the wide bodies on the established routes on pure economics. I envision low cost carriers offering this as a new type of economy seats. Now you not only get less comfortable seating etc on the same plane, but on a less comfortable plane altogether. There is always a market for cheap. And especially on long distance travel, which is usually an expensive proposition

@mathuringarcier

2 жыл бұрын

@@MarcusNesbitt4 Correct me if I'm wrong but does that mean that for example AirFrance will not replace their 787 between Paris and Boston with a A321XLR but more to open a route that would be to Baltimore (just a random East coast city)?

@9999AWC

2 жыл бұрын

@@mathuringarcier Yes, and to have more frequent flights on established routes.

@9999AWC

2 жыл бұрын

As an economy flyer, I love narrowbodies because I have a much higher likelihood of getting a window seat. In terms of comfort there is very rarely any difference from economy in widebodies. It entirely depends on the airline. As for the idea itself, it is a very good idea as it allows airlines to have a higher profit margin with a lower risk by opening new routes that have demand but not enough to justify using a widebody. Using more small planes instead of a single big plane makes more economic sense and is more versatile; look at how the 787 revolutionized the point to point travel that essentially killed the A380 and 748i.

On the normal A321 we only where using our jumpseats to rest. For 5-6 hours flights they blocked the last economy class row or sometimes the first row for us

I believe this aircraft does not rely so much on cargo on board. There might be enough space to build two beds in cargo designated area, which can be pressurized along the passenger cabin. Most of the flights anyhow will be shorter than 10 hours. Most will fly medium-demand shorter routes, where crew rest areas are not needed.

i'm a pilot and I think to give zero thought to crew rest(especially flight attendants)in the cabin is a disaster waiting to happen. With airlines it is profit profit profit

As an A320 pilot flying in Europe we are used to duty periods of 10+ hours, 4 or 5 days in a row. There are not dedicated areas for the cabin crew to rest but the jumpseats, I don’t see the difference flying across the Atlantic for 7-9 hours.

Maybe special bunks in the rear hold ? That said the pumps down there can be noisy .

I think they should definitely allot seats for crew in business class. I would imagine the cost for dedicated rest areas is more than offset if you traded it for business class seats.

The question you bring up about how passengers will react to a long haul flight on a narrow body aircraft is irreverent. For years airlines flew narrow body aircraft across the Atlantic, the Boeing 707 and the Douglas DC-8 made these trips daily and there was no riots on board. Yes we will see a few spoiled passengers complain, but change is inevitable. I wish Airbus great success with the aircraft.

@bbmm6154

2 жыл бұрын

Back in the day of the 707 & DC8 passengers knew how to behave & transatlantic travel was not open to the masses. Today we have the masses traveling with self entitlement in a Me, Me, Me society who drink & create chaos on flights for passengers & crew. The thought of a long flight with these Chavs is not appealing at all.

@GregsWorkshopOregon

2 жыл бұрын

Did you mean irrelevant?

@ghostrider-be9ek

2 жыл бұрын

um, the 707 and DC8 trans-atlantic flights were equal to business class prices today. It definitely wasnt for the masses, until the early 80s and after the 747/DC10 came on line.

@Kaktus965

2 жыл бұрын

@@bbmm6154 Yea like when my ho gives me a handy under the blanket in the middle seat

@fjp3305

2 жыл бұрын

Back then the B707 and DC-8 was a huge improvement to the DC-6 and DC-7. But when widebodies came along people loved them.

There weren’t any crew rest areas on the 707 way back when?

@no-damn-alias

2 жыл бұрын

150 years ago the africans were slaves on the field. That argument doesn't work

Can’t they do it below deck, like LUFTI does on the 346?

@spongebubatz

2 жыл бұрын

The A340 is a widebody, the A321 isn’t. That should answer the question

The quality of the rest must be far better when there are crew rest bunks in an area totally separate from the passengers, for example on the A380. Even if they cannot sleep you are resting on a bed instead of a seat surrounded by passengers.

What about blocking a J seat?

Asian carriers will design a cabin in A321XLR that can easily attract passengers especially when priced far lower than wide body premium class. I can see more all biz class aircrafts with flat seats like La Compagnie A321LR or biz + premium economy (skipping economy altogether) on several Asian carriers. Also one can fly direct to smaller cities where wide body couldn't fly due to smaller runways.

A cot under the cockpit in the radio room?

I prefer wide body aircraft. Been on flights in the past where the crew cordened off a few seats with some sort of coverage for privateaty. It wasn't great i must admit. Could not imagine how it will be done in long flights.

As crew, so many times I operate really long flights, crossing the pond with a 737 max and no crew rest were available for us, disgusting. It's a ICAO law!!!!

US airlines using 757s long range had a business class chair for pilot crew rests. I imagine this will be similar

maybe some space in the baggage compartment below the deck? ;)

Good afternoon. they will rest at the first classes sets, as they always rested well.

There will be so many problems with narrow body used for long haul. For easy example : water. In the end narrow body jets still need to transit for long haul flight which is inefficient.

Only airlines that don’t care about passengers or crew will ordered the A321XLR, so no problem!

Let's face it an economy seat is an economy seat whether in a widebody or narrowbody. The a321 is about the same size and passenger capacity as the Boeing 707 which was used for some very long flights.

Narrow body aircrafts are already very tight in most cases for domestic routes. If they are also incorporated for transatlantic ones it will just be a hell! I will never use an airline with narrow body jets for long flights.

The a321lr nearly does the same, I’ve been on trans Atlantic flight on it

I think Airbus will figure out crew rest area by their Air space cabin interior concept.

How did Airbus not tackle this problem for the XLR? It's having already a dedicated production line.

Great! Like I really want to be on one of these for a long haul flight...! Airbus just wants to appeal to struggling airlines, and not the flying public...

No mesmo lugar de descanso que havia nos 707, DC-8, VC-10, 990....

Best aeroplane for long haul fright is 777 200 LR , it has beds for staff also .

Worst case scenario they will fit something just beside or opposite of the bathroom with similar dimensions for crew rest.

It is possible to build a crew rest area on the lower deck of the A3XLR. Perhaps a rest area for 2 people which will take a lil space in the baggage container area. On a 73MAX and A220 its should be possible too. Just have companies coming up with the best ideas and solutions

@sebastianfloyd372

2 жыл бұрын

Airbus should also make A321XERs the extra extended range A321NEOs

🤔 This is interesting but not impossible.

Well the idea of being in a more cramped plane for 10h, oh joy. Being 1.91 flight is in any case a pain. Now for Crew members it gonna be torture.

very cruel to stuff so many people in a narrow body for so long,feel sorry for the crew.

Wow

The XLR seems like an adequately hellish experience. Although the 737MAX does have the same shortcomings, it doesn't have near the range. 3300 nmi vs 4700 nmi for similar pax count. 3300nm barely makes it across the Atlantic from NYC. 4700 takes in all Europe as far as IST and Northern Africa. 3300nm won't get you across the pacific at all, but 4700 will get you from SEA or YVR to Japan and Seoul. I would prefer not to fly trans-Atlantic in a narrow body and definitely wouldn't want to fly trans-Pacific. These planes weren't built for comfort, that's for sure.

I am dreading this

If the departure time is in the morning or early afternoon you should be ok to operate the flight with no rest ! I did it many times but flying more than 4 hours in narrow body 🤢!

Are there many airports now that cannot handle an A350 after a long haul 8 hour flight? Would not be many I would think

@spongebubatz

2 жыл бұрын

The problem is demand, so in other words you don’t want to send an A350 with let’s say 150 passengers across the Atlantic when you can also send an A321LR or XLR!

In the hold and access in the aft galley...

Looks like they need to bring back more efficient 767 and 330 for long hauls , I would definitely avoid the 321XLR !!!

How has JetBlue made it work?

I would expect airlines to offer increased seat pitch if they want to retain their customers on this plane long haul

Isn't the 757 range with winglets 7600km. Not that much less than 321XLR. I do remember sitting in a 757 transatlantic flight years ago. Not a pleasant experience in economy class.

The crew should have a front section set up solely for them. But my question about the use of these aircrafts for long flights is how safe will this be? Their fuel capacity for unexpected diversions or long holding from landings due to high unsafe winds or other reasons would need to be large enough to withstand extreme unanticipated conditions.

@peterdurand3098

2 жыл бұрын

Regulations regarding the amount of extra fuel for emergences exist now. You would be surprised at the large amount of so called "extra" that is carried. It adds to the total fuel consumption because of the added weight, but that is calculated in the price of the flight.

@pamelaedwards5289

2 жыл бұрын

@@peterdurand3098 Good to know. I was just trying to imagine one of those having to add 1-1/2 to 2 extra hours to a flight like some of my flights I have been on for various reasons. Thanks!

Flew the AA Boeing 757 from edi to jfk and the crew blocked the last 2 or 3 rows in economy with blankets hanging down from the over head lockers to make a rest area.

@apgardude

Жыл бұрын

That's pretty ghetto.

And to think that some people think a pilot is a glamourous job

Can't imagine flying a narrow body jet with 4 toilets for 8-9 hours. I will die of the stink!😩

Narrow body or wide body the seats in coach are the same size and they’re crammed in the cabin in the same manner. Thank you, airlines you’ve made flying pure Hell. That said, the long haul narrow body craze will soon end when passenger numbers get back to normal and airlines will start using their wide bodies more.

@richardmillhousenixon

2 жыл бұрын

Not necessarily. Long haul narrow bodies allow for many more direct flights thanks to their lower capacity not requiring a hub destination in order to fill the aircraft to profitable capacity

Put entrance to the lower storage facility and put some rest facilities in there

@spongebubatz

2 жыл бұрын

You’re overestimating the size of the A321