Could There Ever Be An Airbus A220XLR?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- When Airbus launched the A321XLR at the Paris Air Show last year, airlines were enthusiastic about placing large orders for the long-range narrowbody. In fact, upgrading and pushing the limits of its A320 family of aircraft - particularly the A321 - has been one of Airbus’ most successful decisions in recent memory. Could it do the same with its newer A220?
Article link: simpleflying.c...
Video source links:
Fuel Tank • FLYING LONG DISTANCES:...
Airbus Paris Air Show A321XLR Orders • Paris Airshow 2019: Da...
A321xlr Paris airshow • Paris Airshow 2019: Da...
A321xlr • A321XLR: Xtending the ...
A321neo Air New Zealand • Our new A321neo
A320neo • Relive the A320neo’s h...
A220-300 Air Canada In the Making • In the Making: First #...
A220 EgyptAir • In the Making: First #...
A321LR first flight • A321LR First Flight fr...
A220-300 Airbus • Welcoming the A220-300
A220 Delta • Delta Air Lines A220 t...
A350 Lufthansa cargo loading • Die Beladung des A350-900
Website: simpleflying.com/
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
#Aviation #Flight #Avgeek
First 🛫✈🛬 - TB
Is the voice of simple flying someone from the internet that you pay or is it part of the simple flying team?
The video is uploaded 30 minutes ago but the comment is 1 day ago HOW?
@@avboi9952 it was scheduled.
@@iamhim985 oh
It’ll always be the cs100 to me
or CS300
Why not, it would be like a VW bug limo service or like the Concord, only slower... Get real people!
I've sent u a story idea, please do read it.
It certainly could exist for bringing long-haul to small regional airports.
It COULD make sense yes, but moving XLR features on to the 320 and 319 would seem a better use of resoruces.
This would truly be the end of the hub and spoke model dang.
The proposed A220-500 should be the A220XLR because making the A200 any longer than it is with the A220-300 will significantly reduce its range and therefore an A220xlr could be the A220-500
The A220 has lighter composite fuselage. The stretched A220-500 will not weigh too much and shortened the range significantly. Current projection is that the A220-500 will have similar range to A321ceo since the A220-300 currently have similar range to the A320ceo.
@@chingweixion621 Mind you, the 321 CEO could struggle in American transcon operation with headwinds.
@@Bureaucromancer yes, but being a smaller aircraft, the A220-500 is more about offering better economics on shorter missions rather than trying to compete with the B737max8 or A321XLR on range. Lets not forget that more than 80% of single aisle aircraft operates well below the 2000nmi range. This is for the max and neo variant. Older B737NG and A320ceo has higher proportion of over 90% operating under 2000nmi before the introduction of the max and neo.
@@Bureaucromancer The same is true of westbound transAtlantic flights which face similar headwinds. The A321ceo is capable of flights between Western Europe and the Northeast United States. Based on the comment above, the A220-500, even without adding an extra fuel tank should be able to fly these routes.
I don't think it "should" be XLR, but this characteristic would certainly expand its market greatly.
It would be overkill ... A220 already has great range for its capacity.
I agree👍
Bombardier went far beyond building an ordinary, efficient clean-sheet aircraft. Their engineers made sure the CSeries (later A220) had it all: big engines, coveted transonic wings, supreme takeoff capability, etc. Airbus should take it and "go to town" with it a second time: build the A220-300XLR with 4,500 nautical miles and see who (beyond Moxy/Breeze Airways) will buy it.
As an economy flyer, I'd choose the A220 for a long haul flight over for example the 777 any day.
Wondering if A220-300 with 70.9t MTOW given 4 smaller ACT (5 already fitted on ACJ220) adding 4.4t of fuel & reduced seating capacity by having (if) 12 business suite seats (ex; Fusio, Qsuite, Vantage-XL & reverse herringbone seats) + 90 economy seats + few freight , then the range stretches to 4500-5000nm. 🛫🤓
4 smaller ACT??
It is not only about adding additional auxiliary fuel tanks. The A321XLR also had 4t of MTOW increment over the A321neo which allowed it to carry more fuel without sacrificing payload.
Although further MTOW increment is feasible on the A220, the tradeoff for the cargo volume vs the range gained will be key to determine if such aircraft will appeal to the airlines.
Imagine a 10 hour flight in a regional jet...
You don't feel to be in a regional jet when flying rhe A220.
@@erictremblay4940 I haven't been on an A220, but according to the reviews, I agree. It looks so spacious and comfortable inside. However, I think the A220 is still a regional jet, on the upper end.
@@aviationchannel6204
Interesting.
Well, the A220 has a much longer range than the F100, B717, DC9 etc, and those were not considered regional jets by any means.
The A220 is the exact same width as the 737.
But it uses 5 seats per row instead of 6 on most 737 so it doesn't feel like a regional jet. At all...
@@marpagapal3312 Not the EXACT width, but similar. I only just realised this recently, I assume the A220 seats are a lot wider than the 737's seats. If you were to fit 6 seats into an A220, it would be too much.
If Airbus can offer an A220-300XLR and A220-500XLR then they should do so without compromising the A220's incredible short-field takeoff performance, which would allow a mainline 150-160 passenger A220 to offer long-haul services from small regional airports with shorter runways.
Yes that would be a great offering but a difficult ones to accomplish. Field performance, range and operating economics are directly and indirectly related to the MTOW. Increasing range while Maintaining field performance will definitely results in a drop in operating performance. And aircraft with poor economics hardly sells. The A330-800 is a good example. Airlines would rather fly a B787-9 with lower load factor than to fly the A330-800 with near full capacity.
A220-100 range 3,400 nm
A220 business jet 5,650 nm
The technology and design is there, but wouldn't date to comment on the financial sense of this undertaking, because I am sure payload would be severely diminished, the question is how much and if the bird ends up being pointless for airline operations
Business jet isn't carrying 120 passengers. Most jets have a massive range when carrying nobody.
Why all your Videos Audio is low??
its good for me
yes it is low
@@yannisl8259 he wasnt asking you
@@yannisl8259 This might be because you were hearing with Headphones or at an Silent place (No disturbance area).
@@MandarPatil09 totally agree
I think an A220xlr would also be attractive in the ACJ market.
I think that particular market would be better served by high speed trains. It can exist maybe in the U.S. since they don't have those trains
I have my doubts about a A220xlr but I do see a possible market for a A220lr using the A220-500 airframe. At present, the current range of the the A220 family is satisfactory for airlines.
That market would be very niche. Field performance and Operating economics wise, an A220LR would be similar to the A319neo already. Airbus would probably rather sell more A319neo than to introduce any LR or XLR in the A220 family.
I think this would be a great idea. Fly on small planes from regional airports long haul. Makes sense as huge jets like the 747 and a380 seem to be less popular now. This would make up for the "lost capacity"
An A220-500 XLR would be sooo cool.
Yay longer flight in a small lunch box sized plane
@@AndyShule1978
Have you ever flown in a A220? It feels much roomier than in a 737. The shoe box comparaison fits more so on other narrow bodies aircrafts.
Eric Tremblay I agree but to go further and further in a smaller aircraft? Plus you definitely feel the bumps more in a smaller plane. Then again You may be right maybe I need to fly in one first. Cheers
well... they already did make a220 business jet. that one has additional tanks. they would have to see how that works how much space does it leave and work it from there.
I would love to have an A220xlr - this plane is a joy to fly and I could well imagine the same cabin Delta is using for transcontinental flights to do transatlantic flights. Especially for trips like geneva-jfk for example where Swiss a330 is never really full.
Unless something happens at the UN, the old Swissair flew MD-11s on it
Going purely by what was mentioned in the video, it would appear that it may be far less of a compromise to add extra fuel tanks to the A320 series of aircraft than for the A220 series.
If this is the case, could it be more cost effective to provide the airlines with a long range version of the A319neo for which I am guessing would require similar changes to those made to the A321 (increased commonality therefore reduced development and installation costs) rather than trying to modify the A220.
Or could we possibly see the return of the wing fuel tanks as on the Comet 4a and 4c (unlikely I am guessing)
Interesting point, a small capacity extra long range aircraft would be more likely to be obtained through an A319 than an A220. In the end, both have similar capacities but the A319 is bigger and has a lot of commonality with the A321, making it easier to use the same fuel tank system without compromising cargo space.
The only downside is that A319 is less efficient than the A220, so I'm not sure how it would all balance out...
@@osasunaitor although profit per journey beats efficiency everytime. Although more efficient, the additional loss of revenue earning space could tip the balance.
@@neilpickup237 Yeah, probably. And it would also be a way to keep the A319 line alive, since this aircraft isn't selling too well
@@osasunaitor could even end up that the A319 is only offered in long range versions.
@@neilpickup237 sounds reasonable. Man, we should apply to Airbus counsellors lol
I dont see why airlines would want it. Surely if range and efficiency is what they want, they would just run a bigger a350 or a 787 on the route and gain all the other benefits of having a plane like that rather than using a small a220...
armchair experts
@@ant2312 calm down it was just an idea.
The days of BIG airplanes are over!!! Per Covid,we will see smaller single isle jets as the new norm going the distance! Bring on the beautiful A220-300,500,XLR... It will conquer the industry and provide the new norm of capacity post Covid.. Long haul,short runways,very fuel efficient... makes the 320 look like a dinosaur!
@@Blueflyer190 but surely that's where the 787 and the a350 hit the sweet spot, and is why they've been selling so well. I can't see it making sense for an airline to run a flight to dubai from London on one of these planes because the profit would be so small.
No please I beg you 🙏🏼
Narrow body single aisle and long range 10+ hour flights don’t fit together.
The intriguing thought of finally achieving the travelling experience of the ultimate cattle class is hopefully to be avoided .....
The a220 has a higher seat width than most wide bodies and is in a very comfortable 2-3 configuration, I really don't understand what would make it less comfortable than flying a 777 in a 3-4-3.
@@verit3839 Am aware of that and that increased seat width brings us back ( nearly) to square one that is a single aisle versus 2 in a wide body with more overall interior volume .... More is not always bad 👍🏽
Nah, the A220 is comfy
@@travelsofmunch1476 I certainly hope so for the sake of long haul passengers
@@verit3839 its still not a twin aisle though and not as wide so will still feel cramped
Absolutely possible and economically
the hull diameter of the A220 is really not that much less than that of the A320.
the a220 xlr would be very effective
Yeah it will also be a good replacement for the 737 max
the a220-100/300/500 would replace 318/9/20 and then rollout 500/LR/XLR. C´`mon Airbus, you know it makes sense
An A220XLR be would great for northern operators who fly a lot of long thin routes. It would also open up a lot of point to point long distances routes avoiding the mega hubs. The A220XLR is the exact opposite stratagey of the Airbus A380 which was built for mega hubs.
I don't think the extra range is key. Its already pretty good. But the -500, more passengers is the key. Its the 737 KILLERRRR. Thank god.
I honestly don`t think the 220-100/300 XLR in a passenger form will work. As a private jet version? Yes, the 220-100/300 will definitely bring and attract more potential business men and big corporations. Business men travel in a group normally between 4 and 10 often very long distance.
A220 XLR would make sense only for a business jet. Canabalizing cargo capacity for range with a small number of passengers doesn't make much sense, not in a normal world. Long haul flights also need more galley space, more toilets which further reduces passenger capacity, and assuming passengers demand humane seat pitch for long hauls, they wouldn't see short haul cattle class seat picth when your knees touch the back of person ahead of you.
The -500 might has made sense as a Bombardier airctaft with BBD wanting to enter the big guy's market. But for Airbus, there is little point in growing the 220 to eat into 320 sales.
As a consumer my one experience on a 321LR, and just YYZ-LGW return, was not positive. Twin aisles provide a more spacious cabin and larger overhead bins. However, the main negative is limited lavatories caused mainly by removing the front lavatory for only the small business class pax. When I have an option I will choose larger twin aisle aircraft. BTW what about ATC and airport gate affects?
Why fish inside your own net?
They cover that market with their A321(X)LR . They have to keep the A320 family alive and not shift their buyers to the A220 family with a A220-500 and a long range variant. When nobody buys the A320 then there's no point in buying the A321XLR when there's no benefit of a fewer type rating you need inside your workforce
If there rally should be a market for a even smaller long-range plane, they first would rather give the A320neo more range, Cabin-designs and additional tanks already exist from the A321XLR.
Nope, it will never be, to Airbus great dismay...
It may be a CSeries XLR though, that is a different thing altogether.
Additional centRE tanks, litREs but rear centER tanks ? Come on Simple Flying :((
There is a market!!! Look at BA who offered a route from LCY to JFK premium services and used a a318 to do long haul, however it had to stop at Ireland for refuelling. So many a plane like this needed for certain route.
An A220-500 would have to come with extra centre tanks. At the moment, it is barely trans Atlantic capable. An extra 10,000 litres (8 tonne fuel) of centre tanks would make it truely trans Atlantic. It might also do well in the African market where volumes are often thin.
Sell it to British for LCY-JFK d
flight. I know, They cancel it, but whatever
I dont think the market is there for a A220XLR. At some point you would start eating into market share for the A320 family. The A220 is by far one of the best from a passenger point of view, and it serves an under served market. You don't want to encroach on other products you sell.
THE XLR WILL ONLY WORK IF THE NUMBERS CRUNCH TO MORE ECONOMY / PROFIT LOAD FACTORS ON CERTAIN ROUTES ............ THE COST PER PASS MILE / LOAD FACTOR IS KEY ......... NEW ROUTESMAY ARISE DUE TO SOME DESTINATIONS UNABLE TO HANDLE LARGER AIRCRAFT
I don't think Airbus will do it. Nobody wants to fly such a small plane on a transatlantic flight unless the plane was configured in an executive configuration.
Of course there is a demand for a long range version of A220. This will serve secondary cities of less than a million offering direct flights say, manchester or Glasgow to US west coasts or south east asia to Australia which currently must go through hubs..
Aha! I bet they’ll also be a good replacement for the 737 MAXs
It would be great for start ups. This plane would be the only plane you need. Ideal for every route.
yes..but in a higher cost Biz style seating set up..( in these Chinese Communist flu days mindset..
Airbus's strategies are all master-strokes.
On the other hand, Boeing is down with stroke.
an a220 can already fly transatlantic to western europe from the east coast fully loaded, and vice versa. an xlr variant may not be needed.
I think flying extender distances in a small plane would be very uncomfortable.
It would be able to operate from London City to more destinations than the current A318 can.
Airbus should undercut Boeing and phase out the 320. A 220-500, XLR versions and keep the 321 for bigger capacity. That would cost not a lot and they will have by far a better catalogue offer than the 737 family range and efficiency with the 220 and 321, keep the neo as a cheaper option to kill the 737 ;)
Airbus will only likely launch The A220-500 around mid to end of the decade. The A220-500 will certainly be the replacement for the A320neo. But for now, the market is still too big to be filled by just the A220. Keeping both aircraft around covers more market and customer and makes it harder for boeing to compete.
Yes they should , by that time the a220-500 is released Boeing will have probably launched an all new composite design to replace the 737 .
The 220 will probably need to be very long to be able to cover the a320 and a321 with its 5 abreast, making it prone to tail Strikes .
The 737MAX is already a success with 5000 jets on order , so there isn't anything for the a220 to kill .
The only thing the a220-500 will kill is the a320 . Lol
Interesting!
Simple answer is YES, technically it's not to difficult, but is there a market for it. Unless there is it won't happen. Probably better for an airline to buy tried and tested A.320 family.
Partially agree. If the airline doesn’t have a fleet of A320FAM and only A220s, they will opt for the A220 XLR vs inducting a new aircraft type into their fleet.
@@giovanniramos849 I agree if only to minimise maintenance costs. For a new start airline tried and tested is a better bet.
@@ianmcgarrigle8492 it’s just hard to compare since the markets are different for both aircraft types.
Video is too quiet.
There is definitely a small but significant market for an A220 XLR in the Pacific to allow small passenger loads between distant islands.
الخطوط السعودية طلبت هذا النوع
I think a320xlr is better idea...
Maybe if bombardier makes one airbus can rebrand
It’s already there. It’s called a320
Bro. A220 XLR = game over for all its aircraft and Boeing
It would work perfectly with future load factors
Good. Raise the volune
Post Covid19 or even during or later, the LTR Long Thin Route Sector especially Australasia or other 'direct to -> destinations' would seemingly benefit as a totally new option (previously untouched). eg. Cairns FNQ Aussie to LAX, or say Louisville - Honolulu direct. Multiple other connections come to mind. Given, that ETOPS 'rules' , such combination links are positives and logical. The 'Hub' perceived wisdom might well see a lesser busy 'connect' mentality. May be worth a TOE DIP by perhaps a niche carrier seeking holiday makers, or specific businesses links.
It's a good idea but economy seats on longer routes (5h+) would be relatively expensive compares to slightly bigger aircraft. I think the most logical option is an A220-500XLR given that it can hold 140-175 passengers comfortably in a one or two class configuration. Then at that point which airlines would want/need this and which routes would they deploy this on?
1:54 - LMAO, the forward half of the fuselage is shipped in a box for final assembly. If I was an airline CEO and they shipped me a new plane like that, the employees will hear me laughing uncontrollably in the hangar!
For sure gotta fly it
If it will make money for Airbus and Bombardier I say its a yes. To those who would complain on tight planes on long hours, it works for people who works in other countries and is looking for the cheapest plane tickets. They knew hardships and tight planes are peanuts. The thing is would this make money for long haul low cost carriers.
Certainly, the 220 XL only has a reason to be if the 319 and 318 production line is closed.
A long haul trip with the aminities of a small aircraft...not so much
They will need to redo the cabin with an extended entertainment system
Simple Flying, you should get ur channel verified...
Maybe BA would be interested in a couple for their LCY-JFK route, that might also open up IAD for that as well.
Would you mind to make a video of the use of every Airbus? What for a company would buy this one or this one? Thanx.
More than likely! So yeah aircraft companies are always upgrading
To remake by composite, and carbonfiber the Airbus A310 NEO version is more possible, I think. A310NEO would be a game changer with point to point flights!
we already have that. A330-800neo
Do you have information of surinam airways?
would be cool to see military style external fuel tanks lol
There goes any "efficiency" of these jets. Anyone can stuff another fuel tank in a plane, but it doesn't make it burn less fuel. Airbus is always backwards thinking.
oh do shut up, still better than Boeing
And Boeing doesn't do the same thing? If the range of the 737-MAX-8 was limited to 2500 miles, it would be far more efficient than the actual aircraft which has a range of 4,150 miles. Even a range of 3150 miles would be enough to fly from JFK to London Heathrow.
Wow
I don’t really think that such a range for an aircraft this size would be profitable, but also seen from an environmental aspect it wouldn’t be too good!
A 220 XLR with the larger tail resumble a lot like no 1 airplane in weight A 380 is worthy off member and desirable improvments, my idea is larger tail wings and bottom haul expand to max so is easy make in a large fuel tank and flying in this is very much in past best economic flight operations per flight for airbus and worldwide recongnizable is also wise to undeline a line in movement which works as nail in market adn scuh move would only improve flight conditions not make them grounding from passenger point off view is experience and joy flight and sometimes you get this in comfort by flying also a A 220 XLR could work as A350 XWB with self wifi on board and do sellf fly and more then nice as back origin in production number for airbus so underline tech or slight improvment doesnt make much difference but figures only appear real as 5-6 year turn and such advance tech is always welcome so bigger airplanes should be watched as bigger brothers, in expanded economy and diesel speculation US$ has prouduced a significant amount off airplanes and aircarriers on their budget which is dominable in arms but not in budget so is cool relationship on warming china and inner airplane traffic to consume more in industry and 240 billion lodd form ford and GM in car industry is selling crap in ecomony and tourism or people transport, but news sell well and donald trump is all ower it, in move why not me or can I fly that again propaganda the usual that doesnt excuse airplana industry for not building it or creating vtool, jet electric hybrids or prop hybrids, to much propaganda and use virus for excuse oyu can not buy youth for free for old people woth vaccine, A 220 XLR is also functional which can somewhat hide prat and whitney egine in Embraer e2 new aiprplanes and all this lost in porpaganda american and south american deals which they all fly now they are grounded anyway A 220 XLR still a lot better then before version and has family potential in backgorund and airlines loves this stabile devoeloping as fleet developing in background anway in record A 220 has cheapest per flight economy in airbus and underline A 380 in design is super slick ide, how does this efect a desire for junk food or eating hamburgers people habits to travel have no clue, probably from sixties was also like this.. Probably Donald and Biden were power flower generation..
I don’t think I’m alone in saying that the longer the flight, the more increased cabin space and seat pitch are essential. I would go out of my way to avoid an A220 for extended flights.
Could there be a A220-XLR? SUre, but ask this: as a passenger would you want to spend 19 hours on one flying from SYD to LON? I didn't think so. :D lol
If Airbus's accountants get the CAD software password you better believe they will hack in and build it. Accountants did a great job with boeing!
They have much bigger issues to worry about there not even thinking about this right now so pretty much wasted speculation
*airbus trying to copy boeing be like*
This is a joke btw
Airbus can build almost anything that carriers need. The problem becomes what the traveling public will respond to - jammed into a small confined cabin for anything more than 3 hours does not sit well with any frequent flyers I know. What would be the point of trying to develop long haul routes destined to small, regional airports ? There are many other long haul aircraft already in service from which carriers and passengers can chose.
it comes down to seat pitch, width and design regards to whether its a single or twin aisle aircraft. Air NZ has a ergonomically designed seat that has 5 recline, that is i cm wider for the two outer seats and 2 cm wider for the middle seats on their A320neo/A321neos. They are comfortable for flights up to 5 hour. especially in the middle seat.
Their might be a market for it, but who wants to travel on An A220XLR for more than 6 hours? not much space but more than enough for times like we have today. How long would one want to fly on a narrow body like the A321XLR or even the A220XLR? A321 maybe, A220 not really..
The seats are wider than a 787, by two inches in the middle seat. Has the same size windows and isles as a 777. I would prefer it.
@@siviter I wouldnt want to fly 6 to 7 hours on a A220 though, it be better to fly on an A320/A321XLR or the LR.. its bigger and in my opinion it handles turbulence better.. in hindsight they could use the A220XLR to fly from London City Airport to Newyork nonestop? If the market still exists by the time business and pleasure flights are back to a normal level? BA could use them?
@@thanhkimvuong9938
Have you flown the A220? It feels roomier than in a B737-800 or even in an A321.