This Is Why Airbus A321XLR Is The Problem For Boeing

[@gymnutrition2118]

Haha what a joke FFA asking hard questions about the tank and safety but giving the 737 max a easy pass.

[@cainneachdaugherty7172]

It's a bit like when the US banned the Concorde from flying in US airpace.

[@LePerlashez]

Boeing is slowly but surely losing the race.

[@patrickpeters2903]

In the single aisle segment definitely yes. The B787 and the future B777-9 are the last models to beat Airbus...

[@Razor48X]

@@patrickpeters2903the 777X is way older than A35K it’s just 737 max vs a320 neo again

[@user-nu1sq2fz8s]

​@@patrickpeters2903Boeing are gone already

[@MaverickEchoJuliet]

When will Airbus buy over Boeing ?

[@thomassharp2719]

Remember the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 were both single aisle jets for transatlantic flights. Before the wide body jets came into production.

[@stabilo3170]

No connection with the A321XLR.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

@@stabilo3170you missed the point he made.

[@jjhartlohner]

Most people don't realize that all Boeing planes produced at Renton share the very same 148-inches fuselage barrel, introduced with the 707 back in 1957. Yes, that continued on the 720, 727, 737, and 757. The 757 was the only one of them with a totally revised cockpit, for compatibility reasons with the 767 (still in production at Everett). The original design, the Dash-80 had a 132" fuselage, but since the DC-8 came to the market with a 147" width, Boeing was pressed to improve on that.

[@jpazinho]

Everyone is focused on the new routes (rightly so) that this plane can generate...however, everyone seems to forgetting an important aspect for airlines, the extended range means less time refuelling (the biggest cause for delays on the ground) this may ultimately mean that airlines can decrease air fares throughout

[@jjhartlohner]

Wing load comparison XLR vs 757: 823.82 vs 638.23 kg/m2, at their respective MTOW. Single wheel load XLR vs 757: 25,250 vs 14,460 kgs at their max take-off weights.

[@ak5659]

So I guess the questions are: Has the 321 been sufficiently beefed up to be as robust as the 757? and How do those numbers compare to the 321's already in service?

[@perryseehoe590]

It may have a long range but having flown 2 / 9 hr flights recently its uncomfortably small for long flights.

[@stabilo3170]

What flights are you talking about? Which airline? Exact airplane? What class?

[@perryseehoe590]

@@stabilo3170 phillipines airlines manila to brisbane

[@stabilo3170]

@@perryseehoe590 What type of aircraft? Business? Economy?

[@perryseehoe590]

@@stabilo3170 economy. A321. Like a long A320, 6 seats across, zero legroom. Min toilets. 9 hrs.

[@stabilo3170]

@@perryseehoe590 I guess that the price was low. Now, if you are unhappy with the comfort of those lowcost airliners, up to you to pay a ticket with regular airliners, x6 or more ... Do'nt complain regarding the price you paid for your journey. You'r been transported from A to B for almost nothing.

[@lu4414]

Personally i really like planes and no problem at all with connections, but this one will be a game changer for many. How Boeing didn't saw this is beyond me

[@mkairlines]

@@lu4414 Yes, they definitely missed the market, especially considering the success of the 757

[@Averageguy-w7q]

@@mkairlinesthey definitely saw this but they knew they couldn’t do it and were lazy and incompetent im fed up with their shitty company

[@stabilo3170]

The lure of financial gain was stronger.

[@Averageguy-w7q]

@@stabilo3170 that's also contributing to bad quality control

[@ScoobyMoony]

I'm going to fly with the A321-251NX Tomorrow

[@Daniel-cy2ph]

Hi can you please take a look at the reduced cargo capacity thus less revenue through freight being transported in the belly on regular passenger service flights? Covid made quite apparent how much freight is actually being transported on regular passenger flights once the passenger flights stopped and suddenly stuff didn't get from a to B anymore. I'd be interested in how that impacts the profitability of the a321xlr

[@mkairlines]

Yes, there might be another A321XLR video in the future, as the topic seems to be very popular, so I will definitely include this as well

[@Prodagist]

The XLR actually isn't bad for cargo capacity. While it is worse than the regular A321Neo, Airbus found a way to relocate the auxiliary fuel tanks used on the LR to move the majority of them out of the cargo hold. This means that the XLR, despite having more fuel tanks than its predecessor, the LR, takes up less space in the cargo hold.

[@gerritaichhorn5055]

Boeing made a mistake with the market estimation? I guess they constantly make mistakes... Lately. 🙈

[@SteveGamesplayer]

Claustrophobia here we come ... not for me. I'll choose another airline.

[@PortugalHolidayVillas]

Narrow body transatlantic flights already well established by TAP ... Lisbon to EWR,YYZ,ORD etc using 321-251NX

[@mkairlines]

Yes, there were also flights operated by the 757, but XLR will open up new possibilities, such as flights from the US East Coast to Central and Eastern Europe.

[@jjhartlohner]

Will scolded FAA (MAX scandal) accept Airbus RCT solution, or will they increase their requirements for certification?

[@mkairlines]

@@jjhartlohner We will see, but yesterday EASA certified A321XLR, so it may help with FAA certification as well.

[@jjhartlohner]

@@mkairlines Yes, EASA certified the MAX too.

[@stabilo3170]

The A321XLR's EIS has been already posponed due to additional requirements from FAA and Boeing concerning the RCT. They are all been fullfilled by Airbus. All new "requirements" from FAA will be perceived as childish.

[@비둘기트랙스]

A321 XLR!

[@alfredturnowsky2546]

If people are stupid enough to let themselves be forced into this narrow body bowl for a 10-12 hour flight on garden chairs, then the airlines' plan has worked. In any case, I will no longer let myself be forced into an A320/321 for a one-hour flight. I hate this plane.

[@hughofIreland]

Continental Airlines started flying B752s across the Atlantic almost thirty years ago. Other US carriers followed suit.

[@Dan.d649]

In my opinion, the Boeing 757 will always be irreplaceable. Unfortunately, it is an old aircraft now, but it was a very outstanding airplane of It's particular size. It's still in a class of its own.

[@aryaansrivastava3756]

I prefer A350s more.

[@mkairlines]

@@aryaansrivastava3756 A350 is perfect, but for many routes it’s simply too big.

[@stabilo3170]

The flying computer.

[@Razor48X]

@@stabilo3170I don’t see a problem with that cuz I’m not flying it

[@germangamer2976]

Hope these planes will have a rest place for the crews

[@SidestickPilot]

While the 321XLR has an impressive range and significantly better burn rate compared to the 75 it is not a successor or replacement. As someone who flies the the 321NEO it pales in performance compared to the 75.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

Performance is no longer required to be a successor of the 757. So yeah, it can be considered a replacement.

[@jjhartlohner]

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Iberia will soon learn the lesson, of scheduling an XLR out of Madrid-Barajas (elev 2000') at a hot summer day (40ºC plus) and a tailwind component both on runway 36 or 14 for BOS or IAD. They will have to stop at SCQ to refuel. In the winter, eastbound flights will be problematic on contaminated runways. Stops at YQX or SMA?

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

@@jjhartlohner for the fun of it, I ran a flight plan from Madrid to Boston. At M.79 in an A319ACJ. (A319 , extra tanks, can fly 10.5 hours with full fuel) . It takes 7 hours and 27 min. It’s 3175 NM. It takes nowhere near a full load of fuel. So no, I don’t foresee them having to stop. An 11 hour airplane should be having no issues at all up to 9 hours. And eastbound in the winter isn’t going to be an issue. What are you even talking about? Snow in Boston or IAD on the runway? That gets cleaned off, plus cold weather improves take off performance by a lot. Now, is that truly comparing apples to apples? I mean, the 757, can it even make it non-stop? I don’t think it can with a strong headwind.

[@jjhartlohner]

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Performance wise the XLR will not be able to take all the fuel that's needed to cross the ocean, even with 182 pax (IB's cnfg). Again in the summer season and out of MAD/LEMD (elevation 2000'). I have flown myself 757s nonstop with 228 Pax regularly from MAD to JFK, no sweat. Even in the hot season. I been type-rated on 757/767 for 25 years. As to contaminated runway ... when more than 25% of the RWY is covered with standing water, slush, loose snow (dry or wet), compacted snow or ice. Standing water criteria is when its depth is > 3 mm (.125 inches). I vouch take-offs out of contaminated runways from the US East Coast airports are more than common.

[@jjhartlohner]

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Now as to the 321. Spanair flew for years on behalf of Scandinavian touroperators from regional airports in Norway and Sweden to the Canary Islands. They subchartered those flight in the winter season to UK carriers (Monarch, Flying Colors, etc.) operating 757s, without any performance problems. Then, they "bought" 32s expecting to substitute the 757s without further ado. You don't need to be an Aeronautical Engineer, a picture of the 757 and another of the 321 evince the reality. The 321 were significantly weight restricted out of the short and mostly contaminated runways of JKG, VXO, TOS, and their like. Techstops were necessary, sometimes even at nearby BLL. The 757 was and still is a F1 airplane; the 321 a VW-Bus!

[@jeanjoel2396]

Its not about the atlantik routs, its a out the asia/middle east hubs, u no longer need. Gosh us thimk all is avout them lol

[@sassa82]

Why do you use voice generator?

[@mkairlines]

@@sassa82 Because it’s better and provides a clearer and more professional voice

[@jjhartlohner]

The 321XLR is no 757, for that it would need 8-wheels on the MLG, and larger wings and flaps. The absence of fuel jettison is another weakness. The 757 hadn't either, but the main landing gear was far more robust. The 321XLR will prove inadequate for hot & high airports and on short- or contaminated runways, Airbus may be squeezing the 321 beyond its limits.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

It’s 30K lbs lighter. Of course it doesn’t need larger wings and flaps. And the absence of fuel jettison isn’t a weakness at all. Where do you even get that? It’s perfectly fine to land overweight now a days if needed. Hot and high won’t be an issue, because you are comparing max take off weight. The 757 has 1000 miles less range. If you fly the a321 at the same range as the 75, you can leave a lot of fuel behind and the airplane will even be lighter than the 30K difference it already has. Most airports have had their runways extended by now. We don’t live in the 1980s anymore.

[@jjhartlohner]

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 "Indeed, we live in an era where quarterly financial results are prioritized above all else, often at the expense of underestimating risks. The 737 MAX crisis exemplifies this, highlighting Boeing's struggles after its 'McDonnellization.'"

[@StephenKarl_Integral]

​@@jjhartlohner Thought the same years ago (planes must be compared at characteristics level, and if "uncommon" type enforced on known routes, it must have some "safety" problems) So I thought. Actually, none of those thoughts are real, because reality evolves with time, AND one must look at all this in a pragmatic and realistic way (sustainable economically and technologically). And I've finally understood one argument backing this : you and I are the ones to pay for a "perfect world" (ie, a true 757 successor). Reality is, we are not willing to pay, at all, so it doesn't matter A321 has only one pair of wheels as long as it does the job. When it can't, there will be a technical stop along the flight or another type (A330, B788) will do; slightly less efficient but such decision will cover the last 3% cases where the XLR doesn't fit. That's pretty small concern (hot and high, shorter runway) which is definitely not enough to pursue in searching for a 757 successor. About the 757, its type generation and why people are so nostalgic to the point to beg for a successor from Boeing : first, people should not forget the 757 was made for the USA. Elsewhere in the world except former China, the 757 is an unpopular type. I mean, if you only look at USA network, you fail to consider the world is not just about USA : look at any other non-US airline, they are not thrilled about some 757 successor, very happy with LR and XLR already available, 757Next is an American people and only American people's wish. Timing wise, a 757Next rolling out in about 4 years (2028) will enter market at a point where airlines have fully migrated to Airbus with a fully optimized worldwide support for the types. Who would need another batch of type rating and logistics/facilities support back to Boeing (remember you and I are the ones to pay all of that) My point is, people asking Boeing for a 757 successor are actually.... asking Boeing to commit suicide, and I'm astonished those people are mainly Americans!!! Nobody seems to tell them to think again, not eat and spread social media opinions. You don't save Boeing by being nostalgic, learn from Airbus, they think pragmatic and they are putting a LOT of effort to get the right product for the right customer (lesson learned from A380). 757 lovers have NO choice but start to learn how to love the XLR for peace of mind, otherwise, they'll keep ranting on social media all in unison without any other party listening (incl. Boeing : Boeing actually doesn't want a slightly larger 737, that would kill its business, but it would be an immediate uproar if they were to go public about)

[@Prodagist]

None of the stuff you mentioned is anything airlines really care about anymore. Fuel jettison and gear size are hardly noteworthy issues when comparing aircraft, and it's certainly one of the last things airlines would care to look at when comparing them. As a commentor above also mentioned, it's not the 1980s anymore, runways are longer, and more airlines don't care about takeoff or climb performance anymore. All they care about now is fuel efficiency and capacity, both of which, the XLR performs more than well enough in to take on the 757. The XLR is significantly more fuel efficient than the 757, and boasts a fair amount more range aswell. The capacity of the XLR also competes with the 757, as it seats more passengers than the 757-200, but less than the 757-300, fitting nicely in between for airlines. In all the ways airlines care about, the XLR is a perfect replacement for the 757

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

@@Prodagist exactly. Couldn’t have said it any better. Also, I found out that runway performance is actually better with the XLR compared to the 757, even with both at max take off weight. The XLR requires a shorter runway.

[@GhostRider-yh7sh]

The A350 is gonna kill BOEING

[@mkairlines]

@@GhostRider-yh7sh There will be a video about A350 soon.

[@tomajornea8710]

As a whole means people will stay 7-8 hours in a small plane, i don't thinks it's good for travel, but it is definately good for Airbus. Boeing is certainly busy sorting its own sh1t, but they have no 757 replacement so far.

[@stabilo3170]

So a wide body with double pax is better for travel?

[@deadend2023]

You don't know what are you talking about. A321XLR will change the industry, because you can keep routes with less passengers, giving chance to smaller airport to have intercontinental flights.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

Seats are still the same size. 🙄

[@jjhartlohner]

@@deadend2023 Yeah, it will have its niche -every plane has its one- but it's no 757 substitute. By the way the A318/319/320/321 fuselage (156") is wider than all 737s and the 757 (148") too.

[@StephenKarl_Integral]

What is good for travel is *affordable ticket prices.* I don't want any 757 successor or widebody long haul planes if it means the ticket price will double in a few years. I'm wondering what about other people, if they are willing to pay new types and high quality service, leg room, extra luggage....

[@alexandergrigorov2594]

BOE is the only problem for BOE.

[@hasanjamil3969]

It's just a smaller version of the 757.

[@stabilo3170]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@Prodagist]

While it is technically smaller in some areas, it actually carries more people than the 757, and can fly further.

[@AthanasiosTsourapas]

I have had enough with hearing about 8-10 hrs flights in a s* narrowbody place - ffs!

[@syedputra5955]

max 8 can fly 8 + hours based on current flights. If they certify max 7,i assume it can fly 9+ hours. Without any additional tanks . Enough to beat a321LR.

[@mkairlines]

According to official data, the MAX 8 has a range of 3,500 nm (MAX 7 3,800 nm), and the A321XLR has a range of 4,700 nm (A321LR 4,000 nm). XLR is therefore unbeatable, MAX 7 can only compete with A321LR in terms of range. It's smaller and has a higher cost per seat, so airlines definitely prefer Airbus, the A321 is also better for cargo because it can carry containers, and the 737, as far as I know, can't.

[@syedputra5955]

@@mkairlines I was informed, Airbus is looking at extending range of its A220 to 4000nm due to customers pressure.

[@athrunzala6770]

but to fly 8 hours it must not crash on the way

[@stabilo3170]

@@mkairlines You'r right, A320 series can accomodate standard LD containers while 737 series never did! 737 just have a costy bulk hold.

[@jjhartlohner]

@@stabilo3170 Yes, all 320 variants have a wider fuselage, than all 737 variants; just because all Renton products share the same 148" barrel (from 707 to 757).