I think one HUGE (and this can't be over-emphasized) advantage of the A321LR over the 757 is fleet commonality. An airline who already flies normal A32x's can seamlessly integrate the LR or XLR without any of the complexities, overheads and costs related to having to operate multiple different aircraft families.
Considering that the 757 was a thirsty beast, and that its fuselage is narrower than the A321, how did it manage to have such a range, when the XLR needed a new centre tank to achieve its range?
For commercial planes, fuel is carried mostly in the wings. The Boeing 757-300 has wing area of ~ 2,000 ft2 compared to ~ 1,300 ft2 for the Airbus 321 family (including LR and XLR). With more fuel-efficient engines and modern design (fuselage materials) the A-321LR has a range (as reported in the video) of 4,000 nm, compared to 3,400 nm for B-757-300 (which is also longer, and has higher Max. TO weight). The 30% fuel efficiency gain by the A-321LR will make IcelandAir more efficient and achieve bigger profit margin.
@qtdcanada , Thr A321LR has a range of 4000 carying 200 pax. The 757-200 does about the same, 3,916nm with 200 pax. The the 300 carrys 243 pax 3,400nm. The 757-200, is a better comparison to the LR. The -300, is more likely the XLR in terms of number of pax. But given the older engine generation and it's much heavier(as a result of of design specs during development), the -300 doesn't have the range.
I've been to Iceland. It's expensive. A big Mac, 20 years ago, was $15.00. Why? I was at Iceland Air and the person said they make more. Everything costs more, volcanos don't help. As for Brussels, their sprouts are yummy.
It's a bit crazy talking about CO2 emissions, since they are not the cause of the nice weather crisis. It's also especially galling as you watch commercial airliners used to spray solar dimming chemicals in our skies every day. I grew up next to a major airport at the dawn of the jet age. In those days, you would never see contrails stretching from one horizon to the other.
I really hope that Icelandair plans some special liveries for the A321LR and XLR in the future. Similar to the ones they did on the 757 like the "Vatnajökull", "Aurora" and "100 Years".
30% increased efficiency is alot. Remember the civil airliners product, including engines, is quite matured. Fuel Cost Per Hour for a B737 is about $3,857.00. Add, or subtract 30% to that. Imagine the savings for a year. In addition the XLR har much lower maintenance cost. I would much rather ride on a modern airliners comparded to 20 year old tech in regards to comfort.
@@chiad25 I have no difficulty with being on an older aircraft; if it is well maintained and taken care of, who cares. Airlines used to do a lot of publicity saying "that new aircraft smell" but most people didn't really care; they just want to be comfortable.
These savings numbers always bother me. Cost savings is based on obtaining both aircraft at the same time. But that’s not the case. Their 757s were paid for long ago the 321s are hundreds of millions of new expenses plus cost for parts for new items always cost more. To me the fuel savings can’t cover the new cost 🤷♂️🤔
I stand by my initial assessment. How much more efficiency can be gained from these engines. These engines are thirsty and they put out a "blank" ton of emissions. These engines are slow. Compare our engines and planes to the Concorde. We are behind and I don't see an end in sight.
I think one HUGE (and this can't be over-emphasized) advantage of the A321LR over the 757 is fleet commonality. An airline who already flies normal A32x's can seamlessly integrate the LR or XLR without any of the complexities, overheads and costs related to having to operate multiple different aircraft families.
The last time I flew Icelandair was when they flew Turbo Props from NY to Europe via Iceland. Anything is better than that.
Considering that the 757 was a thirsty beast, and that its fuselage is narrower than the A321, how did it manage to have such a range, when the XLR needed a new centre tank to achieve its range?
Because the 757 has larger wings. And therefore larger fuel tanks. The 757 still can hold more fuel than the XLR with the additional centre tank
For commercial planes, fuel is carried mostly in the wings. The Boeing 757-300 has wing area of ~ 2,000 ft2 compared to ~ 1,300 ft2 for the Airbus 321 family (including LR and XLR). With more fuel-efficient engines and modern design (fuselage materials) the A-321LR has a range (as reported in the video) of 4,000 nm, compared to 3,400 nm for B-757-300 (which is also longer, and has higher Max. TO weight). The 30% fuel efficiency gain by the A-321LR will make IcelandAir more efficient and achieve bigger profit margin.
@qtdcanada , Thr A321LR has a range of 4000 carying 200 pax. The 757-200 does about the same, 3,916nm with 200 pax. The the 300 carrys 243 pax 3,400nm. The 757-200, is a better comparison to the LR. The -300, is more likely the XLR in terms of number of pax. But given the older engine generation and it's much heavier(as a result of of design specs during development), the -300 doesn't have the range.
Thank you Dj!!
I've been to Iceland. It's expensive. A big Mac, 20 years ago, was $15.00. Why? I was at Iceland Air and the person said they make more. Everything costs more, volcanos don't help. As for Brussels, their sprouts are yummy.
It's a bit crazy talking about CO2 emissions, since they are not the cause of the nice weather crisis. It's also especially galling as you watch commercial airliners used to spray solar dimming chemicals in our skies every day. I grew up next to a major airport at the dawn of the jet age. In those days, you would never see contrails stretching from one horizon to the other.
Bruh how many times have you said that Air Newzland is having issues wih the 787 and 320??
Usual, picture of Boeing aircraft and comment, bad news , problems etc etc. always used to enjoy this site.
.. Rolls Royce engines 😵💫
For long haul A321XLR are narrow and claustraphobic. A330 is the betrer plane...If two airlines offer both plane, i.would choose A330.
Like to see Cathay will launch daily Adelaide & Cairns in future.
I really hope that Icelandair plans some special liveries for the A321LR and XLR in the future. Similar to the ones they did on the 757 like the "Vatnajökull", "Aurora" and "100 Years".
So this 321 LR will compete A350 in long haul?
Great for Cathay for awhile I was afraid they were going under.
The XLR is 30% more efficient than the 757...That is not very much considering how old the 757 is.
30% increased efficiency is alot. Remember the civil airliners product, including engines, is quite matured. Fuel Cost Per Hour for a B737 is about $3,857.00. Add, or subtract 30% to that. Imagine the savings for a year.
In addition the XLR har much lower maintenance cost.
I would much rather ride on a modern airliners comparded to 20 year old tech in regards to comfort.
@@chiad25 I have no difficulty with being on an older aircraft; if it is well maintained and taken care of, who cares. Airlines used to do a lot of publicity saying "that new aircraft smell" but most people didn't really care; they just want to be comfortable.
These savings numbers always bother me. Cost savings is based on obtaining both aircraft at the same time. But that’s not the case. Their 757s were paid for long ago the 321s are hundreds of millions of new expenses plus cost for parts for new items always cost more. To me the fuel savings can’t cover the new cost 🤷♂️🤔
I stand by my initial assessment. How much more efficiency can be gained from these engines. These engines are thirsty and they put out a "blank" ton of emissions. These engines are slow. Compare our engines and planes to the Concorde. We are behind and I don't see an end in sight.
Good On Icalandair
First