Here’s Why Boeing Isn’t Worried About The Airbus A321XLR
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2022
- The imminent service launch of the Airbus A321XLR is set to shake up the world of narrowbody operations. With up to 4,700 Nautical Miles of range, the XLR will be capable of connecting distant city pairs with low-capacity services. If all goes as planned, this new jet should be ideal for helping airlines break into unserved markets.
Article: simpleflying.com/boeing-not-w...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com 
Развлечения
If there was no demand, Airbus wouldn't have 500 orders in place before the test aircraft has even flown.
real
I think Boeing is just trying to dodge the issue, given the fact that they do not have any aircraft (nor will in the foreseeable future) that can hold a candle beside the XLR's long haul capabilities. Obviously the lion's share of the single aisle market will still be the short-medium haul flights. But the XLR opens the door wide open for direct connections from medium cities like mine (Málaga) not only with Europe most important cities, but now also with the US or Latin America. Is a great opportunity for releasing pressure from large hubs and also for smaller cities to be better connected by direct flights to more distant destinations. Ignoring this is, as I said, dodging the issue.
Boeing 777X will be best and safest plane of 2020s'. Boeing 777X are coming in 2025.
@@matijajelic7884 The Boeing 777X can be the freaking millennium falcon if you like, but it's a wide body aircraft (and a rather large one at that), it is indeed expected to be a great aircraft but its main competitor will be the A350, not the A321XLR. The question here is wether the A321XLR will indeed fill a niche in the market and be a comercial success, or not. In my humble opinion, it will. Needless to say, the big workhorses like the A350 and the future B777X will still be the undisputed kings of long haul flights, particularly between mayor cities around the Globe.
@@javiercaselli I fully agree with your analysis. The Airbus A321XLR has the potential to revolutionise the point to point long haul market, where existing traditional carriers will not be able to compete with existing and emerging low cost carriers. Using large twin aisle aircraft operating hub to hub with onward connections to a final destination simply cannot compete with point to point operators using the newest fuel efficient aircraft.
airbus is much better
@@matijajelic7884 are you like 12 years old?
0.2 - 0.3% of the market. We all know that math is not the strongest point with Boeing. Except when it’s about shares and top salaries.
They are using legacy data to derive future use. That’s a big no no. You can’t use past data to project how people will use new products that don’t exist today. They can’t see past their own noses.
Do not be so harsh on them. I am sure that they know thing or two about outsorcing and getting software for the bag of rice.
Boeing comparing the 321 XLR to domestic 737 market is comparing apples to oranges. If you re putting 321 XLR on trans-atlantic market, you need to compare it against other planes that do trans-atlantic. Once people realise that seats on 321 are wider than on 787, the negative image of flying long haul on narrowbody will greatly diminish.
As long as major hubs represents HUGE costs to airlines in terms of delays, shortage of workers, lost luggage etc, flying smaller planes from non-hubs will end up costing less despite smaller planes being less efficient.
They also seem ignorant of the way the European market is structured, where we have absolutely massive true low cost carriers that work on operating a single aircraft type. They want to break into the long haul and transatlantic market (esp the Caribbean from Europe), but aren't going to take on a new aircraft family to do it. The XLR is exactly what they want.
I really don't think most people actually care about widebody vs. narrowbody, just how much the ticket costs.
Well there's a reason single aisle planes aren't very popular for long haul flights and it's not necessarily because of a negative image that they have. A lot of the time it's just impractical.
Both the FAA and European EASA have regulations for crew rest and rest areas when the flight reaches a certain length. The 321xlr will not be equipped with any rest areas. So that there already cuts off most transatlantic trips. This plane won't in any way be competing with wide bodies like the 787. Not to mention the seating capacity is almost double on a 777-300. 100 extra seats could be $100,000 in revenue on a transatlantic flight.
The only thing you could compare it to would be the 737 Max 10. They would be used similarly on shorter international flights like US to South America, or Bahamas to Alaska. Although, they will probably be used mostly on long haul domestic flights.
I don't agree with Boeing on much but I think they're right. The appeal for these types of planes on transatlantic flights just isn't there for the airlines.
@@lmlmd2714 Ofc the European market has a bunch of low cost airlines, they're competing with High Speed trains which are in fact better, theyre fighting in terms of ticket prices
Will sed, point to point Manchester Glasgow Newcastle Edinburgh Belfast and the Republic to USA and Canada the 321 xlr will rule.
Boeing isnt worried about the A321XLR, because they have enough things to worry about as it is... Namely building reliable aircraft...
How dare you, how very dare you.
Did you forget about the 787?
@@cwa4584 Not flying right now, wonder why?
@@mp4373 its flying, i assume u meant not being delivered
@@mp4373 The 787 is flying. There are currently scores of them airborne per flightaware as I type this.
Boeing is really underestimating the XLR. They just say this things because they have nothing to compete among their planes
Not listening lalalala not listening lalalalalala still not listening.
@@FirstLast_Nba lol
It's like a Nokia or Blackberry boss said, I don't remember which, when iPhone entered the market, that iPhone won't sell cause it has no keyboard
@@janiandelin93 Except that Nokia and Blackberry went out of business after that
The same thing they did with the A320Neo and then they screw everything with de 737Max, a plane that’s flying just because is made by Boeing
After everything that’s happened to Boeing in the last 4 years I would fire the entire executive board and hire smarter people. Driving a business based on profits using legacy data is how you go out of business. Everybody is crying for a 757 and Boeing is saying “look, a 737 max 10 is almost as good and all you deserve, go to airbus if you want a 757” and all their customers did exactly that.
A321XLR has already 500 orders that its a substantial number that Boeing cannot minimize for example the 777-200ER for all its life cycle had about 422 orders.
Airbus is doing that and more, in that the A321LR and XLR are far superior to the Boeing 757. Don't get me wrong, the B757 was a great aircraft in its day, but it simply cannot compete with the latest fuel efficient offerings from Airbus.
@@barrylenihan8032 I have even read that Airbus its working on a composite wing for the A320 family with the experience of the A350 an A220 that should not be a problem.
Boeing also thought the demand for regional jets would be negligible, thus they never entered the market,
Boeing is losing out in the markets that the a321xlr amd a220 fill and ATR is an Airbus subsidiary so Boeing is also missing out in the turboprop market
@@heidirabenau511 the ATR series is going to do NUMBERS
They quit the deal with Embraer too.
Yes, Boeing is underestimating, but they need to concentrate on quality and execution for a few years before they take on a new program. I'm hoping they start a blended wing body design or ultra-efficient eco design in about 4 or 5 years.
Don't hold your breath...
No way they’ll do anything that risky after what has happened, they’re going to be playing extra safe for the next decade.
@@joeylantis22 Pity, but you are probably right...
This aged well!
@@joeylantis22Really depends on how they treat their workers (and which ones they hire). Recently someone forgot to add some bolts...
Using Delta in an attempt to strong arm Congress, Boeing will probably get the extension to certify the Max 10. Boeing is still facing a myriad of issues with production. There is the 787 for both supplier issues and problems in South Carolina for initial build quality. There is also the question of the 777X and its value going forward. In sum, Boeing is a company adrift expending much of its energy defending itself rather than designing and building airplanes.
It appears that the FAA may allow 787 deliveries to restart by the end of August 2022. That may give Boeing to go-ahead to develop a higher MTOW 787-10 with a range of around 7,100 nautical miles that can replace the 777-200ER.
Let’s not even bring the 777x into this - different category. But ask yourselves all … would you get on a swing wing tip aircraft made by Boeing? they can’t even get regular bread and butter aircraft right. Furthermore the swing wing tip is the same length as most carrier based aircraft wings & placed out at that point of the span on the 777x they cannot put a lot of internal structure ( or let’s say over engineer the strength) to hold it altogether. A total disaster waiting to happen.
@@andrewdancer8520yeah I’ll fly it. Look at fighter jets and how the wings fold. It’s not that hard to do
@@Gio-ue8ps you did not understand my comment
How much I wish Boeing is totally wrong. I expect the XLR to sell like hotcakes and be flown by the low cost and ultra low cost airlines who want to offer semi-long haul and long haul routes. Full service carriers will also find the narrowbody XLR perfect for connecting transcontinental tier two and tier three cities which are underserved. Airbus seems to be creating an entirely new market segment here, which Boeing can't compete in.
Unless there's a 757 X but that won't happen
It will sell the same way the 757 sold, 😅 Boeing will be rushing to build another 757 max and fall into the same 737 max problems
@@jpthompson09 keep telling yourself that, but remember Boeing hasn't replaced the 757 which are still being used till today ever since the 80s
@@mwat22 757 was made in the 1980s, a different era of aviation. Now the market is completely different with low cost and ultra low cost carriers.
@@mwat22 as I said, won't happen
As per usual, Boeing is looking at the future of commercial aviation through 'here and now' lens or is down playing the short to medium haul narrow aircraft will be a big market, in Boeing speak 'we have no money to develop the B737/B757 replacement'.
Anyway, Airbus has better narrow body product to suit airline's operational needs with the A220, A320neo and A321neo/lr/xlr compared to Boeing B737 MAX product range.
Boeing isn’t worried about the 321XLR. They were worried about the A321 NEO when it launched, which precipitated their rush to launch the 737MAX and engineering negligence. Glad they’re learning from it.
Boeing will never learn they are complete clowns i have my total faith in Airbus
Don't think they are internally underestimating the impact, but since they cannot do anything about it, they downscale the impact to the outside world.
If there is a need for the aircraft with an airline, one could argue that it will influence the remainder of the order as well. So it puts the B737Max at a disadvantage which it cannot overcome.
If long range flights really only take up 0.3 - 0.4% of the single-aisle market then why is there already 500 of these XLRs on order? The airlines must know something Boeing doesn't know, or maybe Airbus is offering them at a great price.
They are defining "long range" as over 3000 miles. Under that definition Boston-Dublin *isn't* classed as "long range".
Boeing is saying that they are expecting the XLRs to replace routes currently operated by 757s and not routes like the 3,451 mile New York - London or 4,422 mile Brisbane - Tokyo.
@@magical_catgirl Right! And jetBlue is already flying LRs to LHR and LGW from JFK, and soon BOS. Plus they converted 13 LR orders to XLRs. That will give them capability to Dublin, Paris, and Amsterdam on narrowbody aircraft.
The A-XLR is perfect for longer range low, mid congested routes and for smaller and budget airlines (in my country the likes of Icelandair who sadly use 737 Max and Play who use the Airbus).
The plan when first ordered was for Jetstar's A321XLRs to be put on their Australia-Japan routes (and possibly Hawaii), which would then allow Jetstar to send their 787-8s to Qantas.
Boeing should have refreshed the 757 early on just when Airbus was working in the lxr.
Boeing isn't taking account the new routes the A321XLR is going to open. Lots of secondary airports in smaller cities will now be able to operate international flights, bringing long distance flights even closer home to a lot of people. Point to point flights are the future.
Also charter airlines that fly people to the Caribbean in the winter and to Europe in the summer. It’s the perfect plane. Having the ability to run packed routes and then shift to long routes with out buying and expensive widebody is a game changer.
Yep. The irony is that Boeing correctly predicted the A380 would flop because they knew point to point, not feeder hubs, was the future of longhaul. Which made it all the more amazing that they panicked and built the MAX instead of a new long range narrowbody.
Let me guess . . . Hmmm . . . Boeing is FINALLY about to announce a rival product NMA, which will be flying in 2024, certified in 2025, and delivered from service entry at a rate of 20 per month. The project will be managed flawlessly, and the on-budget service entry will be the smoothest since the 777. Dream on.
Living close to Berlin - which has an airport that is unable to sustain many wudebody connections I'm really hoping we get some connections with the 321xlr
I thought Berlín had just opened a new huge airport? Is it not designed to take lots of wide bodies? When I visited back in 2019 I flew to Tegel which was indeed small for such a mayor city (in exchange, I found it to be comfortable and cozy compared to terminals in other big cities), but I thought the new airport would be something like Frankfurt or München 🤷🏻♂️
@@javiercaselli BER is still smallish compared to global hubs. It can take widebodies. But Berlin doesn't have the market for many widebody routes. The city has 3.6 million inhabitants but the surrounding German state only has 2.5 - no large metropolitan area like other big cities. We get widebidies on to a handful of destinations - doha, Dubai new york and Singapore. There will be a 3 times a week 787 to LAX starting august - but I don't think they can fill it in the long run (though LAX would be to far for the 321 XLR I think). My hope for the 321 XLR is more direct flights to the us east coast.
Thr A321XLR would be an option but airlines have to get this airport back on the shedule
@@JustBen81 That's the question for it.
Take into account some airlines (like United) will be replacing their aging Boeing 757’s with the A321 and they should be worried.
I think Boeing should focus to solve all of their current issues. They should start by improving their quality standards to recertificate 787 production and resume deliveries to airlines, keep advancing to certificate the 737 MAX 10, and evaluate how 777X Program will continue, I understand they received orders for the cargo version in Farnborough . When the North American manufacturer solves all of these issues, they could make objections and underestimate their competition.
Boeing will keep bribing/lobbying congress to pass the max 10 until enough people die. That's how it's done here. Airbus was beaten by Boeing since 2002 in Global sales except for 2014 where Boeing sold a few more. China now is buying Airbus. Pretty soon only US Airlines will.
With about 15.500 A320’s sold / on order, the 450 A320 XLR’s on order represent 2,9 % of the total. What I think is that low cost carriers will move in to the long haul single isle market in order to increase market share. When that indeed happens, Airbus is for now the only manufacturer that offers a solution. Unless Boeing comes up with an offer that offers same passenger mile cost, they’ll have a hard time competing. With their current 777X and 737 Max 10 challenges, Boeing may not be able to move into the long haul single isle market. In addition to that, Boeing will never ever publicly state they do not have a machtig offer and downplay the importance of this market.
I would compare the XLR order number with the total unfulfilled A320 order number - (very) approximately 6,800. So the XLR orders are perhaps 6.66% of those. That's not too surprising: most narrow body flights are indeed short-haul, so most narrow body aircraft will be to meet that traditional demand. But I'm going to assume that all 450 XLR orders are aimed at long-haul use - else why not order the non-XLR version? - and that's impressive. Airbus have discovered a new market.
@@tomburke5311 I think close to 9.500 have been delivered, so the XLR would represent 10% of planes to be delivered.
It’s going to be much higher than that. There won’t be a 737 max 11er version and a new from scratch 757 will take Boeing 15 years to design. The XLR will dominate the market in cross ocean travel and in the charter market. Not to mention all the 757s that need to be replaced with North American carriers.
Perhaps, once Boeing gets their act together (and that's not yet on the horizon), they could consider making yet another 737 derivative as a stop-gap measure instead of (or in anticipation of) NMA. After all, A321XLR was nothing radical - just a pretty simple modification of the largest of re-engined A320 series airframes.
Boeing has stretched the 737 airframe as far as it can. The short landing gear, a design choice made in the 1960s to allow operation in much smaller airports for ease of baggage handling, is now a major liability as it limits the length of the fuselage. Tail strikes on the longer variants are a too-common occurrence. The A320 can be sretched further. That made it relatively easy for Airbus to target this market. Boeing, on the other hand, must design a new airframe, a major expense. With only 500 orders for the XLR, it doesn’t make sense for Boeing to build an aircraft for this market.
However, it is clear that a new aircraft family to replace the 737 is needed. What, exactly that will be remains to be seen. It has long been my contention that this was in Boeing’s plans but the cost and schedule overruns of the 787 project made the company leery of launching such an aircraft. If Boeing can, finally, iron out the productions issues with the 787, it may decide that a program for a true next-generation composite narrow body aircraft would be in order. I would guess that on the table (at least for consideration) for such an aircraft would be single-pilot operation, somethign that airlines would love to see.
The XLR is going to create it's own point to point market
both brands are good and a321xlr is good production model from airbus.
Boeing already have enough to worry about internally like certifying the 737 Max 10 and sorting out their 787 production issues. They have no capacity to be worrying about that which they have no control over.
Boeing has major problems to make certificate the Max 10 and the 777X and can't deliver yet the 787.
They also have problems with AF1
How is the fact they cant certificate the max 10 777x and 787 a major problem? how deep is it? The max 10 has the main focus, 777x is on hold because its doing so well the priority is not key right now and 787s are close to being delivered next month. how is that so so so major bad?
Boeing has turned into a garbage company. Time to fire the entire executive team and start again
They’ve been hinting the 777x for almost a decade and not a single delivery
@@stankythecat6735 so has airbus fire the lot of them. The industry has come to a complete stop
Whatever Boeing says, it’s leaving a 500-1000 plane market ‘niche’ to airbus. That’d make a difference in my bank account. And it won’t lower the competition on the rest of the single aisle market, maybe even get some all-Boeing customers to see the difference…
This is so pretty and cool
I love the airbuse they’re
so much fun
Well an interesting challenge when you don't have an aircraft to compete - downplay the market potential/size. The BIG issue here with airlines wanting fleet commonality, I can see many changing to an A320 fleet so they can scale to A321 if needed in the mix. Maintenance, crew, pilots and spares all get easier. There are new routes Qantas will open based on this aircraft that a wide body would struggle for profitability. So low demand point to point, new route testing, out of season demand routes - so it's crazy to look at a single aisle history lesson. Potentially the BIG issue for Boeing is to shift to a future focused business with new leadership!
Boeing is actually very worried
The ability of A320 family jets to carry LD3-46 bins means transfer and turnaround times can be significantly less than any 737. In turn that allows more hours of utilisation which bring down operating costs. Plus at my local airport (Istanbul) it is noticeable how much slower luggage turns up on the belt when it comes off a 737.
I think the A321-XLR may become a game changer for narrow body operations in the future... however it will be a slow growing segment of the market that will ramp up over time giving Boeing plenty of opportunity to offer a competing product as the market segment hits critical mass... in the short term however, Airbus seems to have a winner on its hands and should exploit the absence of a direct competitor while it can...
Sick backing track
A 767X with Genx engines eventually might be much better solution being a wide body, more cargo capacity, crew rest areas and more flexibiliy for airlines, it would have more range than a 737 Max10, A321XLR and less range than a 787. Just an idea im not an expert.
Cost of a wide body is double that of a single isle plane. I thought of that a couple years back and was wrong apparently. But you are correct that the cargo capacity will play into the decision of which plane to use. Cargo is expensive now but won’t be forever.
A 767 Ultra!
I don't think it is that simple, otherwise Boeing would be on to it in order to compete with the Airbus A321XLR.
Ahem.. the 767 is a wide body. It can't serve airports that can't take wide bodies, unlike the A321XLR.
@@jace1113 the 767 200 was nearly as flexible as a narrowbody in the airports it could use. The ER had a longer takeoff run though.
Boeing had the ideal airframe to compete - the 757. They just canned it too early and went off on the wild goose chase with the MAX, one stretch too far. Since then, Boeing just keeps trying to justify themselves in my opinion.
True. They neglected the fact that 737 engines are hanging low etc. but nevertheless choose this platform for their future strategy expanding it with Max, 8, 9, 10 etc. instead of developing something new/better. Trying to solve physical limitations with software. (Mcas) Mistake of the century imho. One can say Airbus is doing something similar with the 320 platform. Yes, true, but that platform in itself is physically more suited for it. (imho)
boeing messed up with the max
The interesting point in the video was made by the Boeing representative “how does the XLR fit within the fleet”, the XLR may end up being a niche product within airlines, but if you are an airline looking at your fleet as a whole, the XLR is the only option to fill that niche, and in terms of the fleet, it fits significantly better with an A320 fleet than a 737 fleet at the narrow body workhorses. Something Boeing should be acutely aware off after Qantas decide to flip from the 737 to the A320 family including ordering 38 of the XLR
Boeing isn't worried when they forget screws for cabin hatches.
The numbers Boeing is quoting are irrelevant. The fact is that Boeing does not currently manufacture a single aisle jet that has the range of their own 757 is conveniently ignored. Look at the routes the 757 is flown...a large percentage of those cannot be replaced by a 737 and will be replaced by a A321.
Another mistake by Boeing. This plane is to fly medium & small hubs to medium to small hubs. Cargo is not an issue because of the capacity of those medium to small hubs. They need to have the 797 in the market pronto
The 787 was designed to open more routes by avoiding the hub and spoke approach, yet Boeing think that the Airbus 321XLR is of no concern? 🤔
Looks like the A321XLR might be a game changer given it’s already got 500+ orders!
Can't wait for the XLR, It will mean I can fly to the places I love without changing at a hub airport. Look at the Caribbean from the UK, for example. Other than Antigua, Barbados & St Lucia. If you want to fly to St Vincent, Grenada Dominica etc there is demand for 200 seats, even if only a couple of times a week. Barbados & St Lucia would be able to take frights from Edinburgh, Liverpool etc. without flying to Manchester or London first.
They (Boeing) have underestimated this new plain for 150%.
That video aged well xD
If there wasn't a market for it, why was the 757 so popular and it is still going strong to this day. He's full of it.......
Back in the '70s, Boeing said of Airbus (paraphrasing here)- "it's a typical government operation, they'll build a few aircraft and go out of business". So much for Boeings' vision. I'm not much of a businessman, just a pilot. I spent over 7 years on the 75. It's a joy to fly and its performance is unmatched. I wish they would have updated the wing and engines on the 75 vs. endless steroid shots on the old 73.
The 737 max 10 is about as far as you can push the 737 design. The 737 just cannot replace the aging 757-200 and 757-300. It just does not have the 757 performance portfolio in its bag of tricks and capabilities. Not even the Airbus A321-XLR can match the performance of the 757. But it comes close. And that’s close enough for some airlines to go with it until something better comes along. It can do some things the 737 Max series just cannot be stretched and optimized to do because it is a newer design and has some design advantages over the 737.
Yes boeing, the share of small planes flying long haul is low, because the options are not great. Know a great option is available
The A320 family came from nowhere to being the dominant narrow body aircraft today. It was a long road for Airbus and Boeing kept dismissing the A320 family's competitiveness all this while. The A321Neo has already overwhelmed the Max 9 and Max 10. It may also slow down the demand for wide bodies. If Boeing is not worried, it would be good news for Airbus. Remember, Airbus has continuous development for its aircraft and it will not be surprising if the XLR will become even more capable in the years to come.
Yes
Boeing is doing what they are best at these days. Twist facts, competition, etc. to hide their inability to compete on product
The question now is will Airbus have to build two "prototype" A321XLR's with all-new wing boxes that better protect the integrated center tank? That could delay the first A321XLR deliveries until probably the fall of 2024.
It already came out with delta airlines
It's crazy when you think about it. Airplanes take about a decade to go from paper to commercial service. I remember writing a report of the brand new 787 family aircraft back when I was in A&P school and to think the 787-10 still inst flying is crazy. I been with Delta 12 years this year lol for context
The 787-10 has been flying since 2018, think you're confusing it with the 737 Max 10.
And what if they cancel the Max 10?
They wont cancel the Max 10. Why would they? They have already sold hundreds!
@@aa777flyer FAA certification
what if the XLR gets cancelled? they wont cancel the -10 its already sold 200+ planes
I do think of the Max 10 doesn't get certified and many pilots have to get recertification for the Max10...some may cancel their orders
Boeing will go bankrupt. The max 10 only works because of common parts. But a max 10 cancel would mean Boeing can’t build planes and that won’t effect just the max 10 but the entire product line.
When you build a plane for increased distance, the efficiency is maximized for 60% of maximum duration of flight.
I'd ask people if they would be comfortable flying a narrow body plan for a 9 hour flight. I've flown a 330 and 350 and 767 and 777 (all widebody) intercontinental routes, and the more space, the increase in bathrooms and bathroom size all make the trip pretty comfortable. I'd hate to think of having 5-6 people waiting in line for the bathrooms at the 5 hour mark.
Good points. I guess it comes down to trade off between price and comfort.
Myself, I’d be thinking widebody if I was flying for more than 4 hours ish.
But some people are happy to fly longer if the price is cheap enough.
At one time I didn’t think that Ryanair would do so well with the short/medium haul, no frills, pile “em high and sell “em cheap philosophy., but look at the size of their fleet!
The market will decide.
It seems like Boeing is playing with with statistics here. The simple fact is that there has not been a plane in production that comes anywhere close to the XLR's capabilities produced since the 757 ceased production almost 20 years ago. Even then the 757 was arguably well ahead of its time as factors such as sustainability and efficiency were not nearly as important as they are now.
To cite statistics the market for long range narrow bodies is only a fraction of a fraction doesn't take into account the very real possibility that this plane could completely change the market. There simply hasn't been anything comparable to fill this segment.
I was just musing there about the future.
I wonder if there will come a day when the A321 leaves the max trailing and then Embraer design a bigger plane and end up competing with the 737 at the other end of the scale.
I suspect that a brand new aircraft from Embraer at the smaller end of the 737 market would be extremely competitive and could prove a headache for Boeing.
Just musing like I said.
Airbus have the A220.
Seems like Boeing isn't underestimating the Airbus A321XLR but just trying to make sure they don't mess up again with their 737 Max series and 777X aircraft by focusing on them more. Hence the even later introduction date of 737 Max 10 and 777X.
Airbus is basically dominating the market at the moment because of their consistent safety record and on time delivery of aircraft, although Qatar might not agree.
I always thought 787 is Boeing's golden star but recently learned they haven't delivered a single airplane for over a year. Their fault for choosing profit or safety, hope to see them get better soon.
Boeing has plenty else to worry about.
From what I've heard, the A321 isn't a sporty performer, the XLR carrying much fuel might have to make some payload compromises (no cargo, just baggage) and/or have a starting cruising altitude in the low 30s at best. No the A321 has never been a true B757 replacement, not in terms of payload and certainly not in terms of performance. Don't think well see many XLRs departing Mexico City or Bogota. But it is the only new option available that comes somewhat close.
and what did you 'hear' from the armchair experts
@@ant2312 I'm a Boeing guy (757), but some friends are Airbus drivers and they've mentioned that the A321 is the worst performer of the A320 family. I've departed Mexico with over 70 thousand pounds of payload. The A321 can't do that at sea level.
Does 757 carry extra cargo in long haul flights without container capacity?
@@sho1715 B757 belly holds are bulk loaded. We're freighters so most cargo goes on the main deck in ULDs. Useful load is the combined weight of passengers, cargo and fuel. Carry more fuel and you may need to take less payload (pax/cargo).
@@frank_av8tor I know. It’s very weird to talk about freighters in this context as A321XLR does not have freighter yet.
I don't think that Boeing is underestimating the impact of the XLR. I do think that Boeing (and Airbus) MAY be underestimating the strategic requirement to address that market. The XLR is less of a stop-gap reaction than the 737 Max, but it is still a tactical solution. I don't think the long-term solution exists anywhere yet. I would second what Marvin Green noted earlier: taking a considered approach is important as is resisting the urge to tweak prior designs.
It's hilarious. Boeing says "but no-one flies longhaul in a narrowbody". And so they don't - because there are no narrowbodies currently ABLE to do longhaul. Sure, the XLR fills a niche - but it is already a niche big enough to be a profitable one. And it may create new markets, in which case it will be Airbus leaving Boeing in the dust again. For example, I'm Australian and a narrowbody that can go with only one refuelling stop to Europe or non-stop to southeast Asia from here would enable budget flights to many smaller cities at each end.
Why did they stop making the 757 again? Did they not have the foresight to see this coming at the time? I know it was almost 20 years ago now, but still.
they had not enough orders incoming to keep production up
because it was to old and had newer competitors? It’s now almost 40 years old and starting to be retired because there’s newer more fuel efficient planes
@@staycgirlsitsgoingdown2 except from Boeing themselves. The market that the 757 itself created, has now been left to the competition
@@jaysmith1408 obviously yeah but the plane is still 40 years old, nobodies gonna buy a 40 year old plane if they could get a newer one. They need to make a 757MAX or something, just making the same 757 they made in the 80s isn’t gonna help
@@staycgirlsitsgoingdown2 well exactly the point, the long thin hot and high market (so effectively most of American’s 80’s to 2000’s network, all of South America, most of Europe, the Pacific, and the Trans Con market) was either served by the heavy iron, or milk runs on 73’s. The 75 came out and made all that feasible. That was a Boeing generated possibility. Instead of supporting the network, they grew bored and went to another sandbox. In the time that the 5’s were cycling out, Airbus entered the market, and barring any resistance from Boeing, gave airlines effectively the second generation 757. Once you sell an aircraft for such a niche market, you can figure that in twenty years, those same customers will need new ones, so a forward thinking company has all the time in the world to get tinkering. Airbus had the 90’s to tinker, and it’s their new cash cow, as it was Boeing’s in the 80’s.
ofc they don't worry,
they can't say even if they do worry
some investor really sensitive about competition,,
especially after 737 Max falling disasters
Classic whistling in the dark when you have nothing to offer.
The 737 max.10 can be configured upto 230 seats so capacity isn't the issue. The XLR has a give n take design, limited on payload for full range flights , yet the uniqueness of this aircraft isn't unnoticed . It may go a long way. Let Boeing close it's eyes like McDonnell Douglas did with twin engine widebodies, saying their DC8s n DC10 / MD11 cover all market requirements
The current shortage of pilots means that airlines will fly planes that give them more "passengers per pilot" . The A321XLR means a typical narrow body trip now has 16 more seats. But that frees up the next biggest plane, and this waterfalls down, increasing capacity on half a dozen flights. 16 more seats turns into 100 more seats. Granted, a simplistic explanation, but more flexibility means more revenue, per pilot.
Boeing's 737Max10 comes close, and for an airline that is all Boeing, having a handful of Airbus planes is not an option.
One thing hinted is that the XLR may not have enough baggage capacity for a full flight? After a few years, Airbus can probably recertify it for more weight, but you can't "make" more volume.
More passengers per pilot? No, that’s silly. They won’t look at that. The pilot shortage is temporary. They are not deciding on types based on how many pilots there are.
The luggage space will be solved by more premium seats on full service airlines (so fewer passengers = fewer bags) and by making bags optional on low cost carriers with all economy seats.
I can see airbus offering a stretched A220-500 to replace the A320, Then a whole new single isle aircraft to replace the A321, 757-200 and approach the 757-300 in size, with longer range.
The A220 acquisition was a great move - precipitated, of course, by Boeing's utter stupidity in trying to use the best government money can buy to kill Bombardier, who were really only a minor threat to them. Now Airbus are going to utterly dominate BOTH ends of the narrowbody market.
Unfortunately these videos usually track with what is best for the airline, how about what is best for the traveller?
The A321XLR seems like an ideal aircraft for the long-haul single aisle market. Though I’m waiting for when the Boeing 737-10 gets certified because it looks like a good competitor, just as long it doesn’t get axed.
Boeing might claim to be unconcerned by the XLR but I think this aircraft is going to make a significant dent in total narrow body sales worldwide.
Boeing may not be underestimating the A321XLR‘s impact upon the market, but what choice do they have other than framing the plane in the way they are doing?
A 757 max would be nice
Boeing clearly isn't looking at the big picture. The idea of the XLR is to open up routes that wouldn't have been feasible before, such as Frankfurt to Hartford, Connecticut or Providence, Rhode Island. Both of those routes have a chance to be successful now thanks to the XLR.
I think that they should at least have something that offers airlines a choice in that market. They were right about the a380 but could be wrong now.
I'm scared for Boeing. I'd say even though technically the max is great I fear it might be Boeing's undoing. Yeah the 777x series looks promising but I think they're making the same mistake they made with the 747-8 versus the A330, 787, and A350. Smaller planes going further on less fuel.
Interesting to see what Delta Airlines is going to do to replace their aging and quite old 757's. The recent order for the Max 10 dosen't compete on range and certainley not takeoff preformence. On hot days the 737-900 ER that they currently have has to block seats in citys like SLC, DEN, on flights as short sa 5-6 hours etc. so one can assume the 10 max wont be any better. The 757 is and was a great narrow body that has great range and can fly to continental Europe from the eastern US and short field prefermonce ie; depart from short runways like SNA , LIH that the 737 NG or Max cannot compete with. Maybe the 321 NEO and XLR can . One more thing the 321/320 series is 6+ inches wider providing wider seats and more confort. Boeing has definately dropped the ball.
I stay away from single-aisle aircraft if I'm flying for over 5 hours! I've flown to Hawaii from California on an A321 and that is about my limit.
If you live near a hub that's easy but millions live near small airports and would much rather take a smaller plane non stop than connect. Those are Boeing's own words when they made the 787.
@@visionist7 - Hawaiian airlines also fly the twin-aisle A330 out of Los Angeles International but I choose to fly out of my smaller regional airport and Hawaiian only flies the A321 out of there. I'd rather fly the cramped A321 than do the torturous drive to LAX!
@@kevinp8108 how is it cramped? The seat width on the A320 is pretty good, compared to some wide body aircraft.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 - with a twin-aisle aircraft, there is less traffic with passengers and flight attendants with beverage carts going up and down the aisle. On longer flights, there are more beverages and meals served so it's harder to get by the carts, whereas on a twin-aisle aircraft you are able to cross over to the adjacent aisle through the galley area, exit areas, or from your seat if you're seated in the center section seats. It's not about the width of the seats but rather the accessibility around the aircraft.
Some months before Qantas announced they were gradually replacing their Boeing 737 with A321, I was part of their frequent flyer survey.
I do not like the 737, the plane sits low, the windows are positioned lower, which makes the cabin feel smaller and in fact the fuselage is smaller, robbing precious comfort inches from the pax.
Clearly I wasn't the only person in the survey who feels that way.
I go out of my way to avoid the 737. Sometimes picking inconvenient flight times and even flying the competition Air New Zealand on Trans Tasman routes.
737 is decades old fuselage that is way past its retirement.
It's premature to estimate the market when the XLR is not even in service yet. When the XLR hits the market and more data becomes available, it may turn out that the market share of long haul narrow body jets suddenly changes dramatically.
Boeing is just trying to do damage control.
The MAX 10 is not approved yet and the 797 is nowhere to be found yet so Boeing has nothing to counter the long haul narrow body market if that suddenly takes off.
It is a shame that single aisle planes are more widely use from now on and that the public that are going to have to squeeze themselves for long periods of time in to them, do not make their voices heard. This is as to let the airlines procure more space and comfort for the client rather that only profit. I think that comfort and efficiency can be match and are not opposite one to the other...
They should be worried.
I don't think Boeing is wrong about the data saying it is a niche market. Remember, Airbus said the A380would sell something like 1200 aircraft, and the market wanted/demanded that type of aircraft; Boeing said the P2P market demanded 787-sized aircraft and superjumbos we're limited. They were right. Plus, given the long range, people who complain of no room aren't going to be jumping up and down to fly a single aisle on really long flights
Has Hulst been on a gaslighting course? He's definitely trying to compensate for something.
I think Boeing not over thinking about A321.Boeing hands are full (737max recertification, 787 delivery,777x development).xlr serves niche market . It will never be dominant as a321/320 neo or 737 max 8/9. Well ticket price matter to majority people try to flying and xlr will become very competitive for holidy/tourism related destination asian,europe,africa low cost airline. But major cities will be coverd by b787,b777x,a350. U must remeber airline main revenue earning are business/premium travelers. Passenger comfort in wide body for 6-7+ hour flight is unquestionably better than narrowbody.
Yes, they are still not making a comfortable plane for practically the same money. Many Cabin crews don’t like it - tiny bathrooms, galleys and seats are tolerable for short haul but not for over 4 hrs. Not to mention - touching the floor based girt bars in 2022! Ugh. But I agree with the comment to fix their problems and rebuild trust in customers & passengers.
I think Boeing is on point with this assessment. The haters will say otherwise but the fact is besides the range and commonality....there isn't a huge market for a higher-priced, reduced payload single-aisle aircraft. While the range is a great selling point...what happens when there is cargo revenue to be made on that route? The airline would be better off with a smaller wide-body with a lot of empty seats...which of course is what happens already in the present market. If the market was big enough for both manufacturers....Boeing would have launched it by now.
don't have to be a 'hater' to know that you are wrong
@@ant2312 My point exactly
Smaller wide body, like the 767-200 or the A330-200?
@@jaysmith1408 Yep...the XLR's payload is going to be a problem. There is no engine being manufactured with enough power for single isles so ya gonna have to trade fuel for payload and visa versa. Same thing with the A350-ULR
Simple : Boeing concedes 🤭🤭🤭🤭🤭
Speaking from fear more than anger, Isn’t that kind of the same kind of thinking that killed Kodak? Where they said (in not so many words) that the digital camera won’t win and people are always going to want to have printed pictures? I really think that Boeing needs to get on the ball with this. The 757 is the perfect platform to re-engine. If they wanted to rebuild tooling to create a 757-X they definitely could.
Except that the 757 ended production 19 years ago...
Yup, they already give up the " Worried" Because the last time " Worried" of A320neo and their rush of MAX causes the company a lot of money. Any more foolish rush of " Worry" will bury Boeing six foot under.
Boeing should build the 7M7 (a widebody 737) to compete with the A321XLR.
And be able to land at airports that can't take wide bodies?
@@jace1113 Yeah a Boeing 7M7 would have a shorter takeoff and landing distance then an A330-800 and can be able to operate from LaGuardia and National Airport.
I hope to see Airbus A321XLR Launch Orders come up soon for 2024 also with Boeing getting there Boeing 737 Max 10's Certified so they can make alot of Orders once there Certified in Service Awesome Video 100%
Boeing doesn't feel threatened ?? They should by all means !
I'm not sure that's the best message Boeing can send right now. It certainly doesn't reassure me. The numbers are in and are obvious. The trend is with the single-aisle aircraft long-distance market growing. The A32x family is not a niche lineup but a highly versatile family of aircraft that can adapt to future unforeseen demands and geo-political shakeups influencing economies worldwide. It is also highly upgradeable, something Boeing is sorely lacking at the moment. This sounds like Boeing trying to reassure its market. While the 787 was a stroke of brilliance and genius, the MAX is a dismal move compared to the highly evolving A32x family.
I would love to handle Boeing's communications. I feel that more often than not they miss the mark. A better way to handle the A321 XLR competition would have been to welcome to competition, highlighting the obvious benefits of such an aircraft, and tastefully outlining their different strategies. I feel Boeing is still run the way it was ten to twenty years ago. That doesn't work now that we've gone through the awful handling of the 737 MAX. They need a clean image, more modern and forward-looking than what they have today.
Boeing is wrong about this. But they will continue to insist this is not an interesting segment...until their NMA replacement announcement is ready, then they'll do a 180 and say it's a super important segment that's growing exponentially
Brilliant…let’s just cram more passengers and crew for a longer time in more narrow-body aircraft. Sounds cozy!
And it will work fine so long as those seats are cheap enough. Which they will be.
Boeing is perhaps confusing cause and effect. If there are no capable, efficient single isle planes on the market, it’s not surprising they are not used much for that purpose. It doesn’t say anything about the latent demand for such aircraft.
Boeing is somehow right. Flying transatlantic without the capacity to carry cargo to maximize profit is not a way forward. Airlines need to carry both cargo and passengers to make up for the cost. That's why the routes for the XLR will be limited