Long Ranger

“For this mission the market wants an A321-sized aircraft,” Dubon notes. “The A319 can already fly long-range missions (and British Airways’ A318 already flies transatlantic London City to New York City). ” That A318 service, of course, stops at Shannon to refuel on its westbound leg because of weightrestrictions as a result of London City’s runway length and climb angle requirements.

Longer range flights open up further options for premium configurations.

The -LR comes in the context of an increasing focus on premium narrowbody services in mid-haul international markets, where the A321ceo is already operating and the A321neo is bound to fit in.

Airbus has already started offering a premium configuration for its longest narrowbody, removing the emergency exit ahead of the wing that allows for extra front cabin flexibility and additional options for siting cabin monuments.

Airbus described the onedoor- down A321ceo and neo configuration option as ideal for “longer range markets where high comfort standards are needed inpremium class,” which sounds like exactly the kind of market where the A321neoLR will flourish. Expect to see this configuration on the -LR version operated by premium airlines.

As discussed in our ‘Narrowing the gap’ feature elsewhere this issue, British Airways broke ground with its Middle East/North Africa/Central Asia subfleet of ex-bmi A321s, which feature a Thompson Vantage fully flat bed up front. On US transcontinental A321 flights, American Airlines offers Zodiac Cirrus reverse herringbone fully flat beds with direct aisle access in first class, and B/E Aerospace Diamond fully flat beds in business. JetBlue Airways within the US offers Thompson Vantage XL seats for its Mint product (similar to Qantas’s new business class) and includes doors on its single “throne” seats, providing the first narrowbody suite experience.

In contrast, low-cost carriers may well opt for Airbus’s A321 new higher-density layout, which leaves door 2 operational and adds a fifth emergency exit over the wing, enabling a further 16 passengers to be crammed in.

Existing A321s allow for a 220-passenger load at 28in, like Jetstar’s. Working on the conclusion that the new exit row will sit four, with two rows of six making up the additional 16 passengers, finding an extra three rows of space will require 84in. At the very least, this means a space saving aft lavatory-galley releasing around 36in of space, with a further 48in of efficiencies coming from what would then be 38 rows of seats.

While taller Australian passengers might quail at the thought of seats pitched at 27in and under, there are markets where average femur length – the real constraint of the current generation of seats – is shorter than others.

New seating technology is continually reducing the depth of seats, and with ever-cheaper lowcost carrier fares it’s clear that there is a significant market fora dollar store quality passenger experience for dollar store prices, even over mid-haul stage lengths.

An extra 500km of depth into Asia brings new cities into play and makes previous edge cases reliable

“We’re actively marketing the A321neoLR,” Airbus’s Dubon says, suggesting it is ideal for “North America transatlantic, North America to South America, Europe to Africa and South‑East Asia to Australia. ” While Dubon wouldn’t be drawn on particular routes from South-East Asia that open up with the extra 270nm (500km), mapping analysis opens up a number of additional options over the expected range for the standard A321neo, which already had a 6,760km range, an increase of 465nm (860km) over the 3,185nm (5,900km) range of an A321ceo with Sharklets. For Sydney, southern Vietnam comes into play, offering some interesting opportunities for the Qantas group’s Jetstar Pacific arm to serve Australia with narrowbodies.

Southern Taiwan is also within the A321neoLR’s range, although mainland China and Hong Kong are not. To the west, the isthmus of Kra in Thailand south of the Burmese border becomes an option, as does northern Sumatra in Indonesia.

Melbourne’s more westerly position takes most of Taiwan out of the equation but adds Cambodia, plus Phuket in Thailand.

For Brisbane, however, the opportunities are significantly greater. Tokyo and points west in Japan are in range. Shanghai isn’t an option, but a huge swathe of south-east China from Wenzhou to Hainan is, including Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Shantou, Fuzhou and Xiamen. More of Vietnam (though not Hanoi) also comes into play.

China options improve for Perth too, with a 500km-deep arc from Shanghai to Chongqing within range. Indian cities like Hyderabad and Kolkata become much more reliable for Perth flights as well.

Northern Queensland is a big winner, though, with additions for Cairns including northern Japan, an arc of China from Harbin to Beijing to Chengdu, and most of Burma.

Additions for Darwin, already well positioned for much of Asia, are primarily some smaller Indian cities, with Mumbai and Delhi still outside the A321neoLR’s range.

US-to-Europe transatlantic flights are likely to be the biggest opportunity

The biggest opportunity will be for the three largest US carriers, American, Delta, and United, all of which operate extensive 757 fleets domestically, within the Americas and across the Atlantic. All three are current A320 family operators, with American and Delta having A320neo family orders.

Within the US, the 757 replacement tends to be the 737‑900 or A321 at the larger end and 737‑800 or A320 for less capacity.

Regionally, the hot-and-high niche the 757 served has been taken up by the A319, yet there has up to now been no transatlantic replacement.

Airlines have had the choice to cutservice or upgauge to an A330-200 or (often equally aging) 767-300ER.

Carriers would have an ideal aircraft with the A321neoLR to open up new long and thin routes, especially where traffic is more origin/destination than connecting, or where partner airlines’ operations are limited. Most US airline flights to UK destinations outside London, and many to European destinations outside partner hubs, use the 757.

The A321neoLR will, US-based Leeham News reported, allow for a 164-passenger configuration assuming five rows of fully flat beds in business class, although the US carriers with recently refitted fleets (Delta and American) outfit theirtransatlantic 757s with four rows of B/E Diamond seating.

Hitting the narrowbody sweet spot for crew-to-passenger ratio is still up in the air

Narrowbodies are evolving from short- to mid-haul missions to the shorter end of long-haul routes, and the newest generation of products is creating keen opportunities for a number of carriers.

There’s a narrowbody sweet spot at 150 passengers where flight attendant requirements and seating density combine most efficiently. That’s unlikely to be a direct carbon copy of the 757-200 for the A321neoLR given that most airlines won’t require more than 4-5 rows of business class, but an extension of the logic used in numerous premium narrowbody products could well get there.

Of course, the closest many Australians will have been to a 757 any time recently, Air Niugini aside, will be a matter of some diplomacy – the RNZAF and the USAF operate VIP and logistics versions of the type, occasionally seen on both sides of the Tasman.

But with the 757 replacement pushing the A320neo family’s envelope, it’s not inconceivable that Air New Zealand’s existing orders for the A320neo and A321neo could open up new Pacific routes.

Boeing’s near-term competition options are all less than ideal

It’s possible that Airbus will steal a march on its rival Boeing with the A321neoLR, with Seattle having few appealing options in the 737 MAX family, a retooling of the 757 in a “757 MAX” generation, a shortened 787 Dreamliner along the lines of the 787-3, or a new-build airliner.

Boeing’s sole narrowbody family currently in productionis the 737, which took over the 757 production line after the final example of that aircraft was delivered a decade ago. The 737 will see new engines and aerodynamic improvements as the 737 MAX family, scheduled for first delivery in 2017. The problem is that the 737’s ground clearance was designed for the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-1, a low-bypass turbofan originally developed for the Boeing 727 over 50 years ago.

The familiar “chipmunk” 737 engine appeared in the 1980s when the first GE‑Snecma CFM International CFM56‑3 turbofans were introduced, moving as much of the non-fan parts of the engine as possible to the sides of the nacelle in order to maximise fan diameter.

Yet the 737’s ground clearance limit’s the fan diameter of the CFM LEAP on the 737 MAX and rules out fitting the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G (previously GTF) geared turbofan, certainly not without expensive landing gear rework. And the stretched 737 MAX 9 will suffer from the same runway performance issues as its earlier 737-900 and -900ER siblings.

Boeing would need to create a new production line for a “757 MAX” option, perhaps with raked wingtips or scimitar winglets, a new wing, updated avionics, Sky Interior style cabins, and an updated tail. Compared with the A321neoLR’s “add an extra fuel tank” option, it’s a complicated and expensive short-term fix.

A more long-lived option could be a reworked 787-3 Dreamliner, which was cancelled in 2010 with all orders converted to the 787-8. Shorter than the first Dreamliner at 57m, it featured “a wing and structure optimised for shorter-range flights,” with Boeing promising “the economics of large jet transports to the middle of the market,” according

Lastly, Boeing could move forward the next iteration of its Project Yellowstone.

to publicity materials at the time. With a narrower 52m wingspan featuring winglets for access to smaller gates, particularly at Japan’s secondary airports, the 787-3’s range was limited to 3,050nm (5,650km), significantly less than the A321neoLR.

If the optimisation compromises for the Japanese domestic and regional market were removed, a revised 787-3 might well get off the ground if given more range. Wingspan, of course, would be less of an issue at international transatlantic airports than at domestic Japanese terminals. Despite early issues and ongoing sensationalist reporting, the 787 is a proven aircraft and the landscape is different now.

However, the Dreamliner order backlog still stands at the best part of a thousand aircraft. Medium term delivery of a revised 787-3, certainly compared with the five-year timescale of the A321neoLR, when Boeing is already stretching the Dreamliner to the 68. 3m long 787‑10 for delivery in 2018-19, would likely be a stretch for the airframer without sacrificing the other end of the market.

Lastly, Boeing could move forward the next iteration of its Project Yellowstone, pushed back with the release of the 737 MAX line. The Y1 aircraft, to replace the narrowbody 737 and 757 plus the small widebody market Boeing exited after the 767-200, would be an entirely new airliner – single or double aisle – that would likely draw on a number of the technological improvements made by the Y2 aircraft, the 787. With airliners increasingly taking more time to design and produce, this would be the slowest but most futureproofed option for the Seattle airframer.

Until Boeing makes a decision, the A321neoLR will be unparalleled

With over 700 current orders for the A321neo, including a hundred from American Airlines, there is certainly scope for airlines with suitably early delivery dates to lock in a fleet or subfleet to replace 757 aircraft that will by the 2020s be exceedingly long in the tooth.

While unlikely in and of itself to be the technological development, the extra fuel tank of the -LR is the latest in a portfolio of range improvements to bring the A321 from its un-Sharkletted range of 3,025nm (5,600km) to the A321neoLR’s 3,900nm (7,223km).

Moreover, Airbus’s low-risk extra fuel tank move will likely stimulate some serious discussions at Boeing, which has a raft of significantly more complicated and higher risk possibilities in their options to respond, or else risk ceding a generation of aircraft missions in a growing premium narrowbody sector to Toulouse.