Couldn't figure out what the big deal is from the link, so after some further research, this is what's going on. The A321XLR is a smaller more efficient plane that will make long range but less frequently travelled routes profitable without the need for transfers on bigger planes.
It'll enable point to point flights for many airport pairs which IMHO is the future of air travel. Connecting flight are too slow, too unreliable and too expensive to run.
Low cost airlines will use it to eat the more established players' lunch in longer haul flights (cross country, international).
The big deal is that two engine aircraft are now covering the routes that were once only practical (or legal, under ETOPS[0]) with three or four engine planes. This makes them more desirable and helps carriers phase out the larger planes they still have -- none of which are being manufactured anymore.
On the maps of where it can fly, are they using some super advanced model to give the 'odd' shapes (for example the delhi one, which is totally not just a circle projected onto the globe and then reprojected onto a map)?
Or is it just an artist impression who was given a list of cities and has drawn a dotted line around them?
I've flown more than I care to even think about, the carbon footprint of my life is about as ugly as it gets. That said, I do have a bit of experience to draw on and my current favorite is a narrowbody:
Originally designed by Bombardier, every flight with it that I've made so far (~10) has been an extremely nice experience, especially when compared to other planes on the same routes. The only plane that I would prefer is the 747 but that's pretty much gone on passenger routes now and those two planes would not be found on the same routes anyway. So a long flight in a narrow body is definitely not something that I would run away from.
Airlines have been doing this with 757s for quite some time. This is the best spiritual successor to the 757, which is going to have to be retired in a lot of fleets sooner rather than later.
The layout makes much more of a difference than the number of aisles - I am fine with a 757 but have hated my economy experience in a 9-abreast 787.
The cabin is a bit wider than standard a320. They advertise 18" wide seats. If they are 32" apart that's ok. It can even fit lie flat business class seats. And if it means flying direct instead of changing planes in a busy overcrowded airport and having to lose time waiting and queuing (and "saving the planet") that's pretty appealing
This is a frequent argument I see, but I don't see much substance in it. I've flown with both narrow and wide body, and the most critical dimension is leg room and shoulder width. And I did not find any particular wide body advantage with the sardine-packed 777 comparing to a regular A320, or especially A321, which I have flown in many times. Comparing to a 737, maybe some, but the 737 is an age old design, it is known for not being too spacious. It's not a A321 contender.
What's the difference? Like how does the width of the body have any impact on me? I'm asleep in my seat the whole time either way. I'm not pacing side to side!
After a huge investment in the hub-and-spoke uber-plane (the A380), this plane feels like a hopeful departure, especially for people that travel to the less popular ends of the earth that have to take 3 hops to get there.
These could become quite popular for tourist charter flights as they should have a decent range even when packed to max capacity. Plenty of long-haul tourist flights from Europe to Africa, South-East Asia and Caribbean could use something like this. Not the most comfortable way of travel perhaps, but people won't care if the price is right.
Wonder how emissions/seat/km on representative routes differs from the larger planes?
Given that landing and takeoff is particularly bad for emissions if you're avoiding a change of planes I guess that might be a win ? Not as big a win as not flying but better ...
Given that the first example they give is NYC-LON it's a question that interests me.
I find the other trade off (against the extra fuel consumption from each takeoff and climb) interesting. Additional fuel is consumed to carry the weight of the additional fuel required for a longer range (and so that is recursive). For example, under the Weight - Flight Distance heading of the Fuel Economy in Aircraft Wikipedia page, it notes that for trips above 3000 NM, it is more efficient for a 777-300 to make a stop for refuelling.
the issue with big planes is that they're more efficient if you fill them up.
with 747 or 380 sized planes that was always a tenuous proposition at best. if it's not full it's still burning the fuel to lug its heavy big self around.
Nautical miles are used for shipping and air travel since the length of a nautical mile is derived from the size of the earth. A nautical mile is 1/60 of one degree of latitude.
As nearly all airplane are now twin jet, you need to respect the ETOPS rating of your aircraft, which is the time the aircraft can fly with one engine down before landing.
That's why the transatlantic or transpacific routes are not direct and go over small islands
[+] [-] colordrops|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iso1631|3 years ago|reply
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4700nm+%40lhr&MS=wls&MP=o&DU=mi
That said there's already a 4000nm range, and narrow body flights of that distance aren't that common.
[+] [-] dkjaudyeqooe|3 years ago|reply
Low cost airlines will use it to eat the more established players' lunch in longer haul flights (cross country, international).
[+] [-] simplicio|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dtagames|3 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
[+] [-] blakesterz|3 years ago|reply
https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr
According to a few other sites they appear to cost between 130 and 140 million. Looks like they've sold some already too.
[+] [-] ju-st|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] londons_explore|3 years ago|reply
Or is it just an artist impression who was given a list of cities and has drawn a dotted line around them?
[+] [-] bismuthcrystal|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stevvo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|3 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220
Originally designed by Bombardier, every flight with it that I've made so far (~10) has been an extremely nice experience, especially when compared to other planes on the same routes. The only plane that I would prefer is the 747 but that's pretty much gone on passenger routes now and those two planes would not be found on the same routes anyway. So a long flight in a narrow body is definitely not something that I would run away from.
[+] [-] nickvanw|3 years ago|reply
The layout makes much more of a difference than the number of aisles - I am fine with a 757 but have hated my economy experience in a 9-abreast 787.
[+] [-] yread|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] salex89|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkjaudyeqooe|3 years ago|reply
To me international narrowbody travel is all win.
[+] [-] MomoXenosaga|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxcan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsynnott|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisseaton|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erddfre3423|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petesergeant|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erikig|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ginko|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erddfre3423|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|3 years ago|reply
The Trent 1000 on 787 is 10:1.
[+] [-] rektide|3 years ago|reply
An Airbus A350-LM, a widebody/higher-capacity plane that can go 15,000 km, has 141,000 liters of fuel. That'd be 0.106km/l, or .249mi/g.
I suspect these figures are a bit off, as I doubt "range" == "all fuel burned". But it's at least somewhat representative.
[+] [-] ddalex|3 years ago|reply
At 200 passengers you'd get 2.3 l per 100km per passenger (100 miles per gallon per passenger), in line with a small sedan car.
[+] [-] glaucon|3 years ago|reply
Given that landing and takeoff is particularly bad for emissions if you're avoiding a change of planes I guess that might be a win ? Not as big a win as not flying but better ...
Given that the first example they give is NYC-LON it's a question that interests me.
[+] [-] red369|3 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
[+] [-] bobthepanda|3 years ago|reply
with 747 or 380 sized planes that was always a tenuous proposition at best. if it's not full it's still burning the fuel to lug its heavy big self around.
[+] [-] rossdavidh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cinntaile|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bombcar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bee_rider|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dghlsakjg|3 years ago|reply
Nautical miles are used for shipping and air travel since the length of a nautical mile is derived from the size of the earth. A nautical mile is 1/60 of one degree of latitude.
[+] [-] wiz21c|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdoering|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KingOfCoders|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ewokone|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Glawen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephen_g|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wly_cdgr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devoutsalsa|3 years ago|reply