I think it was just luck that the market for this class picked up at the right moment and the B757 was not in production. Boeing closed the B757 line because it wasn't selling well. Who would've known that the market would turn around. If Boeing knew that they'd be producing a B757 Max now.
@@jean-yvesferry4669 well, Airbus made mistake with A380s anyway, because they're believing in hub-spoke model. their main advantage is A320s is 80's design, compare to B737s that is 60's design, and even B757 is 80's design, it's still heavier, compare to A321 series. they have model that can cope and adapt with latest design, i.e. higher ground clearance for larger diameter fan engine and stretching the length further..
@@fjp3305 I doubt it was luck. Slightly lucky yes of course but the amount of work and money they spent on the program, airbus clearly seen something that Boeing didn’t.
Honestly, the A321neo is an absolutely well-designed plane capability-wise. No wonder so many orders have been made for them. Airbus clearly took their time to analyse the market’s needs and made it happen.
I don’t see why narrow body planes are perceived as less comfortable than wide body ones. To me the seat size matters not the plane body. Neo is indeed an excellent plane and I would be happy to fly long distance
When it comes to longhaul, there's a difference for sure, and here are 4 examples: 1. Widebody aircraft are more comfortable at cruising altitude. That's why the A380 is such a passenger favorite. 2. A widebody feels less cramped when it's full, perhaps because it's more spacious and so feels more airy. 3. When a narrowbody is used for longhaul, the airline is able to load much lesser catering, so they run out food and passengers are usually not able to get their preferred meals and/or drinks. 4. The widebody has more lavatories, so passengers have access to 6 or more lavatories, not lining up as much to share only two in the rear of the aircraft. I've flown longhaul in both narrowbody and widebody, and given a choice, I'll always choose a widebody for any flight, let alone a longhaul one.
@@sainnt Very much agree with what you say. I recently flew Sydney to Perth and back opting to fly Qantas because they offered a wide body A330 on that route against Virgin's 737-800. I had flown an A321 with Air New Zealand across the ditch and with a full plane found it much more claustrophobic by comparison. Their aircraft offer 3 lavatories, one at front, one in the middle and one at back. Not enough in my opinion for about 240 pax. Have no desire to fly on this aircraft again, it is good for economics of operators but falls short on passenger comfort as far as I'm concerned.
I fly across the Tasman regularly, and usually in Widebodies (A380, A330, B777, B787) but recently went in a 320neo, and was surprised as to how nice it was. The cabin was quiet, the seat configuration was fine, and I would have been happy to have been on the flight for longer.
@@ayaananw It's what they need to survive. Their bread and butter for profits was for the successful Asian network they smartly created. But, between COVID and not able to overfly Russia, that has fallen apart. Short haul has been a money loser for them for a long time now. Costs and their small local market make it really tough in that area. They are having to wet least some widebodies out now since their network doesn't have the demand it use to.
@@ayaananw All of the smaller network carriers in Europe have been struggling for a long time now. The market consolidated around the big 3 and LLCs. If you're not in one of those groups you're in a very tough position.
I'm amazed on how Pratt & Whitney is still doing fairly well even when the GTF is literally breaking every month somewhere due to mechanical failure and wear.
Jup… Boeing failed with the 737-10Max a max capacity of 220, while the 321NEO can offer around 15-20 more, in airline business that’s a lot of money. They really should’ve made a 757Max, based on the 757-2. Composite body, new engines… The 220-250 a 757 could carry would’ve been ideal for a lot of carriers.
I've never been on an A321neo, but I've been on an A320neo for four times with HK Express, Lufthansa, and easyJet. The former two are powered by Pratt & Witney's 1127G-JM engines, while the latter is powered by CFM International's LEAP-1A26 engines. I found that these engines are quieter than the Airbus A320ceo. Despite being the next-generation narrowbody aircraft for Airbus, it still has barking dog noises just like the Airbus A330neo.
I think that the Airbus A330neo, A350 XWB, the Boeing 777X, and the 787 Dreamliner are the perfect fit for airlines who want to use them to renew their existing medium- to long-haul fleet, and to boost their medium- to long-distance network.
Boeing invented the formula, so it's rather odd that they chose not to modernize the 757. During recent interviews with the Dave Calhoun, it seems Boeing wants to keep aiming for aircraft with as much future technology as possible. A 757 Max would have been a profitable stop gap, and a great source of revenue for them while they worked on future aircraft. Boeing could have easily sold 1000 units. Airbus has done a great job of capitalizing on the Boeing lapse of judgement.
Well past time to let the 757 fanboy go. It's been dead for years. Even at it never sold well. Was on sale for 30 years and only managed 1000 units. It never sold well outside of North America. And, selling only 1000 a NEO wouldn't be worth the investment. The production line, tooling for it etc have been gone for 15+ years now. It's also very heavy relative to the 737 and 321 and their are no engines right in the thrust range it would need.
@@johniii8147 I wouldn't want the 757 to be built today. I'm just saying that it should have been modernized when Boeing had the chance. A new engine would have been built for it. Also, selling 1000 units was pretty amazing for a niche aircraft, and of the 1,050 produced, over 640 of them are still flying, a testament to the durability of the airframe. I hear that same argument about the 737 all the time, but the A320 is no longer a spring chicken either, and airlines are still buying the 737 for a good reason. A good airframe is a good airframe, especially if it can be improved the way these other so-called new aircraft have been. Airbus fanboys like calling the A320neos new. Yeah right. In reality, the only 'new' aircraft we have out there are the 787, A350 and A220. All the other ones are pigs with good lipsticks on.
And let's not mention that the MAX is Boeing's reaction to the Neo. Boeing just wants to keep on selling 1960's airplanes, no matter how much of them drop out of the sky. In fact, they'd love that. The opportunity to sell replacements.
A320 neo family is great, except for one thing. The windows are still so very small. Airbus played tricks with the window frame, tapper in the new design and adding wall curvature, but the see-through glass parts are as small as the A320 ceo family.
Remember flying on the 707 and DC 8 from North America to Manchester in the late 60's and70's eas happy when we got the DC10 an L1011 now it sorta looks like we're going back to the single aisle but with just New over head bins an tv screen's
I took a 4 hour A321neo flight from Auckland to Melbourne on Air NZ and I will be honest it was just as good as a widebody albeit the plane was not very full.
Most dense 321neo is Frontier in the US with 240 cabin seats (not wizz air)/ 321CEOs are the most dense as well with 230. Indigo partners (which own wizz air and frontier) do their European carrier slightly different than their airlines in central and North America
That'll be great, but first Pratt & Whitney must address the geared turbofan reliability issues that has caused less utiliization of the planes than necessary. It's only very aggressive maintenance by US carriers that have kept the PW1100G-powered A321neo's in service here in the USA.
Small correction: both pilots and cabin crew will do differences training for different variants of a plane. For pilots there are small differences in procedures and technique between the old generation engines and NEOs.
Great video ! With various options such as the A319/320/321 all sharing the same cockpit and functionalities, new efficient engines, an XLR version, and a stellar safety record, no wonder these planes are selling like hot potatoes, as this family of single-aisle aircraft is the best money can buy at this time. The video begins with the approach and landing of an « MEA » 221 neo. The same aircraft appears near the video’s end as well. Beautiful livery on these, but which airline is this?
Airbus A321 has been around since 1993. It was offering pretty much the same things back then. Yes it was not the new NEO version but there were no A320 neo or 737max as well. So I dont really get it why it became so popular now. Maybe it’s the changing dynamics of the market but still, it doesnt make sense because carrying more passengers in a more economical way has always been the priority of the market. It’s like a song that became a hit years after it’s been released. Oh well, good for airbus. Im sure they are enjoying the hell out of this song
The increase in fuel prices, as well as with the longer range being able to service different routes (Being able to reach further destinations, as well as new destinations opening up).
Although feasible for the fuselage, there are no suitable engines currently available. So it is a case of either waiting for new engines such as one of the smaller variants of the next generation of engines such as the designed to be suitably scaleable RR Ultrafan, or loosing enough weight, by, for example, a new much lighter composite wing, possibly along with the use of lighter alloys (as used on the A220) and a greater use of composites elsewhere so that the thrust from the current engines becomes sufficient.
so heres the issue the demand is so big that you cant get any of them till like 2028 other than leasing so it opens it for boeing and well i dont think they will capitalize on the high demand for a320 and making the 737 easier or better
People will always compare the A321 and the 757, and point out the A321s shortcomings. What many fail to accept, and some even realise, but highlighted in this video, is that the A321 can, and often does successfully replace the 757 on the routes the 757 is operated. If you don't need the performance or range of the 757, the A321 can accommodate a similar number of passengers to the 757-200. Agreed, no single aisle comes close to the 757-300 in capacity, but judging by the lack of sales, the airlines simply didn't want it. Not only that, but the 757 production run overlapped the A321's by more than a decade, yet failed to obtain enough orders to maintain production. Around 6 times as many A321s have been delivered than 757s, with an order book of many thousands and rising. Yes the great 757 may win in a limited number of areas, and deserves credit for the routes it opened up, but the A321 with its wider cabin and seats has been far more successful.
There is no such thing as "perfect aircraft" like there is no really perfect anything. All gonna depend on mission needs, deal you can get, delivery schedule etc etc which aircraft will be the best choice.
nice plane it complements the A320 however the A321 houses the fuel tanks under the passengers seats I am not an expert however that does not sound right
I think a perfect one would be a 757x and 767x. It’s a bit bigger and got more range too, that is if Boeing does stuff correctly lol and TAKE THEIR TIME
I agree that Boeing could easily capitalize on a 767x with a composite fuselage, larger wings and newer engines as well as the 757 built the same way with Pratt and Whitney GTF engines. American corporations never seem to get it right due to corporate greed.
Yesterday's news. Those 2 you suggest won't be competitive with what Airbus has on offer. Instead of wasting more money on 757 & 767 types, they need a clean sheet design.
The Airbus a321 Neo is a good aircraft and it can replace a lot of the capabilities of the Boeing 757 aircraft but not all. The Airbus a321 Neo has almost the same capacity but is still roughly 9 feet shorter than the Boeing 757 and the Airbus a321 Neo cannot replace the takeoff performance that the Boeing 757 can take off from a shorter runway since the Boeing 757 has a larger wing with more powerful engines. The Airbus a321 Neo comes close to the Boeing 757 while being cheaper to operate than the Boeing 757.
That short runway performance is actually rarely needed and increases it operating cost significantly being over powered for 95% of missions. And as you said, both the 321 and 737-9/10 match the capacity with 25-30% lower operating costs. The 757 was heavy and overpowered.
Unless you wrote this piece more than eight months prior to the posting of this video, you missed at least a couple airlines with more A321 seats than Wizz Air has. Frontier in the USA and JetSmart in Chile both operate A321s with 240 seats since Sept 2022. There may well be others with more than 239, those are just the two I happen to know about.
I actually thought that this video was a really great one and not a 787 NightMare Liner commercial. Then it got to the end and boom, the Boeing equipment gets mentioned,. Typical
The 757 designed in 1979, still out preforms the A321, hot and high , full capacity in a head wind…. By the Airbus because same lightbulbs? Do you think Boeing is advertiseimg the the next plane… any engineer can walk in the door and get a job… there’s something happening( hint hint). Airbus are cheaper but parts cost more , that’s a known fact on the industry.
Parts may be cheaper, but as any accountant knows, for a comparison to be valid, the time taken to replace them MUST be taken into account along with the service life of that component. It is possible that a lighter component may contribute enough during its life on the aircraft to significantly contribute to, or even cover its additional cost through fuel savings - although these are more volatile and difficult to predict. I do not know whether the result will favour Airbus or Boeing, but you must use a valid comparison. As for the indisputable additional performance of the 757, this is not usually required, and comes at an operating cost when it is not. Quite simply, for the majority of airlines, those advantages are not required, so all they will see are the operational advantages of the A321. Not to forget that the A321 and 757 production runs overlapped by around a decade, yet the A321 has been, and continues to be successful, while the 757 couldn't even get enough orders for its production to continue.
Ok Boeing fan boy. The 757 never did that well in the market. It sold only 1000 units in 30 years of sales. No there is nothing happening that we don't know about. Boeing has been very public on their plans. The NMA program is off and they are focused on getting current planes to market and wait for new technology advancements to justify a new program.
The plane is quiet and class. This can be proven by objective measurements. However, if you have flown with an airline that has cut back on the seat pitch and the quality of the seats, even a jumbo or an A380 will be uncomfortable.
Currently watching this on a delta a321 neo on the way to LA can’t get over how quiet it Is in cruise
Me too. Nice plane except for the horribly tiny restrooms.
@@ross4fine if you aren't fat. I'm jacked btw big shoulders and 42" chest
I flew on it yesterday TPA to LAX, smooth aerodynamics, beats the rest of the competition in comfort, excellent!
Airbus have done their home work perfectly with the NEO family and they are selling like hot cakes.
I think it was just luck that the market for this class picked up at the right moment and the B757 was
not in production. Boeing closed the B757 line because it wasn't selling well. Who would've known
that the market would turn around. If Boeing knew that they'd be producing a B757 Max now.
Not luck, it's the result of better forecasting on Airbus's part.
@@jean-yvesferry4669 well, Airbus made mistake with A380s anyway, because they're believing in hub-spoke model. their main advantage is A320s is 80's design, compare to B737s that is 60's design, and even B757 is 80's design, it's still heavier, compare to A321 series. they have model that can cope and adapt with latest design, i.e. higher ground clearance for larger diameter fan engine and stretching the length further..
@@fjp3305 I doubt it was luck. Slightly lucky yes of course but the amount of work and money they spent on the program, airbus clearly seen something that Boeing didn’t.
@@힐만94 i wouldn’t say the a380 was a failure dude. Not as successful as it could have been but it’s hardly a failure
Airbus is the benchmark at this point! Number 1!!!
Honestly, the A321neo is an absolutely well-designed plane capability-wise. No wonder so many orders have been made for them. Airbus clearly took their time to analyse the market’s needs and made it happen.
Well designed with extra fuel tank at fuselage?
I don’t see why narrow body planes are perceived as less comfortable than wide body ones. To me the seat size matters not the plane body. Neo is indeed an excellent plane and I would be happy to fly long distance
Yeah sometimes even seat width its wider than in widebodies.
When it comes to longhaul, there's a difference for sure, and here are 4 examples:
1. Widebody aircraft are more comfortable at cruising altitude. That's why the A380 is such a passenger favorite.
2. A widebody feels less cramped when it's full, perhaps because it's more spacious and so feels more airy.
3. When a narrowbody is used for longhaul, the airline is able to load much lesser catering, so they run out food and passengers are usually not able to get their preferred meals and/or drinks.
4. The widebody has more lavatories, so passengers have access to 6 or more lavatories, not lining up as much to share only two in the rear of the aircraft.
I've flown longhaul in both narrowbody and widebody, and given a choice, I'll always choose a widebody for any flight, let alone a longhaul one.
Narrow bodies make some people feel claustrophobic. (Me)
@@sainnt Very much agree with what you say. I recently flew Sydney to Perth and back opting to fly Qantas because they offered a wide body A330 on that route against Virgin's 737-800. I had flown an A321 with Air New Zealand across the ditch and with a full plane found it much more claustrophobic by comparison. Their aircraft offer 3 lavatories, one at front, one in the middle and one at back. Not enough in my opinion for about 240 pax. Have no desire to fly on this aircraft again, it is good for economics of operators but falls short on passenger comfort as far as I'm concerned.
I think the fact a lot of A321 neos have lie flat seats in business, makes it appealing for people to upgrade as well.
I fly across the Tasman regularly, and usually in Widebodies (A380, A330, B777, B787) but recently went in a 320neo, and was surprised as to how nice it was. The cabin was quiet, the seat configuration was fine, and I would have been happy to have been on the flight for longer.
A220-300 is perfect for both passengers comfort & Airlines efficiency
As a finn i would love to see finnair replace their a320 family aircraft with the new neos as well as buyind the 330 neos.
@@ayaananw It's what they need to survive. Their bread and butter for profits was for the successful Asian network they smartly created. But, between COVID and not able to overfly Russia, that has fallen apart. Short haul has been a money loser for them for a long time now. Costs and their small local market make it really tough in that area. They are having to wet least some widebodies out now since their network doesn't have the demand it use to.
@@ayaananw All of the smaller network carriers in Europe have been struggling for a long time now. The market consolidated around the big 3 and LLCs. If you're not in one of those groups you're in a very tough position.
Just flew this to Vienna from Malaga, Spain, Great aircraft.
I'm amazed on how Pratt & Whitney is still doing fairly well even when the GTF is literally breaking every month somewhere due to mechanical failure and wear.
Airbus makes a really nice aircraft. Always impressed with their build quality.
It is small but the best seller A321 good luck Airbus
You can’t knock it. Nice plane
Yes it’s perfect. I’m usually more of a Boeing guy and I love the 737-max now that it’s safe. But the 321Neo is really perfect I love it
Jup… Boeing failed with the 737-10Max a max capacity of 220, while the 321NEO can offer around 15-20 more, in airline business that’s a lot of money.
They really should’ve made a 757Max, based on the 757-2. Composite body, new engines…
The 220-250 a 757 could carry would’ve been ideal for a lot of carriers.
I've never been on an A321neo, but I've been on an A320neo for four times with HK Express, Lufthansa, and easyJet. The former two are powered by Pratt & Witney's 1127G-JM engines, while the latter is powered by CFM International's LEAP-1A26 engines. I found that these engines are quieter than the Airbus A320ceo. Despite being the next-generation narrowbody aircraft for Airbus, it still has barking dog noises just like the Airbus A330neo.
that sound is the Electric hidralics
I think that the Airbus A330neo, A350 XWB, the Boeing 777X, and the 787 Dreamliner are the perfect fit for airlines who want to use them to renew their existing medium- to long-haul fleet, and to boost their medium- to long-distance network.
Boeing invented the formula, so it's rather odd that they chose not to modernize the 757.
During recent interviews with the Dave Calhoun, it seems Boeing wants to keep aiming for aircraft with as much future technology as possible. A 757 Max would have been a profitable stop gap, and a great source of revenue for them while they worked on future aircraft. Boeing could have easily sold 1000 units.
Airbus has done a great job of capitalizing on the Boeing lapse of judgement.
Well past time to let the 757 fanboy go. It's been dead for years. Even at it never sold well. Was on sale for 30 years and only managed 1000 units. It never sold well outside of North America. And, selling only 1000 a NEO wouldn't be worth the investment. The production line, tooling for it etc have been gone for 15+ years now. It's also very heavy relative to the 737 and 321 and their are no engines right in the thrust range it would need.
@@johniii8147 I wouldn't want the 757 to be built today. I'm just saying that it should have been modernized when Boeing had the chance.
A new engine would have been built for it.
Also, selling 1000 units was pretty amazing for a niche aircraft, and of the 1,050 produced, over 640 of them are still flying, a testament to the durability of the airframe.
I hear that same argument about the 737 all the time, but the A320 is no longer a spring chicken either, and airlines are still buying the 737 for a good reason. A good airframe is a good airframe, especially if it can be improved the way these other so-called new aircraft have been. Airbus fanboys like calling the A320neos new. Yeah right.
In reality, the only 'new' aircraft we have out there are the 787, A350 and A220. All the other ones are pigs with good lipsticks on.
What a contrast between the process to design these great products at Airbus and the criminal debacle with the MAX by Boeing.
And let's not mention that the MAX is Boeing's reaction to the Neo. Boeing just wants to keep on selling 1960's airplanes, no matter how much of them drop out of the sky. In fact, they'd love that. The opportunity to sell replacements.
Amazing airplane, low noise levels and no locks in ear when in high altitude. Went on it from Copenhagen to Cyprus.
A320 neo family is great, except for one thing. The windows are still so very small. Airbus played tricks with the window frame, tapper in the new design and adding wall curvature, but the see-through glass parts are as small as the A320 ceo family.
Remember flying on the 707 and DC 8 from North America to Manchester in the late 60's and70's eas happy when we got the DC10 an L1011 now it sorta looks like we're going back to the single aisle but with just New over head bins an tv screen's
I took a 4 hour A321neo flight from Auckland to Melbourne on Air NZ and I will be honest it was just as good as a widebody albeit the plane was not very full.
Air NZ's A321neo's have a very nice cabin that's actually nicer than their 787's in economy !
@@XavierLignieres agreed!
I’m watching this as I’m in a NEO rn
It's going to become a classic, like the DC3
There's nothing quite as good as the Comet..,.....😊
That is bold statement 🤣
that aircraft will finaly kill boing bettter
Most dense 321neo is Frontier in the US with 240 cabin seats (not wizz air)/ 321CEOs are the most dense as well with 230. Indigo partners (which own wizz air and frontier) do their European carrier slightly different than their airlines in central and North America
Everyone loves the A321neo. I just flew on a Delta A321neo and oh wow is that a gorgeous aircraft.
So passengers travelling long haul opted narrow single Aile plane rather than wide body luxury plane like 787 and 777x, that's amazing.
That'll be great, but first Pratt & Whitney must address the geared turbofan reliability issues that has caused less utiliization of the planes than necessary. It's only very aggressive maintenance by US carriers that have kept the PW1100G-powered A321neo's in service here in the USA.
Awesome Video globe trotting at dj's aviation
Oh yeah the a321 has Sharklets, not winglets.
Same thing, that's just a branding thing.
Small correction: both pilots and cabin crew will do differences training for different variants of a plane. For pilots there are small differences in procedures and technique between the old generation engines and NEOs.
Great video ! With various options such as the A319/320/321 all sharing the same cockpit and functionalities, new efficient engines, an XLR version, and a stellar safety record, no wonder these planes are selling like hot potatoes, as this family of single-aisle aircraft is the best money can buy at this time. The video begins with the approach and landing of an « MEA » 221 neo. The same aircraft appears near the video’s end as well. Beautiful livery on these, but which airline is this?
MEA is the flag carrier of Lebanon, founded in 1945
Unless the price in J is very very affordable, I wouldn't even consider ticketing on a narrowbody flight over 5 hours.
It says all I Swiss Army knive many variants to fit the airline needs it hits the sweet spot
So good that Boeing tripped over trying to match it.
Voice is not annoying at all
Airbus A321 has been around since 1993. It was offering pretty much the same things back then. Yes it was not the new NEO version but there were no A320 neo or 737max as well.
So I dont really get it why it became so popular now. Maybe it’s the changing dynamics of the market but still, it doesnt make sense because carrying more passengers in a more economical way has always been the priority of the market.
It’s like a song that became a hit years after it’s been released. Oh well, good for airbus. Im sure they are enjoying the hell out of this song
The increase in fuel prices, as well as with the longer range being able to service different routes (Being able to reach further destinations, as well as new destinations opening up).
The question its what it will be next after the A321 XLR?
Probably the A322
@@StefanWithTrains Yeah a stretch version.
Although feasible for the fuselage, there are no suitable engines currently available.
So it is a case of either waiting for new engines such as one of the smaller variants of the next generation of engines such as the designed to be suitably scaleable RR Ultrafan, or loosing enough weight, by, for example, a new much lighter composite wing, possibly along with the use of lighter alloys (as used on the A220) and a greater use of composites elsewhere so that the thrust from the current engines becomes sufficient.
Wouldn't really about that yet. That will be years off still.
@@StefanWithTrains they announced work on a completely new plane model
It’s a great alternative to Boeing’s bumbling MAX series.
so heres the issue the demand is so big that you cant get any of them till like 2028 other than leasing so it opens it for boeing and well i dont think they will capitalize on the high demand for a320 and making the 737 easier or better
People will always compare the A321 and the 757, and point out the A321s shortcomings.
What many fail to accept, and some even realise, but highlighted in this video, is that the A321 can, and often does successfully replace the 757 on the routes the 757 is operated. If you don't need the performance or range of the 757, the A321 can accommodate a similar number of passengers to the 757-200.
Agreed, no single aisle comes close to the 757-300 in capacity, but judging by the lack of sales, the airlines simply didn't want it.
Not only that, but the 757 production run overlapped the A321's by more than a decade, yet failed to obtain enough orders to maintain production.
Around 6 times as many A321s have been delivered than 757s, with an order book of many thousands and rising.
Yes the great 757 may win in a limited number of areas, and deserves credit for the routes it opened up, but the A321 with its wider cabin and seats has been far more successful.
Perfect? It's an amazing plane don't get me wrong, but perfect is a very bold statement
There is no such thing as "perfect aircraft" like there is no really perfect anything. All gonna depend on mission needs, deal you can get, delivery schedule etc etc which aircraft will be the best choice.
Its the worst tell now since the p&w engine issues are uprising..
nice plane it complements the A320 however the A321 houses the fuel tanks under the passengers seats
I am not an expert however that does not sound right
I think a perfect one would be a 757x and 767x. It’s a bit bigger and got more range too, that is if Boeing does stuff correctly lol and TAKE THEIR TIME
I agree that Boeing could easily capitalize on a 767x with a composite fuselage, larger wings and newer engines as well as the 757 built the same way with Pratt and Whitney GTF engines. American corporations never seem to get it right due to corporate greed.
Yesterday's news. Those 2 you suggest won't be competitive with what Airbus has on offer. Instead of wasting more money on 757 & 767 types, they need a clean sheet design.
@@Bnard617 what you describe with the composite 767x is literally the 787
The Airbus a321 Neo is a good aircraft and it can replace a lot of the capabilities of the Boeing 757 aircraft but not all. The Airbus a321 Neo has almost the same capacity but is still roughly 9 feet shorter than the Boeing 757 and the Airbus a321 Neo cannot replace the takeoff performance that the Boeing 757 can take off from a shorter runway since the Boeing 757 has a larger wing with more powerful engines. The Airbus a321 Neo comes close to the Boeing 757 while being cheaper to operate than the Boeing 757.
That short runway performance is actually rarely needed and increases it operating cost significantly being over powered for 95% of missions. And as you said, both the 321 and 737-9/10 match the capacity with 25-30% lower operating costs. The 757 was heavy and overpowered.
Runways have modernised to the point of planes not needing the extra power for lift
As a comparison, Airbus has sold almost as many A321neo as Boeing has sold the entire MAX family (5,163 vs 5,603) !
Unless you wrote this piece more than eight months prior to the posting of this video, you missed at least a couple airlines with more A321 seats than Wizz Air has. Frontier in the USA and JetSmart in Chile both operate A321s with 240 seats since Sept 2022. There may well be others with more than 239, those are just the two I happen to know about.
To0 trivial to worry about a 1 seat difference. That's just being petty to be petty
German assembled!High Tech!
Icelandair is buying the xlr to replace the 757 not the lr
I actually thought that this video was a really great one and not a 787 NightMare Liner commercial. Then it got to the end and boom, the Boeing equipment gets mentioned,. Typical
Yes I Belive A320 Family Aircraft The Best For Airliner
Seats are too firm. rest of the plane seems good.
wizzair, scamming people with their crooked on line booking...AVOID.
maybe not a airbus problem
The 757 designed in 1979, still out preforms the A321, hot and high , full capacity in a head wind…. By the Airbus because same lightbulbs? Do you think Boeing is advertiseimg the the next plane… any engineer can walk in the door and get a job… there’s something happening( hint hint). Airbus are cheaper but parts cost more , that’s a known fact on the industry.
Parts may be cheaper, but as any accountant knows, for a comparison to be valid, the time taken to replace them MUST be taken into account along with the service life of that component.
It is possible that a lighter component may contribute enough during its life on the aircraft to significantly contribute to, or even cover its additional cost through fuel savings - although these are more volatile and difficult to predict.
I do not know whether the result will favour Airbus or Boeing, but you must use a valid comparison.
As for the indisputable additional performance of the 757, this is not usually required, and comes at an operating cost when it is not.
Quite simply, for the majority of airlines, those advantages are not required, so all they will see are the operational advantages of the A321.
Not to forget that the A321 and 757 production runs overlapped by around a decade, yet the A321 has been, and continues to be successful, while the 757 couldn't even get enough orders for its production to continue.
Ok Boeing fan boy. The 757 never did that well in the market. It sold only 1000 units in 30 years of sales. No there is nothing happening that we don't know about. Boeing has been very public on their plans. The NMA program is off and they are focused on getting current planes to market and wait for new technology advancements to justify a new program.
Hardly. Most uncomfortable plane I have ever flown. You are a bit biased I think.
You're a typical boeing troll
The plane is quiet and class. This can be proven by objective measurements. However, if you have flown with an airline that has cut back on the seat pitch and the quality of the seats, even a jumbo or an A380 will be uncomfortable.
Does Dan work for Airbus now?! Sheesh
That would have to be the worst voice on You Tube, urgh its grating
A flight longer than 2 hours on any plane of that small dimension is too uncomfortable.