Soon Entering Service: The Latest Airbus A321XLR News

While many people will still prefer flying onboard an older generation widebody rather than a brand new narrowbody, it’s still exciting to track the progress and journey of the Airbus A321XLR as it nears commercial service.
Its inaugural flight is now scheduled for October 26th with Iberia, but now we also know about other airlines’ plans for this long-range aircraft. And so for today’s video, let’s examine everything there is to know about the Airbus A321XLR as of September 2024.
Articles:
simpleflying.c...
simpleflying.c...
simpleflying.c...
simpleflying.c...
simpleflying.c...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyingnews
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflyingnews
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: [e-mail]

[@LongHaulbySimpleFlying]

UPDATE: While the brand-new variant was to enter service in mid-November from Madrid to Boston, the plan has changed. It will now operate two intra-European services from October 26, the last day of the northern summer season, based on IATA slot seasons. As of September 16, and still subject to change, the world's first XLR will operate from the carrier's Madrid hub to London Heathrow and Paris CDG. The first passenger-carrying flights will lift off on Saturday, October 26. More information on dates, flight numbers, and times, can be found in this article: simpleflying.com/all-changes-iberias-first-2-new-airbus-a321xlrs-routes/ Correction: 3:05 should say November, not August.

[@sitishahara7693]

👍

[@EuropeanRailfanAlt]

Oooooooo

[@trunghoadang3710]

This is such a Reverse Boeing move lol

[@raider77mad]

Those european operations is for crew training, as use to do Iberia when a new long haul aircraft arrives to the fleet.

[@alifloydtv]

I've been flying single-aisle between Scotland and North America for 20 years thanks to folks like Icelandair, Continental, Aer Lingus, and more. I'd much rather take 7 hours of moderate discomfort over the risk of delays, luggage getting lost, extra takeoffs and landings etc. Spending an extra 4-5 hours transferring through London just for more hours of slightly-less discomfort over the pond? No thank you!

[@AJR-07]

Honestly most people don't know whether the planes they choose are narrow or widebodies so the airline will definitely benefit in the flexibility... and I think most people will be fine with a narrow body long haul flight once they get used to it

[@karlp8484]

I agree. You're sitting in a seat and narrow body versus widebody doesn't really make any difference.

[@chikennuget3634]

@@karlp8484 I think certain airlines that don't squeeze an extra seat into the A350 have slightly larger economy seats than the other plane models, so it might make a slight difference. Also generally widebody aircraft seem less claustrophobic? But overall I agree it's not a big difference to the passenger

[@westhavenor9513]

I'm definitely not one of those people

[@noob.168]

@@westhavenor9513 quit acting like the 757 never existed.

[@nomi8713]

Tons and tons of passengers dont even know what plane they're flying on. Whatever gets them there, they'll take.

[@kasperkrulfandersen5826]

They dont Care if Its and a330 or an a350. They would be able to tell if the plane isnt made for Long haul

[@LithuaniaExplained]

If the toilet-passenger ratio isn't too bad that will go a long way in making flights bearable. But having only one aisle to move up and down, particularly during beverage or meal service, will be a huge pain. These jets often feel more cramped just from having lower ceilings... so I'm not really looking forward to the rise of these long haul flights with narrowbody jets. But I guess if tickets are cheaper, or it allows me to avoid an airport transfer... it could justify the discomfort

[@osasunaitor]

Hey I wasn't expecting you here! Foreigner in Lithuania AND plane lover, amazing combination!

[@CoSmicGoesRacing]

I don’t think it’s just the fact that it could lower fares but also… you could enjoy the route year end without worrying about what season it will be. (The XLR’s operating model allows airlines to fly destinations, especially long and thin ones, more profitably and more frequently. Would make otherwise seasonal routes into year-round ones)

[@Dirk-van-den-Berg]

Last year I flew Wizzair twice. Back and forth 2,5 hours. Second time in a 321neo. I am 2,00 meter tall, I didn't bump my head in the aisle. Seats were comfy, no problem.

[@wolfman1325]

Seat pitch in Y class is 9x 31“ and 8x 30“ from aft of the mid emergency exits. In Front of the emergency exits it is 6x 30“. So mostly similar to the IBERIA A330. Emergency exit rows: the pitch is 40“ and 39“. The Recaro CL3810 is being used for Y. Check Recaro for Seat Specs.

[@ThatOneSpaniard]

I’m so excited that Iberia will be the launch customer of the a321xlr. it means a lot because Iberia isn’t really covered much

[@Idonotwanthandle]

I bet back in 50s they would just say “Fuel in a plane? Makes sense, what is the problem?”

[@davidwebb4904]

I flew on a TUI Dreamliner last week. Its a Spaceship compared to the Ryanair 738-max.

[@ViktorFromDK]

A lot of that would be down to the fact that it wasn't Ryanair and only a small part of it would be the fact that it was a dreamliner and not a 737

[@HellStr82]

try the A380 someday. it will change your world

[@juanmontull8550]

You forgot to mention that according to Iberia's website the Economy seats will be Recaro CL3810. Love your videos!

[@karlp8484]

Having already been certified, the other tests are just airline acceptance tests which are normal for all production aircraft.

[@EstorilEm]

Exactly, not sure why he's surprised that there's no activity with the aircraft. Maybe it needs to get painted and have a few acceptance flights, but beyond that they wouldn't really want to put cycles on it till delivery lol.

[@joecrammond6221]

being a brand new model airplane, it helps give the crew time to adjust to the plane, better to do a short haul flight than long haul first off

[@Dirk-van-den-Berg]

The EASA certified already, but don't you need FAA-certification to fly to the USA?

[@HellStr82]

Would trust EASA over the FAA anytime.

[@cabottaxi]

Anything over 5 hours I prefer a wide body aircraft. They are just more comfortable for longer distances.

[@HellStr82]

For some people the price is also an issue. some will take it if it`s cheaper. and it should be .

[@Dirk-van-den-Berg]

Why? Depends on the quality of the seat, doesn't it? Sometime you want to stretch your legs, there is simply only one aisle available. And for the lower price that a narrowbody can fly you longhaul, many passengers would take any discomfort for granted.

[@Jake-1234]

In what way?

[@alexanderdekeuyper2990]

The best seats on any airplane are these 3 to 5 behind the door you shall not pass 😅

[@gerhardma4687]

It's your turn: please explain to us all what the difference in comfort is. Enlighten the fools. Comfort depends on how much space is available to me, how loud the interior noise is and how the ventilation/heating works. Point 1 depends on how the airline seats you. Otherwise, it doesn't matter whether there are one or two aisles - you only ever use the aisle next to your row of seats anyway. You no longer have to put up with this nonsense about comfort

[@joecrammond6221]

pleased to hear heathrow is the first destination to be served, sadly i'll be the other side of London that day

[@flyingdentist]

Airbus leads the way

[@AbdullahNajib-b9z]

How? Boeing is still winning in some corners.

[@gerhardma4687]

@@AbdullahNajib-b9z Which corners? And to "win" ins some corners means not that boeing is leading the way

[@richardsking]

Indigo ordered a lot of these, 69 in first 440, and many more in next 500 aircrafts, hope air india also buy hundreds of these❤

[@r12004rewy]

Being an Airbus fan and I wish all the operators success with the type, personally I'm not sure I would be comfortable in a narrow body at anything more than 4-5 hours the thought of 7+ hours has me reaching for a panic button.

[@afb2]

I believe AA also announced that their XLRs will be flying JFK - LAX first as well

[@GarfieldRex]

This is what Avianca needs for Bogota - Miami, or Bogota - Santiago, flights within the continent up and down, or Iberia for Madrid - Berlin. For intracontinental flights, not transatlantic. Avianca uses A 320 for crossing the Caribbean and the Andes, so would be a nice upgrade.

[@jmstransit]

I feel like XLR service on Japanese routes to the Northwest is possible, hoping someone like westjet tries it out

[@rickjohnson3215]

When my wife and I visited Ireland our return flight was on an older 757 flying from Shannon airport and landing in Chicago. We were very uncomfortable as it was set up as a cattle car. When we landed and transferred to anembraer regional aircraft. We were surprised in the extra space. I’m not sure we would actually choose to fly for 7+ hrs on a super 737.

[@russellwilson6193]

I hope Cebu Pacific🇵🇭 will order some of this planes✈️

[@sausage_roll445]

They need to make an a320XLR. I havent heard of the a320/a320neo for a while

[@gumnaamaadmi007]

Ahh, the Airbus A321XLR. The aircraft Boeing wish they made. (Or not retired the 757, take your pick)

[@AbdullahNajib-b9z]

The max 10 is suitable as a competitor.our airbus loving faa and easa just won't certify the 10.the xlr with its exploding tanks should have never been certified

[@EstorilEm]

@@AbdullahNajib-b9z It is ABSOLUTELY not suitable as a competitor, lmao. First of all the MAX 10 should have been certified and in service years ago - it's the competitor to the A321 NEO which entered service SEVEN YEARS AGO. The MAX 10 doesn't have the capability for the ACT tanks like the 321 LR (which is also in service) and certainly doesn't have the integrated center tank like the XLR. The ranges aren't even remotely comparable. Also the engine thrust capabilities for the LEAP 1A are nearly 5klbs thrust greater than the LEAP 1B for the MAX, so there's no chance in HELL that they'll get anywhere near the same MTOW as the Airbus - but that doesn't matter, because again, they can't store enough fuel to get to that MTOW anyways! The range of the MAX 10 is 3100 miles, a standard A321 NEO is 3900 miles (and has already been in service for the better part of a decade!) The XLR's range is 4700 miles. There is nothing even remotely competitive about the MAX 10 versus the XLR, hell, there's nothing competitive about the MAX 10 vs. a standard 321 NEO. Plus there's the whole issue of being able to buy all the Airbus aircraft I just mentioned, while the MAX 10 is just sitting around in limbo, screwing airlines over as Boeing loves to do.

[@ViktorFromDK]

​​​​@@AbdullahNajib-b9zthe 737-10 (Range of 3.100 nm) will NOT be competing with the A321XLR (range of 4.700 nm) nor the A321LR (range of 4.000 nm) but it will be competing with the A321neo (range of 3.500 nm). And also please stop spreading misinformation. The fuel tanks aren't exploding. The issue that WAS (not is!!) with the new center fuel tank, was that there wasn't enough protection in case of a belly landing, which HAS been solved and was a requirement for certification.

[@serkandevel7828]

​@@AbdullahNajib-b9z isn't exploding center fuel tanks a specialty of Boeing? The ones like PR143 or TG144 (both 737s center tanks exploded while parking) of which the FAA didn't do anything about until years later TWA800 exploded the same way but mid-air? Sure, lecture the competiton about Boeing mistakes

[@Humanity_Hope_]

According to the diagram: 1 Toilet for 168 Economy Class passengers??? Iberia states that this aircraft will offer 30% less fuel per seat... But the Economy Class seat pitch will be 31' inch?

[@westhavenor9513]

Yeah, and you know all the forward main cabin passengers will be lined up for the business class head. United is the only airline where I've seen them sent folks back to the rear toilet.

[@cainneachdaugherty7172]

Refrain from eating fibre the last 24 hours before your flight. This is how U2 pilots avoided soiling their pressure suit.

[@mcarden64]

I think there is 3 toilets at the rear cabin of the XLR.

[@juanmontull8550]

I'm surprised to see that a Spanish airline is the launch customer, I've never seen that before.It was about time☺

[@Caps-Sq9fh]

Can’t wait for this to come out!!!

[@blakelockridge6145]

Ppl can’t fly a single line narrow body while they have flown the B757 thé Pencil plane for decades…… And still no news from AF/KLM for an order of 321XLR?

[@robertnoronha2854]

Indigo will successfully use the XLR to fly to multiple points in Europe, North Asia and Australia, from multiple points in India. The range, combined with the low average cost per seat, will provide a lot of exciting travel options for the budget Indian traveler. Will there be IFE to make the 7+ hour flights go quicker?

[@richardshiggins704]

One might think that the extra weight incurred by the extra fuel tank and the reinforced landing gear would eat into the overall range . In fact the margin between the ranges of the A321LR and XLR may not be that different . Time shall tell .

[@wojomojo]

I've always wondered about this: with 3-4-3 economy configuration, is there any real reason to prefer two aisles than one? Is it somehow easier to go around carts? Likely both aisles are being used at meal service time. Is it being able to walk laps easier? :-) Seat comfort, ease of access to aisles (or lower likelihood to be disturbed) seems way more important and they are the same on wide or narrow body. And I'm too cramped to notice how if I am not squeezed in my seat how it "feels" more spacious on a wide body! I'd take a newer narrow body over an over-the-hill wide body any day. For one thing, loading/unloading will be faster.

[@Aviationlord747]

Seems like its here to compete with the 737 max family

[@Tina-d8f]

I'd like to have a short haul flight on the XLR, but being quite tall I'd shy away from a long haul flight.

[@Dirk-van-den-Berg]

Isn't FAA-certification a prerequisite to be able to fly to Boston and D.C? About the seatconfiguration: as long as the seats are comfy, I don't see a reason why 7 hours would be uncomfortable with less walking space. Most passengers will have to stretch a bit close to their seat. What my main concern is where the cabincrew is supposed to have a resting area. There is no sleepcabin on this plane if I am correct.

[@ullahelwegrothe2024]

No ..too small for 7 or more hours 😢 Lets fly Airbus A 380 or Boing 747 ❤

[@Ayden2008]

Isn’t Aer Lingus supposed to be getting it first again?

[@Ayden2008]

I believe I saw it somewhere on DJ’s aviation or Facebook somewhere

[@richardshiggins704]

EI lost out because of the Pilot strike .

[@kasperkrulfandersen5826]

Sas is really making the decision hard. Copenhagen to newark on an a330 or Copenhagen to JFK on an a320

[@devshah5570]

I just can't fathom the idea of crossing the Atlantic in a narrowbody :(

[@obsun001]

This aircraft offers flexibility from medium to long range. I see this perfect fit for South East Asian airlines that their regional flight might be more than 4 hours to Far East, Indian Subcontinent as well as Middle East.

[@killerbees177]

When is Jetblue getting theirs

[@seagullsbtn]

I worry about the delay in FAA approval. Purely selfish as home town Boston is first scheduled destination.

[@jgnclvgmng5408]

Stupid move, because when (and if) the 777x is certified, EASA will make the complementary move. Completely FAA's fault that the 737 Max required further certification from EASA and others. Were they not incompetent and corrupt this would not have been necessary.

[@avbriefs838]

Great content, thank you!

[@algernonblack]

What date? You say in the voice over AUGUST 14 but the visuals show NOVEMBER 14. August is long gone.

[@LongHaulbySimpleFlying]

It should have been November 14th; not August.

[@tnuag01]

Long haul in a narrow body is not new - we did it 50+ years ago in 707s, DC-8s and the beautiful Comet and VC-10. The Comet was only 5-abreast.

[@runny_galaxy1756]

0:47 i want that plane model 😂

[@eamonahern7495]

So I take it they won't be allowed fly to the USA without FAA certification even though EASA has already certified it.

[@NicotineRosberg]

Can’t wait to get mines

[@malvinuku7878]

Gatwick to Jeddah can be done easily by a base a321neo and LR

[@Tpr_1808]

Announced years after the 777x and got certified before it

[@AbdullahNajib-b9z]

a321 xlr is smaller and takes less time to design than 777x.

[@Tpr_1808]

@AbdullahNajib-b9z they are both refreshes of existing planes. Do note the original 777 only took 6 years from actually making blueprints and the clean sheet 787 took 7 years

[@Vedad_712]

I like the A321XLR because: 1st: my airport (TZL) operate's a320 and a321 from Wizz Air, and may make more operator's come to my airport and (kind of) unite people and aviation enthusiest's more. 2nd, Wizz air's 135£ ticket is very expensive, hopefully it will go down 😁

[@cainneachdaugherty7172]

Can't wait for Wizzair's transatlantic flights.

[@rushilkeshan3067]

Any news on Indigo? They too have ordered almost 70 XLRs

[@12345fowler]

Good luck on +14 hours flights in a narrow body.

[@janwitts2688]

Difficult place to locate a tank..

[@KanavSimhaKrishnaPrasad]

When will the flight British Airways Airbus A321XLR come to fly from London to Bengaluru

[@frutdafruit]

BAW doesn't have any A321XLRs on order

[@cainneachdaugherty7172]

Heathrow and Gatwick are both overcrowded with planes. Better to have larger, but fewer aircraft flying into there.

[@KanavSimhaKrishnaPrasad]

What is BAW

[@ArranMehta]

I love how the 777X was announced first 😂😂😂

[@EstorilEm]

Well the extra irony is that Boeing also cried foul about "safety risks" of the center tank on the A321XLR, delaying the program by a good bit. Even then, it's still going to enter service first. Plus the 777X is likely going to be delayed at least 9 months due to the thrust link fracture they just found during FAA certification testing recently. So EIS won't even be close.

[@ArranMehta]

@@EstorilEm Yh

[@CoSmicGoesRacing]

@@EstorilEm true… EIS would likely be mid-2026… with first deliveries probably to start in early 2026. Those thrust link issues would be something the FAA won’t allow Boeing to rush a fix on… would likely take more months to certify those components.

[@AbdullahNajib-b9z]

the a350 is so popular that you wont get it until 2031 if you order now.even if the 777x arrives in 2028,you still get it first.and we will see quite a lot of a350 1000 cancellations once the X finally does get in.And plus,the 777x is a lot bigger and takes longer to design than xlr.

[@stradivarioushardhiantz5179]

ACJ321XLR (+4ACT) = 8000nm

[@CoSmicGoesRacing]

And that might even make an ideal VIP transport for Heads of State, Government Officials, and Senior Military figures looking to decrease their carbon footprint lol. (I’m sure not all governments may need the size of twinjets like the ACJ350, ACJ330neo, BBJ 787, ot BBJ 777X.)

[@stradivarioushardhiantz5179]

@@CoSmicGoesRacing RAF & Luftwaffe already

[@John009Doe]

The debate of wide vs. narrow body airlines for long-haul is pointless. It's the long-haul with sh*t seating from low-cost airlines like Wizzair that is the issue. No recline and seat pitch almost non existent are going to be hellish for those taller than 1m80. More than 3 hours on these planes are a torture.

[@cainneachdaugherty7172]

No recline is sensible. It gives everyone egual conditions. The next step is to remove the window blinds. Lowering the blinds totally defeats the point of having windows in the first place.

[@jmWhyMe]

The XLR may be great for airlines but it is really bad for passengers. And for those who would recall the golden age, with 707s and DC8s, they never flew the range of the XLR nor did they pose the unshielded belly tank risk

[@MrSchwabentier]

but the 757 always did fly at these ranges

[@jmWhyMe]

@@MrSchwabentier actually the XLR will go much longer

[@ezrapilot]

so excited to fly on one

[@TP-1234]

iM HYPED FFOR THE A3221 XLR

[@GregPalmer1000]

No different than the 60s & 70s 707s,DC8s & Super VC10s narrow bodies

[@CoSmicGoesRacing]

The kind of seat dimensions, cabin density, and level of service would be very different when compared to that era. It’s not just the size that matters here. Also… it would have twice the range of those early forerunners (with 2 less engines even), largely eliminating the need to have stopovers for transcontinental and transatlantic services.

[@nickg9876]

Gee I wonder why the FAA isn’t certifying this thing soon it’s not like they’re busy delaying everything that has to do with Starship

[@EstorilEm]

Completely different departments and personnel. Also, starship has a CURRENT launch license that allows three additional flights TODAY. The FAA also didn't require any mishap reports or investigations following the 4th flight. The change? SpaceX submitted a completely new launch license request and mission profile to the FAA following flight 4, to include its catch attempt, so yeah - everything starts over again. The primary difference is that this time, there is significant potential risk to life or property during this mission, which wasn't really the case before. Stop blaming everything on the FAA - SpaceX is a private company trying to "catch" a 23-story building near a populated area. You really think there won't be some sort of regulation or risk-mitigation studies?! lmao

[@CoSmicGoesRacing]

I think that the FAA may have different criteria that might be a bit more stringent than EASA’s. The FAA also had its own fair share of scrutinizing the RCT… not just EASA.

[@nickg9876]

@@EstorilEm as long as it doesn’t take 15 years to complete the “consultations”

[@MrSchwabentier]

@@CoSmicGoesRacing the criteria are widely identical. It's mainly just paper approval

[@autarchprinceps]

Can’t say economy on a widebody has ever seemed more roomy or premium than on a narrowbody. In the contrary, when you have so many people sitting side by side, with not even so much as a window in sight, it seems more like a cattle transport. Have you ever seen a fully occupied 10 abreast seating?

[@Swissspookie]

*November 14th 3:05

[@LongHaulbySimpleFlying]

Correct. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! 🙈

[@Swissspookie]

@@LongHaulbySimpleFlying thank you love you bye 💜💜

[@ralfjead64]

😆

[@skylee_kit3000]

180 views in 9 minutes

[@panjimoulana]

Is this 757 competitor or a 340 replacement?

[@AirShark95]

757 replacement

[@CoSmicGoesRacing]

The 340 replacement would be the 350, which Iberia already has 21 of (with 2 more on the way)

[@SkodaYetiFan]

Honestly with how shit normal economy seats are these days, most people won’t notice the difference with a full service carrier. The only problem I feel will be the cramped aisle space and adequate number of washrooms.

[@AbdullahNajib-b9z]

Why is this plane with exploding fuel tanks certified?meanwhile,there is no reason to not certify the max 7 and 10.whatever people say,neither the 10 or xlr will replace the 757.but the 10 with its stronger fuselage than the xlr and its higher thrust to weight make the 10 better than the xlr.

[@alicelund147]

No tanks has exploded. It is not even in service.

[@EstorilEm]

You clearly know nothing about aerospace engineering, or aircraft in general lol. There are no exploding fuel tanks. Boeing tried to delay the Airbus program by throwing that out there. The only exploding center fuel tank I can recall was the Boeing 747 TWA 800 that killed 230 people. Hmm. The MAX 7 and 10 are delayed because of BOEING issues, not the least of which was engine cowl anti-ice overheating which could cause the composite structure of the engine inlets to DELAMINATE and fail. They don't have adequate automated control for the cycle time or temperature of these systems either, making a fix far more complicated. Who says the 10 has a stronger fuselage by the way? The 737 has been stretch FAR greater than the original Airbus A320 design, and the A320 design has a larger diameter (ie overall potential strength) than the 737 fuselage, which has a lesser width-to-length ratio. It also absolutely does NOT have a greater thrust-to-weight ratio. Even with the new engines on the MAX, they still have a smaller diameter and lower bypass ratio than the same engine options for the Airbus. The 32X family is about to get a new thrust certification to 35,000lbs for the LEAP-1A, which is significantly more than any MAX, I think they're stuck at either 30 or 31 due to the diameter/bypass restraints. The 10 in general is also not "better" - even the 8 and 9 were obviously pushed too far, and had handling issues due to engine placement that killed hundreds of people. The 10 will be even worse, and its length has required some ridiculous landing gear modifications to avoid tail strikes. It will still retain the same pitch-up tendency during low-speed flight when applying full power, ie a landing go-around. The entire A320 family of aircraft all handle nearly identically, thanks to FBW and the ability of Airbus to simply program the planes to act identical. I've talked to pilots who literally can't tell - the only difference is flare/touchdown, taxiing, etc.

[@ViktorFromDK]

Please stop spreading misinformation. The fuel tanks aren't exploding. The issue that WAS (not is!!) with the new center fuel tank, was that there wasn't enough protection in case of a belly landing, which HAS been solved and was a requirement for certification.

[@ViktorFromDK]

Also the 737-10 is as a matter of fact not competing with the A321XLR nor the A321LR but only the A321neo due to range. The 737-10 has a range of 3.100nm, the A321neo has a range of 3.500nm, the A321LR has a range of 4.000nm and the A321XLR has a range of 4.700nm

[@ViktorFromDK]

And lastly the A321XLR has a MORE thrust available per kg of weight than the 737-10 which also means that both the A321LR and A321neo also has MORE thrust available per kg of weight. The 737-10 has a MTOW of 89.8 tons and the thrust is 119-130kN which gives it a thrust to weight ratio of between 1.33 and 1.45. The A321XLR has a MTOW of 101 tons and the thrust is 143.05-147.28kN which gives a thrust to weight ratio of between 1.42 and 1.47. The A321LR has a MTOW of 97 tons and the thrust is 143.05-147.28kN which gives a thrust to weight ratio of between 1.47 and 1.52. The A321neo has a MTOW of 93.5 tons and the thrust is 143.05-147.28kN which gives a thrust to weight ratio of between 1.53 and 1.58.

[@adamkernen965]

NO ONE WANTS THIS!!!!! 😡

[@hugochan2821]

The b787 killer.

[@AbdullahNajib-b9z]

Too small to replace the 787.

[@alicelund147]

I don't think so, they have different roles.

[@hugochan2821]

@@alicelund147 a321xlr offer cheaper cost per seat while have similar range to b787. Both could seat approximate 200 plus passenger. B787 is much more expensive to buy and operate. More expensive per seat. So why would airline operate 787? They have to fill up the whole plane, which is more risky and difficult.

[@EuropeanRailfan]

@@hugochan2821 Erm, 4700 nm compared to 7500+ nm on the smallest 787 variant... the A321XLR is not replacing the 787, or ANY widebody for that matter. (Apart from the A310)

[@AbdullahNajib-b9z]

@@hugochan2821 The 787 8 could be getting replaced.If you convince the airlines.but the 9 and 10 are way too big.the problem about loads of small flights is slots are expensive-as you see in LHR.

[@billscarnage]

No thanks on a single aisle long haul flight.

[@cainneachdaugherty7172]

Enjoy your Frenchbee widebody flight.

[@youseflatif796]

​@@cainneachdaugherty7172Not a fair comparison.