Get 50% off your first order of CookUnity meals - go to www.cookunity.com/explanes50 and use my code EXPLANES50 at checkout to try them out for yourself! Thanks to CookUnity for sponsoring this Video!
The A321XLR will also help many seasonal routes become year-round. Where a widebody aircraft was only needed for the busy season to meet demand, the A321XLR can now pick up the route during the slower period.
@@nunyabidness3075 Putting it on a different high-demand seasonal route. Many routes worldwide are in demand during one part of the year. You are just moving your plane inventory around to best meet the demand during the year.
@@thetruthbehindplanes it was not officially announced but it was reported that they were working on high gross weight 787-10 on Jan 2022, which fans called it 787-10ER. They couldn’t even officially announce it cuz they screwed up big times. Like how they had to scrap the idea of Boeing NMA. I like both Airbus and Boeing but I like how you labelled me as Airbus fan for making fun of Boeing as if Boeing is not screwing themselves up big time 😂
Now, imagine you bought bitcoin in circa 2022 and compare it to that. ETFs (on futures, now on spot) already existed if you want to stick to traditional market.
BTW it's not just the single aisle that makes the difference. As aircraft have circular cross sections, their volume is (2 * width) * length. But the passenger capacity is a function of just width * length (not including aircraft with 2 passenger decks). Therefore the longer and thinner you can make the aircraft the less volume and therefore less form drag there is per passenger. The downside is less cargo capacity. One caveat to this is aircraft fuselages aren't always perfectly circular.
Thanks, Coby for another enthusiast look at a new aviation technology with potentially huge impact for the industry. I’ve been a fanboy of Airbus since 1994 when I, a young Air Force C-141 pilot flying the president’s limos got to see up close the press plane-a brand new A320 flown by Northwest Airlines. What a spaceship compared to my 1960’s built truck. I now have been flying A320 family planes for United Airlines for 27 years nonstop. Recently, we added the 321 NEOs to our portfolio and next year we’ll take delivery of our first XLR. After so many years flying only domestically, I can’t wait to stretch into the transatlantic mission. Smaller European cities than the ones wide bodies serve will keep me loyal to the Airbus and I’ll likely bypass the 777 and 787. Just love these planes!
This was by and large the reason Boeing wanted to stop Delta from purchasing the Bombardier C-Series. Because it was smaller than the 737s and could serve longer routes, it would have taken away a lot of business from Boeing's domestic market.
@@itsme-vw5yo of course they won't put restrictions on Airbus directly, but on Airplane Imports. See chicken tax for example. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. Boeing is certainly too big to fail at this point and the US certainly will make sure that their only big commercial airplane manufacturer won't go bust.
Airbus CEO total compensation is roughly $3 million euros. Boeing CEO compensation is approximately $22 million dollars. The Boeing 737 alone has had more crashes than all of Airbus crashes combined.
to judge fairly you have to look at how many 737 flights took place during those crashes.. then compare with airbus flights.. i prefere Airbus but 747 remains the quenn :)
@steinarnielsen8954 time is included by the numbers of the fligts automatically, but not really true, it was a demo-flight with people on board, it crashed by my town basel,, once the reason was found out it did not happen again. Boeing has to face the truth : Airbus is ahead atm.
the xlr definetly has to come to hamburg. we had many long hauls decades ago but now its only emirates and qatar to dubai and doha. hamburg is the most famous city in germany for tourists but airlines won't come here on long haul. hopefully this changes now.
Oh I SO want to see 321-XLR flights from BWI to Scandinavia and/or the Baltics! Would be a FANTASTIC opportunity to explore those parts of Europe much more cheaply than can be done today!
All great but I don't want to be in a single aisle aircraft on a longhaul flight. Widebodies offer more space to get up and stretch and just have a feeling of more space as well, which is relaxing.. So I personally wouldn't fly on one on a longhaul route. It may be great for the airlines but what about their customers?
Chicken and egg, isn't? I don't like narrow body planes at all but the idea that previously unprofitable routes can be newly serviced with the XLR is a benefit for many people around the world. There are many regional airports/cities where they only have direct connection to larger hub airports.
There is no crew rest, they will put pilots on business class with a curtain and cabin crew in economy , and in reality most of them cannot sleep in seats, so the legality will be on paper only with a fatigued crew flying your airplane, have a safe flight
Well a "range" of 4700 doesn't mean it'll fly that long or that it can always fly that far. It depends on a plethora of factors, and crew rest is a complicated topic. But simply put, most of the time a third pilot would not be needed, you can fly almost 10-11 hours in specific occasions without requiring crew rest. And btw, both pilots and cabin crew require the same rest facilities, whoever said put the pilots in business and the cabin crew in economy is very silly.
singapore- sapporo would be really good. scoot flies this route only seasonally so if the XLR operates it we could potentially see year round flights to hokkaido from singapore and all over southeast asia at incredible prices. scoot flies it with the 787-8 now and i’d be glad to pay less and have more service even if the plane is much smaller
The worst flight I ever had was a 6h flight in a single aile Qatar Airways from Doha to Tunis in Business class. It is loud, narrow, crowded... Definitely a good plane to fly cheap
ULR. There was/is a A350-900ULR that Singapore airlines uses for Singapore - NYC flights but it will remain kind of niche since there aren't that many city pairs that need 18 hour flights. 321ULR could maybe do 5100-5200nmi which would allow to cover almost all of Canada from Dublin as well as more than half of US.
Thanks Coby for bringing my attention to the fact, that narrow bodies use less fuel per seat than wide bodies, I was not aware of that, indeed! Would love if some airline offered a nonstop service from Germany to Kathmandu in Nepal, best even from the north, with the A321XLR.
Hawaii has a large proportion of Filipino migrants. The A321XLR has just enough range to: -Increase flight frequency between Manila and Honolulu -Create new routes between Manila and Hawaiian secondary airports in Hilo, Kahului, or Lihue -Create new routes between Honolulu and the Philippines' secondary airports in Cebu, Davao, and Iloilo
@@Dredswich The range accounts for all that, otherwise sayign an aircraft has a 8700km range would be meaningless, if it actually could only fly missions shorter than that
@bonelesswatermelon420 OK let's look at this. First ignore any kilometer comments. Air routes don't work in kilometers. They work in nautical miles. Okay so the xlr range is 4700 nm and HNL to MNL is 4607 nm. Now with the prevailing winds the eastbound flight is doable but the westbound wouldn't work. Furthermore you usually want a 10% fuel reserve so it's unlike either direction would work.
@Dredswich The ranges are given for *full payload.* Airlines can always fly longer if they reduce number of seats/passengers/payload. For example, Qantas flies from Perth to London with 787-9 whose advertised range is 7,565 nmi, but the distance between the two airports is 7,829 nmi. Advertised number of seats of 787-9 for 2 class: 290. In Qantas configuration: 236 seats in 2.5 class (business + premium + economy). So the extra range is not directly proportional with the seats that were given up.
@user-yt198 some of this will rely on its ETOPS rating too which I don't think the FAA has released yet. In fact it doesn't even have FAA type approval yet but of course it will.
@@marcom2248That limits it quite a lot when considered that the aircraft also travels at much lower speeds than wide bodies. 8 hours for it is JFK to CDG, which an A321LR can already do. So what’s the advantage of it?
@@marcom2248 Airlines won’t tell you why they make strategic decisions. Perhaps they got a sweetheart deal on being a launch customer of the XLR or perhaps it was a shorter delivery wait. A lot of things go into these decisions, not just the range.
I’m excited to the A321XLR with Aer Lingus on their vastly expanded NA network. Would it be worth doing a video on this maybe? DUB is set to become the best connected airport with north america in 2025, with more direct routes than CDG or AMS
@ Not quite DUB to US/Canada - 26 routes KEF to US/Canada - 22 routes If you consider the US alone it’s 17 vs 21 currently, but this is set to increase further in 2025
@@wonderlustking6735 But Icelandair chose the 737 MAX instead. This plane would've been more suitable for Air Greenland, since most of Europe and North America are easily within range of Nuuk.
I think the XLR is great news for airlines. However, the passenger experience might not be so good for economy class passengers - so it depends on what kind of seats airlines fit to their planes and how much legroom is available. For long haul flights, it would be good if there was 34" seat pitch as most passengers like to significantly recline their seats. Currently, even premium airlines offer less than that and it is not so easy for long haul passengers who will be in that seat for a long time.
Read reviews from the first Madrid flights to US on Iberia - there is a ton. Everything's fine. It's not Wizz air (though i'd be very happy to se them in north america)
I think airlines are misinterpreting customer preferences. Customers care most about price for short haul flights, but they care a lot more about comfort for long haul fights.
@@TravelLoverForLife well, of i could cross Atlantic on Wizz for 200$+luggage fee i'd pick Wizz for an 8hour flight immediately. Thing is, as of today i can't, but starting from February, Wizz will get XLRs, and we shall see what new routes that will bring. For now, they're connecting far points of their existing network, London to Arab kingdoms, circa 5000km routes. i.e. they can easily do 30% further (already announced Dublin-Nashville is 6300km, ballpark)
When Airbus was designing the A380, Boeing famously worked on an aircraft for thinner long haul routes, and was proven wise. Now, Airbus seems to have reversed that advantage, and has the lead in aircraft for long thin routes, with Boeing having nothing competitive, and focusing (hopefully) on building its planes with all their parts again. It certainly looks like Airbus is nosing forward again. I wonder if they need to expand production capacity, as the queue is already quite long. Maybe investors should focus on this.
Okay, great. You talked about how good it is for Airbus and for the airlines. How about the passengers? Long Haul flight on a narrow body plane is horrible! I've been on a 757 from Denver to Hawaii and it sucks! There is no increase comfort and no increased space for sleeping or moving around or leg space. All of the things you need on a long haul flight. Sounds like it's just another way to make air travel more miserable and probably not that much cheaper
STR (Stuttgart/Germany) had service to ATL for years on an ageing 767. Delta is winding down, leaving us without a connection over the pond. I want to see the XLR come to the rescue
As Colombian, is always nice to see Avianca footage. Avianca just got a bunch of 787 for flights between the Americas, but if they can get the XLR, could use these instead (they were using A320 before the 787), and leave all the 787 to open more routes to Europe. Missing a route Bogota - Rome still.
everyone is talking about economics of long haul flying and cheering this beautiful airplane like we will get money from it !!! but nobody is talking about passenger comfort, that’s your comfort and health and your the one who will pay the price on these 11 hour narrow body crap, airlines just wants your money and doesn’t care about your comfort and will probably reduce the legroom between seats even further so they can seat more, good luck , it’s the people who cheers something that they don’t fully understand that allows airlines to do this to you
Nobody is doing anything to the people. People choose their flights themselves. If someone wants to squeeze into the tin can, let them, others can fly widebodies or take connecting flights.
A321xlr is a Great aircraft but it lacks a couples of important things. 1. It only works for airlines operating at sea level elevations since it keeps the same tire speed limitation as the a320 and wouldn’t be able to take off at max T/O weight from high elevated cities such as Bogota or Mexico City. 2. Based on aircraft performance and previous data analisis, atc is most likely going to give this aircraft lower FLIGHT LEVES as we saw yesterday with iberias first flight crossing the Atlantic and keeping the plane for 10 hours at fl 330 is not going to be economical at all .
the max flight level could also have something to do with the lessors of the aircraft. the airline i work for operates regular 320/321neos and they´re not allowed to go higher than fl350 or something like that because the lessor says so in the leasing contract. has something to do with less stress on the engines so that they´re in better condition when they get back the planes eventually. i don´t think atc is a reason they can´t fly higher
this is a fun topic that i might be able to shed some light on! my airline has a widebody airbus and the 321neos, but even based on the basic performance of the aircraft it's very difficult to climb higher than fl350 anywhere near full. I typically see these airplanes maxing out at 370 and as low as 290! I believe it comes down to the pratt engines: the larger widebody has what we'd consider a high drag engine meaning its most efficient at higher flight levels, but the neo is incredibly efficient with what we'd consider low drag engines. Since the big fan is SO big, it's beneficial (to a point) to fly the aircraft at lower altitudes because the N1 provides so much additional thrust+energy recovery. Hope that means a little bit of something!
This is done because the A321s cruise at a much lower speed than wide bodies. A321s are kept lower in order for them not to be in the way. The difference is actually quite staggering: about 100 knots.
DEN to FRA-this route's traffic would expand exponentially. Bob's Airline to Germany-sorry, LH/United code share. .. Cheers, a top-shelf presentation as always.
Yes, but comparing planes based solely on fuel burn per seat mile only tells part of the story. On international routes, freight can be highly profitable, and widebody aircraft excel in this area due to their substantial cargo capacity. In contrast, narrowbody planes typically lack additional space for freight once passenger luggage is accounted for.
Any South East Asia to Europe route will be interesting to see. I remember being on a 11 hour flight from Munich to Ho Chi Minh City in a wide body. Was not the most comfortable. Will be interesting to see how a single aisle aircraft is received by the passengers in terms of flying experience and comfort. Eyeing the 321XLR t-shirt ❤
Living in Mexico I would love to see carriers like Viva or Volaris who operate A320 family jets open new routes. For example connecting cities like Buenos Aires and Santiago to smaller Mexican cities like Monterrey, Guadalajara and Cancun. I would also like to see them operate Cancun to Madrid.
Cancun to Madrid won't reach. The best XLR coverage of US is from Dublin, or Iceland, and neither reaches even Florida (though, XLR range from Dublin apparently will cover 150M of US population)
I can't have enough of how good the XLR's business case is... I think it is particularly useful to those Airbus-only carriers, like Finnair, who may wish to expand to further markets, but do not have the capacity to deploy an A350. The XLR is just perfect for those scenarios. I'm imagining that missions from the Nordics to the Middle East would be quite interesting. Say, Stockholm to Cairo or Oslo to Abu Dhabi. Icelandair, a 757 operator, would of course be one of the most benefited by the XLR out there. I can imagine them flying routes such as Reykjavik to Mexico City,or Reykjavik to Cancún for the holiday season and the amazing beaches. Aerolíneas Argentinas has also been experimenting flying to Miami from Buenos Aires with a 737MAX 8, doing a stopover in Lima. They often serve this route directly with an A330. I'm under the impression, that the XLR would be great for a Buenos Aires - Miami route, or even Buenos Aires - Orlando, since the airline could really benefit from the improved economics.
That’s exactly what Qantas will do eventually. Qantas will gradually replace some of its 737-800s with the A321 XLR. Expected to start taking deliveries sometime next year. They have 28 on firm order to start with but they have additional options for up to 94 aircraft (though Qantas will certainly split those 94 options between the A321XLR and A220-300… so it remains to be seen exactly how many more XLRs the airline will take.) The XLR will be used for both Qantas’s domestic and international routes.
For sure it's changing travel. We will be able to take affordable long haul trips to more destinations. and by we i mean middle class working for the most part from paycheck to paycheck. More families will be able to travel . Hopefully mainline carriers will have to fall in place.
Least we forget, narrow body long range flights have existed before. The Boeing 707, DC 8, and Convair 880/990 made trans-oceanic flights possible. Of course these were not with the range or efficiency of current aircraft. But flying for many hours, in a single aisle plane - before IFE, too - is something experienced by many. I flew JAL in a DC8 from Rome to (for refueling but also as segments) to Cairo to Karachi to Bangkok to Hong Kong to Tokyo. That’s long in a single aisle plane.
ohhh Xlr routes from all big india cities which are not delhi mumbai banglore, could be impressive, imagine flying straight to lets say london ig cud be amazing.(which is usually travelled by having stop overs at big 3 or middle east hubs) Even from these 3 big cities to smaller european, gulf or south asia or maybe japan or korea by indigo wud be amazing
Obviously i would love to see transatlantic routes for the XLR just to make trips to the us from europe more sustainable and affordable. However my real dream would be to see quite a few transasian routes, or even to Australia to make it easier, more comfortable and more affordable for us to explore the beautiful landscape and nature of down under. On top of that i guess for asian us routes through Honululu the XLR would also be beneficial.
As you asked: I would love to see airlines fly direct from Vancouver (YVR) to Manchester (MAN). Alaska used to have this schedule, but then Covid came along! With the 321 XLR 11-hour flight time, this (YVR/MAN) route would be very workable and lucrative. Do I now qualify for one of your lovely t-shirts?
Honestly, Being based in SG and seeing Airasia X take orders for the XLR I would like to see the routes go more towards Europe, such as KL/BKK/DPS-IST/LHR/MAD :)
I would love to see PRG-EWR/ORD.After the long death of Czech Airlines and Covid , PRG nor Czechia isn't well connected to the US . Delta between PRG-JFK only a 767 operates only in the summer and that's it. I would love a year around connection on a A321XLR with United or American directly to US. With some marketing from the Czech government it would work
I could see this being huge for secondary australian cities to secondary NZ cities currently served by old 737 or a320s! Love the channel keep up the amazing work 😊
This was a really good video explaining the benefits of the A321 XLR appropriate comparison and actual numbers. Would love to have them fly from Indy(Indiana USA) to London Direct now that would be cool and better for me :)
As someone who lives in Nebraska, I’d love to to see United, or Delta fly to a place in Canada or Mexico as they are currently remodeling the OMA airport I feel like making this change with a practical a321xlr would make a huge difference as we would attract people from other states and even people that are in western, southern or northern Nebraska. I know Nebraska is not well heard of but I feel it is underrated and both of those airlines should really consider a round in Omaha. If you read this what are your thoughts?
I know this makes it harder and harder for Boeing to compete, but the more I look at the success of the 321 XLR, the more I think this adds to the final nail of the 380.
Hmm...I was thinking something out of GEG at first but the fastest growing urban area is PSC. The PSC area does have a large Mexican population, so PSC-MEX would probably be wildly successful.
A321 XLR FOR INDIGO : DEL/BOM-IST DEL/BOM-LHR DEL/BOM-ICN DEL/BOM-NRT Indigo has the balls to attempt these routes and gain a lot of success and also we Indians are Happy to try these routes ❤
Does the cost per seat still work out as favourable if we have the same % of lie flat business class seats as the average Dreamliner, the same seat width and pitch in economy and premium economy? I'm not doing 11 hours straight in a wizz air seat!
I wish the Airbus a321 had the takeoff performance of the Boeing 757. Most airports do not need the takeoff performance of the Boeing 757, but airports like Vagar Airport, where extending the runway is very difficult, having a plane with more capacity than an Airbus a320 NEO would help put more passengers on per flight. The airport at Saint Helena could benefit from having a larger aircraft than an Embrear 190.
I think those in MEX, UIO and DEN (all major high-altitude airports) might be the most apprehensive. The A320 family wasn’t designed with excess takeoff performance.
I think an awesome A321XLR route would be if British Airways converted their LHR-CVG or LHR-PIT route, currently on a B787 or B777 to an A321XLR. I personally feel like CVG nor PIT are not a large enough market to fully need a wide body so switching to narrow body A321XLR would be huge for BA.
I've worked with aircraft logistics and its startling how much better designed the Airbus aircraft truly are. The Airbus are quite simply better designed and healthier for our crews to operate. Imagine having an electric car with a roof so low you have to tilt your head, no ventilation system or moving windows and a charge port on the center of the roof... That's what its like servicing a Boeing. Most shockingly the newer max models make it even worse! Most people under 5'10 require assistance to just plug them in and the power indicator lights work less than half the time.
It helps to go second. You can have better solutions for all of the complaints about the first design. Agree that the max external power hookup is way too high. I’m above average height and still hate it. Feels like some Olympic sport plugging that in.
For new routes I'd like to see the XLR doing are revolutionary transpacific trips like: Honolulu-Chitose/Sapporo (HNL-CTS); once served by B767s and A330s, which the latter being too big.
You think? Another 40-year-old design re-engined to compete with a much younger, more advanced design? Haven't we seen this before? What else could be done by Boeing, new flight software?
the problem is 757 has been discontinued and to restart the production line itself would cost so much yet to redesign it with new engines. the fact is that XLR is born as an answer for airlines request for the aging 757 replacement. i think boeing tried to replace 757 with max 10, but we all know it doesn't go well for them.
The problem is that the 757 is a heavy plane, over 15% heavier than the 321 empty weight. It would need extensive reengineering to be able to compete with the 321
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Get 50% off your first order of CookUnity meals - go to www.cookunity.com/explanes50 and use my code EXPLANES50 at checkout to try them out for yourself! Thanks to CookUnity for sponsoring this Video!
I can't wait for JetBlue Airways to have their A321XLR's
Great video Coby, good job
No chance for Comac internationally to outcompete the duopoly then?
No one cares about your responsibly sourced ingredients. I will, take the coupon however.
The A321XLR will also help many seasonal routes become year-round. Where a widebody aircraft was only needed for the busy season to meet demand, the A321XLR can now pick up the route during the slower period.
Another very important selling point of the XLR
What are doing with the wide body in the meantime?
@@nunyabidness3075 Putting it on a different high-demand seasonal route. Many routes worldwide are in demand during one part of the year. You are just moving your plane inventory around to best meet the demand during the year.
@@charlesberis1235 Okay, that makes sense.
Best Example: Etihad Route to Dusseldorf (DUS) in Germany: Summer WB, Winter A321LR
A321XLR has one MAJOR flaw.
Airbus can't build them fast enough!
I believe by Q1/Q2 2025 they will be building 5 per month
True for all of Airbus’ planes atm. They’re selling 2:1 against Boeing and still their queues get longer. (edit: wrote "against Airbus" by mistake)
@@bjorn2625 You probably meant 2:1 against Boeing?
@@qtdcanada I did, thanks for spotting. Fixed.
@AirShark95 I mean boeing can't even make 787s at 5 or more per month.... airbus will def make these faster
We have A321XLR before GTA 6
surprised this meme can survive this much dragging
yeah because gta 6 haven't released yet so they do that
Before the 777x even gets certified
We'll definitely have GTA 6 before the 777X smh
…and before “The Winds of Winter“ …and “The Doors of Stone“ …and “The Thorn of Emberlain“ …and the 777X
We got A321XLR before Boeing 777X, Boeing 737 Max 7, Max 10 and Boeing 787-10ER.
And out of curiosity ... when was each plane officially announced?
@@FrancisFjordCupola google it
since when was 787 10er announced,airbus fan?
@@FrancisFjordCupola googling isn’t hard
@@thetruthbehindplanes it was not officially announced but it was reported that they were working on high gross weight 787-10 on Jan 2022, which fans called it 787-10ER.
They couldn’t even officially announce it cuz they screwed up big times. Like how they had to scrap the idea of Boeing NMA.
I like both Airbus and Boeing but I like how you labelled me as Airbus fan for making fun of Boeing as if Boeing is not screwing themselves up big time 😂
Airbus is really hitting it out of the park with this one. This is what the industry needs.
well.. I bought a bucket load of Airbus during pandemic from 57€ a share. Feeling better about it every year.
Sometimes you just make the right call at the righ time, congrats! 👍
Now, imagine you bought bitcoin in circa 2022 and compare it to that. ETFs (on futures, now on spot) already existed if you want to stick to traditional market.
@@wonderlustking6735 That's a terrible comparison. Bitcoin had 100x times the risk at that time
Well played
Is it paying dividends or just speculation? (legit question)
Oh boy... imagine the 11 hour RyanAir experience. Can't wait
😂😂😂😂
For the right price and direct route I could accept it!
I thought they only few 737s
@@collins9708 With a new airport in Nuuk I hope Ryanair sets up a base there. They won't need the XLR for most destinations.
@@134343 I don't think you could pay me enough to suffer through that 🤣
BTW it's not just the single aisle that makes the difference. As aircraft have circular cross sections, their volume is (2 * width) * length. But the passenger capacity is a function of just width * length (not including aircraft with 2 passenger decks). Therefore the longer and thinner you can make the aircraft the less volume and therefore less form drag there is per passenger. The downside is less cargo capacity. One caveat to this is aircraft fuselages aren't always perfectly circular.
We need to put steerage passengers in the lower deck. I'm surprised Ryanair doesn't do this!
double deck narrow bodies coming soon
@@colinmacdonald5732 where would they store the cargo
@@Aeroguru1 on the laps and around the passengers, it is Ryanair that is being discussed :^)
Also the structural reinforcement needed with the two aisle construction adds weight due to the complexity of the design
That is the best, most informative description, with details I have ever seen. Great work! You actually talked to the Airbus people. WOW!
Thanks, Coby for another enthusiast look at a new aviation technology with potentially huge impact for the industry. I’ve been a fanboy of Airbus since 1994 when I, a young Air Force C-141 pilot flying the president’s limos got to see up close the press plane-a brand new A320 flown by Northwest Airlines. What a spaceship compared to my 1960’s built truck. I now have been flying A320 family planes for United Airlines for 27 years nonstop. Recently, we added the 321 NEOs to our portfolio and next year we’ll take delivery of our first XLR. After so many years flying only domestically, I can’t wait to stretch into the transatlantic mission. Smaller European cities than the ones wide bodies serve will keep me loyal to the Airbus and I’ll likely bypass the 777 and 787. Just love these planes!
Outstanding explanation of why 321XLR is a awesome airplane.
This was by and large the reason Boeing wanted to stop Delta from purchasing the Bombardier C-Series. Because it was smaller than the 737s and could serve longer routes, it would have taken away a lot of business from Boeing's domestic market.
I'm sure the US will revert to type again and put up trade barriers to protect Boeing at all costs.
@@JonMartinYXD but they cànt put barriers ón airbus because america would not want tó upset the European Nato members
@@itsme-vw5yo You're funny.
@@itsme-vw5yo of course they won't put restrictions on Airbus directly, but on Airplane Imports. See chicken tax for example.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens. Boeing is certainly too big to fail at this point and the US certainly will make sure that their only big commercial airplane manufacturer won't go bust.
@@itsme-vw5yoevery time its "they wont do something that stupid" untill they do
Airbus CEO total compensation is roughly $3 million euros.
Boeing CEO compensation is approximately $22 million dollars.
The Boeing 737 alone has had more crashes than all of Airbus crashes combined.
to judge fairly you have to look at how many 737 flights took place during those crashes.. then compare with airbus flights.. i prefere Airbus but 747 remains the quenn :)
@@senolhakan9255 Not to mention how long the 737 has been around. Don't forget the A320 crashed on its first passenger flight.
@steinarnielsen8954 time is included by the numbers of the fligts automatically, but not really true, it was a demo-flight with people on board, it crashed by my town basel,, once the reason was found out it did not happen again. Boeing has to face the truth : Airbus is ahead atm.
The A321XLR will be a perfect replacement for the ageing Boeing 757s
Boeing execs in Chicago: "Hey we got an updated 757 to compete there, right? ... Right?"
In many ways yes. It does not match the "hot and high" capabilities of the 757.
the xlr definetly has to come to hamburg. we had many long hauls decades ago but now its only emirates and qatar to dubai and doha. hamburg is the most famous city in germany for tourists but airlines won't come here on long haul. hopefully this changes now.
Oh I SO want to see 321-XLR flights from BWI to Scandinavia and/or the Baltics! Would be a FANTASTIC opportunity to explore those parts of Europe much more cheaply than can be done today!
All great but I don't want to be in a single aisle aircraft on a longhaul flight. Widebodies offer more space to get up and stretch and just have a feeling of more space as well, which is relaxing.. So I personally wouldn't fly on one on a longhaul route. It may be great for the airlines but what about their customers?
Chicken and egg, isn't? I don't like narrow body planes at all but the idea that previously unprofitable routes can be newly serviced with the XLR is a benefit for many people around the world. There are many regional airports/cities where they only have direct connection to larger hub airports.
My wonder is where will the crew rest? 11 hour flights will likely need 3 pilots and bunks for breaks, wonder how they could fit that in 🤔
One business class seat and usually the last of economy seats for long haul over 7 hours of crew 'rest' areas,
In business instead of you
There is no crew rest, they will put pilots on business class with a curtain and cabin crew in economy , and in reality most of them cannot sleep in seats, so the legality will be on paper only with a fatigued crew flying your airplane, have a safe flight
12 hour workday is legal in most places I would think. I think they can get by with longer breaks by rotating 3 pilots.
Well a "range" of 4700 doesn't mean it'll fly that long or that it can always fly that far. It depends on a plethora of factors, and crew rest is a complicated topic. But simply put, most of the time a third pilot would not be needed, you can fly almost 10-11 hours in specific occasions without requiring crew rest. And btw, both pilots and cabin crew require the same rest facilities, whoever said put the pilots in business and the cabin crew in economy is very silly.
Imagine going to the airport for your first long haul flight excited to get to fly in a wide body just to see a fkn a321 sitting at the gate instead
That would suck so much! 😢
Could be worse. 737MAX.
I bet you could already see what plane you'd be riding on when booking.
singapore- sapporo would be really good. scoot flies this route only seasonally so if the XLR operates it we could potentially see year round flights to hokkaido from singapore and all over southeast asia at incredible prices. scoot flies it with the 787-8 now and i’d be glad to pay less and have more service even if the plane is much smaller
The worst flight I ever had was a 6h flight in a single aile Qatar Airways from Doha to Tunis in Business class.
It is loud, narrow, crowded...
Definitely a good plane to fly cheap
Looks like the A321XLR is just 100 miles short of being able to fly SEA - NRT! We need the A321XXLR.
ULR. There was/is a A350-900ULR that Singapore airlines uses for Singapore - NYC flights but it will remain kind of niche since there aren't that many city pairs that need 18 hour flights. 321ULR could maybe do 5100-5200nmi which would allow to cover almost all of Canada from Dublin as well as more than half of US.
Thanks Coby for bringing my attention to the fact, that narrow bodies use less fuel per seat than wide bodies, I was not aware of that, indeed!
Would love if some airline offered a nonstop service from Germany to Kathmandu in Nepal, best even from the north, with the A321XLR.
been watching for many years, feels like you've really hit your stride in content and structure. love the videos!
Hawaii has a large proportion of Filipino migrants. The A321XLR has just enough range to:
-Increase flight frequency between Manila and Honolulu
-Create new routes between Manila and Hawaiian secondary airports in Hilo, Kahului, or Lihue
-Create new routes between Honolulu and the Philippines' secondary airports in Cebu, Davao, and Iloilo
A321XLR has a range of up to 8,700 kilometers. Honolulu to Manila is 8,493.66km. Will this aircraft have enough to taxi, takeoff and fuel reserves?
@@Dredswich The range accounts for all that, otherwise sayign an aircraft has a 8700km range would be meaningless, if it actually could only fly missions shorter than that
@bonelesswatermelon420 OK let's look at this. First ignore any kilometer comments. Air routes don't work in kilometers. They work in nautical miles. Okay so the xlr range is 4700 nm and HNL to MNL is 4607 nm. Now with the prevailing winds the eastbound flight is doable but the westbound wouldn't work. Furthermore you usually want a 10% fuel reserve so it's unlike either direction would work.
@Dredswich The ranges are given for *full payload.* Airlines can always fly longer if they reduce number of seats/passengers/payload.
For example, Qantas flies from Perth to London with 787-9 whose advertised range is 7,565 nmi, but the distance between the two airports is 7,829 nmi.
Advertised number of seats of 787-9 for 2 class: 290. In Qantas configuration: 236 seats in 2.5 class (business + premium + economy). So the extra range is not directly proportional with the seats that were given up.
@user-yt198 some of this will rely on its ETOPS rating too which I don't think the FAA has released yet. In fact it doesn't even have FAA type approval yet but of course it will.
10 hour flights without a crew rest compartment is criminal
True. But I think 99% of all flights will be less than eight hours.
@@marcom2248That limits it quite a lot when considered that the aircraft also travels at much lower speeds than wide bodies. 8 hours for it is JFK to CDG, which an A321LR can already do. So what’s the advantage of it?
@afcgeo882 Ask the airlines. They would not buy a xlr without massive benefits.
@marcom2248 I go crazy on 12h flights even with a CRC. I can't even imagine 10h flights with augmenting crew resting in non-flat passenger seats.
@@marcom2248 Airlines won’t tell you why they make strategic decisions. Perhaps they got a sweetheart deal on being a launch customer of the XLR or perhaps it was a shorter delivery wait. A lot of things go into these decisions, not just the range.
This actually did clear up how the xlr is different for me and how important its single aisle is for achieving that, so thank you
The second aisle is a MUST, because if one is blocked, you can just switch to move around.
Walking is actually important on such long flights for your body. Cant see them on long range.
I’m excited to the A321XLR with Aer Lingus on their vastly expanded NA network. Would it be worth doing a video on this maybe?
DUB is set to become the best connected airport with north america in 2025, with more direct routes than CDG or AMS
Reykjavik would rival it, i'm sure.
@ Not quite
DUB to US/Canada - 26 routes
KEF to US/Canada - 22 routes
If you consider the US alone it’s 17 vs 21 currently, but this is set to increase further in 2025
@@wonderlustking6735 Keflavik currently doesn't have preclearance facilites to compete with Dublin.
@steinarnielsen8954 yeah but range. the is a significant area of US\Canada which is only accessible by LR\XLR from Iceland but not from Ireland.
@@wonderlustking6735 But Icelandair chose the 737 MAX instead. This plane would've been more suitable for Air Greenland, since most of Europe and North America are easily within range of Nuuk.
I love seeing alot of Avianca in your videos thank you!
Good Day. Excellent. Very Interesting & Educational. Thank You
Can’t wait to fly this beauty!
I think the XLR is great news for airlines. However, the passenger experience might not be so good for economy class passengers - so it depends on what kind of seats airlines fit to their planes and how much legroom is available. For long haul flights, it would be good if there was 34" seat pitch as most passengers like to significantly recline their seats. Currently, even premium airlines offer less than that and it is not so easy for long haul passengers who will be in that seat for a long time.
Who cares about passengers who shop by price
Read reviews from the first Madrid flights to US on Iberia - there is a ton. Everything's fine. It's not Wizz air (though i'd be very happy to se them in north america)
You kind of get what you pay for.
I think airlines are misinterpreting customer preferences. Customers care most about price for short haul flights, but they care a lot more about comfort for long haul fights.
@@TravelLoverForLife well, of i could cross Atlantic on Wizz for 200$+luggage fee i'd pick Wizz for an 8hour flight immediately. Thing is, as of today i can't, but starting from February, Wizz will get XLRs, and we shall see what new routes that will bring. For now, they're connecting far points of their existing network, London to Arab kingdoms, circa 5000km routes. i.e. they can easily do 30% further (already announced Dublin-Nashville is 6300km, ballpark)
When Airbus was designing the A380, Boeing famously worked on an aircraft for thinner long haul routes, and was proven wise.
Now, Airbus seems to have reversed that advantage, and has the lead in aircraft for long thin routes, with Boeing having nothing competitive, and focusing (hopefully) on building its planes with all their parts again.
It certainly looks like Airbus is nosing forward again. I wonder if they need to expand production capacity, as the queue is already quite long. Maybe investors should focus on this.
Great video. The airline economics were fascinating.
Okay, great. You talked about how good it is for Airbus and for the airlines. How about the passengers? Long Haul flight on a narrow body plane is horrible! I've been on a 757 from Denver to Hawaii and it sucks! There is no increase comfort and no increased space for sleeping or moving around or leg space. All of the things you need on a long haul flight. Sounds like it's just another way to make air travel more miserable and probably not that much cheaper
STR (Stuttgart/Germany) had service to ATL for years on an ageing 767. Delta is winding down, leaving us without a connection over the pond. I want to see the XLR come to the rescue
Been watching you for years & didn’t know we both live in Nashville! 😮
Here are some routes I would Like to see on the A321XLR
CMH - EZE
CMH - CDG
CMH - FCO
CMH - GRU
CMH -HNL
IAD - EZE
IAD - GRU
OSL - YVR
KEF - LAX
As Colombian, is always nice to see Avianca footage. Avianca just got a bunch of 787 for flights between the Americas, but if they can get the XLR, could use these instead (they were using A320 before the 787), and leave all the 787 to open more routes to Europe. Missing a route Bogota - Rome still.
it's time for Avianca to get its thing together. Worst service in the Americas.
Great video Coby. I always learn something from your videos.
everyone is talking about economics of long haul flying and cheering this beautiful airplane like we will get money from it !!! but nobody is talking about passenger comfort, that’s your comfort and health and your the one who will pay the price on these 11 hour narrow body crap, airlines just wants your money and doesn’t care about your comfort and will probably reduce the legroom between seats even further so they can seat more, good luck , it’s the people who cheers something that they don’t fully understand that allows airlines to do this to you
Nobody is doing anything to the people. People choose their flights themselves. If someone wants to squeeze into the tin can, let them, others can fly widebodies or take connecting flights.
I’m would love to see the A321XLR fly YVR to NRT or HND and Canadien and American cities connecting to South America!
Fantastic presentation Cody. I'd love a route from MAN - CID (Manchester to Cedar Rapids)
A321xlr is a Great aircraft but it lacks a couples of important things.
1. It only works for airlines operating at sea level elevations since it keeps the same tire speed limitation as the a320 and wouldn’t be able to take off at max T/O weight from high elevated cities such as Bogota or Mexico City.
2. Based on aircraft performance and previous data analisis, atc is most likely going to give this aircraft lower FLIGHT LEVES as we saw yesterday with iberias first flight crossing the Atlantic and keeping the plane for 10 hours at fl 330 is not going to be economical at all .
the max flight level could also have something to do with the lessors of the aircraft. the airline i work for operates regular 320/321neos and they´re not allowed to go higher than fl350 or something like that because the lessor says so in the leasing contract. has something to do with less stress on the engines so that they´re in better condition when they get back the planes eventually. i don´t think atc is a reason they can´t fly higher
this is a fun topic that i might be able to shed some light on! my airline has a widebody airbus and the 321neos, but even based on the basic performance of the aircraft it's very difficult to climb higher than fl350 anywhere near full. I typically see these airplanes maxing out at 370 and as low as 290! I believe it comes down to the pratt engines: the larger widebody has what we'd consider a high drag engine meaning its most efficient at higher flight levels, but the neo is incredibly efficient with what we'd consider low drag engines. Since the big fan is SO big, it's beneficial (to a point) to fly the aircraft at lower altitudes because the N1 provides so much additional thrust+energy recovery. Hope that means a little bit of something!
This is done because the A321s cruise at a much lower speed than wide bodies. A321s are kept lower in order for them not to be in the way. The difference is actually quite staggering: about 100 knots.
Yes, from your armchair you know better than the airlines that are ordering it
@ Except he is 100% correct and the airlines absolutely know these things too. You… do not.
DEN to FRA-this route's traffic would expand exponentially. Bob's Airline to Germany-sorry, LH/United code share. .. Cheers, a top-shelf presentation as always.
When it said X-Factor I thought it meant there was a singing competition with planes
Very informative! Best media presentation on this aircraft that I’ve seen! Well done.
I’d like to see the XLR do BOS to BSL!
Sydney to Tahiti would be something I’d love to see the XLR fly
Yes, but comparing planes based solely on fuel burn per seat mile only tells part of the story. On international routes, freight can be highly profitable, and widebody aircraft excel in this area due to their substantial cargo capacity. In contrast, narrowbody planes typically lack additional space for freight once passenger luggage is accounted for.
oh so you're saying the A321 XLR is going to be a complete failure. Right OK
I always enjoy watching your videos. Well done!
Any South East Asia to Europe route will be interesting to see. I remember being on a 11 hour flight from Munich to Ho Chi Minh City in a wide body. Was not the most comfortable. Will be interesting to see how a single aisle aircraft is received by the passengers in terms of flying experience and comfort. Eyeing the 321XLR t-shirt ❤
TRV to XSR would be a good trip on an A321 XLR!
Living in Mexico I would love to see carriers like Viva or Volaris who operate A320 family jets open new routes. For example connecting cities like Buenos Aires and Santiago to smaller Mexican cities like Monterrey, Guadalajara and Cancun. I would also like to see them operate Cancun to Madrid.
Cancun to Madrid won't reach. The best XLR coverage of US is from Dublin, or Iceland, and neither reaches even Florida (though, XLR range from Dublin apparently will cover 150M of US population)
I think the A321 XLR should fly from Singapore to Hawaii.
I really wanna see Urumqi to London, just would be such a great route to have
I would love a Cork to New York flight and I would proudly wear your t-shirt on the maiden flight
It may be a stretch on the limits, but PHL or other US EC hubs to Hawaii would make that trip more attractive.
I would like to see a London - Melbourne direct flight. Last year I did Melbourne - Dallas, 16.5 hours!!
I can't have enough of how good the XLR's business case is... I think it is particularly useful to those Airbus-only carriers, like Finnair, who may wish to expand to further markets, but do not have the capacity to deploy an A350. The XLR is just perfect for those scenarios.
I'm imagining that missions from the Nordics to the Middle East would be quite interesting. Say, Stockholm to Cairo or Oslo to Abu Dhabi.
Icelandair, a 757 operator, would of course be one of the most benefited by the XLR out there. I can imagine them flying routes such as Reykjavik to Mexico City,or Reykjavik to Cancún for the holiday season and the amazing beaches.
Aerolíneas Argentinas has also been experimenting flying to Miami from Buenos Aires with a 737MAX 8, doing a stopover in Lima. They often serve this route directly with an A330. I'm under the impression, that the XLR would be great for a Buenos Aires - Miami route, or even Buenos Aires - Orlando, since the airline could really benefit from the improved economics.
IND will also get the XLR from Aer Lingus in addition to BNA.
Expect more efficiency improvements once it goes into service with more airlines feedback.
Would be great to see some transatlantic routes servicing upstate and western New York such as BUF, ROC, SYR, and ALB
Canada made an order.
Amazing explanation, cheers Coby! I’d love to see the XLR on some Asia > Aus routes
That’s exactly what Qantas will do eventually.
Qantas will gradually replace some of its 737-800s with the A321 XLR. Expected to start taking deliveries sometime next year.
They have 28 on firm order to start with but they have additional options for up to 94 aircraft (though Qantas will certainly split those 94 options between the A321XLR and A220-300… so it remains to be seen exactly how many more XLRs the airline will take.)
The XLR will be used for both Qantas’s domestic and international routes.
Excellent video. I wasn't aware of the AFT integrated fuel tank in the XLR. Reminds me of the P-8.
In fact Airbus have just landed a 321 XLR as the new French marine patrol aircraft.
@bjorn2625 great choice!
Yesterday Iberia A321 XLR started MAD-BOS route.
Yup it also have Flights from MAD-IAD too for next year.
@karlossargeant3872 Yeah that its going to be a little farther flight.
It will also be great for pilots as this way they possibly could switch between long and sort range flights, getting more landings/practice
BNA’s 787 London route was successful enough to get upgraded to the 777-200
For sure it's changing travel. We will be able to take affordable long haul trips to more destinations. and by we i mean middle class working for the most part from paycheck to paycheck. More families will be able to travel . Hopefully mainline carriers will have to fall in place.
Least we forget, narrow body long range flights have existed before. The Boeing 707, DC 8, and Convair 880/990 made trans-oceanic flights possible. Of course these were not with the range or efficiency of current aircraft. But flying for many hours, in a single aisle plane - before IFE, too - is something experienced by many.
I flew JAL in a DC8 from Rome to (for refueling but also as segments) to Cairo to Karachi to Bangkok to Hong Kong to Tokyo. That’s long in a single aisle plane.
Flights from Asia, whether from India or East Asia to the South Island of New Zealand to CHC would highly benefit from the A321XLR.
ohhh Xlr routes from all big india cities which are not delhi mumbai banglore, could be impressive, imagine flying straight to lets say london ig cud be amazing.(which is usually travelled by having stop overs at big 3 or middle east hubs)
Even from these 3 big cities to smaller european, gulf or south asia or maybe japan or korea by indigo wud be amazing
It would be perfect for MSP-OGG, a Delta route that comes and goes with seasonality and demand.
That makes so much sense.. Long haul travel with the low cost model in a narrow body... Finally they can pull it off
Obviously i would love to see transatlantic routes for the XLR just to make trips to the us from europe more sustainable and affordable.
However my real dream would be to see quite a few transasian routes, or even to Australia to make it easier, more comfortable and more affordable for us to explore the beautiful landscape and nature of down under. On top of that i guess for asian us routes through Honululu the XLR would also be beneficial.
As you asked: I would love to see airlines fly direct from Vancouver (YVR) to Manchester (MAN). Alaska used to have this schedule, but then Covid came along!
With the 321 XLR 11-hour flight time, this (YVR/MAN) route would be very workable and lucrative. Do I now qualify for one of your lovely t-shirts?
Honestly, Being based in SG and seeing Airasia X take orders for the XLR I would like to see the routes go more towards Europe, such as KL/BKK/DPS-IST/LHR/MAD :)
I would love to see PRG-EWR/ORD.After the long death of Czech Airlines and Covid , PRG nor Czechia isn't well connected to the US . Delta between PRG-JFK only a 767 operates only in the summer and that's it.
I would love a year around connection on a A321XLR with United or American directly to US.
With some marketing from the Czech government it would work
Great discussion of wide bodies versus narrow bodies!
I could see this being huge for secondary australian cities to secondary NZ cities currently served by old 737 or a320s! Love the channel keep up the amazing work 😊
This was a really good video explaining the benefits of the A321 XLR appropriate comparison and actual numbers. Would love to have them fly from Indy(Indiana USA) to London Direct now that would be cool and better for me :)
As someone who lives in Nebraska, I’d love to to see United, or Delta fly to a place in Canada or Mexico as they are currently remodeling the OMA airport I feel like making this change with a practical a321xlr would make a huge difference as we would attract people from other states and even people that are in western, southern or northern Nebraska. I know Nebraska is not well heard of but I feel it is underrated and both of those airlines should really consider a round in Omaha. If you read this what are your thoughts?
I know this makes it harder and harder for Boeing to compete, but the more I look at the success of the 321 XLR, the more I think this adds to the final nail of the 380.
Hmm...I was thinking something out of GEG at first but the fastest growing urban area is PSC. The PSC area does have a large Mexican population, so PSC-MEX would probably be wildly successful.
A321 XLR FOR INDIGO :
DEL/BOM-IST
DEL/BOM-LHR
DEL/BOM-ICN
DEL/BOM-NRT
Indigo has the balls to attempt these routes and gain a lot of success and also we Indians are Happy to try these routes ❤
Indians suck
Does the cost per seat still work out as favourable if we have the same % of lie flat business class seats as the average Dreamliner, the same seat width and pitch in economy and premium economy? I'm not doing 11 hours straight in a wizz air seat!
I wish the Airbus a321 had the takeoff performance of the Boeing 757. Most airports do not need the takeoff performance of the Boeing 757, but airports like Vagar Airport, where extending the runway is very difficult, having a plane with more capacity than an Airbus a320 NEO would help put more passengers on per flight. The airport at Saint Helena could benefit from having a larger aircraft than an Embrear 190.
I think those in MEX, UIO and DEN (all major high-altitude airports) might be the most apprehensive. The A320 family wasn’t designed with excess takeoff performance.
I think an awesome A321XLR route would be if British Airways converted their LHR-CVG or LHR-PIT route, currently on a B787 or B777 to an A321XLR. I personally feel like CVG nor PIT are not a large enough market to fully need a wide body so switching to narrow body A321XLR would be huge for BA.
The problem for BA is that their main hub is overcrowded. The XLR would be more suitable for KLM.
Meanwhile Boeing is looking at hiring more managers to substitute engineers 😂😂😂
I've worked with aircraft logistics and its startling how much better designed the Airbus aircraft truly are. The Airbus are quite simply better designed and healthier for our crews to operate. Imagine having an electric car with a roof so low you have to tilt your head, no ventilation system or moving windows and a charge port on the center of the roof... That's what its like servicing a Boeing. Most shockingly the newer max models make it even worse! Most people under 5'10 require assistance to just plug them in and the power indicator lights work less than half the time.
It helps to go second. You can have better solutions for all of the complaints about the first design. Agree that the max external power hookup is way too high. I’m above average height and still hate it. Feels like some Olympic sport plugging that in.
For new routes I'd like to see the XLR doing are revolutionary transpacific trips like: Honolulu-Chitose/Sapporo (HNL-CTS); once served by B767s and A330s, which the latter being too big.
6:26 single engine taxi for the win.
2 wings, 2 engines and a fuselage. Whippydingdong.
i’ve seen this at farnborough air show earlier this year. it was awesome
the re-engined 757 should have been the XLR competitor.
You think? Another 40-year-old design re-engined to compete with a much younger, more advanced design? Haven't we seen this before? What else could be done by Boeing, new flight software?
@@qtdcanada the 757 and A320 are around the same age (the 757 is only 5 years older than the A320)
the problem is 757 has been discontinued and to restart the production line itself would cost so much yet to redesign it with new engines. the fact is that XLR is born as an answer for airlines request for the aging 757 replacement. i think boeing tried to replace 757 with max 10, but we all know it doesn't go well for them.
@@qtdcanada seems like you havent seen the performance of the 757 yet lmao
The problem is that the 757 is a heavy plane, over 15% heavier than the 321 empty weight. It would need extensive reengineering to be able to compete with the 321
Great and informative video.
it is just one tightfit aircraft simple as that.