I've flown transatlantic on a B757, it was actually quite a comfortable flight. I could easily do 8-10 hours in a narrow body but, it's the crew I feel sorry for.
@@raaghavtoteja3435 What airline would be so CHEAP so as to order a 787 without a crew rest compartment ? Furthermore what kind of pilots would want to work for such an outfit ???
@@briangasser973 - I agree with you about B777-9. The reality is, Airbus is dominating and probably will dominated the narrow body 110-220+ seat market whilst Boeing sorts out the B737 MAX fiasco and tries to sell the Boeing B777-9 to a small user market.
Standard seat width in its usual 3+3 layout is 18". That's a full inch wider than 737 seats, much more comfortable for medium and long haul flights. Having a cabin width 7" greater than the 737 also means much larger overhead storage bins. The underfloor space is containerised too, whereas a 737 still has chuck-loaded baggage.
I agree. And 'widebodies are more comfortable' is a myth. They can be - the A380 is great (and offers so much room I don't think any airline is tempted to cram the pax in). The 787 in 3-3-3 seating is truly horrible - it would be fine in 2-4-2 but airlines got greedy. At least with a narrowbody, no airline can cram in an extra line of seats.
@@ihmcallister 2-3-2 in a 767 looks nice (to a passenger). (Don't tell me some airlines put 2-4-2 in them. 2-4-2 in a A340 - 17'4" cabin - is quite nice, in a 767 - 15'6" - it would not be). In fact 2-3-2 seems a very 'inefficient' width to me- you've got 4 feet more width than the 757, but - because of the extra aisle - you only get one more seat out of it. But very nice for the passengers. I don't think I've ever flown in a 767.)
Great video as always , loving that you guys actually read the comments about the ads and sponsors , and I must say this was an acceptable and smooth transition from video to ad spot, hope you keep taking our feedback, knowing that you actually care makes it easier to watch ❤ , greetings from Portugal
Oh yes. It will definitely change the domestic market, but also enhance the international market by using more efficient and smaller aircraft, which is already being done.
A321 XLR is great for transcontinental flights. However, I do not feel that this aircraft is built for long haul flying because of the reasons you outlined in this video like crew rest areas, lie flat seats, etc.
I think the A321XLR and A321 in general would be the go-to plane for most of the airlines coming out of the pandemic. Perfect plane to replace aging planes and to fill the void of low capacity long haul flight. Once they start using these planes, airlines will start planning their future fleet around the A321. Though for the passengers though as i'd imagined airlines would want to squeeze as much as possible from these single aisle aircrafts.
Tbf this is game changing, near the range and capacity of the 757, but with much better efficiency. Allows cheaper and more direct options for passengers.
Maybe it’s just me but I have found flying a Boeing 777 in coach to be very comfortable as far as how the plane feels in flight. It seems the weight an size of the aircraft have an effect on how smooth the flight is and how it copes with turbulence. I could be wrong but I have always felt the flight more on an A320 or a 757 so I would most certainly prefer a wide body for a long haul flight.
Stability against turbulence, yes, heavier plane wins. Seat-comfort wise, the high-density 787 and 777 cannot beat the 320. High-density 777 is one of the least comfortable plane in the sky right now. It's literally THE worst!
You are right in your perceptions. But also I bet it is because you were born right in the middle of the wide body era when the "the Queen of the Sky" the 747 rule such long range routes supplemented by the big twins the B777, the A330. I'm 62 yrs old born in 1959 at the beginning of the jet age when planes with the exact capabilities as the A320-XLR such as the the B707 and DC-8 were pretty much the only game in town.
@@_w_w_ The 10 across 777 is on par with the 9 across 787, both were designed for one less seat across. Both terrible planes for long haul and especially night flights if you are in the cheap seats. I would happily pay a bit more for a bit more seat space but moving up to premium economy is 2.5 x the price, sometimes like with Qantas 3x more.
@@igorluiz9551 Delta's 777 is good but not the best... far from it. But Delta's 777 is not high-density or densified - it's 9-abreast. I am a top Delta flyer and sadly they got rid of the 777 after spending millions to renovate it. I bet you didn't realize that Korean Air's economy seat has more legroom than Delta's more-legroom economy (Comfort+)... An airline can definitely bring wide-body seat comfort to narrow-body planes.
Dispatched the 321LR at Gatwick- cabin baggage was often an issue on full flights, and during strong headwinds had to stop to refuel. But that wasn’t often. Still a good plane to use. Hopefully the XLR will be good.
2 pax on A321LR YYXLGW and quite negative. A winter flight so yes, shallow overheads a real issue. Plus, as the 3 rows of J class had their own toilets this was difficult and impossible when one Econ toilet went offline! IMHO comparing these aircraft to the 757 is not a valid comparison.
Generally speaking, the A320 series Standard Economy seat is as wide, or wider than the equivalent fitted to wide bodied aircraft. As for seat pitch, this is very much set by the Airlines, so for a typical Economy (coach) customer, the at seat experience should be at least as good, if not better than for a widebody
@@kyleb7435 I flew with TAP to madeira and been on their new A320neos, and I must say that they weren’t much more comfortable (so seat recline for example) then easyjet‘s aging A320s (never been on one of their Neos). on the same flight I also flew on one of their smaller embraers, and this was was really great (was premium eco tho). It was more than enough for the 4h flight from BER to Lisbon. So I guess not only size of the plane matters :)
@@peterw.8434 You do know the cabins on both aircraft are different right? A320neo is for medium haul while the aircrafts I flew (CS-TXA and CS-TXB, A321NeoLR) are for long haul routes. All it takes is a simple google search to see the difference...
It makes perfect economical sense for airlines, but if I had to choose as a passenger I’d always prefer a 787 or A350 on long-haul flights. Imagine a lengthy dinner service with trolleys in the aisle that you just can’t pass on your way to the lavatory.
I've flown Dublin to Philadelphia on a 757, and found it surprisingly comfortable. Obviously a wide body offers more comforts, but if narrow body planes allow more direct routes, I'll take them.
I love flying the big jets, but the future is smaller jets ... more economical, suitable on long thin routes, and more flights per day. I could care less about onboard lounges, showers, etc., as that's not in my price point.
Hear Hear !! Besides this is the kinds of aircraft that our grandparents and parents flew on back in the 1960's the 707 and DC-8 till the full advent of the widebodies came in with "The Queen of the Skies" the 747 followed by the DC-10 and L-1011 in the mid-1970s.
I'm honestly good with a power/usb socket, decent in flight entertainment and a quiet interior. Beyond that I'm well accustomed to the inconveniences of flying coach 🏴☠️
meanwhile, boeing doesnt have portfolio to counter A320 Neo with LR and XLR also A220. I think more more airlines go towards Airbus for now and next few years. But can Airbus resolve the backlog ?
Looking at Boeing's performance, Airbus might have to deal with Boeing's frontlog in the future as well. Ask Emirates about their 777X's. People who buy planes know there will be backlog, they will know it will take time to produce the craft.
The thing to bear in mind, with these long-range narrow bodies, they have a point to point as opposed to the hub and spoke target market. What that means is more efficient travel without flying to a hub and then getting on another plane to complete the journey. I would rather be a little more cramped than have a much longer trip with a connection in between. And besides, compared to the spam in a can experience of the 737, the A320/1 is much wider and more comfortable.
I’ve never been on a narrow-body longer than 2 hours, so I can’t say if the space will be compromised. Airlines already fit 18” seats on existing A320 family aircraft, as marketed by Airbus, this is wider than most of the competition. I guess it’s the smaller cabin that makes flyers more uncomfortable. The only real problem I see is using the toilet on longer flights, with only one aisle, movements between toilets could be obstructive, so I personally hope to see A321XLR operators install a single toilet around door 3 just behind the wings. I’ve seen it being down before, JetBlue’s A321LR if I can recall correctly.
I think it's the lower ceiling height that give the impression of less space. I flight TPAC almost every week before the pandemic. Once you are seated and resting/sleeping, you can't tell the difference as far as seat comfort is concerned. However, the bigger/heavier planes handle turbulence much much better. 320 is also better at turbulence than the 737, so at least it's got that slight upper hand.
Boeing really shot themselves in the foot with this one. Airbus correctly predicted this trend. If Boeing had listened to the US3 and re-engined the 757 or began work on a direct replacement they’d had 100+ more orders. But no, 737 max things had to get in the way. Profits over people as always.
And to think Boeing raised safety concerns about the XLR, its a pity they didn't raise concerns about the max then maybe nearly 400 people would be alive that perished in the two crashes and Boeing wouldn't be in the mess they are in
Of course Boeing has to raise ''safety concerns'' because this aircraft will replace some of their 757s. Airbus even works on a new carbon fiber wing (to enter service in the mid 2020s) for the A 321 which will likely be bigger than the current 120 m² wing (757 180 m²), so they could further stretch the cabin and offer a full 757-300 replacement without payload restrictions on longer routes, with the same 320 series type rating for the pilots.
I predicted a long time agonthat airlines would start switching to narrowbodies for all but ultra long haul routes. Obviously, I was right. Personally, for long haul flights of five or more hours, I would prefer a widebody. They don't feel as cramped and uncomfortable as a narrowbody on the same route. Whether we continue to get this option is probably highly unlikely.
@@msntrio4456 meh.... not unless first or business class are reduced as well, and even then.....I am in a wheelchair. It's easier on the flight attendants to assist me through a widebody as opposed to a narrowbody.
@@ecclestonsangel ngl i dont know whether narrow body or wide body will have any differences for you, but I’m sure airlines will meet any problems in due time
I thought the same at first, but , manufacturers really put a lot effort, time and money into new gen marrowbody aircraft. At the end of the day, it really depends on the airline and how they arrange their seating. Airlines like Ryanair prioritize ,maximizing capacity of comfort to gain as much profit as they can. While airlines like JetBlue prioritize comfort and look at the bigger picture. I flew on Delta's A220 from LGA to DFW multiple times and always go out of my to book a flight on the A220 even of will cost a little more. It's a PHENOMENAL flight. I had more than enough space to sit comfortably in economy (I'm 6"4), bigger windows, quoter cabin, reduced jetlag due to new air system (Not sure what it's called). I would definitely fly an A220 on long hail/Transatlantic routes.
I flew on a 757 from a base in Saudi Arabia to a Base in the central United States with 3 fuel stops along the way. The 757 is my favorite airplane but after flying a 767 from ATL to Vegas...I will always choose the widest cabin available on longesr routes. Why? Try getting up and stretching your legs in an XLR vs A350, A330, 777, 787, 747,etc and see which is easier to do it on. Widebodies usually have more premium seat availability too which is a must on longer flights IMO.
A310 is nice but the A321's are even better especially with JetBlue offering Mint Studios and at an exceptionally low price I mean who can go wrong with that?
I love the 777s now a days for the long haul trips. Mow that we did not fly the 747-400s, 777s are my second choice aircraft. I have flown on the 767s and 757s to South America. Europe and to Hawaii.
I hope airliners are considering that if they're going to start using smaller planes like this on ultra-long haul flights, they'd better stop trying to cram in quite so many passengers and provide some better seats and areas to stretch. I just did an hour and a half flight on an Allegiant A319, and that little excuse for what was basically a jump seat was making my ass numb by the end of even that short flight.
For the ultra-long-haul SE Asia - USA flights I occasionally take, narrow body jets would be a miserable experience. Wide bodies have at least twice as many aisle seats!
That’s why we need the NMA ASAP. It will likely be a narrower and shorter version of the 767. 2-3-2 or 2-2-2 in economy class 1-2-1 or 2-2-2 in premium economy and 1-1-1 in business class.
Not true. Typical narrow body aircraft have 2 aisle seats in a 6 across configuration; that's 33% of all seats. Widebody aircraft have 4 aisle seats (50% in 8 seat configuration or 40% in 10 seat configuration).
@@titan4110 no that’s not the point , in the last bit of the video he talked about how uncomfortable it is in long flights despite the 757 been literally doing the same long flights with around the same space yet nobody really had a problem with it
757's have not been used in long hauls that much. They are mainly used for medium hauls, and particularly to/from airports in hot and high conditions. There's a big difference between flying in a narrow body for 4-5 hours compared to 7-8 hours or more. Besides, people did complain about the lack of space in the 757; they just didn't have social media back then where you can read them. People don't call 757 the flying pencil for no reason.
I'm looking forward to seeing the XLR take to the skies. Would love to see more airlines introduce a Premium Economy (2-2) cabin on this, along with business and economy. I think the problem, for some cultures, will be getting used to flying long-haul on what has traditionally appeared to be a short-medium haul plane. But then, people panicked when twin engine aircraft started flying the Atlantic! "Surely it needs more engines" they said! - now look at it.
I'm about to fly on an A321neo across the Atlantic next week, I actually didn't realize this practice of narrow body planes on this route is quite new... my first trip to Europe in 2016 was on a janky Wow Air A321 so I didn't even notice until my next time the following year was on a Dreamliner haha.
This XLR could possibly do the insane route between the UK and St Helena. Though I don't know about the runway length in St Helena if it's enough. But if could finally connect Helenas to the mainland directly for the first time since boats were regular. That would be interesting.
American will be buying these like they’re going out of style. Also advantageous is that the type rating will be common with a smaller aircraft, not larger, like the 757.
Back to the 707/DC8/VC10 with less leg room. On the positive side, they cant stick an extra column of seats in there like they have with the 787 and 777
Beautiful plane, the only thing U don't quite like are it's overhead bins, while they are said to be huge they are placed in a way that takes roomy feel out the cabin, i much prefer the pivoting overhead bins that open up the plane aisle and cabin. But regardless, this is quite an awesome place
TAP AIR PORTUGAL, already makes transatlantic flights with the A321 LR. For example from Lisbon to Boston or to the northeast of Brazil. He also has a record from Maputo in Mozambique to Cape Verde on a non-stop flight 4.500nm! I am proud that TAP has one of the most modern fleets in the world and continues to be a world reference in terms of air safety!
Flew on a TAP A321LR NEO back in October. LIS to YYZ. Nice brand new plane. Too bad my bags didn't join me on the flight. TAP claimed we were over-weight. My bags showed up 3 days later when they flew their A330-900 NEO over to Toronto. They was over 10 passengers affected. Is this going to a problem using these narrow bodies on trans-atlantic flights?
I will probably be comfortable with wide bodies for long distances because they are designed for that, though I won’t mind travelling on a321 for long haul flights either
Just as well on some of them. I have to fly London to Australia once a year, economy class and the only plane flying that is comfortable is the A380. The new 777s are painful with their new 10 across seating as are the 787s. I can see these new A321s as being Ok for up to 5 or 6 hours if the seat pitch isnt too short.
I prefer wide body for long flight because of the service cart. If you're settling front part of the economy class and finished the meal and want to visit bathroom. Yet still cart is servicing the second drink or correcting trays. You can't go the the bathroom located in the back of the plane. After cart is done, you may find long line up for the bathroom from back part of the passengers.
Who wants to cross the Atlantic for 7 hours in a single aisle plane. Although the A-321XLR will be a good plane but we are now back to the DC-8 or B-707 with 2 engines. PAX will prefer to fly on A-330, A350 or B-767, B-777, B-787
I’d like to, I’ve crossed the Atlantic several times on the 757 already and it really isn’t bad. The only difference you’d notice is the narrower fuselage, seats are pretty much the same as on widebodies
True that but as Southwest Airlines proved here in the States and the other low cost carriers worldwide people will put up with the sardine treatment four to six maybe even eight hours for a cheap fare if the operation is run right. Today people don't have the time to dress up in their Sunday best and spend two weeks worth of wages for a round trip on a jet.
Flying long haul on a narrow body isn’t bad, the only difference you would feel is the narrower fuselage but on full service airlines the seat is pretty much the same as on widebodies!
Can’t imagine what this would mean for crew in regards to their rest areas. On wide body jets, there’s room for their own little compartment where they can go and eat. But I fail to see if one would fit on one of these, unless they section off a couple of the last rows like they do on some flights
Not interested in flying in a long-haul single aisle commercial aircraft in economy or 2-2 business class. Too confining/narrow. I think Jet Blue would be ok to fly the A321XLR if they indeed use a 1-1 configuration in business class. Even then, I would consider it only on the shortest of transatlantic routings, e.g. Boston-Ireland/UK.
Airbus will go “solo” for a while in this XLR single aisle market. Concerns about passenger comfort will depend on airline configuration. ¿Cargo capacity is going to be an issue?
I wonder if Airbus rebrand the A321XLR to be it's own thing. I know they can't stretch it but it could be good for better sales from airlines as a true mid-market airliner. In regards to it being a narrowbody - narrow planes have been flying transatlantic/long haul routes for a long time. I know I don't mind the smallness if the A321XLR = cheaper flights and newer cabins/seats. Crews probably will miss the wider jets but considering the feasibility of having a true 757 replacement - meaning airports in tough to reach places and small airfields needed to accommodate - I don't think they'll mind.
Boeings problems are massive and deep rooted, the company is rotten at the top and won't fix its problems anytime soon, time to stock up on those Airbus shares.
I'd love to see an American Airlines A321XLR services from New York-JFK to UK cities like Liverpool, Newcastle, Bristol Manchester and Birmingham, places that would benefit highly with a direct service to the Big Apple!
I was sold on the idea of narrow bodies for long haul travel but when he mentioned the cabin crew rest areas being gone 😢.... I meann i always wanted to a be a flight attendant but...
On flights like Europe to the US west coast, routes the A321XLR could and probably will be operated on, the crew rest isn’t in use anyways. These are 7-9 hour flights, only on longer flights having proper crew areas rest is almost mandatory
@@aashumansuri2018 actually.. It's ordered by indigo airlines but it's more like Indigo has ordered there leasing company... Which has ordered airbus... So the leasing company they mentioned in the video are... Indigo's leasors... 🙂🙃
Nothing about fuselage A321XLR ???? Pity because it’s one of the major modification on this aircraft with additionnal tanks of course. Would you find the big différence with A321 CEO ? 😁🤔
So you can just about do a Seoul incheon to Seattle flight or an SFO to LHR flight. That would be the max city pairs I can think of. I’m also surprised delta didn’t order any.
I am not sure if he is right. Delta operates Seattle as its Asian hub and I read somewhere the XLR's range is slightly too short to do Haneda or Incheon flights. Eastbound with tailwind maybe, but westbound with headwind is not likely to mak eit. XLR is perfect for JFK to Delta's European hubs.
@@hanj31 It's not just the published distance... Those are at the max'max with low passenger and cargo weight. Plus, Airbus hasn't publish data on how that 4700 NM is derived, whether it include the reduction in efficient during winter months. Seattle and Portland departing flights for Delta could make sense but it's pushing the limit of max range that most airlines won't test. This is the same reason why 757 flights from JFK to European may need to refuel midflight during winter months.
I don't understand why the crew rest area can't be a converted stretch of a cargo bin. Like, convert the far end of bin 5 in the tail into a few bunks--that's the least-utilized cargo space on a 321. Lol we usually only use it to ship human remains, so like, that's ironic. And speaking of cargo space in a 321, going hard on narrowbody long-haul travel in the next couple decades is going to mean more revenue for freighter airlines, as passenger airlines won't be able to fit the pallets of freight into a narrowbody airliner that they reguarly ship in the belly of their widebody planes. I'm going long on Aerosucre stock.
It will not open up new routes. Rather it will open new Low Cost Carriers trying to fly existing long haul routes offered at cheaper price. This XLR is all about offering cheaper flights. This is good news to below average income earners who'd like to travel. But for those who can afford, golden rule, go for the wide bodies for long haul flights.
I can understand the necessity of more fuel efficient aircraft, but I can already see the confort loss exepecialy for the crew. For passengers I don't think that the comfort loss, seats wise, will be so tragic, it all depends on what the seats configuration the airline choose. Although common space and corridors will be for sure smaller. For the crew is another story: Most probably the cabin crew will not even a dedicated restroom like in long hall plane. As an Italian I'm curious to see if Ita will adopt the aircraft for transatlantic connection 🤔
Well Indigo Airline is going to be its biggest operator by farrr. They made a new order of 300 a320 family order with mix of a321 neo, a321lr and a321 xlr
You can make it a tanker to fly around the world too... But range is not what an aircraft is designed for, it is designed for specific routes in mind close to the aircraft's home business and 5,000 miles would be more than adequate range instead of limiting the already limited cargo space with the extra fuel needed for the long range... I can see some need of them in countries with thin populations like Australia or Canada and away from large populations centers.... Perhaps it would be more adequate as an all cargo variant where passenger confort is not deemed necessary!...
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
After holidaying on narrowbody aircraft most of my life, the occasion of boarding a widebody for a long haul is such a cool experience.
A narrow body for a long haul flight would be a 'cool' experience? Not so much
@@bruceketcheson4877 Nope that's my point. Boarding a wide body is an awesome experience after so many years of short trips on narrowbodies.
I've flown transatlantic on a B757, it was actually quite a comfortable flight. I could easily do 8-10 hours in a narrow body but, it's the crew I feel sorry for.
Why ? At most airlines the pilots get a blocked off first class lie flat seat for crew rest.
@@savagecub not quite the same as having a crew rest area like the B787 has
@@matthewbarber9846
Yes but…….A321 is not going anywhere near as far as the 787-9 does.
@@savagecub not all 787's and 757's have crew rest areas so they have to sleep on passenger seats
@@raaghavtoteja3435
What airline would be so CHEAP so as to order a 787 without a crew rest compartment ? Furthermore what kind of pilots would want to work for such an outfit ???
Airbus: Hey, Boeing, about to start flight testing our cute A321xlr. What are you doing with the NMA?
Boeing: Selling B737 MAX's to pay the bills
Boeing is focusing on the 777X.
@@briangasser973 - I agree with you about B777-9. The reality is, Airbus is dominating and probably will dominated the narrow body 110-220+ seat market whilst Boeing sorts out the B737 MAX fiasco and tries to sell the Boeing B777-9 to a small user market.
@@briangasser973 That never come .
Standard seat width in its usual 3+3 layout is 18". That's a full inch wider than 737 seats, much more comfortable for medium and long haul flights. Having a cabin width 7" greater than the 737 also means much larger overhead storage bins. The underfloor space is containerised too, whereas a 737 still has chuck-loaded baggage.
I agree. And 'widebodies are more comfortable' is a myth. They can be - the A380 is great (and offers so much room I don't think any airline is tempted to cram the pax in). The 787 in 3-3-3 seating is truly horrible - it would be fine in 2-4-2 but airlines got greedy. At least with a narrowbody, no airline can cram in an extra line of seats.
It's wider than B777, B787 and A350 all together. Impressive.
@@cr10001 Absolutely right. I flew in coach Paris - Tokyo on a JAL 787-8 with 2-4-2 and it was fantastic.
The 767 as designed, in 2-3-2 was great too.
@@ihmcallister 2-3-2 in a 767 looks nice (to a passenger). (Don't tell me some airlines put 2-4-2 in them. 2-4-2 in a A340 - 17'4" cabin - is quite nice, in a 767 - 15'6" - it would not be). In fact 2-3-2 seems a very 'inefficient' width to me- you've got 4 feet more width than the 757, but - because of the extra aisle - you only get one more seat out of it. But very nice for the passengers. I don't think I've ever flown in a 767.)
Take a look on our channel! We also have nice aviation videos!
Great video as always , loving that you guys actually read the comments about the ads and sponsors , and I must say this was an acceptable and smooth transition from video to ad spot, hope you keep taking our feedback, knowing that you actually care makes it easier to watch ❤ , greetings from Portugal
What do you think of the A321XLR? Are you excited to fly on it? Let us know...
One day....yessss
Yeee
Oh yes. It will definitely change the domestic market, but also enhance the international market by using more efficient and smaller aircraft, which is already being done.
A321 XLR is great for transcontinental flights. However, I do not feel that this aircraft is built for long haul flying because of the reasons you outlined in this video like crew rest areas, lie flat seats, etc.
didn't JetBlue use it for JFK-LHR? still, I will fly it. this plane is on my bucket list
I prefer to fly from point to point rather than flying through busy, crowded big hubs thus I am looking forward to this plane to enter service
Ditto.
I think the A321XLR and A321 in general would be the go-to plane for most of the airlines coming out of the pandemic. Perfect plane to replace aging planes and to fill the void of low capacity long haul flight. Once they start using these planes, airlines will start planning their future fleet around the A321. Though for the passengers though as i'd imagined airlines would want to squeeze as much as possible from these single aisle aircrafts.
The 757-300 is longer than the A321XLR so the A321XLR won’t be a replacement for the 757-300. The A321XLRs remind me that Airbus should make A321XERs
Take a look on our channel! We also have nice aviation videos!
Game changer and iconic. Perhaps the two most overused words on this channel.
Tbf this is game changing, near the range and capacity of the 757, but with much better efficiency. Allows cheaper and more direct options for passengers.
I mean they don’t actually say it that much
@@captainCaybrew "Tbf this is game changing". Tbf, that's not the point. They throw the term around like confetti.
Maybe it’s just me but I have found flying a Boeing 777 in coach to be very comfortable as far as how the plane feels in flight. It seems the weight an size of the aircraft have an effect on how smooth the flight is and how it copes with turbulence. I could be wrong but I have always felt the flight more on an A320 or a 757 so I would most certainly prefer a wide body for a long haul flight.
Stability against turbulence, yes, heavier plane wins. Seat-comfort wise, the high-density 787 and 777 cannot beat the 320. High-density 777 is one of the least comfortable plane in the sky right now. It's literally THE worst!
You are right in your perceptions. But also I bet it is because you were born right in the middle of the wide body era when the "the Queen of the Sky" the 747 rule such long range routes supplemented by the big twins the B777, the A330. I'm 62 yrs old born in 1959 at the beginning of the jet age when planes with the exact capabilities as the A320-XLR such as the the B707 and DC-8 were pretty much the only game in town.
@@_w_w_ The 10 across 777 is on par with the 9 across 787, both were designed for one less seat across. Both terrible planes for long haul and especially night flights if you are in the cheap seats. I would happily pay a bit more for a bit more seat space but moving up to premium economy is 2.5 x the price, sometimes like with Qantas 3x more.
@@_w_w_ I've flown Delta's 777 and it's the best long haul option I've ever flown.
@@igorluiz9551 Delta's 777 is good but not the best... far from it. But Delta's 777 is not high-density or densified - it's 9-abreast. I am a top Delta flyer and sadly they got rid of the 777 after spending millions to renovate it. I bet you didn't realize that Korean Air's economy seat has more legroom than Delta's more-legroom economy (Comfort+)... An airline can definitely bring wide-body seat comfort to narrow-body planes.
Dispatched the 321LR at Gatwick- cabin baggage was often an issue on full flights, and during strong headwinds had to stop to refuel. But that wasn’t often. Still a good plane to use. Hopefully the XLR will be good.
2 pax on A321LR YYXLGW and quite negative. A winter flight so yes, shallow overheads a real issue. Plus, as the 3 rows of J class had their own toilets this was difficult and impossible when one Econ toilet went offline! IMHO comparing these aircraft to the 757 is not a valid comparison.
Generally speaking, the A320 series Standard Economy seat is as wide, or wider than the equivalent fitted to wide bodied aircraft. As for seat pitch, this is very much set by the Airlines, so for a typical Economy (coach) customer, the at seat experience should be at least as good, if not better than for a widebody
The seats are definitely wider, than the stupid 787's or high-density 777's. I rather fly from the US to Asia in the 321XLR than 787.
I flew the 321neo transatlantic and trust me the seats were fine, enjoyable 7-8 hour experience. (Flew Air Portugal)
@@kyleb7435 I flew with TAP to madeira and been on their new A320neos, and I must say that they weren’t much more comfortable (so seat recline for example) then easyjet‘s aging A320s (never been on one of their Neos).
on the same flight I also flew on one of their smaller embraers, and this was was really great (was premium eco tho). It was more than enough for the 4h flight from BER to Lisbon. So I guess not only size of the plane matters :)
@@peterw.8434 You do know the cabins on both aircraft are different right? A320neo is for medium haul while the aircrafts I flew (CS-TXA and CS-TXB, A321NeoLR) are for long haul routes. All it takes is a simple google search to see the difference...
@@kyleb7435 I was just surprised that a smaller aircraft (E190 I think it was) delivers greater comfort here…
It makes perfect economical sense for airlines, but if I had to choose as a passenger I’d always prefer a 787 or A350 on long-haul flights. Imagine a lengthy dinner service with trolleys in the aisle that you just can’t pass on your way to the lavatory.
I've flown Dublin to Philadelphia on a 757, and found it surprisingly comfortable. Obviously a wide body offers more comforts, but if narrow body planes allow more direct routes, I'll take them.
I think that means a new travelling concept and will make people who couldn't afford long-haul flights to travel further. Really cool.
I love flying the big jets, but the future is smaller jets ... more economical, suitable on long thin routes, and more flights per day. I could care less about onboard lounges, showers, etc., as that's not in my price point.
Hear Hear !! Besides this is the kinds of aircraft that our grandparents and parents flew on back in the 1960's the 707 and DC-8 till the full advent of the widebodies came in with "The Queen of the Skies" the 747 followed by the DC-10 and L-1011 in the mid-1970s.
I don't need lounges or showers agreed, but I *do* need a halfway decent seat that doesn't feel like it's made out of slightly melted plastic.
@@zackakai5173 Crappy seats are a different matter, regardless of the size of plane.
I'm honestly good with a power/usb socket, decent in flight entertainment and a quiet interior. Beyond that I'm well accustomed to the inconveniences of flying coach 🏴☠️
@@markg6860 Comfortable seats with reasonable width and legroom is the main consideration on any longhaul flight as you 95% of the time in your seat.
meanwhile, boeing doesnt have portfolio to counter A320 Neo with LR and XLR also A220.
I think more more airlines go towards Airbus for now and next few years.
But can Airbus resolve the backlog ?
Looking at Boeing's performance, Airbus might have to deal with Boeing's frontlog in the future as well. Ask Emirates about their 777X's. People who buy planes know there will be backlog, they will know it will take time to produce the craft.
Rian YW: Airbus should make A321XERs the extra extended range A321NEOs
The thing to bear in mind, with these long-range narrow bodies, they have a point to point as opposed to the hub and spoke target market. What that means is more efficient travel without flying to a hub and then getting on another plane to complete the journey. I would rather be a little more cramped than have a much longer trip with a connection in between. And besides, compared to the spam in a can experience of the 737, the A320/1 is much wider and more comfortable.
Actually it's not wider. The 737 NG and A321XLR have the same cabin width. It really depends on the company's choice of interior
@@igorluiz9551 737NG, 11'7" A321 12'2" That's 7" wider for the A320 series. It's quite easy to Google. :)
I’ve never been on a narrow-body longer than 2 hours, so I can’t say if the space will be compromised. Airlines already fit 18” seats on existing A320 family aircraft, as marketed by Airbus, this is wider than most of the competition. I guess it’s the smaller cabin that makes flyers more uncomfortable. The only real problem I see is using the toilet on longer flights, with only one aisle, movements between toilets could be obstructive, so I personally hope to see A321XLR operators install a single toilet around door 3 just behind the wings. I’ve seen it being down before, JetBlue’s A321LR if I can recall correctly.
Flew an AA a321 NEO from Hawaii to LAX, wasn't that bad but much preferred the Delta a330 I flew out there
I think it's the lower ceiling height that give the impression of less space. I flight TPAC almost every week before the pandemic. Once you are seated and resting/sleeping, you can't tell the difference as far as seat comfort is concerned. However, the bigger/heavier planes handle turbulence much much better. 320 is also better at turbulence than the 737, so at least it's got that slight upper hand.
Also passenger carry on luggage space might be an issue?
A321XLR: I will expand what a narrowbody can do.
707 & DC-8: are we a joke to you?
No one is talking about out of date and production aircrafts
707: 7 l fuel per seat and 100 km
A321 XLR: 2,5 l fuel per seat and 100 km
8:08 you forgot Cebu Pacific with 10 orders.
Boeing really shot themselves in the foot with this one. Airbus correctly predicted this trend. If Boeing had listened to the US3 and re-engined the 757 or began work on a direct replacement they’d had 100+ more orders. But no, 737 max things had to get in the way. Profits over people as always.
It's so obvious now that the 757 should've evolved that I wonder if it's really possible, because Boing was so incredibly dumb to abandon it
we also need another type of airplanes: short haul wide bodies
Asian airlines (particularly ANA and Japan Airlines) have had those for decades😄
And to think Boeing raised safety concerns about the XLR, its a pity they didn't raise concerns about the max then maybe nearly 400 people would be alive that perished in the two crashes and Boeing wouldn't be in the mess they are in
Of course Boeing has to raise ''safety concerns'' because this aircraft will replace some of their 757s. Airbus even works on a new carbon fiber wing (to enter service in the mid 2020s) for the A 321 which will likely be bigger than the current 120 m² wing (757 180 m²), so they could further stretch the cabin and offer a full 757-300 replacement without payload restrictions on longer routes, with the same 320 series type rating for the pilots.
Most important aircrafts of first half of 21st.cecentaury is:
Airbus A350-1000, A321 XLR, and A220. 🛫🌐✈🇫🇷🛫🛫🛫
I predicted a long time agonthat airlines would start switching to narrowbodies for all but ultra long haul routes. Obviously, I was right.
Personally, for long haul flights of five or more hours, I would prefer a widebody. They don't feel as cramped and uncomfortable as a narrowbody on the same route. Whether we continue to get this option is probably highly unlikely.
once you see the price reductions on narrow bodies, you'll be begging them to let u buy a ticket
@@msntrio4456 meh.... not unless first or business class are reduced as well, and even then.....I am in a wheelchair. It's easier on the flight attendants to assist me through a widebody as opposed to a narrowbody.
@@ecclestonsangel ngl i dont know whether narrow body or wide body will have any differences for you, but I’m sure airlines will meet any problems in due time
I thought the same at first, but , manufacturers really put a lot effort, time and money into new gen marrowbody aircraft. At the end of the day, it really depends on the airline and how they arrange their seating. Airlines like Ryanair prioritize ,maximizing capacity of comfort to gain as much profit as they can. While airlines like JetBlue prioritize comfort and look at the bigger picture.
I flew on Delta's A220 from LGA to DFW multiple times and always go out of my to book a flight on the A220 even of will cost a little more. It's a PHENOMENAL flight. I had more than enough space to sit comfortably in economy (I'm 6"4), bigger windows, quoter cabin, reduced jetlag due to new air system (Not sure what it's called). I would definitely fly an A220 on long hail/Transatlantic routes.
I flew on a 757 from a base in Saudi Arabia to a Base in the central United States with 3 fuel stops along the way. The 757 is my favorite airplane but after flying a 767 from ATL to Vegas...I will always choose the widest cabin available on longesr routes. Why? Try getting up and stretching your legs in an XLR vs A350, A330, 777, 787, 747,etc and see which is easier to do it on. Widebodies usually have more premium seat availability too which is a must on longer flights IMO.
The video quality is excellent.
For me, the A310 was the perfect little plane for long ride.
Cool
A310 is nice but the A321's are even better especially with JetBlue offering Mint Studios and at an exceptionally low price I mean who can go wrong with that?
The L1011 was the best of all time
I love the 777s now a days for the long haul trips. Mow that we did not fly the 747-400s, 777s are my second choice aircraft. I have flown on the 767s and 757s to South America. Europe and to Hawaii.
@@LMays-cu2hp Nothing can beat the 767 with the 2-3-2 layout. Best long haul flying in Economy.
This newest plane will change the aviation industry forever
Only if the passengers like it
I hope airliners are considering that if they're going to start using smaller planes like this on ultra-long haul flights, they'd better stop trying to cram in quite so many passengers and provide some better seats and areas to stretch. I just did an hour and a half flight on an Allegiant A319, and that little excuse for what was basically a jump seat was making my ass numb by the end of even that short flight.
At 1:56 you show sth suspiciously close to a Rotax 912.... Didn't know Airbus used these ;)
9:20 american metallic look: best airline outfit ever (my opinion)
For the ultra-long-haul SE Asia - USA flights I occasionally take, narrow body jets would be a miserable experience. Wide bodies have at least twice as many aisle seats!
That’s why we need the NMA ASAP. It will likely be a narrower and shorter version of the 767. 2-3-2 or 2-2-2 in economy class 1-2-1 or 2-2-2 in premium economy and 1-1-1 in business class.
That are routes the A321XLR (and 757 as a very comparable aircraft) aren’t even intended for
it can't fly that route anyway, the range is too short
Not true. Typical narrow body aircraft have 2 aisle seats in a 6 across configuration; that's 33% of all seats. Widebody aircraft have 4 aisle seats (50% in 8 seat configuration or 40% in 10 seat configuration).
@@The_Red_Squirrel ok, but still far more aisle seats and far more restrooms
I mean 757 has been in service for a long time and not alot of people complain about the space?
But boeing ended production and environment friendliness is becoming more and more important so yeah.
@@titan4110 I think the words you are looking for are "fuel economy" which is not a trivial cost. The rest is just PR talk.
@@titan4110 no that’s not the point , in the last bit of the video he talked about how uncomfortable it is in long flights despite the 757 been literally doing the same long flights with around the same space yet nobody really had a problem with it
@@kh2b573 Ah ok I'm still watching.
757's have not been used in long hauls that much. They are mainly used for medium hauls, and particularly to/from airports in hot and high conditions. There's a big difference between flying in a narrow body for 4-5 hours compared to 7-8 hours or more. Besides, people did complain about the lack of space in the 757; they just didn't have social media back then where you can read them. People don't call 757 the flying pencil for no reason.
Every new plane is a game changer for this chanel
IMO, this type of aircraft might open the possibilities for low cost long haul flight to the commoners. And that means better mobility for everyone.
Take a look on our channel! We also have nice aviation videos!
Low cost - long haul already exists. With wide bodies.
@@OceanstaThe XLR opens up a bunch more routes that can't be served by widebodies
Can't wait! An outstanding piece of machinery.
I'm looking forward to seeing the XLR take to the skies. Would love to see more airlines introduce a Premium Economy (2-2) cabin on this, along with business and economy. I think the problem, for some cultures, will be getting used to flying long-haul on what has traditionally appeared to be a short-medium haul plane. But then, people panicked when twin engine aircraft started flying the Atlantic! "Surely it needs more engines" they said! - now look at it.
At 8:35 you did not include Saudia airlines which has 15 a321 xlr on order
I'm about to fly on an A321neo across the Atlantic next week, I actually didn't realize this practice of narrow body planes on this route is quite new... my first trip to Europe in 2016 was on a janky Wow Air A321 so I didn't even notice until my next time the following year was on a Dreamliner haha.
This XLR could possibly do the insane route between the UK and St Helena. Though I don't know about the runway length in St Helena if it's enough. But if could finally connect Helenas to the mainland directly for the first time since boats were regular. That would be interesting.
I always understood it was wind direction at st Helena, apparently the approach the wind blows with you making it harder to stop
Stanky the cat its headwinds which require a much higher approach speed so it dramatically increases stopping distance.
@@woodduck2178 of course I’m aware of that …but they can’t land into the wind because of wind shear , the airport is on a cliff .
I prefer wider bodies frankly, but I understand the financial issues
I’m really happy to see this
I’ll fly on an A321XLR one day and this reminds me that Airbus Should make A321XERs
Air Canada has also ordered this aircraft
How about indigo's order of A321XLR you dint include them? or they are no longer present?
American will be buying these like they’re going out of style. Also advantageous is that the type rating will be common with a smaller aircraft, not larger, like the 757.
A smaller can that goes further. What’s not to like?
Sincerely,
Sardines
Back to the 707/DC8/VC10 with less leg room. On the positive side, they cant stick an extra column of seats in there like they have with the 787 and 777
Beautiful plane, the only thing U don't quite like are it's overhead bins, while they are said to be huge they are placed in a way that takes roomy feel out the cabin, i much prefer the pivoting overhead bins that open up the plane aisle and cabin.
But regardless, this is quite an awesome place
TAP AIR PORTUGAL, already makes transatlantic flights with the A321 LR. For example from Lisbon to Boston or to the northeast of Brazil. He also has a record from Maputo in Mozambique to Cape Verde on a non-stop flight 4.500nm!
I am proud that TAP has one of the most modern fleets in the world and continues to be a world reference in terms of air safety!
they even make with 321neo
Flew on a TAP A321LR NEO back in October. LIS to YYZ. Nice brand new plane. Too bad my bags didn't join me on the flight. TAP claimed we were over-weight. My bags showed up 3 days later when they flew their A330-900 NEO over to Toronto. They was over 10 passengers affected. Is this going to a problem using these narrow bodies on trans-atlantic flights?
Today was the first takeoff ever of the a321 XLR! It startet it's first flight at Hamburg Germany
Bring on the Airbus A321 ULR next !!
Can you imagine your captain sleeping in the row behind you on the 10 hour flight to Vancouver from Tokyo
This is good for transatlantic travel.
I will probably be comfortable with wide bodies for long distances because they are designed for that, though I won’t mind travelling on a321 for long haul flights either
Really cool idea of aircraft capacity and range
Shame you didn't mention IndiGo .. They have a very large order for the aircraft!.. You could've kept TBD for them right?
I have a feeling Condor might attempt the 11 hour Fra-Cpt in one of these instead of a A330.
Thank God, most of the Asia and Middle East-based airlines still using A330, A350 and A380 widebodies for medium to long haul routes
Just as well on some of them. I have to fly London to Australia once a year, economy class and the only plane flying that is comfortable is the A380. The new 777s are painful with their new 10 across seating as are the 787s. I can see these new A321s as being Ok for up to 5 or 6 hours if the seat pitch isnt too short.
@@stephanguitar9778 A350's are equally comfortable to fly. but Emirates 777-300ER's are fine for me
I prefer wide body for long flight because of the service cart. If you're settling front part of the economy class and finished the meal and want to visit bathroom. Yet still cart is servicing the second drink or correcting trays. You can't go the the bathroom located in the back of the plane. After cart is done, you may find long line up for the bathroom from back part of the passengers.
but this is more spacious than what it replaces
Lack of space is quite relative. I can still remember long range flights on board of IL-62 and even TU-154M
boeing should’ve never stopped 757 production, airbus just took over the same market with this brilliant aircraft
I love these videos but I have no idea what liters are
Will this make it possible to have transatlantic flights at Ryanair prices?
Probably yes, in like 4-5 years.
They're going to sell very well.
Who wants to cross the Atlantic for 7 hours in a single aisle plane. Although the A-321XLR will be a good plane but we are now back to the DC-8 or B-707 with 2 engines. PAX will prefer to fly on A-330, A350 or B-767, B-777, B-787
I’d like to, I’ve crossed the Atlantic several times on the 757 already and it really isn’t bad. The only difference you’d notice is the narrower fuselage, seats are pretty much the same as on widebodies
I would be prefer to fly in a single aisle aircraft across the Atlantic if the option was for a non-stop flight.
its the future and is a more spacious aircraft
So Boeing 738 max 10 LR vs A321xlr for 8500km range and around 200 seats market
Embraer 195 E2 AR/LR vs a220-300 for 5500km range and 150 seats market
well 737 max lr dont exist soo
Why is Cebu Pacific not on the list for the orders on the XLR
I can't wait too fly onboard the Airbus A321XLR Hopefully with JetBlue Airways.
Here comes the new era of trans-Atlantic narrow body hell class.
True that but as Southwest Airlines proved here in the States and the other low cost carriers worldwide people will put up with the sardine treatment four to six maybe even eight hours for a cheap fare if the operation is run right. Today people don't have the time to dress up in their Sunday best and spend two weeks worth of wages for a round trip on a jet.
its a a spacios aircraft
what I want is low noise and low vibration - things that can only be found in the A380!...the rest is much horst!...
Curious why Delta which is an Airbus focused airline, has not placed an order.
Probs waiting for Boeing to announce an NMA/757 replacement but I doubt that will happen.
Anything over 5 hours I'd want to be on a wide body aircraft.
Same
Business people would love this plane but Economy people no thanks
Flying long haul on a narrow body isn’t bad, the only difference you would feel is the narrower fuselage but on full service airlines the seat is pretty much the same as on widebodies!
It's the future tho. the xlr is more spacious than aircraft it replaces
Can’t imagine what this would mean for crew in regards to their rest areas. On wide body jets, there’s room for their own little compartment where they can go and eat. But I fail to see if one would fit on one of these, unless they section off a couple of the last rows like they do on some flights
Not interested in flying in a long-haul single aisle commercial aircraft in economy or 2-2 business class. Too confining/narrow. I think Jet Blue would be ok to fly the A321XLR if they indeed use a 1-1 configuration in business class. Even then, I would consider it only on the shortest of transatlantic routings, e.g. Boston-Ireland/UK.
Airbus should make A321XERs the extra extended range A321NEOs
Airbus will go “solo” for a while in this XLR single aisle market. Concerns about passenger comfort will depend on airline configuration. ¿Cargo capacity is going to be an issue?
The old 757's, 767's, 777's and 747's can do the cargo. Maybe even the new 737 max! 😜
Take a look on our channel! We also have nice aviation videos!
I wonder if Airbus rebrand the A321XLR to be it's own thing. I know they can't stretch it but it could be good for better sales from airlines as a true mid-market airliner.
In regards to it being a narrowbody - narrow planes have been flying transatlantic/long haul routes for a long time. I know I don't mind the smallness if the A321XLR = cheaper flights and newer cabins/seats. Crews probably will miss the wider jets but considering the feasibility of having a true 757 replacement - meaning airports in tough to reach places and small airfields needed to accommodate - I don't think they'll mind.
a great addition to A320 family! Hopefully boeing will solve all their problems asap so they can make a new plane to compete with A321XLR.
Yeah, Those A321XLRs remind me that Airbus should make A321XERs
Boeings problems are massive and deep rooted, the company is rotten at the top and won't fix its problems anytime soon, time to stock up on those Airbus shares.
I'd love to see an American Airlines A321XLR services from New York-JFK to UK cities like Liverpool, Newcastle, Bristol Manchester and Birmingham, places that would benefit highly with a direct service to the Big Apple!
BA used to fly BHX to JFK, but it didnt work. Strange that only London and Manchester are served from the England to the US.
I thought B6 is currently flying the A321XLR to London Heathrow.
They use the A321LR
Isn't B6 already flying the A321XLR?
No. They fly the LR and neo version. The XLR will start delivery in 2023
@@Cta2006 Alright. Thank you for the information.
YOU FORGOT, in South East Asia, Cebu Pacific ordered 10
I was sold on the idea of narrow bodies for long haul travel but when he mentioned the cabin crew rest areas being gone 😢.... I meann i always wanted to a be a flight attendant but...
On flights like Europe to the US west coast, routes the A321XLR could and probably will be operated on, the crew rest isn’t in use anyways. These are 7-9 hour flights, only on longer flights having proper crew areas rest is almost mandatory
You failed to mention that Qantas has 36 on order. Quite poor forgetting them.
Also
IndiGo, they have 200+ LR and XLR orders.
So worthy to be mentioned.
@@aashumansuri2018 actually.. It's ordered by indigo airlines but it's more like Indigo has ordered there leasing company... Which has ordered airbus... So the leasing company they mentioned in the video are... Indigo's leasors... 🙂🙃
That is the perfect choice in post pandemic era
Nothing about fuselage A321XLR ????
Pity because it’s one of the major modification on this aircraft with additionnal tanks of course.
Would you find the big différence with A321 CEO ? 😁🤔
A321 XLR Will be one of the Best seller ever
…reckon it’ll replace 757s when deliveries begin in 2023
So you can just about do a Seoul incheon to Seattle flight or an SFO to LHR flight. That would be the max city pairs I can think of. I’m also surprised delta didn’t order any.
I am not sure if he is right. Delta operates Seattle as its Asian hub and I read somewhere the XLR's range is slightly too short to do Haneda or Incheon flights. Eastbound with tailwind maybe, but westbound with headwind is not likely to mak eit. XLR is perfect for JFK to Delta's European hubs.
@@_w_w_ look up the distance I think you can do those flights. It's just at the max.
@@hanj31 It's not just the published distance... Those are at the max'max with low passenger and cargo weight. Plus, Airbus hasn't publish data on how that 4700 NM is derived, whether it include the reduction in efficient during winter months. Seattle and Portland departing flights for Delta could make sense but it's pushing the limit of max range that most airlines won't test. This is the same reason why 757 flights from JFK to European may need to refuel midflight during winter months.
I prefer wide body jets for long haul flights. I also think the flight crew needs to have a dedicated crew rest area,
Take a look on our channel! We also have nice aviation videos!
I don't understand why the crew rest area can't be a converted stretch of a cargo bin. Like, convert the far end of bin 5 in the tail into a few bunks--that's the least-utilized cargo space on a 321. Lol we usually only use it to ship human remains, so like, that's ironic. And speaking of cargo space in a 321, going hard on narrowbody long-haul travel in the next couple decades is going to mean more revenue for freighter airlines, as passenger airlines won't be able to fit the pallets of freight into a narrowbody airliner that they reguarly ship in the belly of their widebody planes. I'm going long on Aerosucre stock.
It will not open up new routes. Rather it will open new Low Cost Carriers trying to fly existing long haul routes offered at cheaper price. This XLR is all about offering cheaper flights. This is good news to below average income earners who'd like to travel. But for those who can afford, golden rule, go for the wide bodies for long haul flights.
I can understand the necessity of more fuel efficient aircraft, but I can already see the confort loss exepecialy for the crew.
For passengers I don't think that the comfort loss, seats wise, will be so tragic, it all depends on what the seats configuration the airline choose.
Although common space and corridors will be for sure smaller.
For the crew is another story: Most probably the cabin crew will not even a dedicated restroom like in long hall plane.
As an Italian I'm curious to see if Ita will adopt the aircraft for transatlantic connection 🤔
Well Indigo Airline is going to be its biggest operator by farrr. They made a new order of 300 a320 family order with mix of a321 neo, a321lr and a321 xlr
Do a video on 10 things you must know about the 737 max
Only need one. Dont fly on it for at least 3 years.
You can make it a tanker to fly around the world too... But range is not what an aircraft is designed for, it is designed for specific routes in mind close to the aircraft's home business and 5,000 miles would be more than adequate range instead of limiting the already limited cargo space with the extra fuel needed for the long range... I can see some need of them in countries with thin populations like Australia or Canada and away from large populations centers.... Perhaps it would be more adequate as an all cargo variant where passenger confort is not deemed necessary!...