In recent months, we’ve seen Airbus’ newest narrow body plane, the A321XLR, enter service. Airlines have ordered hundreds of these planes, and many industry executives view the aircraft as being a game changer.
I wanted to put the A321XLR to the test in terms of passenger experience, so I recently took a quick trip to try this jet on the two airlines operating it so far — I flew to Europe in Aer Lingus’ A321XLR business class, and returned to the United States in Iberia’s A321XLR business class.
In this post, I’d like to share my general takeaway from flying on this aircraft, from a passenger experience perspective. Should travelers be delighted by the potential routes this plane opens up, or dread flying narrow body aircraft on long haul flights? Let’s start with some background, and then I’ll share my take…
In this post:
What is the Airbus A321XLR, exactly?
In 2019, Airbus formally launched the A321XLR, which is the longest range narrow body jet in production. This aircraft is based on the A321 family of aircraft, but features more range.
Essentially, we’ve seen Airbus go from the A321ceo, to the A321neo, to the A321LR, to the A321XLR, with each jet offering incremental range, (that’s obviously very attractive to airlines). From the A321ceo to A321neo, better fuel efficiency (thanks to new engines) increased the range of the jet.
Then the A321LR came with extra fuel tanks, and the A321XLR came with even more fuel capacity. Officially, the A321XLR has a range of up to 4,700 nautical miles (5,400 statue miles), which is a long way to fly on a relatively small plane.
Now, it’s worth emphasizing that no A321XLR will actually be scheduled on a flight of that distance. Flights require fuel reserves, and there are headwinds or tailwinds on most routes, further limiting the total distance that can be flown.
Realistically speaking, you can expect that A321XLRs will consistently operate routes of under 4,500 statute miles, and more often than not, of under 4,000 statute miles. That’s true not just because of the absolute range, but also because airlines don’t have proper crew rest facilities on these planes (aside from blocking business class seats), so that limits how far airlines will want to fly these planes.
The plane officially entered service in late 2024, with Iberia being the launch customer, followed by Aer Lingus. Here in the United States, both American and United have 50 of these jets on order, while our friendly neighbors to the north (Air Canada) has 30 of these on order.
Why the Airbus A321XLR is sort of anti-climactic
The introduction of the Airbus A321XLR is kind of anti-climactic, for a couple of reasons. For one, it’s not like the A321XLR has materially more range than the A321LR. The plane can maybe fly an extra 20-30 minutes, but from a passenger experience perspective, that’s not going to be a game changer.
My point is simply that long haul travel on A321-family aircraft is nothing new. La Compagnie’s A321neos have been flying since 2019, and JetBlue’s A321LRs have been crossing the Atlantic since 2021. If you’ve flown a product like that, then the A321XLR experience will be familiar.
What’s changing is that we’re about to see a lot more narrow body planes flying across the Atlantic. The reason is simply because many airlines weren’t quite onboard with the A321LR, as the range was right on the cusp of what they needed, and it didn’t provide much flexibility for growth to more markets.
The A321XLR, meanwhile, has all kinds of valuable use cases for airlines, and that’s why we’re seeing carriers like American and United picking up so many of these aircraft. Just as an example, below is what 4,000 nautical miles of range looks like from Newark, as that’s well within the plane’s comfortable operating range.
But this also gets at the other reason why the A321XLR is sort of anti-climactic — many airlines won’t even be using the full range of the plane.
For example, both American and United plan to partly use their A321XLRs for coast-to-coast service, replacing many of the existing planes. So the aircraft will have long haul cabin configurations, but will largely be used for transcon-length flights. Heck, Qantas is even acquiring A321XLRs specifically for regional fleet renewal, and the planes will have standard domestic configurations, without flat beds.
In theory, the selling point of the A321XLR is that it can open up some long and thin routes, which couldn’t be profitably operated by wide body aircraft. However, it’s questionable to what extent airlines will actually use the plane that way, rather than just downsizing aircraft, or increasing frequencies.
For example, Aer Lingus is doing a great job with using the A321LR/XLR in the way it was intended, flying to places like Cleveland, Indianapolis, Nashville, etc. I hope we see more of that, but I wouldn’t necessarily count on that being the primary use of the aircraft.
Just as an example, when SAS took delivery of its A321LRs, it added transatlantic flights from Aalborg and Gothenburg. However, those routes ended up being cut, and instead, they’re being flown from Copenhagen to places like Boston, Washington, and Toronto, I’d say that’s a bit less exciting.
My experience flying the Airbus A321XLR
Having taken two recent transatlantic flights on the A321XLR, what were my takeaways? As you’d expect, most people prefer to fly bigger planes rather than smaller planes, so most of the observations that people will have about the A321XLR will be negative (in comparison to flying a wide body).
I don’t want to say it was anything terrible, but all the little shortcomings really do add up, in my opinion. Here are some of the things that stood out to me:
- Boarding is just so much less pleasant, especially if you’re in business class, as everyone boards through the forward door and down a single aisle; boarding actually takes longer than on most wide body aircraft
- I feel really bad for the crews working A321XLRs, as the galley space is absolutely tiny, so there’s barely space for them to operate, let alone any privacy from passengers
- The business class lavatory situation is a bit of a mess; not only is the lavatory tiny, but it’s one lavatory that’s shared with all business class passengers and the pilots, and there was so often a wait to use it
- Business class has come a long way over the years, but there’s simply no denying that narrow body planes represent a regression for the quality of premium products, given the importance of every inch of the plane being used efficiently
- There’s just nowhere to practically stretch your legs on a long haul flight when flying the A321XLR, short of standing in the aisle, which also isn’t ideal
- I see staffing getting a bit challenging on the A321XLR, as it seems airlines are struggling with whether to staff business class with one or two flight attendants, and I suspect service will be a bit slower than on other aircraft, on average
- With the A321XLR having the Airspace cabins with the larger overhead bins, the cabin feels especially tight, since those bins hang down pretty low
- On a narrow body aircraft, you just feel everything a bit more, from turbulence, to the floor shaking when people walk by
- You don’t necessarily notice this, but the A321XLR is nearly 10% slower than some wide body aircraft, so flights on the plane do take longer
Now, in fairness, not everything about the A321XLR is bad. In comparison to other narrow body jets, it’s a very pleasant ride. Furthermore, simply by virtue of this being a new aircraft, you can expect these planes to have all the latest and greatest tech, assuming airline customers elect to offer it. We’re talking Wi-Fi, good charging options, bluetooth audio, and more.
Bottom line
I just had the chance to fly the two airlines that are operating the new Airbus A321XLR so far. This is the longest range narrow body in production, and we’re going to see a lot more of these in service over the coming years.
I’ve gotta be honest, given the option, I definitely prefer a wide body aircraft to a narrow body aircraft. The cabins just feel more spacious, the lavatory situation is better, and for the most part, there’s more potential for a great hard product. That’s not to say that I’d avoid the A321XLR at all costs, but it’s definitely not something I’d seek out, unless the schedule or price were better.
Of course it’s important to mention that it also depends on the route we’re talking about. For example, when American and United soon start flying A321XLRs on transcontinental flights, I’d absolutely hop on one of those.
What’s your take on the Airbus A321XLR, and your desire to fly it on a long haul sector?
For the past three years, the fanboys have declared this to be All That and a Bag Of Chips. Even when the range turned out to be a total lie, they pressed on. I told them that this would be another piece of Eurotrash, like everything Toulouse puts out. For that, I was ostracized and shouted down. Now that it's been released, the fanboys are strangely silent.
This is a weirdly angry post which suggests we’re all hanging off your latest comment.
Get a life!
And here's one of those Airbus fanboys I was talking about. Any comments on the Failplane, fanboy? Or are you just going to attack the messenger/prophet?
And here's one of those Airbus fanboys I was talking about. Any comments on the Failplane, fanboy? Or are you just going to attack the messenger/prophet?
ORD, if you prefer any Boeing aircraft to the equivalent size Airbus offering then you are an even bigger fool than you appear in print. One suspects that you have little or no knowledge of the Airbus product, that is possibly beyond a U.S. carrier economy class seat.
It is generally accepted by those who know, that, unless you fly with a World Class airline, the only Boeing aircraft (currently in production) worth risking...
ORD, if you prefer any Boeing aircraft to the equivalent size Airbus offering then you are an even bigger fool than you appear in print. One suspects that you have little or no knowledge of the Airbus product, that is possibly beyond a U.S. carrier economy class seat.
It is generally accepted by those who know, that, unless you fly with a World Class airline, the only Boeing aircraft (currently in production) worth risking your life in is the triple seven. However, in a direct comparison with the A350, the latter wins hands down for customer satisfaction.
Any narrowbody on flights of more than five hours will be a mess. While far better in business class I can't imagine what the lavs will look like towards the end of a 7-8 hour flight. For now I certainly will avoid them on anything more than to HA or AS.
Flying a narrowbody for over 6 hours is a mess. Also, there are no ovens for economy passengers so you will have to eat a cold wrap. If the cart is out, good luck moving around. 2 bathrooms for 150 passengers in economy? Its bad, really bad.
I think airlines are over-rotating a bit on longhaul narrowbodies. The 757 was not the slam dunk people think it was across the pond, and the economics aren't vastly different for the 321.
I would like to add a few points to the post.
One is that any regular airline can have even better return on funds employed if it would choose to use an XLR on long haul and cram a couple of short haul flights during the same time span where a wide body will only do long haul. Freddy Laker of the 21st century.
Second point, boarding for a long haul flight on...
I would like to add a few points to the post.
One is that any regular airline can have even better return on funds employed if it would choose to use an XLR on long haul and cram a couple of short haul flights during the same time span where a wide body will only do long haul. Freddy Laker of the 21st century.
Second point, boarding for a long haul flight on a small plane is so much quicker, easier (and coming out just the same). Especially of you try a business only airline à la La Compagnie, when compared with a 380 as an ultimate example. Did that once on BA, LHR MIA, total chaos.
Third point, this is nothing new. The 757 was not conceived as a long haul aircraft, but equipped with fins, American airlines (United etc.) fly them across the Atlantic and I would guess flying anx XLR which is substantially more modern should be less troublesome.
Finally for all those who dread the XLR, wait til the 737-10 arrives, if ever. Let's be reminded that the original 737 was conceived as a five abreast not six. Which airline still respects that? None. Large 737 doing long haul? Give me an XLR any day.
You can only do short-haul-after-long-haul on one leg, due to fifth freedom restrictions. That is, if United flies a plane from EWR to LHR, it can't then go on to CDG without fifth freedom rights (and enough of a presence in the UK for people to choose to fly it). Only when it returns from LHR to EWR, can it then be sent to e.g. ORD or LAX. This is why widebodies often stay on...
You can only do short-haul-after-long-haul on one leg, due to fifth freedom restrictions. That is, if United flies a plane from EWR to LHR, it can't then go on to CDG without fifth freedom rights (and enough of a presence in the UK for people to choose to fly it). Only when it returns from LHR to EWR, can it then be sent to e.g. ORD or LAX. This is why widebodies often stay on the ground at the foreign airport for hours, and I expect the XLR will be no different.
Not to mention, airlines have gotten really good at utilizing their wide bodies. United's 787s from EWR will do a quick turnaround in LHR or FRA and come back to EWR, then do an SFO leg, then out to Asia, etc. No one is parking fleets of 777s and 787s in between flights.
I disagree about boarding. I agree with Lucky. In my experience, widebodies at most take about the same time to board as a narrowbody. The use of multiple doors and multiple aisles really helps keep things moving. And this is in the US, where boarding in general is always a long time. Foreign airlines manage to board their flights much quicker, so any relative savings will be even less. The first time I was on an Emirates A380, I was amazed that from the time they started (in the very beginning as a business class passenger) to the time they pushed off was about 15-20 minutes. And that's not uncommon on foreign airlines.
FWIW, I like the A320 more than the 737 because I think the extra inch or so of cabin width does help. But I don't see this as anything too special. And especially when so many international destinations are slot restricted, I don't see people switching wholesale to narrowbodies. Do you really think United has enough slots in LHR / HND / FRA / CDG to switch out their widebodies and fly narrowbodies instead?
Thank you for your reply.
Concerning the first point, I would suggest that if you were to take the example of a European airline, eg Iberia or Air Lingus who already fly XLRs, they could perfectly do Dublin Indianapolis on long haul and Dublin Paris or whatever to maximize usage while awaiting the next long haul leg, due to the very size of the A321.
Regarding boarding, I may be biased because of...
Thank you for your reply.
Concerning the first point, I would suggest that if you were to take the example of a European airline, eg Iberia or Air Lingus who already fly XLRs, they could perfectly do Dublin Indianapolis on long haul and Dublin Paris or whatever to maximize usage while awaiting the next long haul leg, due to the very size of the A321.
Regarding boarding, I may be biased because of my experience with business only narrow bodies which will take 60/70 passengers at most, however, when mishandled, the boarding of a big airliner can turn into a nightmare. As said, I experienced it with a BA 380.
On your last point, I agree that major airlines do not have enough slots to change to narrowbodies on routes to LHR FRA etc. But that is not the point of the XLR type aeroplanes. This is for thin type routes, à la Madrid Boston or Dublin Indianapolis. What would you prefer, take a wide body from say Europe to JFK, ATL or ORD and have a connection onward to Indianapolis on a narrow body, praying that the possible checked luggage does follow suite or fly non stop with an XLR?
I do not have the ultimate answer, but clearly this is the market that Airbus wants to serve, not to have their customers replace their A350s with XLRs on major routes.
I think you're all missing the point with the route analysis here.
When Airbus and industry analysts are talking about long and thin routes, I suspect they aren't really thinking about transatlantic flights to Kentucky and Iowa. Similarly, there's only a limited amount of value in avoiding the need to connect on a city pair where a virtually infinite number of one-stop options is available on any given date.
I suggest you forget about...
I think you're all missing the point with the route analysis here.
When Airbus and industry analysts are talking about long and thin routes, I suspect they aren't really thinking about transatlantic flights to Kentucky and Iowa. Similarly, there's only a limited amount of value in avoiding the need to connect on a city pair where a virtually infinite number of one-stop options is available on any given date.
I suggest you forget about route development at Nashville and that you have a look at the options available for flying between Europe and places like Kazakhstan, Cameroon, or Tanzania. Check out the business class fares on those routes - it doesn't look like airlines have any interest in developing the premium leisure market there.
Now let's leave Europe out and focus entirely on Africa. Dakar is arguably the most important city in the whole of West Africa, and it's right on the Western edge of the continent. Sao Paulo obviously is the biggest and most important city in South America, while CDMX is the biggest city in North America. There are no prizes for guessing how many airlines have direct flights between DSS and those two cities. Anyone wanting to fly to MEX in particular is likely to be further hindered by being offered a number of options which involve flying via a certain country that doesn't offer visa-free transit or the facility of checking one's baggage to the final destination.*
Yeah, the LR/XLR won't be a game changer in global air travel because people won't enjoy using their upgrade certificates to grab its premium seats on long domestic US routes. SEEMS LEGIT.
* Yes, I do know that the XLR doesn't have the range to fly DSS-MEX nonstop, and that a MEX departure might further curtail its range due to the altitude. But there's bound to be growing demand for this route and others like it as Africa grows
I have tried this once and never again. If you are in business the comfort and privacy have gone and the flight crew cannot offer the same level of service as on wide body aircraft not to mention the lack of space to move around on a long flight and excruciatingly small bathroom. Being charged normal business fares to fly on these aircraft is a complete scam by the airlines.
A great opportunity for A321XLR is to be used as an only business seats plane. No time lost during bording, the aisle can be little bit larger for the crew, you can have a space at the back of the plan to stretch your body, and revenues will be higher with less seats; due to the fact you would have less passengers and luggage, you would a a lighter plane who would be ablet to...
A great opportunity for A321XLR is to be used as an only business seats plane. No time lost during bording, the aisle can be little bit larger for the crew, you can have a space at the back of the plan to stretch your body, and revenues will be higher with less seats; due to the fact you would have less passengers and luggage, you would a a lighter plane who would be ablet to flight close to the maximum range. You could have a rest space for the crew too in the lower floor due to the fact that you don't use all the luggage space.
I'm an Airbus guy in general but I've dreaded this plane for the last 7-8 years. It's a DC-8 experience by any other name, pushing PaxEx back by 40 years. The 767 should have eliminated the 200-seat narrowbody.
I will always choose an older, larger plane without the tech over something like this.
I flew SAS 321LR economy from Boston to Copenhagen in December. Redeyes are unpleasant. They are even more unpleasant in a narrow body plane. I will avoid narrow body redeyes as much as I can.
Six abreast like in the late Boeing 707?
A321 ceo neo le ir xlr it’s just another uncomfortable narrow body A321 can’t imagine how bad is for pax and FAs
Honestly if A321s had a Mid Cabin 2L door that was used for boarding I’d be a huge fan of the aircraft.
Aware of all the reasons that never caught on with A321ceos even before the new cabin flex door configuration, etc, but it is my favorite part of the 757 experience and makes it feel like a “big” plane, speeds boarding, and makes the front cabin much more peaceful.
Im not flying to Europe at Mach .78 when I can take a wide body at .80-.84. Who wants to spent another hour crossing the ocean?
That hour comes in rather handy if you're in business class and hoping to catch any sleep. I don't think I could manage much more than 3 hours on something like BOS-LHR, getting a fourth hour in represents an extra 33% of sleep and it could be the difference between having a miserable day and just needing some additional caffeine.
I fly the -321. Great plane. The problem with the NEO/LR/XLRs is that they improved the engines but not the wings. We do transcontinental flights and can’t get above FL340 - too heavy. So you’re going to be bumping along the North Atlantic in the low thirties during the winter. Crazy.
Flown JetBlue across the Atlantic many times. Historically , I've done the same trips in 747, 777,787. Apart from the tighter bathrooms and longer flight times, I give it a thumbs up.
I did JFK to CDG in Jet Blue A321 LR two years ago and it was very comfortable flight and the Pratt & Whitney geared engines are very quiet. Jet Blue has 2 lavatories in Business Class so no issues with lines and at the back it has a full width galley not the Space Flex that Iberia selected that its half the size and has 2 bathrooms next to the galley so the two...
I did JFK to CDG in Jet Blue A321 LR two years ago and it was very comfortable flight and the Pratt & Whitney geared engines are very quiet. Jet Blue has 2 lavatories in Business Class so no issues with lines and at the back it has a full width galley not the Space Flex that Iberia selected that its half the size and has 2 bathrooms next to the galley so the two bathrooms in Jet Blue are after the last row not in the galley like Iberia. Bad move by Iberia selecting the Space Flex.
I’ll take a direct flight on a narrow body XLR out of PHL vs. a wide body to LHR and connecting on a tight window only to fly on a BA 320 any day of the week. Only people who keep up with aviation like ourselves know that an Airbus 321 has a wider cabin width than the Boeing 737… The average person books the cheapest fare and doesn’t care about routing to the newest airport credit card lounge.
This is so right lol. My goal is to pay the lowest in miles/cash for a good lie-flat experience across the ocean. The incremental stuff does not matter much to me.
Flydubai narrow body business class is better than Singapore Airline A35O. So not true that narrow body business classes are always worst…
A lot of it is in the mind. In economy class, I think it would be the same as a A330 or 777. True, the cabin is narrower but your seat area is the same and you may be looking at the screen, not the opposite wall.
You're kidding if you think a 3-4-3 777's "seat area" in Y is the same as that of an A330 or A321.
These A321's are going to be a much comfier ride in Y than any 777 or 787 based on seat width alone (up to an inch wider on the A321).
Yeah the 777 seat width its narrower about 17.1" and the cabin its very loud high decibels.
For long haul Flights I would avoid narrow body planes like the plague.
Going from the golden age of 747s and A380's to narrow bodies across the Atlantic is depressing to say the least.
That said, I do think these will be fantastic alternatives for transcon and LATAM routes.
Not the XLR, but at least on the B6 TATL on the LR I did like the slower speed as you can actually get a more normal sleep length. That's all counting on having a meal pre-boarding and going straight to sleep, which B6 currently cannot do.
Much as I prefer if the airline provides a lounge, for East Coast to Europe I pay for a meal in the terminal to optimise sleep.
Lol the speed difference is like 15 minutes. I'm sure that made a big difference in your sleep
Go to FlightRadar24 and take a look at traffic over the Atlantic. You’ll notice that the vast majority of A321s are flying at either FL330 or FL340 while most widebody aircraft are flying as high as FL400. The 321 has new engines but, unfortunately, it still has the same wing. Add the weight from the additional fuel it will be carrying and you’ve got the second coming of the A300-600. FL340 versus FL380 may not...
Go to FlightRadar24 and take a look at traffic over the Atlantic. You’ll notice that the vast majority of A321s are flying at either FL330 or FL340 while most widebody aircraft are flying as high as FL400. The 321 has new engines but, unfortunately, it still has the same wing. Add the weight from the additional fuel it will be carrying and you’ve got the second coming of the A300-600. FL340 versus FL380 may not seem like a big deal but if you are trying to escape turbulence it’s nice to have the option to fly at either altitude. Same with catching a tailwind and, to a lesser extend, avoiding a strong headwind. ETOPs requirements might also require a less than optimal routing. I would not want to be on a 321, on a westbound crossing, on a bumpy wintertime day, regardless of how nice the seat is.
Lower altitudes reduce your exposure to radiation.
Lots of people will choose these to/from second or third tier cities if it avoids the need to connect.
OMAAT whiners excepted.
Which doesn't make the nature of this plane any better.
OMAAT whiner found.
I can say that away from the spacious superjumbo class of wide bodies (a380 and 747-8), I actually prefer narrow bodies in economy class to the crammed battery hen layout on 78/7s and 350s. Especially for overall boarding, border entry and baggage wait times it is often much faster than larger planes. But I also agree that in the premium end it often isn’t as good.
Nope. Not going to do it even in Business Class. It is bad if anything over 4 hours.
Dumb response. There's ton of NB flights greater than 4 hrs in NA
This is better than a 321CEO
Aer Lingus seems to be using the modern versions of the A321 pretty well. They just launched a flight to Indianapolis yesterday. The experience onboard isn't perfect, but it does allow a wider range of underserved markets to gain international connections
Lucky, allow me to introduce you to airline network planners. They love to fly planes to the limits of their range. Also manufacturers take the minimum fuel reserves into account when advertising range. Basing range on when the tanks are empty and engines stop would be false advertising. That being said, 4000nm is probably a good place to start for the article, but pay attention, you will see XLRs flying beyond 4000nm
Not a hope in hell I get on one of these planes, for all the reasons you have outlined.
Taking in to account the crew added work in a small galley (serving sometimes course by course meals in business) with the added cost cutting associated with reduced crew for this long hauls on narrow body. Passenger experience could be quite frustrating, specially on short red-eyes were service would take a lot) Time would say. It’s still a new product to see how other airlines are gonna differentiate it. Rather in a good or bad way.
Years ago back when the BIG 3 were almost exclusively flying wide body aircraft from the West Coast to the East, USAir was flying 737's between West Coast cities and their 3 hubs in The East. My USAir sales rep ( in San Francisco ) said " you know, its the same seat whether it's a 737 or a DC10." And I began flying USAir (first class) and she was right. Now of course big...
Years ago back when the BIG 3 were almost exclusively flying wide body aircraft from the West Coast to the East, USAir was flying 737's between West Coast cities and their 3 hubs in The East. My USAir sales rep ( in San Francisco ) said " you know, its the same seat whether it's a 737 or a DC10." And I began flying USAir (first class) and she was right. Now of course big difference between 1990's F Class and todays' international J Class...but especially in Y or PE....still holds true.
The 757 helped to open up routes that simply cannot sustain daily or even 3-5 weekly flights on a wide body. The 757 is a 40+ year old design and the last 757-200 rolled out in 2004, 21 years ago. Reliability and high cycles mean something had to be introduced to replace it, and that plane is the 321XLR. I am not a huge fan of a narrow body on long segments, but if it...
The 757 helped to open up routes that simply cannot sustain daily or even 3-5 weekly flights on a wide body. The 757 is a 40+ year old design and the last 757-200 rolled out in 2004, 21 years ago. Reliability and high cycles mean something had to be introduced to replace it, and that plane is the 321XLR. I am not a huge fan of a narrow body on long segments, but if it means flying point to point, with a daily, or nearly daily frequency, I would prefer that than a connection. The 321LR itself has opened up routes not possible to serve year round or near year round on a wide body. The XLR is just a natural extension of that.
Yeah Jet Blue lower density A321 LR its little better for the crew at the back it has a full width galley vs Iberia half width galley and at the Front the business class its bigger but it has 2 lavatories.
If you want to give us a REAL review, sit in economy and let us know what that feels like compared to other aircraft....
I was thinking the same thing.
RIGHT!
That's not necessary. Even business class is diluted on this compared to larger aircraft.
I flew the same Iberia plane from MAD-BOS and had a more positive experience than Ben did. In particular, I did not see any line or wait for the lavatory. With only 14 seats in Business class, the ratio is not that different from Iberia's A350 (2 bathrooms for 31-33 seats plus the pilots). From what I understand, the bathroom situation is much much worse in economy. If you look at how the bathrooms are...
I flew the same Iberia plane from MAD-BOS and had a more positive experience than Ben did. In particular, I did not see any line or wait for the lavatory. With only 14 seats in Business class, the ratio is not that different from Iberia's A350 (2 bathrooms for 31-33 seats plus the pilots). From what I understand, the bathroom situation is much much worse in economy. If you look at how the bathrooms are configured in the back of the plane, there is one, then the galley, followed by 2 in the way back. If the flight attendants are prepping stuff in the galley, they block off the 2 rear bathrooms and 168 people are using the one lav. I would happily fly the A321XLR again in business class, but would encourage economy travelers to avoid it at all costs.
I think you missed a huge advantage of the aircraft, it’s intended use developing medium sized markets bypassing traditional hubs. Aer Lingus’ use on Dublin IND, BDL, CLE, BNA is a godsend as we hear ATC controllers can’t handle NYC/Newark airspace forcing airlines to cancel on short notice. United or AA may be able to bring back Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow , Birmingham , Newcastle or launch Cork which will allow a cumbersome LHR to be...
I think you missed a huge advantage of the aircraft, it’s intended use developing medium sized markets bypassing traditional hubs. Aer Lingus’ use on Dublin IND, BDL, CLE, BNA is a godsend as we hear ATC controllers can’t handle NYC/Newark airspace forcing airlines to cancel on short notice. United or AA may be able to bring back Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow , Birmingham , Newcastle or launch Cork which will allow a cumbersome LHR to be bypassed. The nonstop service or bypass of awful hubs outweigh the single aisle issue for many.
Right, more thin routes offer the customer more direct destinations.
(Maybe) a game changer for airlines, normal to plane to dread for passengers.
Sure, increased frequency and seeing airlines operating routes that are unprofitable with widebodies sound nice.
And that's where the good part ends.
It's still a narrowbody plane, just with a bit nicer seats than your average regional A320.
Unfortunately, unlike some A321XLR apologists have claimed, the numerical data of the seats which lures passengers to think that it would...
(Maybe) a game changer for airlines, normal to plane to dread for passengers.
Sure, increased frequency and seeing airlines operating routes that are unprofitable with widebodies sound nice.
And that's where the good part ends.
It's still a narrowbody plane, just with a bit nicer seats than your average regional A320.
Unfortunately, unlike some A321XLR apologists have claimed, the numerical data of the seats which lures passengers to think that it would be better than even an A350, is just a lie.
Keep bragging about those numbers with no actual meaning. If the seat width and the headroom are the only things that add comfort, then why are old forward facing flatbed seats with more space worse than business class suites.
Or at least come up with seats that are worth paying extra for. Why are Iberia and Aer Lingus installing herringbone seats and no direct aisle access seats when ITA has reverse herringbone on A321neos, not even the LR version.
So far, the A321XLRs are over glorified.
Only benefiting the airlines and some niche market consumers. At least the latter do some justice, but since when consumers had to adjust with firms' offering and circumstances, I thought it was the other way around?
Or maybe I should be appreciating that 737 MAX doesn't have an extended range variant. Even smaller fuselage? Ouch.
I think it makes sense for point to point US transcons, East Coast TATL, and some LATAM travel.
But longer haul flights like West Coast to Europe would be extremely hard to do.
I do hope we see more usage of these on transcons though. The US transcon market is painful. East to West Coast is 6 hours or so and generic recliner seating just doesn't cut it anymore.
I'd be shocked if outside of a handful of premium-heavy routes domestic US airlines put flatbeds, or anything other than "generic reclining" seats, on domestic transcoms.
For any flight over seven hours I will go out of my way to prioritize a widebody when choosing a flight. Having those spaces near the mid-fuselage galley to stretch out is priceless. 5-6h is my limit on a narrowbody.
When traveling by myself I would rather do this craft in business (under 7 hours) with direct aisle access and a fairly private J seat vs a wide body with a double J seat configuration. If I'm with my spouse, give me the wide body aircraft regardless.
You make it sound like American is doing something new with the 321xlr. American has been flying the 321ceo with an international cabin for years.
This aircraft will be nice for the people up front and suck for the people in economy.
The lack of lavatory's is going to be the biggest problem. The biggest part of this problem is that US airline FA's are not required to clean them like most(not all) foreign airlines...
You make it sound like American is doing something new with the 321xlr. American has been flying the 321ceo with an international cabin for years.
This aircraft will be nice for the people up front and suck for the people in economy.
The lack of lavatory's is going to be the biggest problem. The biggest part of this problem is that US airline FA's are not required to clean them like most(not all) foreign airlines do on long haul flights.
No thank you, these aircraft are a huge downgrade and they also lack the smoother flying characteristics of a large wide body.