In March 2022, Air Canada placed an order for Airbus’ new long range narrow body jet. There’s now an update, as Air Canada has revealed more details about the plane, including the first long haul route that will be operated by it. Let’s go over everything we know so far…
In this post:
Air Canada has 26 Airbus A321XLRs on order
Air Canada is acquiring 26 Airbus A321XLR aircraft, which are expected to start joining the carrier’s fleet as of the first quarter of 2026. 20 of these planes are being leased, while six are being purchased, and Air Canada also has the purchase rights to acquire an additional 14 of these aircraft.
For those not familiar with the A321XLR, this is the latest generation A321 aircraft. The aircraft was announced in 2019, and entered service in late 2024, with Iberia and Aer Lingus being the two launch customers. The long range aircraft has the ability to operate all kinds of long and thin routes where the economics might not make sense with larger aircraft.
For passengers, the plane is a mixed bag — narrow body planes just don’t have the same level of comfort as wide body planes, though it’s always nice to be able to fly nonstop, rather than connecting. Air Canada intends to use these planes both for flights within North America, as well as for transatlantic flights (I suspect the latter will be the focus).
The A321XLR seems like an obvious fit for Air Canada. Currently the carrier’s smallest long haul aircraft is the Airbus A330, and that’s a pretty big aircraft, so there was a need for something smaller. Given Canada’s geography and Air Canada’s hubs, this plane will be useful for routes from eastern Canada to destinations across the Atlantic.
Air Canada Airbus A321XLRs will have 182 seats
Air Canada’s Airbus A321XLRs will feature a total of 182 seats, including 14 business class seats and 168 economy class seats. The planes will feature seat back entertainment, inflight Wi-Fi, and the signature Airbus interiors.
While Air Canada hasn’t fully unveiled its new Airbus A321XLR cabins, we do have a sense of what to expect. The airline has now loaded the seat map for its first A321XLR long haul flight, and it shows business class consisting of seven rows, in a 1-1 configuration.
Seats appear to be herringbone (facing the aisle), rather than reverse herringbone (facing the windows).
The seat count on Air Canada’s A321XLR is identical to Iberia’s, so I would guess the cabins will have very similar bones.
It’s quite interesting how Air Canada isn’t going for a particularly premium layout here. There are only 14 business class seats, and there’s not even a premium economy cabin, which is otherwise a standard on long haul planes nowadays.
I understand real estate is more limited on these small planes, though you’d think that in order to make the economics work, you’d need to focus on premium revenue. Or who knows, I guess airlines think they can get people to pay a premium to fly in economy, for the convenience of traveling nonstop.
As a point of comparison, the upcoming A321XLRs of American and United will each feature 20 business class seats and 12 premium economy seats, so that’s quite a different approach.
Air Canada unveils first Airbus A321XLR routes
With Air Canada’s first Airbus A321XLR delivery being imminent, the airline has just unveiled its initial routes to get the aircraft. As of June 17, 2026, Air Canada plans to launch four weekly seasonal flights between Montreal (YUL) and Palma de Mallorca (PMI) with the A321XLR, which will be the first time the airline operates this route. That’s very cool!
Additionally, Air Canada will transition existing routes to the A321XLR, including year-round flights from Montreal to Toulouse (TLS) and Edinburgh (EDI). As time goes on, we can expect Air Canada to add A321XLR routes from Toronto (YYZ), Ottawa (YOW), and Halifax (YHZ).
Bottom line
In early 2022, Air Canada placed an order for 26 Airbus A321XLR aircraft. This is a natural fit for Air Canada’s fleet, given that this plane will allow the airline to operate all kinds of long and thin transatlantic routes from its hubs in the east.
The first plane is expected to be delivered in the first quarter of 2026, and should enter service shortly thereafter. The A321XLRs will be configured with 182 seats, including 14 fully flat business class seats and 168 economy class seats. Perhaps the only surprise here is just how dense the cabin will be, including fairly few business class seats and no premium economy seats.
What do you make of Air Canada’s A321XLR order?
WOW :-o PMI new STAR ALLIANCE Hub in the Mediterranean Sea?
Very interesting, it seems that now with another STAR Carrier flying to Palma de Mallorca (PMI) it develops to an almost Hub destination in the network!?
GREAT alternative to the usual hubs in Europe from STAR ALLIANCE with a ton of points properties to chose from and amazing connections all over Europe!
Very cool!
Once a dominated "Hub" of airberlin,...
WOW :-o PMI new STAR ALLIANCE Hub in the Mediterranean Sea?
Very interesting, it seems that now with another STAR Carrier flying to Palma de Mallorca (PMI) it develops to an almost Hub destination in the network!?
GREAT alternative to the usual hubs in Europe from STAR ALLIANCE with a ton of points properties to chose from and amazing connections all over Europe!
Very cool!
Once a dominated "Hub" of airberlin, now becoming a STAR Hub so to say.
What's next, STAR ALLIANCE Lounge? ;-)
I think these A321XLR routes are interesting. Captive business shuttle , sunny tourism and diaspora service. They seems to see a lot of use cases for the XLR but not to be really sure which will actually succeed. Neither destination offers good onward connectivity so it's all about point to point traffic and I'm thus not surprised the J footprint is low.
The Toulouse service is clearly an Airbus shuttle linked to the A220...
I think these A321XLR routes are interesting. Captive business shuttle , sunny tourism and diaspora service. They seems to see a lot of use cases for the XLR but not to be really sure which will actually succeed. Neither destination offers good onward connectivity so it's all about point to point traffic and I'm thus not surprised the J footprint is low.
The Toulouse service is clearly an Airbus shuttle linked to the A220 and downsizing makes sense. It's probably a sponsored route and I wouldn't be surprised Airbus were actually the one asking for a downsizing.
I'm not sure the Balearic Islands need more traffic altogether but good for AC for exploring that. You could almost see how the A321XLR allows airlines to setup "limited edition" tourism flights for their home market: this sunmer it's Palma, next year Sardinia . In winter it could be Geneva or Innsbruck or Canaries...
The EDI service seems geared at the Scottish Canadian population, so more diaspora/VFR type of market.
I like the creativity. Let's see what survives !
Toulouse is a major holiday destination. Many destinations in France are serviced by Air Transat. Historically there have been flights to Nantes, Bordeaux, Lyon and Marseille mostly originating in Montreal where there is a significant leisure market among Canadian francophone tourists. Paris is nice but the smaller centres offer distinct travel experiences. Not sure why they chose the summer for launch as a March start at the end of a long winter would likely ge...
Toulouse is a major holiday destination. Many destinations in France are serviced by Air Transat. Historically there have been flights to Nantes, Bordeaux, Lyon and Marseille mostly originating in Montreal where there is a significant leisure market among Canadian francophone tourists. Paris is nice but the smaller centres offer distinct travel experiences. Not sure why they chose the summer for launch as a March start at the end of a long winter would likely ge well used.
No PY cabin is a mistake. Even if it's just 12 seats, it would be a revenue opportunity, especially when J is full.
AC will reconfigure within a year.
AC still hasn't fixed their constantly deflating busienss seats, they re not reconfiguring anything
Pathetic, that Air Canada will have just 14 premium seats, especially since it's economy is nasty.
But the airline has no talent in its management team so it's not a surprise.
A few minor corrections: AC has 30 on order as of their last MD&A, and their smallest wide body is the 787-8, not the A330.
I am fascinated by the many airlines and their sizeable 321XLR orders, their planned routes and cabin configs..... However, given the slower speed of these a/c types compared with larger a/c - I remain dubious of flying in any cabin other than business. I wonder about the ability of a smaller craft to withstand turbulence (eg TATL) Therefore, if I do not find the business fares much lower than larger a/c I will stick to...
I am fascinated by the many airlines and their sizeable 321XLR orders, their planned routes and cabin configs..... However, given the slower speed of these a/c types compared with larger a/c - I remain dubious of flying in any cabin other than business. I wonder about the ability of a smaller craft to withstand turbulence (eg TATL) Therefore, if I do not find the business fares much lower than larger a/c I will stick to the larger aircraft even if means I need to transit another airport.
Having said all of that - I am genuinely interested in the A321XLR - and very much would like to see airlines succeed. Let's hope we see genuine innovation in cabins, onboard service and fares. Let's hope the unique opportunity is not squandered, but embraced.
Good on AC for understanding that it is simply not a premium airline, and that people are not willing to pay for its crappy business class.
A handful of seats will be sold, and the rest will be filled with upgrades, opups and AC's favourite way of filling premium seats - staff.
As someone who actually nonrevs this J cabin will be way too small to have any seats for employees. They will all be sitting in economy lol
AC understands what AA and UA do not. It takes 180 seats to make a long haul international flight work. there simply is no revenue premium on flights to leisure destinations and you cannot siphon off the highest revenue that otherwise goes on narrowbodies while 'rejecting' the majority of coach passengers while costs per passenger are much higher on a narrowbody.
B6' experiment to Europe has proven that.
Tim.
Before the B6 experiment, there was a jet called 757 that has tested this concept.
But you seem to hate 757 so much.
and the airline that flew it the most, Continental, had lower labor costs than the rest of the industry.
AA didn't get rid of its 757s because they were old but because they knew the economics of longhaul narrowbody flights don't work.
DL still is the world's largest 757 passenger operator but knows the plane has its limits and 8+ hour flights are beyond those limits from an economic standpoint.
The only way...
and the airline that flew it the most, Continental, had lower labor costs than the rest of the industry.
AA didn't get rid of its 757s because they were old but because they knew the economics of longhaul narrowbody flights don't work.
DL still is the world's largest 757 passenger operator but knows the plane has its limits and 8+ hour flights are beyond those limits from an economic standpoint.
The only way to get a decent quality product is to take off too many seats to make the 321 work at US labor rates.
AC validates what I have said for years; it takes getting the majority of the passengers on a narrowbody that would otherwise be on a widebody to make the economics work for the 321 on 8+ hour flights.
And having flown DL, AA, UA and CO "back in the day" in both cabins...I say again " God I Miss Continental ! "
I think you fail to appreciate premium economy. Maybe the Canadian PAX has a sharp divide between the well off and those looking for the best ticket price.
However, there is a group in the middle who don't need a TATL sleeping pod. This group appreciates a seat with a good recline and an extra level of service. On my last few crossings of The Atlantic, I have found the Premium Economy section full...
I think you fail to appreciate premium economy. Maybe the Canadian PAX has a sharp divide between the well off and those looking for the best ticket price.
However, there is a group in the middle who don't need a TATL sleeping pod. This group appreciates a seat with a good recline and an extra level of service. On my last few crossings of The Atlantic, I have found the Premium Economy section full or near full in each direction. You would think it would be just a bunch of grey hairs (like me); but found the majority to be middle manager types who appreciate the extra room to work or rest.
Even if these XLRs are focused on holiday locations, there are those who will pay for premium economy for that extra space and service on long haul flights in a narrow body aircraft.
Agrée. Premium Economy on overnight flights of six or seven hours across the pond are almost always full with revenue passengers
@ Tim Dunn -- I'm not following...
There's no revenue premium on flights to leisure destinations? What does that mean, exactly? Like flights to Nice and Rome on premium heavy aircraft aren't profitable, you're saying? Many airline executives acknowledge the most efficient part of a plane per square foot is business class or premium economy, and that includes in non-business markets.
Also, your argument on economics doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Delta essentially...
@ Tim Dunn -- I'm not following...
There's no revenue premium on flights to leisure destinations? What does that mean, exactly? Like flights to Nice and Rome on premium heavy aircraft aren't profitable, you're saying? Many airline executives acknowledge the most efficient part of a plane per square foot is business class or premium economy, and that includes in non-business markets.
Also, your argument on economics doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Delta essentially operates its passenger service at a loss, comparing CASM to PRASM. There's more to the economics of service than just comparing those figures, which is what you seem to be hinting at.
And I'd disagree with you about American. I think American retired its 757s because they were old and the executives were obsessed with having a new fleet. They also retired 767s and A330s. Why do you think they did that?
Ben,
AA said they retired the planes they did for fleet commonality and cost. They thought a 777 and 787 fleet would be adequate -but their financials over the Atlantic and Pacific have deteriorated.
Of course there are some people that are willing to pay higher fares for better service even to leisure destinations but that happens almost entirely in the summer and what is now an extended shoulder season.
Crews and airplane mortgages...
Ben,
AA said they retired the planes they did for fleet commonality and cost. They thought a 777 and 787 fleet would be adequate -but their financials over the Atlantic and Pacific have deteriorated.
Of course there are some people that are willing to pay higher fares for better service even to leisure destinations but that happens almost entirely in the summer and what is now an extended shoulder season.
Crews and airplane mortgages - or the cash it costs to buy the planes - has to be used on a year round basis.
and, AA and UA are trying to pick off the premium revenue on what would be a widebody flight and trying to keep the best revenue while discarding the coach revenue.
A premium configured aircraft in all but a few markets has never worked for US airlines or most global airlines.
Widebodies have better per seat economics and can generate much more revenue.
AC proves what the Euro XLR operators are finding - it doesn't work to try to siphon off the best revenue - and their costs are lower than US carriers.
AA and UA are making a huge gamble on the XLR that I believe will prove wrong. You are free to argue otherwise and, in time, we will get enough data to know who was right.
and stop w/ the tired argument about PRASM vs CASM. Every US airline does the same and you have said so. Because DL is more successful at the non- transportation revenue makes it better than AA and UA because they all play the same game. The only game that AA and UA don't play that DL plays is the refinery and DL excludes it from its financials to allow a direct comparison.
You can do better than the tired and flawed arguments that your most childish posters put on here.
Instead of, “I’d like to talk to you about your cars extended warranty.”, Tim walks up to random strangers and hits them with “Let me tell you why UA/AA CASM leads to economics never working on narrowbody TATL flying.”…
Talk about a real winner.
you do realize this is a discussion about narrowbody TATL flying, not some random encounter by strangers?
Tim, you ramble off topic in every other article, so what’s your point?
Timbits: Just like your lord and master Ed Bastian, you'll do anything to suck up to Airbus any chance you get. If this was a Boeing successor to the 757, you'd be critical as anything.
it ha nothing to do w/ Airbus vs. Boeing.
DL is still the largest passenger operator of the 757 and has the youngest 757 that came off the assembly line. If the 757 made sense economically, DL would have refurbished their 757s to new cabins.
and since DL is now set to be the launch customer for the MAX 10 and is talking about buying MAX 8s for high performance flying as well as the 787-10, DL is going to be buying many more Boeing aircraft again.
Ben says, "There's no revenue premium on flights to leisure destinations? What does that mean, exactly?"
It means that the person saying it missed everything that the airline industry has learned since Covid.
Ben says, "Many airline executives acknowledge the most efficient part of a plane per square foot is business class or premium economy, and that includes in non-business markets."
Exactly. Airlines know the yield/square foot of floor space and they maximize it. Also,...
Ben says, "There's no revenue premium on flights to leisure destinations? What does that mean, exactly?"
It means that the person saying it missed everything that the airline industry has learned since Covid.
Ben says, "Many airline executives acknowledge the most efficient part of a plane per square foot is business class or premium economy, and that includes in non-business markets."
Exactly. Airlines know the yield/square foot of floor space and they maximize it. Also, fuel prices might be relatively low now, but airliners are 30+ year assets and environmental considerations are important to certain constituencies.
Ben said, "Also, your argument on economics doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Delta essentially operates its passenger service at a loss, comparing CASM to PRASM. There's more to the economics of service than just comparing those figures, which is what you seem to be hinting at.
And I'd disagree with you about American. I think American retired its 757s because they were old and the executives were obsessed with having a new fleet. They also retired 767s and A330s. Why do you think they did that?"
Nailed it.
you regurgitated most of what Ben said but still don't counter that widebodies have the same level of efficiency or better as narrowbodies - that is why widebodies were created.
just name the niche SMALL airplanes that have been more successful than larger airplanes and tell me why it makes sense for airlines - including AA and UA - to be upgauging their domestic fleets to larger airplanes but it is supposed to make sense...
you regurgitated most of what Ben said but still don't counter that widebodies have the same level of efficiency or better as narrowbodies - that is why widebodies were created.
just name the niche SMALL airplanes that have been more successful than larger airplanes and tell me why it makes sense for airlines - including AA and UA - to be upgauging their domestic fleets to larger airplanes but it is supposed to make sense to use smaller airplanes on international flights which have higher costs.
the XLR will be able to generate about 45% of the revenue of a 789 or 330-300 or 900 but have 60% of the costs.
The math doesn't work and AA and UA are the only two global carriers that are configuring their XLRs with as few seats as they are - which should make you ask why all of the other carriers aren't doing the same if AA and UA are right
or, more likely, what are AA and UA not understanding that everyone else understands about narrowbodies - and DL understands by not even getting into the longhaul narrowbody game.
Tim Dunn says, "you...still don't counter that widebodies have the same level of efficiency or better as narrowbodies - that is why widebodies were created."
In many markets there isn't enough demand otherwise every airliner would be a wide body, right? That's the 'thin' in long, thin markets. Pretty basic stuff.
what is pretty basic is that, if demand isn't there and you use a smaller aircraft, you don't win if someone undercuts you on connecting fares.
There aren't near enough high value passengers from NYC or PHL or IAD or wherever these planes will be used by AA to fill a plane; they will rely on connections from througout the US; their own JVs plus the SkyTeam JV serve these same cities with the same...
what is pretty basic is that, if demand isn't there and you use a smaller aircraft, you don't win if someone undercuts you on connecting fares.
There aren't near enough high value passengers from NYC or PHL or IAD or wherever these planes will be used by AA to fill a plane; they will rely on connections from througout the US; their own JVs plus the SkyTeam JV serve these same cities with the same single connection and can price lower.
It is the same reason why RJs competing w/ mainline aircraft don't work domestically.
Again, no one has yet to adequately explain why it makes sense to upgauge domestically but downgauge internationally.
and no one has ever noted where the largest global carriers have successfully used a niche configuration and succeeded other than in unique circumstances rather than as a major fleet type
When 'lil Timmy starts talking (the topic doesn't matter), I ALWAYS instantly recall that Sixpence None the Richer song "There she goes, there she goes again.." (and again and again and again...)