Switching between the A330 and the A321XLR on transatlantic routes to the east coast US gives the Airline much more flexibility to react on high or low demand. That's the gamechanging option the A321XLR will bring all future operators.
Yea that was the exact goal of a321xlr give more flexibility than a widebody In indigo, Here in india the busiest routes are served by 7+ flights daily by a320/21s All filled to the brim, its gives more flexibility of time for passengers
Yes sir! 🫡🛩️🔥🔝 Airbus is the best, most innovative aircraft company today, only they with their amazing engineers could build a relatively small plane capable of such a long range
Was expecting longer routes... Neighbour TAP Air Portugal has been operating the LR version for quite sometime now in transatlantic operations. LIS-EWR LIS-IAD LIS-YYZ Just some examples
I thought the XLR will be used for routes beyond the East Coast from Western Europe to Texas/Denver/MSP and even northern West Coast cities like Vancouver or Seattle.
Maybe later. This aircraft has an extra integral fuel tank instead of four 3 extra fuel tanks so it will be able to take more cargo in mass and volume than the XL. And XLR has higher MTOW than XL bcos new landing gear.
The other big gain for the XLR is the increased MTOW, too. So they can afford to max out the aircraft much more often that would be the case in the LR on such routes.
@@Matmamtmamtmamtmamtm Exactly bro They'll use a 115 all business class like Singapore airlines to make sure they will profit So It's almost the same as operating with 220 passengers In 737-700 ER
*2nd August, *14th November *15th January. Other than the IAD route, the XLR isn't doing anything differently across the Atlantic. The current A321neos are capable of and are already doing such routes.
The A-321 XLR offers a significant cost reduction, compared with any wide-body Aircraft I hope Iberia seize this opportunity to offer a confortable seat layout in all cabins
If they are willing to reduce prices in order to attract more transit pax and sacrifice cgo volume in same time (which is ridiculous on transatlantic route) it’s okay. Honestly they should only add 321xlr on long haul routes where they have higher demand and provide extra flights. At the end if there are some routes served double daily then one should stay wide body and another with 321xlr so cgo does not suffer.
I mean that would mean adding capacity to the route which they dont wanna A single wide body or 2 narrow body at different will really help to give time flexibility to passengers thus maybe inturn increasing demand
I agree with your thoughts. We could see them doing a widebody and an XLR during summer if demand warrants. This could happen on all sorts of routes. Also year-around service to some formerly seasonal destinations, with one XLR-only in winter, or increased frequency as Iberia is doing (daily in winter instead of just a few flights per week). While an XLR might be a less comfortable option for a longer flight, having a nonstop instead of connections is a huge benefit. I've seen too many missed connections recently with passengers connecting thru major hubs to Madrid or any other international destination.
@@dariusdareme Sure, as long as there's no bad weather, no diversion, no medical emergency, no system malfunction, no system failure, no bird strike, no technical glitch, no communication breakdown, no cyber-attack, no unexpected severe turbulence, no runway congestion, no mid-air collision risk, no fuel miscalculation by ground staff, no emergency landing requirement, no mechanical defect, no navigation error, no equipment breakdown, no sensor failure-apart from that, I'm sure AI will do fine! On a serious note, AI will come into the field, yes, but not tomorrow. Hell, Teslas can't even drive properly yet, and you want to send 200 passengers in the air alone?
It doesn’t really replace the 757 though, the 757 really does the same but better with better capacity. The problem it was just way too ahead of its time.
@@morganlambley8655 Are you saying that Boeing couldn't manufacture/maintain it properly? If not, why did they give it up? Normally a manufacturer with an aircraft 'ahead of it's time' will stick with it (obviously) unless there is some *very* serious underlying problem.
@@morganlambley8655 Not really more capacity. Delta is putting 148 seats on their lie flat 321 Neos vs 168 on their lie flat 757s. Difference being 12 premium eco seats and 10 additional extra legroom seats that the 757 doesn't have. In a similar config it'd be similar pax numbers. Of course the 321 does it with 25% less fuel.
I am SO happy the first few A321XLRs will fly to my local airport. I kind of had a feeling, because DC already has several A321LR routes here, mainly because of the lesser demand.
Hopefully they don't have reclining seats with such a cramped configuration. Not to mention that reclining seats reduce the range because of increased weight.
Exactly If you Force us to use a narrow body it should be a business class Which means the capacity like a Concorde Maximum 115 passanger with Seat pitch more than 52 inches
Are you sure? Is it just in the mind? How does having two aisles actually effect your own seat? The longer routes will have more leg room and a better configuration than single aisles usually do. I've been on a couple of Transatlantic flights between the UK and the USA (7.5 hours) and Mexico (10 hours) and between Finland and Japan (9 hours). All these flights involved wide bodied aircraft but when I think back to the actual space I used myself it was really no different to any other flight apart from just the feeling of space around me that I never actually used. I only ever used my seat and one aisle.
I'm hoping to see more direct routes from my home city of Lyon, France. There are only a couple of inter-continental flights currently but the city is probably large enough to justify routes using the A321XLR. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm hopeful.
In the mean time the seat plan of Iberia's A321XLR is already on their website. Interesting to see is the number of toilets on the plane. 1 for the 14 business class seats, which is acceptable, but only 1 for the 168 economy seats. Good luck for these economy class passengers on 8-9 hour flights on this plane.
I flew from New York to Lisbon on a TAP A321XLR last week. In terms of seat space I felt it was basically the same as in an A330. Our seats were in the back and it was annoying having so many people going to the restroom all the time. Also having only one aisle is more difficult for cabin service. It was weird doing a transatlantic trip on such a compact plane, it feels like it's less comfortable somehow, though the seat space, as I said, seemed ok. It was also a flight with frequent and lasting light turbulence, a bit uncomfortable. Not sure if this is related to this aircraft having a smaller body, thus less stability
Maybe it’s just me. But those two routes seem way more suitable for wide body aircraft. DC and Boston to Madrid seem like quite high demand routes. I thought the 321XLR would be used for routes like Sevilla to Savanna or something like that. Rotterdam/ The Hague to New York. Low demand but still profitable
I also thought they were going to open new routes from smaller cities, Madrid Boston, really? So this "new revolutionary plane" is not good for point to point travel, same old hub and spoke system but more uncomfortable for the traveller. Good job Iberia. 10 years i haven't flown iberia and looks like I won't fly them anytime soon.
@@carmenvalmalaartaraz8260 I’ve used them to fly to South America ones. It was not to bad. But Spanish people are a little loud. But I live in Amsterdam so there are better options for me anyway to reach North America
Tap Air Portugal has been doing these routes from Portugal with the 321 LR Neo for years now with no XLR required. I believe SATA also flies from Oakland to the Azores in an NEO.
We''ll see some flights with this plane from ORD and ATL potentially. Maybe flights to smaller Hawaiian islands from DFW and IAH potentially by AA and UA respectively
Flew Iberia BOS-MAD in January 2022 because American was not operating its PHL-MAD service due to the pandemic (took an America, probably A320 family or Boeing 737) to BOS, and the annoyance of going through security again there even though it looks like you should be able to walk from one airside end to the other. There was technical and weather issues and I'm not sure if smaller planes have issues like smaller ships with inclement weather
The passengers who fill the vast majority of seats on the plane shop on price. They’re agnostic when it comes to frame type. Those who fill the profit margins, shop on comfort and convenience. As long as Iberia can deliver good service on the XLR, it will work. Other carriers have demonstrated excellent service on B752s flying transatlantic, where the flight attendant to passenger ratio in business is higher than many widebodies. If the XLR has all aisle access up front, it will rule the roost across the Atlantic.
3 hour flights on an Iberia A320 fam aircraft is already hell. I dread to think, unless more comfortable padded seating and levels of service by crew exists. I flew a 757 in 1989 and that was very comfortable but very different seat comfort and in flight service compared with today, and NO individual IFE screens it was better
I still think I’m always going to prefer long-haul on wide-bodied aircraft. But I can see the arguments in favour of deploying the XLR. That said, is there any competition on these routes? If so they must be using wide-bodied aircraft. I wonder if some Iberia customers will switch?
Iberia will make a lot of money if loads are high, because of cost of aquisition, operating and service. If fares are kept in the reasonable range for the airline and customer, we could see a huge change of the market in the coming years, with a lot of fragmentation.
it doesn't matter that it's such a long flight on a narrow body, as long as the airlines configure them for such a long trip. we just associate the planes with less comfort because they are usually more cramped for shorter haul routes. case and point, I'd rather spend 9h on iberia's xlr than 5h on cebu's a330
yea, much more flexibility for the airline... and what about the passengers? no one seems to care about being in a single aisle knees-touching-the-previous-seat plane for +9 hours... if you could choose between being +9hours in an A330 or in an A320... what would you choose?
Spending 10 hours in a narrowbody is going to be a nightmare for passengers. If Boeing wants to be competitive with a 797 launch in 2030, they need to have a 2 - 2 - 2 abreast seating arrangement for economy class in order to stay competitive after everything that has happened.
As a Boston based traveler, I think it is such a shame that Iberia is getting rid of their Premium Economy service on the A321XLR. Iberia's Prem Ec is truly a good product, but this change is causing me to switch to Lufthansa group...
9h in a plane that small seems worse than hell. 9h WITH THAT LEGROOM, OH GOD. Though tbf, it opens more point to point routes and I am sure the people on these routes want a 9h direct flight with less legroom than a total 15h trip (10h in the 2 planes and 5h in the airport for layover)
Not sure. It’s true that new types are normally deployed on shorter routes initially for crew training, but in this case Iberia already operates the "standard" A321neo.
@@mikrokupu not sure if there is a training needed to switch between the XLR, LR and regular neo. I don't think this plane will be profitable on shorter routes because the long range cabin has less capacity than a regular neo.
@@mikrokupu I'm sure they'll have test flights and possibly crew training routes shortly after the first plane is delivered to them, but those wouldn't be considered scheduled revenue flights.
The A321XLR must give Boeing some sleepless night . They could also be deployed on some West coast Africa routes such as Dakar or Equatorial Guinea (Spanish speaking) .
Will this plane now be operated from London city, Southampton or Heathrow. No passenger wants a wide body 3 or 4 seat configuration and departure lounge over population any more....
indigo said they'll use more niche routes for this aircraft, im not sure will they fly to London with this aircraft when they have also ordered the a350
@@crypton7572 New Delhi is the best place for a hub between Europe and Asia. It is the only country from which they could reach every capital in Europe and every airport in Asia, using the XLR (not including contingency fuel). For big cities like London, Paris etc they will obviously use the A350. But for smaller cities, the 321XLR will be perfect. For the ones closer to India, the LR or even the standard 321 will be perfect. With a total of 1300 A320 family delivered + ordered, they will become the largest Low Cost Airline in the world. If no mergers of other major airlines, based on the airplane orders, Indigo will even become the largest airline in the world (in number of planes).
Although excellent products the issue for passengers will be the Q’s down the aisle for toilets as well as people moving around in a more confined space trying to squeeze past service carts
A huge advantage with more direct routes rather than the hassle of transiting through shitty US airports without sterile transit facilities. Not to mention how expensive domestic flights are in the US.
I had the experience flying transatlantic in a narrow body, which wasn’t pleasant at all. I’d refrain from flying with any airliner that does not use wide bodies for my transatlantic flights as much as I can.
The Airbus A-321 has long haul capability but with crammed seating that was designed for 2 to 4 hour flights. I have flown them across the Atlantic on A-321's and it was awful. There needs to be regulations for seating based on the length of the flight.
Agree Because for me, it's like a more comfortable Seat in widebody even just 5 hours. Than you maximize the range for almost 250 passengers for more than 5 hour's flight
9 hours in a noisy, cramped (not the most spacious) single isle aircraft 👀… not sure who’s up for that… or has Airbus improved cabin experience to meet wide body comfort ?
@dariusdareme Yeah , exactly when your job is not a manager it's quite acceptable But I spoke as a senior Supervisor that is not quite comfortable 4 hours in narrow body aircraft
Good News for Iberia I guess, less for the passengers. I’ve made Cologne Dubai via Istanbul last year on an A321 neo and it’s been my worst flying experience ever. Cramped space, lines for the toilets … there is no miracle, a small plane remains a small plane.
I’m not crew…..but I hope these airlines cater for the crew rest. Having crew seats on toilet doors and lack of space , crew have nowhere to rest or sit……standing for hours and toilets being in use. BA use a 321 to Sharm and I’ve see crew having to stand for long periods being disturb by passengers. People will say they are working but crew need a break or place to eat and drink…..at least they deserve a cup of tea without sitting on a toilet door.
A320 type rating covers every variant of the A320 family from A318 o A321XLR. Some airlines require an additional check out for the 321 but it’s generally just a single roundtrip.
Hmm don’t get the hype. Wouldn’t want to spend 9hours on a single aisle tbh. Also doubt this will help pricing either as they’ll set higher prices to breakeven with less passengers
As a frequent international traveller (in tourist class) I hate to see this plane. Long range narrow bodied planes are very uncomfortable for flights of more than two hours duration.
Honestly, they would need to have at least 3-4 toilets in a nine hour plus flight. How would a single aisle plane accomodate that? The last thing you want is a biohazard created by a clogged loo while flying over the pacific.
Switching between the A330 and the A321XLR on transatlantic routes to the east coast US gives the Airline much more flexibility to react on high or low demand. That's the gamechanging option the A321XLR will bring all future operators.
Yea that was the exact goal of a321xlr give more flexibility than a widebody
In indigo, Here in india the busiest routes are served by 7+ flights daily by a320/21s
All filled to the brim, its gives more flexibility of time for passengers
I’d be interested to see how many people go elsewhere to avoid flying narrow bodies.
And this plane can be used on other shorter flights within Europa if needed and available. It will be flexible on what distance you fly as well.
And hell for economy passengers 😅
@@hiyc99no different than 70 or DC 8 40 years ago same single aisle body
Western Europe and East Coast gonna have revival with this aircraft.
Imagine LGA to Europe/UK 😯
6 seats in a row in economy is hell.
@@HenryWong-x3b There are plenty of flights, the only question is: At what price?
It should be lower.
Actually the whole of US mainland is within reach from Keflavik. Much better to transit there than in a US airport.
@@dariusdareme
Exactly should be £275 at most
Congratulations to Airbus and Iberia
😂😂😂😂
Yes sir! 🫡🛩️🔥🔝 Airbus is the best, most innovative aircraft company today, only they with their amazing engineers could build a relatively small plane capable of such a long range
@@fra93ilgrande But I still Loving Boeing even more ❤️🇺🇲🛩️🫡
Was expecting longer routes...
Neighbour TAP Air Portugal has been operating the LR version for quite sometime now in transatlantic operations.
LIS-EWR
LIS-IAD
LIS-YYZ
Just some examples
I thought the XLR will be used for routes beyond the East Coast from Western Europe to Texas/Denver/MSP and even northern West Coast cities like Vancouver or Seattle.
Maybe later. This aircraft has an extra integral fuel tank instead of four 3 extra fuel tanks so it will be able to take more cargo in mass and volume than the XL. And XLR has higher MTOW than XL bcos new landing gear.
The other big gain for the XLR is the increased MTOW, too. So they can afford to max out the aircraft much more often that would be the case in the LR on such routes.
@@Matmamtmamtmamtmamtm
Exactly bro
They'll use a 115 all business class like Singapore airlines to make sure they will profit
So It's almost the same as operating with 220 passengers In 737-700 ER
*2nd August, *14th November *15th January.
Other than the IAD route, the XLR isn't doing anything differently across the Atlantic. The current A321neos are capable of and are already doing such routes.
not that this route is exceptional anyway.. SAS already flies CPH-IAD on a A321LR.
The A-321 XLR offers a significant cost reduction, compared with any wide-body Aircraft
I hope Iberia seize this opportunity to offer a confortable seat layout in all cabins
@@Humanity_Hope_ it doesn't have nearly the cargo capacity, which is where a lot of money is made on trans-Atlantic flights
If they are willing to reduce prices in order to attract more transit pax and sacrifice cgo volume in same time (which is ridiculous on transatlantic route) it’s okay. Honestly they should only add 321xlr on long haul routes where they have higher demand and provide extra flights. At the end if there are some routes served double daily then one should stay wide body and another with 321xlr so cgo does not suffer.
Absolutely not what you’re saying is bull shit
I mean that would mean adding capacity to the route which they dont wanna
A single wide body or 2 narrow body at different will really help to give time flexibility to passengers thus maybe inturn increasing demand
I agree with your thoughts. We could see them doing a widebody and an XLR during summer if demand warrants. This could happen on all sorts of routes. Also year-around service to some formerly seasonal destinations, with one XLR-only in winter, or increased frequency as Iberia is doing (daily in winter instead of just a few flights per week). While an XLR might be a less comfortable option for a longer flight, having a nonstop instead of connections is a huge benefit. I've seen too many missed connections recently with passengers connecting thru major hubs to Madrid or any other international destination.
Wizzair has expressed interest in starting India, more middle East routes.. hopefully they are able to using these
They can route cargo through London, they already have widebodies flying MAD-LHR twice daily and from there BA fly 3 times daily with 777-200
Congratulations to both parties
This is a laudable news for Airbus and its clients as this versatile agile aircraft can greatly complement their operation and expand network.
Restrooms and crew rest will be the biggest problems for those aircrafts.
Crew rest will be a business class seat with curtains. Restrooms are fine. They are not carrying 400 passengers.
Autopilot AI will take their jobs. 95% of the flight will be just rest.
@@dariusdareme Sure, as long as there's no bad weather, no diversion, no medical emergency, no system malfunction, no system failure, no bird strike, no technical glitch, no communication breakdown, no cyber-attack, no unexpected severe turbulence, no runway congestion, no mid-air collision risk, no fuel miscalculation by ground staff, no emergency landing requirement, no mechanical defect, no navigation error, no equipment breakdown, no sensor failure-apart from that, I'm sure AI will do fine! On a serious note, AI will come into the field, yes, but not tomorrow. Hell, Teslas can't even drive properly yet, and you want to send 200 passengers in the air alone?
Or passengers and crew could just stick to a high protein, low-residue diet before their flight. This is how U-2 pilots avoided defecation.
There is not crew rest
Excellent replacement for the 757.
Boeing must be kicking themselves.
It doesn’t really replace the 757 though, the 757 really does the same but better with better capacity. The problem it was just way too ahead of its time.
@@morganlambley8655 Are you saying that Boeing couldn't manufacture/maintain it properly? If not, why did they give it up? Normally a manufacturer with an aircraft 'ahead of it's time' will stick with it (obviously) unless there is some *very* serious underlying problem.
@@morganlambley8655 They sold 1000 of them so not ahead of it's time. It was very popular. Just old now.
@@morganlambley8655 Not really more capacity. Delta is putting 148 seats on their lie flat 321 Neos vs 168 on their lie flat 757s. Difference being 12 premium eco seats and 10 additional extra legroom seats that the 757 doesn't have. In a similar config it'd be similar pax numbers.
Of course the 321 does it with 25% less fuel.
@@morganlambley8655but still wider than 757 so a little bit more elbow room
Great video, as always.
Congratulations to both Airbus and Iberia and best of luck for them in this new venture
I am SO happy the first few A321XLRs will fly to my local airport. I kind of had a feeling, because DC already has several A321LR routes here, mainly because of the lesser demand.
We must all agree it’s a beautiful plane no matter where it flies.
I really hope this will make intercontinental travel cheaper.
😆 yeah, good luck with that!
Awesome! Definitely different. Great job guys you guys have work so fast! I and I can’t believe narrowbodies are now used on widebody routes!
I'm only thinking on the legroom for such long routes. 😢😢😢 On the other hand, I'm really happy for both, Airbus and Iberia.
Legroom is the same as wide body aircraft.
but the legroom is dependent on the airlines seat choices. Doesn't matter if it's an A321 or an A380
It is not less than on the a330
Hopefully they don't have reclining seats with such a cramped configuration. Not to mention that reclining seats reduce the range because of increased weight.
Legroom depends on the configuration of the cabin, not the aircraft type.
so cool-so long flights in a narrowbody! i feel bad for pax
LETS GOOOO ITS COMING TO IAD
Anything over 4 hours in a 3-3 config is uncomfortable. Unless normal business class.
Exactly
If you Force us to use a narrow body it should be a business class
Which means the capacity like a Concorde
Maximum 115 passanger with Seat pitch more than 52 inches
Are you sure? Is it just in the mind? How does having two aisles actually effect your own seat? The longer routes will have more leg room and a better configuration than single aisles usually do. I've been on a couple of Transatlantic flights between the UK and the USA (7.5 hours) and Mexico (10 hours) and between Finland and Japan (9 hours). All these flights involved wide bodied aircraft but when I think back to the actual space I used myself it was really no different to any other flight apart from just the feeling of space around me that I never actually used. I only ever used my seat and one aisle.
What's more comfortable with others?
I'm hoping to see more direct routes from my home city of Lyon, France. There are only a couple of inter-continental flights currently but the city is probably large enough to justify routes using the A321XLR. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm hopeful.
Exciting times😊
In the mean time the seat plan of Iberia's A321XLR is already on their website. Interesting to see is the number of toilets on the plane. 1 for the 14 business class seats, which is acceptable, but only 1 for the 168 economy seats. Good luck for these economy class passengers on 8-9 hour flights on this plane.
I flew from New York to Lisbon on a TAP A321XLR last week. In terms of seat space I felt it was basically the same as in an A330. Our seats were in the back and it was annoying having so many people going to the restroom all the time. Also having only one aisle is more difficult for cabin service. It was weird doing a transatlantic trip on such a compact plane, it feels like it's less comfortable somehow, though the seat space, as I said, seemed ok. It was also a flight with frequent and lasting light turbulence, a bit uncomfortable. Not sure if this is related to this aircraft having a smaller body, thus less stability
Maybe it’s just me. But those two routes seem way more suitable for wide body aircraft. DC and Boston to Madrid seem like quite high demand routes.
I thought the 321XLR would be used for routes like Sevilla to Savanna or something like that. Rotterdam/ The Hague to New York. Low demand but still profitable
I also thought they were going to open new routes from smaller cities, Madrid Boston, really? So this "new revolutionary plane" is not good for point to point travel, same old hub and spoke system but more uncomfortable for the traveller. Good job Iberia. 10 years i haven't flown iberia and looks like I won't fly them anytime soon.
@@carmenvalmalaartaraz8260 I’ve used them to fly to South America ones. It was not to bad. But Spanish people are a little loud. But I live in Amsterdam so there are better options for me anyway to reach North America
They will open new routes.. But with the freed a330z
My company will get the XLRs 2025 as well. Initial routes are supposed to be Rome/Vienna/Lodon to India and Tanzania as far as I understood
Tap Air Portugal has been doing these routes from Portugal with the 321 LR Neo for years now with no XLR required. I believe SATA also flies from Oakland to the Azores in an NEO.
boston to fnc too.
Oakland Azores isn't possible in a neo. They were doing that route with a Boeing 767 from euro Atlantic
@@Rabidanti I just took that EuroAtlantic 767 I did a trip report, it's not great.
@@Rabidanti I'm surprised a 767 does that to be fair..
We''ll see some flights with this plane from ORD and ATL potentially. Maybe flights to smaller Hawaiian islands from DFW and IAH potentially by AA and UA respectively
Flew Iberia BOS-MAD in January 2022 because American was not operating its PHL-MAD service due to the pandemic (took an America, probably A320 family or Boeing 737) to BOS, and the annoyance of going through security again there even though it looks like you should be able to walk from one airside end to the other. There was technical and weather issues and I'm not sure if smaller planes have issues like smaller ships with inclement weather
Also, because Boeing never designed a 757 replacement, the A321 XLR will replace a lot of routes currently served by the 757.
The passengers who fill the vast majority of seats on the plane shop on price. They’re agnostic when it comes to frame type. Those who fill the profit margins, shop on comfort and convenience. As long as Iberia can deliver good service on the XLR, it will work. Other carriers have demonstrated excellent service on B752s flying transatlantic, where the flight attendant to passenger ratio in business is higher than many widebodies. If the XLR has all aisle access up front, it will rule the roost across the Atlantic.
Airbus prototype a321 xlr could fly up to 11 hours when tested. Because of certification, its now only 9.30 hours. Thats a big drop.
3 hour flights on an Iberia A320 fam aircraft is already hell. I dread to think, unless more comfortable padded seating and levels of service by crew exists. I flew a 757 in 1989 and that was very comfortable but very different seat comfort and in flight service compared with today, and NO individual IFE screens it was better
I'm hoping to see some northern west coast to asia action from smaller airports, maybe like Sacramento to tokyo or something like thhat
Finally BOS gets an inaugural
I still think I’m always going to prefer long-haul on wide-bodied aircraft. But I can see the arguments in favour of deploying the XLR. That said, is there any competition on these routes? If so they must be using wide-bodied aircraft. I wonder if some Iberia customers will switch?
Iberia will make a lot of money if loads are high, because of cost of aquisition, operating and service. If fares are kept in the reasonable range for the airline and customer, we could see a huge change of the market in the coming years, with a lot of fragmentation.
it doesn't matter that it's such a long flight on a narrow body, as long as the airlines configure them for such a long trip. we just associate the planes with less comfort because they are usually more cramped for shorter haul routes. case and point, I'd rather spend 9h on iberia's xlr than 5h on cebu's a330
Indigo a321xlr will be interesting
I can't imagine 9 hours in a middle seat
yea, much more flexibility for the airline... and what about the passengers? no one seems to care about being in a single aisle knees-touching-the-previous-seat plane for +9 hours... if you could choose between being +9hours in an A330 or in an A320... what would you choose?
Before the frist flight of the route, will they have the xlr on other shorter routes for testing purposes?
Spending 10 hours in a narrowbody is going to be a nightmare for passengers. If Boeing wants to be competitive with a 797 launch in 2030, they need to have a 2 - 2 - 2 abreast seating arrangement for economy class in order to stay competitive after everything that has happened.
As a Boston based traveler, I think it is such a shame that Iberia is getting rid of their Premium Economy service on the A321XLR. Iberia's Prem Ec is truly a good product, but this change is causing me to switch to Lufthansa group...
9h in a plane that small seems worse than hell. 9h WITH THAT LEGROOM, OH GOD. Though tbf, it opens more point to point routes and I am sure the people on these routes want a 9h direct flight with less legroom than a total 15h trip (10h in the 2 planes and 5h in the airport for layover)
The Azores and Madeira would prob use these if they opened up US markets deeper into the US east coast.
Good news for Aer Lingus. With preclearance at Dublin they can fly into any US airport without CBP facilities.
Poor passengers 😢
Iberia probably use the new aircraft on some Euro routes first, any information about that yet?
The thing is, that it's a Long Range aircarft, the standard neo variant is more profitable on short routes, due to smaller weight for eg.
@@e.e5092 I ment if they fly it on shorter routes first for crew training. That's what airlines often do with new aircraft types.
Not sure. It’s true that new types are normally deployed on shorter routes initially for crew training, but in this case Iberia already operates the "standard" A321neo.
@@mikrokupu not sure if there is a training needed to switch between the XLR, LR and regular neo. I don't think this plane will be profitable on shorter routes because the long range cabin has less capacity than a regular neo.
@@mikrokupu I'm sure they'll have test flights and possibly crew training routes shortly after the first plane is delivered to them, but those wouldn't be considered scheduled revenue flights.
The A321XLR must give Boeing some sleepless night . They could also be deployed on some West coast Africa routes such as Dakar or Equatorial Guinea (Spanish speaking) .
No way I’m ever flying a narrow body for more than four hours!
Question… How is crew rest being handled on these hellacious long narrow body flights?
I want to see Madrid to San Juan
Let’s see how many times it is weight restricted or has to make a fuel stop!
Will this plane now be operated from London city, Southampton or Heathrow.
No passenger wants a wide body 3 or 4 seat configuration and departure lounge over population any more....
I’ll be on the a321xlr in December!
Nice!
All depends on the cabin configuration and room to stand
I hope they can create 97 Seat business classes with a comfortability price as full service
I wonder when Indigo will receive its XLR. Likely to do DEL-LONDON (gatwick or stansted)
Indigo has choosen P&W engines, which are not certified yet
@@HugoAelbrecht ooh that's a cool tidbit to know, thanks.
In hindsight looks like a poor choice given the maintenance troubles.
Earliest entry to service is probably late 2025
indigo said they'll use more niche routes for this aircraft, im not sure will they fly to London with this aircraft when they have also ordered the a350
@@crypton7572 New Delhi is the best place for a hub between Europe and Asia. It is the only country from which they could reach every capital in Europe and every airport in Asia, using the XLR (not including contingency fuel). For big cities like London, Paris etc they will obviously use the A350. But for smaller cities, the 321XLR will be perfect. For the ones closer to India, the LR or even the standard 321 will be perfect. With a total of 1300 A320 family delivered + ordered, they will become the largest Low Cost Airline in the world. If no mergers of other major airlines, based on the airplane orders, Indigo will even become the largest airline in the world (in number of planes).
At some point, gate availability needs to be factored in. Is this a case of "kicking the can" to another bottleneck?
I wouldn't want to be stuck inside an A320 or 737 sized aircraft for 9 hours, but I guess that's the way things are going...
This A321 XLR is excellent to long haul/ low density flights.
A321 XLR should be deployed to central America, Caribbean, South America routes.
Or asian maybe
@@syahrulmufidho of course.
The 787-8 can do the same and doesn't subject passengers to having to sit 9 hours in a narrow-body.
How and where the crew will rest at in this tiny plane?
Although excellent products the issue for passengers will be the Q’s down the aisle for toilets as well as people moving around in a more confined space trying to squeeze past service carts
Only 10 minutes longer to Boston... I'm not sure. What is the cruise mach of a330?
.82. Compared to the .78 - .79 on any A32S
@@kapranitos109
They try to push the limit about narrowbodies that can hit almost 9000 KM
Hmmm single isle over the pond. Bit like taking a twin engine 707. D C 8 back in the 70’s
why do the use the XLR when they can you the LR like air transat or TAP for these route?
A huge advantage with more direct routes rather than the hassle of transiting through shitty US airports without sterile transit facilities. Not to mention how expensive domestic flights are in the US.
Nice, during low periods Iberia didnt serve Boston. From now on Madrid Boston will be served year around.
What is SO different? Isn't it just an LR with an extra fuel tank? Why would they need training flights?
I dont know if a narrow body will be customer friendly for such long flights.
Será el 14 de agosto de 2024 y no en octubre como se afirma en este video cuando iberia hará su primer viaje a Boston con este nuevo avión
MAD-BOS is not worth for A321XLR as even normal neo type can operate without any restrictions
The XLR doesn't yet have FAA certification. Will/can the Americans prevent it from entering their airspace?
FAA gonna certify it in about 1 week
US companies have ordered the XLR so it's unlikely the FAA will refuse it certification.
I had the experience flying transatlantic in a narrow body, which wasn’t pleasant at all. I’d refrain from flying with any airliner that does not use wide bodies for my transatlantic flights as much as I can.
Will it make it? Never heard of FAA approval 🤔
The Airbus A-321 has long haul capability but with crammed seating that was designed for 2 to 4 hour flights. I have flown them across the Atlantic on A-321's and it was awful. There needs to be regulations for seating based on the length of the flight.
Agree
Because for me, it's like a more comfortable Seat in widebody even just 5 hours.
Than you maximize the range for almost 250 passengers for more than 5 hour's flight
Madrid to Boston
MAD-BOS 😂
I am just a child sometimes
Sucks it won’t have premium eco
9 hours in a noisy, cramped (not the most spacious) single isle aircraft 👀… not sure who’s up for that… or has Airbus improved cabin experience to meet wide body comfort ?
I flew the a321 neo 6.5 hours multiple times and it’s not fun
I feel you
I'm more comfortable in a domestic route spending 4 hours in widebody and business class than choose 7 hours in narrow body aircraft
But it's cheaper. You can always find more expensive flights.
@dariusdareme
Yeah , exactly when your job is not a manager it's quite acceptable
But I spoke as a senior Supervisor that is not quite comfortable 4 hours in narrow body aircraft
Me too. For me it was better than on a 789 from AEA
Not allways
The A330 has much more seats to sell. Which makes them less expensive.
Feel bit jet blue cheap but but cramp long haul would be more others Spanish cities be mad bar are pop cities surely keep @330 x@350 😊
Good News for Iberia I guess, less for the passengers. I’ve made Cologne Dubai via Istanbul last year on an A321 neo and it’s been my worst flying experience ever. Cramped space, lines for the toilets … there is no miracle, a small plane remains a small plane.
I’m not crew…..but I hope these airlines cater for the crew rest. Having crew seats on toilet doors and lack of space , crew have nowhere to rest or sit……standing for hours and toilets being in use. BA use a 321 to Sharm and I’ve see crew having to stand for long periods being disturb by passengers. People will say they are working but crew need a break or place to eat and drink…..at least they deserve a cup of tea without sitting on a toilet door.
Would it be profitable and sustainable? Time will tell
Can pilots with certificate for A320 neo family operate the XLR?
probably yes. they may need a short extra courses though.
I imagine they'll need familiarization training, much like a 737 pilot transitioning from a 737-800 to a Max 9 would.
With a conversion course; I think so. The type rating is the same
yes
A320 type rating covers every variant of the A320 family from A318 o A321XLR. Some airlines require an additional check out for the 321 but it’s generally just a single roundtrip.
Gross. I can’t imagine being stuck in this sardine can for so long
No difference than a wide body.
Who wants to be in a cramped narrow body when you can be on a 777 or 350 with lots of headroom and more legroom?
It’s pronounced E-beria; not EYE-beria!!!
Will
They ever fly Madrid Cuzco ?
Can’t reach
They could possibly connect the Canary Islands with South America. Routes that were previously only possible with widebodies.
Hmm don’t get the hype. Wouldn’t want to spend 9hours on a single aisle tbh. Also doubt this will help pricing either as they’ll set higher prices to breakeven with less passengers
I wouldn't fly on a narrow body for more than 5 or 6 hours.
Wasnt mea supposed to be the launch customer ??
Lebanon is in the middle of a *ahem* conflict.
Do you mean like flydubai flew to My country?
I mean Like Saudi Airlines with 135 business class passengers to handle Umrah personel
As a frequent international traveller (in tourist class) I hate to see this plane. Long range narrow bodied planes are very uncomfortable for flights of more than two hours duration.
9 hours in a narrow body, aluminum tube. No thanks, I’ll look for a flight in a wide body.
No way I would fly narrow body for 8 hrs wide bodies are for this even 777 coach is relatively comfortable vs xlr coach
I for one am not interested in a flight if this duration on a single aisle.
9,5 hours in a narrowbody? Thanks, but No thanks.
An awful thought, 9 hrs on a narrow body!
I will never fly long haul on a narrow body. I'd rather go by boat
Honestly, they would need to have at least 3-4 toilets in a nine hour plus flight. How would a single aisle plane accomodate that? The last thing you want is a biohazard created by a clogged loo while flying over the pacific.
That would be so painful flying that long in that shitty tiny tube