Uh Oh: The Airbus A321XLR's Gamechanging Range Looks Like It Will Be Reduced
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ก.ค. 2023
- The range of the Airbus A321XLR could be reduced up to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) following an agreement between Airbus and European regulators on design safeguards needed to achieve certification. Let’s look at the details of this disappointing news in today’s video.
Article: simpleflying.com/airbus-a321x...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com - บันเทิง
As a passenger I think the A321XLR becomes more appealing if it's less likely to catch fire!
Just glide the last few hundred miles and the plane is good to go.
the pilot of mh370 approves of this message
@@crypton7572 Air Canada has already proved that with a 767 and Air Transat has done it with an A330. Both Canadian airlines but it's just a coincidence.
@@alooga555Wasn't the air Transat one wn a310 or a different incident using an a330 you mentioned
Lol
@@Tpr_1808 My reference is Air Transat Flight 236 involving an A330.
I don't believe that airlines were going to max out the range of their XLRs in regular routes anyway. They are probably serve primarily routes that even the LR can, but with the extra take off payload and possibly an occasional extra long flight on an irregular basis.
That's what McDonnell Douglas hoped would be the case on the MD-11 too. Look how that turned out for them. Granted, the A321XLR's range reduction isn't as drastic even by proportion, but the whole point of this aircraft was to exploit that upper envelope of range.
@@GintaPPE1000the b707 has a wider fuselage than the a321xlr.
@@jirehla-ab1671 No it did not. The 320 series as a larger width. The 707 has the same fuselage that the 737 or 757 does with some minor tweaks.
@@GintaPPE1000 The MD-11 competed against the 777 (a very good new aircraft), the A340 (a good new aircraft) and to some extent the A330.
The A321XLR doesn't have any meaningful competition. It's a minor update of the XLR, much less than the MD-11 was to the DC-10.
If you consider that airlines will operate it on 4,000 NM routes instead of 4,700 NM, then you should also consider they will use the A321LR on 3,300 NM instead of 4,000 NM. So the massive advantage in terms of extra range the XLR brings remains unchanged.
I don’t think any airline will cancel but it’s proof that every design has its limits and the A320 has now reached Its limits.
I think some airlines may cancel or modify their route plans. Overall though it is a fantastic aircraft and will sell well. You never know, Airbus may be tempted to stretch it and have an A322XLR and really steal that B757 market.
fo sho
They already did
There is no competition whatsoever between the 757 & the A321XLR! They come from two different eras and the B757 has long dominated that segment and made profits many years ago already. It’s time has come and gone. It is ok for the A321 LXR to slot in and do it’s thing too. It is NOT healthy to pitch one manufacturer against the other as they are all products of the Planet Earth so we must applaud them. As an Aviation Enthusiast, Research tells me that one Manufacturer is 43 years ahead of the other and almost always an ‘Industry First’ (example the 787 being 4 years ahead of the Beautiful A350 which itself is a cross between the 787 & 777)
Both Manufacturers should be embraced 🙏🏾❤️
They put their main fuel in their wings. Stretching your airplane will lower your range, as the longer fuselage is heavier.
You can put a limited fuel tank in your fuselage like they are doing with A321 XLR, but it also comes with problems.
If they will increase the range, they will either build bigger wings or shorten the fuselage. Putting even more fuel tanks in the fuselage is not practical, therefore there are very few aircraft with fuselage tanks and they have limited capacity there.
@@dogukantosun5547 The stretched 747-8 has a longer range than the 747-400 though.
If the A321LR and XLR have the same range, then what would be the point on the XLR version 😄
XLR sounds cooler 😎😅
more cargo capacity than the lr with aux tanks
A321LR MAX CRUISE is 4000nm, while A310XLR CRUISE is 4000nm. The video could have made that clear, they are different distances. The A321LR is the maximum absolute distance including safety and reserves, while the A310XLR is the distance WITHOUT them. To make it easier, using the same metric: A321LR Max Cruise is 4000nm and A321XLR Max Cruise would become ~4500nm with the changes. Still 500nm more.
They won't. It is super misleading to say "normal operations" give the XLR a 4000 nm range and then say the officially published range of the LR is 4000 nm. If they reduce the officially published range by 200nm to 4500nm then the difference will still be 500nm of range even though obviously neither one will fly its absolute max range
@@jaxonmattox9267well 500 nm is still around 2 hrs extra over the LR
So there is a real safety issue
Sadly yes. But this should teach the arrogant Airbus fans to stop gloating. I have far more respect for the company than many of their fans who I strongly believe the company would disavow if they knew what those fans were commenting
@@StopAirbusFansSame
@@StopAirbusFansMe 2
@@StopAirbusFansGloating is never ever a sensible idea
The way it was worded by Sympe Flying between 2:00 and 2:18 is simply appalling. It indirectly implies that the LR and XLR would have the same capabilities. By not distinguishing between nominal, maximum, typical, and published ranges, Simple Flying makes it a Symple Mess
Agreed. Pathetic.
No way that a few hundred kg of extra shielding drops your range by 700nm or 14%.
If that was the case the plane would have almost no range when half full with pax.
There’s confusion about how this is being reported. In various other articles the weight penalty reduces the range by up to 379 km. Out of an advertised 8700km. The range is still 8300-8400 km. in maps, the range is notably reduced but it still reaches the destinations this video mentioned from Iceland for example. 370 km is a radius of distance from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, which is less than an hour flight
But if it is reported more realistically, they can't use a sensational headline to draw in more clicks and comments!
It’s 800kg, replace a few economy seats by business class and you got it back already. Or restrict loads by 8 pax.
The order books and delivery schedule for all types with Airbus and Boeing are all extended years out. There will be many changes from the current orders and what is actually delivered and when.
On paper all airplanes are eXtraordinary. For this reason managers and customer are happy and smiling when they sign contracts. But then they come back to reality...
If the range will been deducted to the same of the A321LR, then what is the point of buying the XLR?
Bigger cargo hold (LR has fuel tanks taking place in cargo area)
IMO, those new routes mentioned, enabled by its longer range won't violate ETOPS restrrictions as they'll still be close enough airpots to divert to in emergencies. I once flew 14 hrours on a packed B-767ER in 2002 from Moscow to LAX over Scandinavia, the N. Atlantic, Greenland, & Canada.
Safety is more important - don't want an issue like the Concorde fire. Effectively, the XLR has its wheel well between two fuel tanks.
b747 has a large center tank it was never an issue to boeing even when one exploded off canada
@@DBird-uw1op after seeing a Concorde tire rip apart and shred a fuel tank, it is important that an a321 tyre can't rip apart and pierce a fuel tank - if only for passenger peace of mind. I choose not to fly B737 aircraft as Boeing relies on work-arounds
i might have missed something but I have never in 50 years of aircraft work heard of a tyre puncturing an airliner fuselage yes of course wings directly above the tyres but that is not what they are concerned about I do agree however safety first@@peteregan3862
Long haul in a narrow body single aisle comes under the heading of “just because you can doesn’t mean you should” in my book. Personally I won’t do any more than 5 hrs in a narrow body. That’s just my rule of thumb. Too cramped and too few washrooms.
No problem. It´s still an amazing plane.
i expect some orders to change and orders placed for widebody aircraft instead (higher capacity, technically faster, and greater overall range flexibility). The whole model push was to go as far as possible on as small a plane as possible but if the range is restricted to near a current LR model then what's the point?
Funny enough the 707-320b variant exceeds the range of the a321xlr 😄
The XLR still has the advantage of more cargo space than the LR while still flying further
This makes the underselling Airbus 330-800 neo more attractive.
Nothing will make the 330 8 look more attractive..lol..
Overweight, capacity shortfalls ,.it's clear the 9 variant is more efficient, with a slight range disadvantage that carriers obviously can deal with !!
4700nm on a single-aisle NB sounds utterly painful. As it is, airlines trying to test the boundaries with the LR variants aren't receiving the best customer feedback for these 7 or 8 hour sectors - sure, there's a market for everyone & everything in Aviation but there has to be a point where you stop testing range boundaries on an NB.
Flew with JetBlue on a A321LR a few weeks ago on a transatlantic flight. It was more comfortable than a B777 and on par with the A380 in terms of comfort and quietness. All depends on the cabin layout I guess but it’s surprisingly good.
If the changes affect the range that much, airlines might cancel their orders altogether if the range is the same as the existing LR version. Since it's likely to be similar to the B77L which only can go the distance by carrying more fuel with no added cargo capacity and space. Might as well invest in getting a more efficient engines as an alternative to counter the extra weight issue
Even with the reduced range, the LR won’t come remotely close to the XLR.
I quote : "If the changes affect the range that much".
That much is 200/4700 = 4.25%.
Numbers tell more than words.
Time for a new frame.
Whenever travelling long haul id wanna be on a widebody with double aisles, in my opinion it does not feel right been crammed into a narrow body, although this aircraft would be good for airlines wishing to start up thinner long haul routes for example leeds/bradford or newcastle to new york.
On 7 hour flights it’s wide body for sure. And over water I’d prefer 6 engines at least 4! 🤷♂️
@@stevesmoneypit6137Anything with more than two engines is obsolete
No wonder Delta having one of the largest a321 neo order books, has held off on this variant of the XLR… for now, as if they suspected issues to come out… 😅🤔😏
Didnt boeing raise some concern about the fuel tanks in this plane some months ago?
It was some engineers that partially did
Yeah they did cause they are so busy nitpicking other manufacturers and not focusing on their own faults..and they have plenty
If you're to cancel an order because of 200nm, you need help
Not only that but airlines barley fly the maximum range anyways
@@danielmeador1991You're right. It's not a major concern. I'm sure many Airlines' routes will range from 3500nm to probably 4100nm tops.
@@Tpr_1808 most likely in the 3500 nm range
If the MD-11 went on a diet it would be the A321XLR. If the actual range turns out to be less than promised (like the MD-11), then there will be plenty of unhappy customers. Airbus's PR team had better be prepared to work overtime for a while.
It’s not going to knock off 700nm. As you said it would make the plane pointless. As the LR can do this.
What if A220-300 with 70.9t MTOW gets 4 small ACT to fly 4000nm
Safety First Above All👌👌👌Range Is Good and Busines But Think Lives More🙏🇰🇷🇵🇭
I suppose it all depends on what they want it for. If it's designed to take more fuel, can they put the normal amount in on regular routes and use the weight distribution on extra baggage for passengers?
Baggage room is reduced!
The customer of ACJ320 can choose to increase the size of the gas tank thus extend the range. Can ACJ330 do the same?
This may only affect maybe the first 50-70 planes produced. There is a real possibility of an all-new wing box with integrated fuel tank on later production A321XLR's that will bring back the 4,700 nautical range capability. And that new wing box could be applied to later new production A320neo planes.
A new wingbox is news to me. Where has this been reported?
@@Hloutweg It hasnt, airbus isnt going to build a wingbox for the A321. It would require more certification and cost a lot of money.
That's not gonna happen. That's just something you made up. The issue is not the wingbox anyway. It's the placement of the additional fuel tank at the rear of the aircraft.
@johniii8147 It's called a rear centre fuel tank but believe me, it is literally just after the wheel well. Nowhere near the 'rear of the aircraft'.
So airlines will ponder, reconsider or outright cancel orders for a 200 NM reduction ?
That's about a Boston to NYC drive or slightly further south that most people enjoy doing depending on the circumstances.
Damn 😭
I don't think airlines will CANCEL their orders. However, airlines considering NEW orders might think twice. ✈️✌️
I'm not sure I agree.
I think there will be cancellations (or reductions) of both current and future orders - some airlines will have to switch to other aircraft types to fly the routes they want. I can't name names because of the job I'm in but I can think of 3-4 airlines off the top of my head that will potentially be affected and I can almost guarantee you they are reassessing their current order books. Flexibility is key with route planning and a reduction of a few hundred miles, which may sound trivial, is about 10% of the promised range. It could mean that certain city pairs that were in scope before are now off the table with the XLR. This absolutely makes a difference and reduces that flexibility.
At the very least, Airbus may have to offer compensation or allow for a switch to a different aircraft type to keep the relationship they have with some airlines. It is that big of a deal, yes.
It doesn't sound like the range will be the problem. The weight will be, as there will be a higher empty weight, resulting in lower efficiency.
Although, the already super high efficiency of the A321neo could mitigate this and still make this plane profitable for airlines, so I don't really think there will be any cancellations. If anything, airbus could compensate by reducing the price by a small margin.
Am I behind the times or is this the only modern passenger aircraft that has fuel stored in the fuselage rather than just the wings?
So now it seems like there is no point to buy the xlr over the lr.
Yes
With this it takes it further away from the 757 tho fuel efficient it's not exactly the replacement aircraft it was said to be but there is no other aircraft that can be a replacement
The way air travel is today, I can’t imagine myself in such a small aircraft for long haul flights. This aircraft was designed to benefit the the airlines .
Any cancellations will be route specific, not on general principles.
This may result in some airlines having to block seats on longest routes
probably more premium seats
321AXLR - A for almost.
yes
Airbus will need to develop an air-to-air refueling system to get that extra 700 nautical miles that it previously promised.
Sounds expensive af. That would raise ticket prices significantly. This is not NASA or the military lol.
That can work however only the military version has it with the flying boom mounted on top of the cockpit with stripe marks. What you are trying to do here is something that used to do in the 1930s using a tanker to refuel a commercial airliner example of this was the Short Empire
Lol. Job for a400m. 😅
The law of diminishing returns kicks in. if airbus really wants that small market of long thin route capable aircraft then they should quit beating around the bush and design a big wing already. but imho either way its probably not worth the effort for such a few aircraft.
While the reduction in range would be a slight disavantage for the A321XLR.
In a way for me, it would achieve my own goal and objective for the routes i have in mind...
But i am sure if Airbus added the same sharklets winglets to the botton of the wings and the tail span bottom, this should make up the shortfall in range plus....
Agree there would a weight increase, but dor me it would qoeth it and get more than 4750 nautical miles range for the A321XLR and same can be done to the A320 NEO AND A220-100 & 300 Aroll it out on to the airbus fleet range..
This would more attractive for the company and airlines...
Ni impact on current orders, its not an issue.
If they were to remove some seats instead of cramming passengers in they might save some weight and increase passenger comfort. Who wants to fly this far in a narrow body anyway?
The range is still awesome but as always it’s better to promise less and aim for more.
i dont think the range will be that affected if airbus saves weight elsewhere and also we have to weight for tests after this modification to see if the range is affected
You haven't provided an ETOPS rating for me to make a decision.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Airbus offering the A330NEO as an alternative to airlines because of this?.
Correct.
4k NM is still impressive
It’s a Flying Fuel Tank- No Thanks
It is now another opportunity for Boeing. Sadly they have other problems atm. This makes a launch for B797 unlikely.
Boeing dont have problems atm
@@nickolliver3021 It seems that the 777x and the 737 max10 are not a problem for you. The fact that the Boeing 777-8 program was stopped to prioritize other programs should have explained something.
@@dogukantosun5547 dude tne problem is not the programs themselves. The 777x and 737-10 have been doing exceptionally well. A slight delay meaning more documentation is not good enough for you? Also the 777-8 is halted so they can focus on the more important ones before the other variant can go ahead. Not a big deal that is
@@nickolliver3021 "Exceptionally well"
The b777x program was delayed for more than 5 years. Emirates is still waiting for orders placed 10 years ago. It is not expected to be delivered before 2025. Max-10 has been tested since 2019 and will still test fly for at long time. If they can deliver it next year, this will mean 2,5x longer testing then they have originally planned.
These are all "slight delays" :D
Boeing did not plan to pause the 777-8 program in the future. They stopped the program because it performed worse than planned.
Boeing is performing "exceptionally worse" atm.
@@dogukantosun5547 So a delay of 5 years mean that it's done exceptionally well to you? If you dobt like it then complain because it's better to be 5 years late then sorry. All airlines are waiting for orders placed 10 years ago. Its expected to be delivered in early 2025. The max 10 has been testing for a long while. Again its expected to be delivered next year and the same goes for the -7. It doesn't matter how much tne delay is. The time needed will be worth the wait. The 777-8 hasn't even got a testbed yet so it hasn't had any performance reviews yet. I dint see how Boeing is performing exceptionally worse atm according to all that?
2023 is the year the 777x will begin TIA. In a couple of months time it will have begun. TIA. Watch this space
I see theres a fight ongoing beetween boeing fanboys and airbus ones, regarding safety.
But we can all agree that the dangerous aircrafts to fly was the ones produced by tupolev right?
Nothing to be concerned about. It will be many years before it gets certified if at all. And if people want to fly that long in a uncomfortable plane that’s up to them!
This is a good thing. Narrowbody aircraft have no business flying long haul. It’s uncomfortable for the pax and hellish for the crew who get no rest area. Where the heck is the relief crew gonna sleep? In some random business class sets that are empty?
What about if they are used as Private Jets?
Your comparison between the XLR max operating range and the XL max ränge is extremely misleading. You should probably clarify this in a pinned comment.
I do not see the reason for the XLR if it ends up having the same range as the LR. What is more of a concern is seating capacity. If airlines try to pack these planes for a 4,000-mile trip, which we know they will in order to make more profit, customers are going to be looking around for airlines with more seating space. I'm 6'6", and I can not see myself in the economy for what 8-plus hours. It is one of the reasons I always fly business overseas. Boeing needs to step up its game and get back into the single-aisle market with something besides the 737, which is a plane I love.
I doubt it will slice 200nm to its range, it is more than that. Airlines will surely be disappointed and cancel their XLR and move to Boeing instead. After all, PW engines are problematic. Boeing planes are very good, offers long range and uses the very reliable and efficient LEAP engines. That A321XLR still cannot beat the legendary 757.
I guess Middle of the Market Aircrafts are taking Ls.
Aircraft aircrafts is not a word as aircraft is plural to airplane
I despise eurozone for preventing the world from having nice things.
Safety first.
Yep and its still a ticking time bomb.
Typically flying Max range requires load restrictions.
Interesting that Airbus is now producing what Boeing accomplished with the 757 40 years ago.
Fr, it’s kinda silly that so many say the A321XLR is such a game changer. I mean Boeing already did it 🤦♂️
@@grantswift5842Yes Boeing did it with an aircraft WAY HEAVIER, with more powerful engines and requiring way more fuel.
Why reduce dear?
Still as much more over the LR as the LR is over the Neo.
I take it you mean ‘LR’ and not ‘XL’?
@@aviationlba747 I do, thanks, corrected!
Definitely not the same aircraft if it can’t do what they said it would do.
So with these design changes and reduction in range capability to around 4000mn as suggested, the A321XLR has become a heavier, thirstier, inefficient A321LR. That's disappointing
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
I still find it crazy why anyone would want to fly long haul on a single aisle plane. I mean I get it cheap fare/ticket but on a what 6 plus hour flight ain’t no way for me. I’ll fly on a wide body any day
Unless it's a 2x2 config
its gunna be the future so accept the reality!
I mean what major drawback is there to a narrowbody on a long haul? Your seat is the same size regardless of the width of the cabin.
@@Elementalism it's the sense of claustrophobia
mannnn
I guess it’s the a321 xrr “xtra reduced range”
They gonna NERF A321XLR range
200 mile so what U must be pro Boeing fan
That’s rich coming from another in denial Airbus fan
@@StopAirbusFans to each their own
It will sell like hot cakes. No reason to be worried, as it is 200 to 300 less nm.
No one should be excited flying long haul on a narrow body. No space to walk around & even tinnier bathrooms than wide body.
All this plane Airbus is selling in not fuel efficient. Just extra fuel tank big fail
Who wants to be in an A321 from KEF to LAX?!?
Pure torture…
I don’t see a reduction of 200 miles making much of a difference to airlines.
Time for the a322
I don't think the a322 would be necessary.
Or a new wing for the A320/321 family,
Should have made a322, with a321 narrow body fuselage, capacity of 220 passengers with a330 neo wings 😂
A A321 fuselage with a A330neo wing will cost almost as much to operate as a A330neo but carry as many passengers as a A321.
@@gteixeira I can imagine. But losing the signature selling point of the a321XLR may lead to some bad results.
Surely it’s far better for the XLR to be safe and reliable. I really don’t think the XLR orders will suffer in any way.
There’s no option to it from Boering available or in the pipeline.
Airbus, The Regulator’s nor any of the Airlines/Customers have any intention of manufacturing, certifying or operating an aircraft that is unsafe and dangerous. Nobody’s going to wish to see another MAX episode - Airbus prefers Safety over Profit unlike a certain US Plane Maker. Congratulations to the Sensible People.
bruhhh
Salty airbus fans in the comments
Lmao
Ikr
More like salty Boeing fans looking for the slightest opportunity to rejoice
@@osasunaitortriggered
@@danielmeador1991 no you
Airliners will cancel far to small keep yo to a330 neo or a380 a320 only for mud range not long haul
I once had wondered why did B707-320 have comparable passenger load and longer range than A321neo despite of advancements in material and engine technologies. Just compare the thickness of their wings, particularly near their roots: the thick wings of B707-320 allowed it to carry twice of fuel of A321XLR and almost four times of A321neo.
It needed twice the fuel because such an old aircraft it was 50% less efficient than today's aircraft.
Are you seriously implying that the A321XLR carries twice as much fuel as the standard A321neo????? Lol
370 km = 229.9 mi
370 km = 199. 7 na mi.
8700 km = 4697 na mi.
And
8330 km = 4497.8 na mi.
Still the longest range narrow-body in the market. By far longer range than the 757-200
Again the travel penalty is about 1 hr of flight. For the longest route
757-200 with winglets has a range of 4200nm.
@@Elementalism depends on the source I imagine. I have read that they add 200 n mi to a nominal 3900
49
Bad News
Airbus should build a slightly bigger aircraft with increased range between 4500 and 5500 miles. Slightly larger seating capacity between 220 and 280 passengers.
The 321 has been stretched to the limit time for a new airframe for the middle market.
The A320 fuselage is wider than the 757. The 757-300 was a lot longer than the A321. Airbus could quite comfortably stretch it 8 frames more.
@@nathd1748What about with the main landing gear? If Airbus were to stretch the a320 based fuselage 8 frames more, they might need to use a four wheel main landing gear assembly because the two wheel main landing gear assembly already has its limits.
@@angelorobel12 A320 and A321 landing gear well is already designed to accommodate a double bogey and is an option to every customer. Google "Air India A320 double bogey" and it will show you the pics.
So Boeing was right. Now bring back the 757MAX.
Longer range but higher safety risk in d event of an accident, given d presence of d additional fuel tank in d fuselage.
Everyone thought Boeing was snitching when they pointed out the rear aux tanks placement and fire risk. Now this shows their "concerns" were credible.
It’s still a plane that does more than the MAX