BOEING RIVAL - The Airbus A321XLR
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ธ.ค. 2023
- Airbus is continuing to develop its A321, and with the upcoming release of the A321XLR, is this a type that can genuinely kill Boeing's place in this market as they don't provide an adequate competitor or replacement to their ageing 757? Today, I examine this question alongside detailing the XLR, progress and some visible critisms.
🔔 Subscribe to GlobeTrotting: bit.ly/SubscribeGlobeTrotting
🖥️ Visit the website: djsaviation.net
CONNECT WITH GLOBETROTTING
🐦 Twitter: / djsaviation
👥 Facebook: / djsaviation
💬 Discord: / discord
💻 Patreon: / djsaviation
BUSINESS ENQUIRIES
📧 Email: contactdjsaviation@gmail.com
CHECK OUT THE PODCAST
🎙️ Spotify: bit.ly/DjsAviationPodcast
🎙️ Apple: bit.ly/DjsPodcastApple
SUBMIT VIDEO IDEAS
✍️ Form - bit.ly/SubmitVideoIdeas
ℹ️ MORE INFORMATION ℹ️
creativecommons.org/
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0
- Airbus Mediaroom
- commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
🎵 OUTRO TRACK 🎵
Krys Talk - Fly Away [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
• Krys Talk - Fly Away |...
Free Download / Stream ncs.io/flyaway
#aviation #news #flight #aircraft #avgeek #airplane #airlines #airport #planespotting #airbus #boeing
If a longer range flight cuts down travel time from - lets say 16 hrs for small airport - hub - hub - small airport - to something like 7 hrs i totally would be looking into such a plane. The Boeing 757 has been beloved by travelers and is only minimal bigger...
Recently flown on the LR version. I was initially skeptical about flying long haul on a narrow body but come away impressed. If airlines get their cabin configured correctly, this will definitely work. I am sold. Airbus got a winner here.
Back in the 60s and 70s most long range flight were flown by DC-8 or 707-300. That was the standard. And those planes were single aisle. Back in 1969 I flew to visit my grandparents. The flight departed LIM with stops in BOG-KIN-JFK-FRA on a 707-330.
The same was with IL-62
I was on a 9hour flight with an a321neo . It was quite a comfortable flight. Quiet, great leg room and I feel like the small cabins kinda make it intimate rather than full double isle big cabins . Airbus just made that single isle aircraft comfortable enough for long haul
When I was a child my father would take me to Heathrow see the airplanes and I saw B707 and Dc-8 and Vc-10 all long thin planes and going fly long distances so it worked then so it will work now
Boeing 757's with an even narrower cabin have been plying the atlantic for Decades.... (And one of the best - as in most "club" feeling experiences around too in business class). some won't like it. Most won't care as long as the price and the convenience works ...
757 is one of the most uncomfortable noisy sh*t
No different in flying on 707s,DC8s, VC10s of the 60s
And the A321 has a bit more cabin width than the 707
I have no problem flying coast to coast in the U.S. on the A321 for 5+ hours. I'm not sure there is more room on a twin aisle, just the impression that there is. The only thing you can't do too well on a single aisle is walk from the front to rear lavs when the service carts are out, but even on some carriers twin aisle aircraft both aisles are blocked simultaneously with carts anyway.
I think a321XLR will be a good choice for Low cost long range Flying .
Ty dj!!
I don’t see any problem to fly a long range with a narrow body plane. The main thing is such an aircraft is equipped with good seats
With the time it's taken to certify the A321XLR, the A321LR is proving an excellent 'stop gap measure' for the airlines wanting to fly narrowbody- longer haul routes. Especially since the LR model has been in service some time now
The A321 and its longer range variants are more than capable of replacing the 757 on the vast majority of the routes it operates.
It may not have the exciting acceleration of the Boeing, but in today's operational environment, pilots use lower power sertings whenever they can to save fuel.
As for passenger comfort, that is very much up to the airline and how they specify the interiior - although the A321s wider fuselage does give it an advantage.
My local airline with a three figure (just) fleet used to operate a mix of 737s and 757s. Most of its expansion in recent years has been through the acquisition of second-hand 757s along with a significant order of some of the last 737-800s.
As the 757s are reaching the end of their operarional life, they have had little choice over a similar sized replacement, and have ordered a significant number of A321s which are starting to be delivered.
What should be of more concern to Boeing, is not that they are replacing their aircraft with Airbus where there is no suitable Boeing alternative, but that they are now replacing their older 737s or expanding their fleet with A320 series aircraft rather than 737s
While this may be only a few dozen aircraft a year, if this is replicated accross the market, it could potentially be a serious problem for Boeing until they plug the gap in their offering.
However, any new Boeing will not be replacing the 757s which in the main will have already been retired by then, but trying to win back customers now flying A321s. As such, their new aircraft has to offer significant advantages over (a possibly improved or even replaced) A321 to make the change worthwhile.
While tweaks to the airframe may offer small (but still worthwhile) improvements, it is the engines which make the largest contribution. Engines which can be fitted to the airbus to minimise the gap between it and its nearest competition in the way that the MAX did to the NEO.
While better in many aspects to the mature A320 series aircraft, the (now) A220s clean-sheet design no longer offers game changing improvements over its competitors because they are now fitting the latest generation engines.
It is even possible that no matter what Boeing do, they will not be number one unless Airbus make the kind of mistakes which have plagued Boeing since their merger with MD.
I don't think that Airbus won the crown, I believe it is more the case that Boeing threw it away.
If there would be an ACJ321XLR with additional 4 ACTs.....to fly 8000nm during 17-18hrs flight
That 2005 decision not to build a new narrowbody but just bolt new engines onto the ancient 737 will keep costing Boeing dearly. Airbus owns the narrowbody market and that market is now eating away at the bottom of the widebody one.
Philippine Airlines is considering of New Orders of 9 Boeing B787-10.. TBA. on April 2024.
Bro… not gonna lie this is a completely and utterly genius idea especially for routes that don’t require demdn for wide bodies and stuff, but seriously many aviators look up to going on wide bodies for overseas routes and very long haul flights.. All though it may be cost efficient and just more efficient in general, I wouldn’t really wanna take an a321 from like the east coast to Germany or something…
People complaining about long distance narrow body planes are not meant for private jets.
Plus there's an international standard of how many lavatories per 100 seats.
I Have Np Problem To On Fly On A321XLR
Around 2002, Boeing had studies for a 757 replacement, but received little interest from airlines at that time. 20 years later, 757 is used more frequently for trans-atlantic thin routes city pairs. Business use case changed. Today, United, Delta, are still flying old 757 without a true replacement.
Around 2002, like any year after 1996, Boeing's strategic planning was, is, and apparently will be rubbish...Since the dawn of aviation, there was always a bigger case for point-to-point travel (even at a premium)….why would you pay wish to spend 15h traveling, taking 2 planes, when you can just travel for 8h in one plane?...most travellers are happy to pay a bit more for this for several reasons...
It's the same strategic planning that led them to bin the merger with Embraer (the biggest competitor to Airbus's A220), to deceive and make cuts in the production of the 737 max and 777x range of planes that is leading to all the current issues...and probably the best of all...to sell manufacturing plants that are now used by Airbus to produce parts for its planes...Boeing has been, is and for the short to medium future will be advised by people who catered to the taste of Boeing & McDonnell Douglas boards - and that is Boeing's biggest rival - itself.
the a321XLR is the modern 757
That does seem to be its exact role on the face of it
I thought that the range was reduced for certification purposes. Is it still the case ?
It was reduced, but only by about 200km. The regulators insisted they better protect the new centre fuel tank in case of a belly landing, which made it a bit smaller. Not a big deal.
It was BUT DJ is all about ensuring Airbus looks better than Boeing, all the time :)
@@shailendrabasnet4535 it's actually better. Stop crying for grounded company
I would have made it longer like the 757-200
airbus is on top now and will be for more then 15years. how long boeing was on top?
flying on the A321neo for Hawaiian from OGG to LAS was not fun. 6 hour flight time.
i'm looking forward to seeing how the A321 XLR goes, i'll be honest i doubt i'll be comfortable flying long distances on a narrow body plane but then again, i don't see myself doing that any time soon
then why does ETOPS exist
I'm pretty sure Jet Blue mint business class is very very comfortable on their narrow bodies, especially the aircrafts they use for transatlantic flights
Boeings screwed the pooch.
People will complain about long haul narrow body but as all things it comes down to money. The cheaper flights will sell 95% of people.
Unfortunately the neo is slower by comparison to the 75 or widebodies but the fuel burn and operating cost are amazing. Burns less than the current 320ceo with 50 more pax. On board in jetstars 321neos
Flew on the Aer Lingus A321LR from Dublin to Dulles. It was just under 8 hrs flight time. The issues I saw were lines for the bathroom and food/drink service was bit of an issue due to space on a single aisle. Flew the A330 from Dulles to Dublin and there were no issues at all.
But for that slight inconvenience isn't it better to at least have a flight on a direct point to point route. Some routes are just normal economical on a wide body. The A332XLR solves this for many airlines on many routes
For once a positive report from you regarding Airbus, personally if I was crossing the Atlantic I would sooner be on a wide body purely for the reasons you mentioned but JetBlue seem to be succeeding .
so what's the stance of etops then
@@nickolliver3021absolutely nothing to do with etops just my personal preference, i would prefer 380/350/330/777 to cross the Atlantic no doubt this will annoy you but never been a fan of the 787:)
@@r12004rewy yes it does. You said personally a widebody over Atlantic. Etops applies to narrowbody over Atlantic. Why are you not a fan of the 787
@@nickolliver3021 ETOPS has nothing to do with whether the plane is widebody or narrowbody. ETOPS is simply the maximum flying time on one engine you are allowed to be from the nearest airport, in case an engine fails. It's about engine reliability, not fuselage shape. All Airbus and Boeing twins have enough ETOPS to be allowed across the Atlantic.
nickolliver3021 you asked why I am not a fan of the 787, I have never flown on one and obviously opinions could change if given that opportunity, but I just don't like the design.
boeing simply doesn't have the money to research/certify/produce the nma...or any other new aircraft.
Another misleading headline; The A321LR and XLR are NOT Boeing rivals. In the current aviation climate they're in a class all on their own, so they essentially have no rivals, which is why they're successful. No competition.
This is another video that's basically beating a dead horse. Those of us who are aviation enthusiasts know that, in the short term, Boeing missed an opportunity to build a midsize aircraft, a sector they used to dominate. However, one can also argue that Boeing is now positioned to build an aircraft that would be much more modern because it will be a clean sheet design, one with a better range that doesn't compromise on cargo capacity, and therefore would create the future of the segment. Boeing, quite cleverly, decided to cede that segment in favor of building the next great narrowbody aircraft, which Airbus would have no choice but to follow. Today belongs to Airbus, but Boeing is positioned to beat Airbus to the market with another slate of all-new aircraft in the next decade. We'll see how it goes.
Technology wise they may be in a good position to build an Airbus-beating new narrowbody, but past mistakes mean they don't have near enough money for that.
@kenoliver8913 Interesting...you think Boeing doesn't have enough money. 😂
It's important to note that there's a difference between build quality and the actual design. Boeing is still out-engineering Boeing, which is why a lot of Airbus' designs borrow a number of Boeing features
I wish airlines we bring back a solid, enjoyable flying experience instead of shoving as many sardines into one can as they can. As an individual that absolutely loves aviation and flying, the flight experience now is far less enjoyable than it was as a kid. I realize costs will always play a huge factor into this, but as much is it costs to get a seat on a plane with all the fees and extra nonsense, it would be nice to see an enjoyable experience. If you’ve ever flown on a single aisle plane for more than 4 hours, you know it isn’t super enjoyable and you’re squished with very limited leg room and seat size.
Your experience is rubbish because your either flying a budget airline or in economy, either way you get what you pay for. If you want more comfort then pony up more money and fly in business or premium economy. Don't complain when your flying at the back of the plane. Flying has never been cheaper. Not everyone wants to pay extra for more comfort, some just want to get from A to B as cheap as possible.... Hence economy class or budget airlines.
So Boeing is going to build an A380. The recipe is quite simple, Wait until your competitor owns the market and then build a plane nobody wants. Whine to the government for subsides and bailouts. Boeing HAD the best airplane for the job, but they scrapped any chance of building a "next generation" Now the best they have is not good enough.. The max 10 is out ranged and less passengers They passed on a 757 max and the 787-3. Both could have been flying long before the A321XLR. But Boeing cheeped out and now they lose.
the max 10 is the alternative. keep making out its boeing that loses
@@nickolliver3021 The max 10 is NOT even on the same level of the 321XLR, at best, it rivals A321neo. LMFAO
@@alvinloh9068 No that's rubbish. The 757 never came close to a321neo either the XLR is having issues that may reduce range LNFAOOO
comac c919 way to go
lol
Lol good one
why do I sense a very biased reporting in your videos? You are a paid employee of Airbus, aren't you, mate?
The XLR is going to sell a lot and there are a lot of orders!
The Boeing MAX is giving us a headache!
Everyone knows that the Airbus A320 family is much more flexible these days!
I can exchange certain A330, 767, 787 routes for 1 or 2 XLRs! It's much more profitable!
Boeing rival ??? Lmao dont compare the sublime A321 to the rubbish 1960, 737 junk
Unless you're sitting in business class, who wants to sit on a single-aisle plane for over 2 hours much less over 6.
Those who can't afford business class