The Airbus A321XLR In 2023: The Long Road To Certification Continues
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 авг 2023
- Taking the world by storm in 2019, Airbus’ yet-to-enter-service A321XLR was a huge hit when it was announced. The extra-long-range A321neo variant drew orders from numerous airlines and has continued this trend over the last three years.
Airbus had expected the type to enter revenue service by the end of this year - 2023. However, things have not quite gone according to plan for the European planemaker. Indeed, one of the more recent developments sees the jet’s gamechanging range clipped due to regulatory issues and safety concerns.
Nonetheless, A321XLR test airframes have achieved a lot since taking their first flights in 2022.
This video will take a look at the status of the certification process, some of the big pre-certification achievements completed by the A321XLR, as well as examining one of the major issues the type faces.
Articles:
simpleflying.com/airbus-new-a...
simpleflying.com/airbus-cold-...
simpleflying.com/airbus-a321x...
simpleflying.com/airbus-a321x...
simpleflying.com/icelandair-a...
simpleflying.com/airbus-a321x...
simpleflying.com/airbus-a321x...
www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/st...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com 
Развлечения
although sad at the delays, i'm glad that those in charge of certifying planes are taking it more seriously after the MAX fiasco
I just do not why airlines that perform longer haul flights would use an A321 XLR when the A330NEO can be more versatile and efficient and is already available. Both the Boeing 787-8 and A330NEO are smaller enough to perform in middle of the market (mid-range flights) and bigger enough for most long haul flights.
@@cristiandiaz6333A321XLR is cheaper and they can probably use more and cheaper for passengers
@cristiandiaz6333 True but the a321 XLR allows passengers more versatility. Rather than run 280 passengers once a week; we can run 140 twice
@@Fortkitty very true…But that would require more crew time and extra personnel. With the pilot shortage which seems like is going to be around for another 10 years (too expensive to become a pilot these days), airlines rather have less trips on an aircraft that can carry more passengers (kill two birds with one stone sought thinking).
@@cristiandiaz6333 A321 cheaper and gives them more flexibility
Better safe then sorry Airbus doing all this testing and being honest about the modifications to the regulators insures that they won't pull an MCAS situation on us
Nothing even half that that can ever be pulled again
Why would a MCAS situation be pulled on us?
@@nickolliver3021 changing the aerodynamics of the airplane and the handling means retraining might be necessary. Being knew this and made MCAS without telling the authorities you can figure out the rest.
@@Incidental104 What part of the 777x would be changed on the aerodynamics of the airplane? If the plane is FULLY FLY BY WIRE it does not need anything changing. How dis Boeing know this and made MCAS without telling authorities? Why are you mentioning the MAX debacle?
@@nickolliver3021 What does this have to do with the 777, you nitwit? That doesn't alter the fact that the MCAS system is designed for the 737, which handles significantly differently from the NG. Boeing 777 pilots are certified for the 787 as they share very similar type ratings. Therefore, the 777 can incorporate Flybywire technology like the 787 without requiring regulatory changes. However, MCAS does not fit into this scenario. Also, handling isn't the issue. The A330-200 handles differently from the A350-1000, yet they share the same type rating. What matters are the basic characteristics that, by instinct, you'll understand, like where the thrust originates and where the plane's center of gravity is situated. That's what was different with the Max-not the handling itself, but the byproduct of the plane's center of gravity being more forward.
Boeing really dropped the ball with letting the 757 go and not producing a 797 alternative. The a321XLR will be in a league of its own if there is not much impact on the range once changes are made.
Correct. They continued with the stone-age 737 because it was cheap. They should have dropped it like it was hot and conntinued with the 757. They must be looking enviously at the A320 / A321 family, but they would bite off their tongue before admitting that.
Not 100%, back then, there wasn't demand for planes like the A321 for long haul flights, so the continued with the 737 instead of a smaller 757.
@tenkloosterherman The problem is, it may not be much different from the LR version. If that is the case, Airbus is going to have egg on their face. It won't end up being significantly more than the Max 8 and 9. Basically if this turns out to be a major range reduction it will force not just Boeing back to the drawing board but also Airbus in that it will expose the limitions of both airframe. At the end of the day the A320 family is no spring chicken either.
You haven't seen nothing yet. Airbus is about to deal Boeing a deathblow in narrowbody aircraft development. Remember this comment when the A322 (A321 with an all new wing) is announced 😉
@@NovejSpeed3reading your comment made me believe Airbus is feeding your family.
Even after the modifications, if the XLR can achieve an optimal range of 4000 NM, it’s still better than the LR version, which has a maximum range of 4000 NM which implies that it will have an optimal range of 3500-3600 NM
So in my opinion, it’s still a better deal for the airlines
😊❤I Agree with you All but not many persons would like flying on a Narrow Body like the Airbus A321XLR especially some Airlines have Orders for the Type so I'll say some Passengers will fly on them including WideBodied Planes which I have fly on this year from Barbados to London and back with Virgin Atlantic Airways A330's!!!!
@karlossargeant3872 the XLR will fly on direct routes that are not served by widebodies, so people will fly on them.
The A321XLR will likely have a maximum range of 4,400NM, much more than the A321LR.
I have seen it written that the increase in range over the LR is about the same as the LR's increase over the neo - so hardly a game-changing reduction.
London to Miami and Dubai to Iceland is unbelievable for an a320 family member
its the future
I love the potential of this plane to make long range - low cost tickets viable.
These 321 XLRs are going to be much sought after.
I love Airbus, and think the A321XLR is a great plane, but it's obvious to me that lengthening the range of the A321 is just a stopgap until Boeing is able to properly compete in the midsize aircraft market. I already can't wait to see what the second generation of this aircraft might look like.
Many people keep complaining narrow body for long haul is not for them. Well they are free to pay for what they like but there is a market for 321xlr. These planes dont necessarily replace widebodies on passenger heavy routes but open up new city pairs that dont exist at the moment. When given a choice to take a flight from smaller airport near them, many will take it instead of long travel to big hub / stop-over. And LCCs play fundamentally different role. Look at ryanair/ indigo etc. People hate it, complain endlessly and still the planes are full. So for leisure trips /VFF people still use them. Developing countries have huge populations that would be using them as their first time enablers
I’m More for Wide-bodies but A Long-range Narrow-body has its potential.
Widebody or narrowbody doesn't matter. What matters is if the seats on longhaul are comfortable enough to spend more than 5 hours in. And whether tall people like me (2 meters) can seat comfortably at a regular seat or that we need the emergency exit for legspace.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg It sort of matters. Generally, wide-body jets tend to have higher cruising speeds compared to narrow-body jets. They may just have higher speeds due to their long-haul nature, but, hopefully the A-321XLR can at least match the speeds of the 777.
@@summersky77 Well, that all depends on the engine that the airline chooses for the 321XLR. As far as I understand Boeing and Airbus usually give their customers the choice between 2 brands of engines.
@@summersky7710-30 knots higher is sooooooooooo big of a difference
@@odzergaming 10-30 knots tells me you have no idea what a knot even is. Yes, on long haul flights the faster planes can shave an hour or two off the flight.
My guess is the A321XLR may enter revenue service by Summer of 2024.
Honestly I don’t expect it approved until Christmas 2024 at the earliest with how things seem to be for entry into service very early the following year
The new A320XLR is probably the most thoroughly tested narrow body derivative and, although Reuters were saying that the range has been compromised by safety concerns and therefore modifications reading between the lines and listening to statements coming out of Airbus the damage may be limited, in any case there is still nothing that competes with the A321XLR and there is not likely to be anything for a further 10 to 15 years.
The video jumping from one clip to another is sooo crazy, have a word with the freak in charge of video editing, explain to him that over doing it is very bad.
A lot of speculation. The regulator has asked for a reinforced rear fuselage fuel tank. More weight and less fuel, but by how much? Long Haul has no idea.
I remember flying Minerve airlines between NY and Paris in my youth, which operated old reengined (CFM 56) Super DC8s in all economy class, managing to cram 232 passengers in that narrow-body. No legroom, no inflight service other than tang and water, no movie. It was fine.
In the early days, long haul flights were all narrow bodies: 707s and DC8s.
This is correct. ✅
Knowing Airbus, it will certainly do everything possible to achieve the predetermined goal, I'm sure, probably later deliveries... Good luck Airbus!
I can easily see Airbus introducing the A322, it will have less commonality with the rest of the A320neo family, likely needing a larger wing and some of the strongest landing gear, perhaps even a different arrangement, but a passenger capacity of up to 240 or 255 passengers and a range of 5,000NM. It would do really well. But if they pull a Boeing like the 757 an Airbus Flying Pencil Rocket would certainly be pretty cool to see.
Even if the B757 was still available it can’t compete with the efficient A320/321 manufacturing system on cost.
Waiting for the “LOOOOOL the XLR will *never* get certified” posts…
Not the way it is being presented. It does not make any sense at this point because they will make the passenger load (or capability) smaller. In the end, it will not make dollars and cents sense.
The european regulator and Airbus will take the time needed to offer à safe and performing plane.Any way who cares there is no compétition.
Thank you Boeing for alerting the FDA to potential problems with the Airbus A321XLR...
They could have just design a wing that matches the xlr rather than add several tanks in cargo hold. Like what embraer did for the E2
This plane makes sense, pilot certification will be easy with fleet commonality, boarding will be faster, more airport stands will accomodate the plane, no awful center seats, the plane might remain in the medium wake turbulence category so easily mixing with short range flights for atc, more point to point connections to smaller airports.
The delays to the 321 XLR wont affect what it can do for airlines, as to the fuel issue, and range swap out the engines for a more efficient option you could possibly increase the range or exceed it without needing more fuel. Or if thats not possible redesign certain parts with new materials to make the plane lighter, once again, helping with fuel effciency. The XLR will still be a puls for airbus, but in environmental times you do have to push further these days.
You make it seem easy but redesigning the fuselage or improving the engines is no easy task and would take additional time to certify.
@@osasunaitor Nothing is easy in life, i just mentioned possibles to help the environment and also airbus by keeping ahead, there is a risk with this always but the way the world is can you not risk it, 1.4c and fires around the globe.
Long range but with a small plane. Not for those who hate flying I guess because imagine having to deal with crazy turbulence for an extended period of time, I could never. 😭
Long haul used to be a 707 or DC8 narrow body years ago with no move screen or
I hope that the safety modifications for rear fuel tank will not have impact on number of orders and real capability of range will be enough for long-haul flights in reality as well. I believe to Airbus. 😉
By the time it enters service, many of those "large orders" will be certainly reduce as the need and demand for larger (but not too large) airplanes increases. Airlines do not want to get stuck with smaller airplanes as the aviation/travel market increases.
can you make a video on the massive upcoming new delhi airport at jewar. its phase 1 that's to be opened next year might be small, but its the final vision that's most exciting and crazy
I understand the issue with the rear centre tank is about what happens in a belly landing - it is far enough back that an oblique slide could put an engine or landing gear into it. Unfortunately the consequent reduction in range WILL be enough to reduce its usefulness for some customers. I think it will still be successful enough to pay its way but it may not be the game changer for long thin routes that Airbus hoped. Maybe its time for Airbus to think about a clean sheet design to replace the whole 320 family, especially as the 220 will increasingly eat away at it from the lower end anyway.
if airbus are upgrading the flight surfaces, does that mean that they will be updating the rest of the a320 series to the new more efficient design?
I think the XLR is a great aircraft from a pilot’s standpoint. I believe it should be operated no more than 4000 miles. They are pushing the envelope trying to get these things farther out. From that point on you have minimum fuel concerns, crew rest requirements lot of things to take into consideration.
This is just my perspective but could be wrong. The answer is to build a larger aircraft with 250 seats and a range of 4500 to 5500 miles. Either Boeing or Airbus is going to have to break ice. The A321 and 737 Max 10 or at their limits!
Boeing tries to build a twin aisle narrow body, but it stretches to a max of 56 meters like 767
But the range would be like the oldest L1001
If airlines were dropping orders, maybe that'll be really a case of a big change in the expected performance, but that's not the case
Kindly bear in mind that the Airbus A320 Family, including the XLR, is NOT a narrow body aeroplane, like the Boeing narrow body family.
It is a SINGLE AISLE aeroplane, NOT A NARROW BODY !!!! The fuselage is wider !!
I think Airbus should kill the XLR stick with LR and constantly improve it.
This shows that Airbus cannot increase the A321 range any further as to do so would take way too long to meet safety requirements
Airbus will work on a replacement for the A320 family, the A221 is a good option for the A320neo and Airbus will work something out for the A321neo, but that's not a big priority right now.
That could be a fact as you mentioned. But not necessarily a good business decision overall. The major airlines focus larger variants on all their long haul flights and the small one on both medium and short routes. Those decisions were made when it made sense that way. But the air travel business has been changing and is seems to me that it better to have a fleet full of airliners that can cover more distances than one with too many small airliners that cannot do both.
Airbus will figure it out there always plenty of fat to cut the engineers know in which areas to reduce the weight. Even in the composite A350 in the new production standard they reduce the weight by 2,600 lbs.
Does this plane have rest area for crews in long haul flight?
In widebody they provided
But for a narrow body I don't think so
How come Airbus can't do what Douglas did 50 years ago with the DC8-61?
Use it for Ancestral Discovery Flights (ADF)
Maybe it will help you discover your ancestral lands for less!
New liveries while nice to look at hardly rate as an achievement necessary for certification. The video shows a 3 plus 3 single aisle layout. The ultimate test of the aircraft on long haul routes will come from how cramped the seating is for economy passengers. Passenger pain, discomfort and awkwardness are factors that are rarely discussed. Put another way how long can passengers endure being squashed into a sardine can ? Do airlines really care ?
Passengers won't care if the tickets are cheap...
@@heidirabenau511 Thank you for replying. There is a point a which customers do care. When the flight is so uncomfortable it becomes unbearable.
It is about flexibility and profitability combined.
I really don't get why people are making such a big deal about the fact that the range will be shortened by 200NM, really not a big deal to airlines or Airbus as its still ahead of the A321LR and can still complete a lot of routes that airlines may want to use the type for. Its really not a big deal.
I agree with you. Airbus is trying to sell the idea to airlines that are trying to tap into underserved markets (airports) far away from Paris, NY, London, Dubai, Madrid, Tokyo, Rome, and Hong Kong that the A321XLR can easily cover flights from those cities to lesser traveled ones (and less known) that cannot fill an A350 or a B777 variant. I do not think that the profits are going to be there significantly out of those cities. I would not want to travel for more than 5 hours in single aisle aircraft. I can tolerate either the B737-8 or any A320 or A321 from NY to Miami, to the Caribbean, and even Chicago. I would not go from NY to Madrid or Paris on an A321LR (I would feel to cramped inside).
If this aircraft with its 8700 gallons of fuel does perform as advertised, it will be a game changer. The A321LR advertised a range of 4000 miles but has fallen short in real world conditions with operators. I expect the A321XLR to not live up to its promise of 4700 miles. I sincerely hope that I’m wrong.
Game-changing aircraft! Though my one concern is for the crew, and where the crew rest area would be.
…you won’t need crew rest. The flying hours are within almost all standard Flight Duty Periods (which vary on time of day). I.e. less than 9hrs.
It will enter service around 2026, but not as game changer. The popularity and versatility of both the B787-8 and A330NEO will help airlines realize that the A321XLR is only useful in some long haul flights that are currently underserved due to not being a strong market.
But neither the A330neo nor expecially the 787-8 are very popular. Only 5% of all 787 orders currently are for the -8. Almost no one buys that anymore
Perhaps…but it does not mean that it is good business decision. Many of those corporate executives are not as smart as we make they think they are.
Even with the delays we want a safer aircraft. It will still enter service before the MAX10.
the max 10 will be certified first
Literally no one knows that.
That is possible. However, I think that the major airlines throughout the world that do not buy it, will do away with the competition by simply using the B787-8 variant or the A330NEO in those markets. Those two models can cover both mid-range and long-range markets.
Hey
😊❤ My Prayers goes out to Airbus A321XLR Certification Trails to be completed by the end of this year leading into 2024 coming up soon I do hope to fly on them with US Carriers like JetBlue Airways and many more Airlines that will take Delivery of the type late in 2024 depending on the Launch Release Date but we'll wait and see what happens next.
Maybe Airbus should had developed a A322 variant that's alittle longer than the A321s but can carry alittle more fuel and have that range that Airbus is pushing for with the A321XLR's
How would an A322 carry more fuel?? The wings would need a redesign. You can't simply just stretch it again.
In fact you are talking about the A330. Extension of the 321 would result in more pax payload.
So y’all really want Airbus to do what y’all keep complaining that Boeing does (stretching planes beyond their limits)…
@@JavanHamiltonTV Your comparison goes fault. Airbus has demonstrated with the 321 that a slightly larger 320 can be built without compromising the safety.
Boeing neglected the safetycomponent when designing the MAX-series.
@JavanHamiltonTV A321 nowhere near airframe limit. Wings are not ideal though.
I think the 787-8 is a better option, around the same operating cost with the potential to earn revenue from cargo
@gerhardma4297 everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that's mine after working in aviation for 24 years
@@matthewbarber9846
But they have a gap in the twin aisle class, but with 290 pax max
what a useless video, halfway through and all you’re talking about is liveries and tail numbers. Nothing about the actual certification problems
Tail numbers read out in NATO alphabet in an informal setting, which is really annoying. It’s overkill.
After this adjustment, the XLR will most likely be the same as the LR except for few modifications. Would airlines be willing to pay more for the same aircraft?
Probably not.
Next plane: A320 XLR
This is like stretching a donkey to make it a horse.
It might do the job but will do it bad.
I Guess the editor likes Whisky....
I prefer wide body planes for long haul flights. In fact, any flight longer than 4 hours should have a 2 aisle configuration. More spaciousness increases the experience of the passenger in my opinion. So, what’s the point of this XLR type? Airliners should appreciate passenger comfort and flight experince more than just profit numbers.
Shareholders care about only one thing: profit.
They don’t care how uncomfortable economy seats are cause they don’t fly economy.
Flying an a321 - NX from Maui to LAX was torture. I cannot imagine doing Miami to London in those same seats.
try and accept the future! widebody planes for long-haul exist but narrobody is also the future for long haul too. Why does ETOPS exist for narrobody planes?
@@nickolliver3021
If they will release, it could be a disastrous 6 hour flight For narrow body
Maybe XLR speed could be 0.81 mach for 5 hour's flight
@@syahrulmufidho why would it be disasterousfor a 6 hour flight?
Linie powinny kupić a330-800 zamiast na siłę naciąganego a321.
A380 retired because of the range bro.
The range is below of 777LR
I'm curious how far passengers would tolerate a narrow body journey. If a plane such as this had the range to carry out a project sunrise flight, would anyone actually want to spend that long on a small plane?
If the flight is cheap, passengers will fly on the aircraft...
Flying point-to-point instead of via a hub is a strong reason to not even want to fly the widebody. Personally, I see no benefit from a widebody on a long flight. A lot of time in a seat is no fun, not better if the plane is big.
I don't know why people are obsessed with the passenger comfort.
The seats are at least as wide as those in a wide body, and the pitch is up to the airline.
The people I feel sorry for are the cabin crew who lose their rest areas.
yes they would. the future consists of flights like this on narrobody planes. Why does ETOPS exist?
Sounds like a flop. I would opt for A330- Neo instead mor capacity for the same range.
you missed the whole point. If capacity was everything, the A380 would be the best selling plane ever. Turns out it isn't.
A half empty A330neo is a commercial desaster. And that's where the A321XLR comes in
I can see IAG purchasing some of these for Aer Lingus to add extra routes to America from the relatively small Irish market. Not saying it will happen. Just the type of market I think it'd be suitable for.
I would say they will try to compete with IcelandAir/Play for North America to Europe connecting passengers.
@@gteixeira You could be right
@@eamonahern7495 I'm always right 😏
They already have 6 on order…..🙄
Anyway, I just can't get over the fact that Airbus kept that ugly nose design in the neo versions too. Why didn't they make the nose more streamlined like in the a350 and the a220?? That discontinuity between the fuselage and the pilot's windows is soo offsetting😫😫
It was better for Airbus to go for a clean sheet design rather than squeezing more fuel space inside an old airframe.
This was made just to forcibly stay ahead of Boeing.
6 hrs in a narrow body no thanks
tell that to the industry
@@nickolliver3021 big planes are making a return tho
With the "pandemic" over, demand for larger and twin aisle aircrafts has been noticeably increasing.
@@cristiandiaz6333it could be profitable with a cheaper Price.
A 5 hour flight with a widebody is a win² solutions
This is what makes Airbus number 1! Safety is their priority.
Yet it was some Boeing engineers that gave a warning of this
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747Dead right. Even with the mess the company is in some engineers still rightfully expressed concern with the rear centre fuel tank based on past accident experience the company has had and how to resolve it
@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 yet, they can not resolve their own issues.
who says they cant? look what they did with the MAX. fixed it and back in the air flying. shows that Boeing can prioritise safety and get back to being number 1@@wadehiggins1114
Boy bye. The fandom is WILD on here. 🤦🏾♂️
150 garbage articles every week !
😂😂
These show how disgusting aviation humanity has become! A 🐑 plane now made for long routes, HORRIBLE
about half a minute of listening to the narrator reading the phonetic alphabet, something he really enjoys ... :/