In December 2019, United Airlines placed an order for 50 A321XLRs, which is Airbus’ new ultra long range and fuel efficient evolution of the A321. The plane entered commercial service in late 2024, with Iberia and Aer Lingus being the launch customers. As of now, United is expected to get its first A321XLR in early 2026, though of course that timeline could slip further.
In this post, I’d like to take an updated look at United’s A321XLR cabins, as we increasingly have a sense of what to expect, thanks to JonNYC sharing the plane’s seat map.
Note that this is all separate from the Airbus A321neos that United has on order, which the airline is currently taking delivery of. Separately, we know what to expect from United’s wide body Polaris business class, as the airline plans to introduce a new product there as well.
In this post:
What to expect from United’s A321XLR cabins
Before we talk about cabins, let’s talk about United’s route plans for A321XLRs:
- United will primarily fly A321XLRs across the North Atlantic and to Latin America, so you can expect the planes to largely be on “long and thin” routes, like Newark to Bogota and Edinburgh
- United will not only use A321XLRs to replace Boeing 757-200s, but also to expand to some markets where the economics didn’t previously make sense, given that the A321XLR is more fuel efficient than the 757
As far as the onboard product goes, what should we expect? Here’s what we know for sure:
- United will introduce an all new Polaris business class seat for the A321XLR, since the current Polaris seat can’t be installed on narrow body aircraft
- United will be installing Premium Plus premium economy on the A321XLR, which you’ll otherwise only find on wide body aircraft
We now know what the seat map for the plane will look like, and that the plane will have a total of 150 seats. This includes 20 Polaris (business class) seats, 12 Premium Plus (premium economy) seats, 36 Economy Class (extra legroom) seats, and 82 economy seats.
The plane will have just one lavatory in the front (which will be challenging, since it’ll be shared between all business class passengers, plus the pilots), and three lavatories in the back, along with a small snack bar.
United’s new A321XLR Polaris business class seat
Back in September 2023, Seth Miller flagged the patent that United filed for its new narrow body business class seat, confirming that United has elected to go with a herringbone configuration on its Airbus A321XLRs.
Not surprisingly, United is trying to make this configuration as efficient and dense as possible, with seats facing the aisle at a 49 degree angle. These seats can be installed with just 28″ of pitch, while still offering a bed length of 75-78″. Interestingly, while the diagram suggested that there would be 28 Polaris business class seats, it seems like United ultimately settled on 20 seats.
To save space, the seats will offer a “space-sharing region,” whereby part of the area between seats will give a person on one side space at shoulder level, and a person on the other side space at the lower arm level. While the paten’t doesn’t mention it, United does plan on installing doors on its A321XLR business class.
Seth Miller also points out that while it hasn’t been announced, everything is pointing to United having selected the Adient Altitude seat as its new narrow body business class. Based on United getting the patent for this seat, it also sounds like United will be the only airline to have this exact product, unless it licenses it out.
For a narrow body business class, United’s new product looks totally fine, but it shouldn’t get anyone excited. I understand why United chose a product like this, but it’s kind of unfortunate how we’re seeing the return of herringbone seats, which are otherwise quite outdated on wide body planes. Ultimately it’s because reverse herringbone seats take up a bit more space, so couldn’t be installed as efficiently.
Based on current products in service, United’s new Polaris business class looks most similar to JetBlue’s Mint business class, available primarily on Airbus A321LRs. However, United has figured out a way to achieve an even denser configuration.
So far, the best business class product we’ve seen for narrow body aircraft is probably the STELIA OPERA seat, which is custom-made for the A321 family, as it’s produced by a subsidiary of Airbus. This is essentially a modified reverse herringbone seat, with the option for a door. This is a great product, especially for a narrow body aircraft.
ITA Airways’ Airbus A321neos feature this product (without a door), and it’s excellent, probably the best narrow body business class I’ve flown.
Seat manufacturer Safran has the VUE product, which is also specifically designed for narrow body aircraft, including the Boeing 737 MAX. FlyDubai will be the launch customer for this product, but the introduction has been delayed.
On the plus side, I’d say all of these concepts are better than the staggered business class seats you’ll find on many Airbus A321LRs, including those of Aer Lingus, TAP Air Portugal, and Scandinavian Airlines. The lack of direct aisle access frustrates many, given how long some of the flights on these planes are.
American has similar plans for its A321XLRs
American Airlines was the first major US carrier to order the Airbus A321XLR, as the airline is also picking up 50 of these. The first of these planes has actually already been delivered, though was put into storage, due to the interiors not being ready. The plan is for the plane to enter service in late 2025 or early 2026.
Much like United, American plans to install a business class product with fully flat seats and direct aisle access, plus a premium economy cabin. Arguably American has much more of an immediate need for these planes than United does, given that American retired its entire Boeing 757 and 767 fleet during the pandemic.
American’s smallest long haul aircraft is the Boeing 787, and that means there are many long haul markets that American can’t currently serve.
American Airlines has already revealed its new A321XLR cabins. American intends to configure its A321XLRs in a three-cabin layout, with business class, premium economy, and economy. In business class, the planes will have herringbone seats, so they’ll be quite similar to those on JetBlue and United.
Premium economy will be in a 2-2 configuration, and will be quite similar to domestic first class.
Bottom line
In 2026, United Airlines is expected to start taking delivery of Airbus A321XLR aircraft, which should feature a good inflight product, at least for a narrow body. United’s A321XLRs are expected to be in a premium configuration, featuring new Polaris business class seats with direct aisle access and doors, as well as a Premium Plus premium economy cabin.
Unfortunately what we know so far about the new Polaris business class cabins is at the lower end of my expectations. The airline intends to install quite dense herringbone seats on these planes. I’d expect this to be even denser than JetBlue Mint, and unfortunately the airline didn’t elect to go with reverse herringbone seats.
What do you make of United’s upcoming Airbus A321XLRs?
Air New Zealand has business class seats in a herring bone design (seats at an angle with feet toward the aisle). Passengers hate the design ind on their new planes they are going back to a traditional layout. United, like ANZ, will lose business class passengers with the herring bone (sardine) layout.
NZ introduced their herringbone seats in 2003. There are myriad issues with them like having to stand up to transition from seat to a bed and a lack of privacy that have nothing to do with the basic layout. I think UA just might have taken note of 20 years of such issues throughout the industry before making the investment.
Again uninformed speculation from Tim Dunn that isn't based in facts. Routes that are within the 8-hour time block i.e., will not require additional crew:
- EDI: from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD/ORD/CLT
- MAN: from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD/ORD
- DUB: from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD/ORD/CLT
- SNN: from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD/ORD/CLT
- MAD: from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD
- CDG: from JFK/EWR/PHL
- AMS: from JFK/EWR/PHL
- BRU: from JFK/EWR/PHL
- Portugal (LIS, OPO, or FRO): from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD
-...
Again uninformed speculation from Tim Dunn that isn't based in facts. Routes that are within the 8-hour time block i.e., will not require additional crew:
- EDI: from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD/ORD/CLT
- MAN: from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD/ORD
- DUB: from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD/ORD/CLT
- SNN: from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD/ORD/CLT
- MAD: from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD
- CDG: from JFK/EWR/PHL
- AMS: from JFK/EWR/PHL
- BRU: from JFK/EWR/PHL
- Portugal (LIS, OPO, or FRO): from JFK/EWR/PHL/IAD
- secondary Spain (AGP, SVQ, VLC): from JFK/EWR/PHL
- Morocco (CMN or RAK): from JFK/EWR/PHL
- some secondary Brazil (BSB, FOR): from MIA
UA and AA can use ~10-15 XLRs easily on just those routes listed above. Add AA's use of the XLR for transcons, that's 25-30 XLRs used already.
For bigger destinations (DUB, MAD, CDG, AMS), the XLR's use will be two fold:
- day-time flights: valued by business travelers but not leisure travelers which makes the widebody economics often difficult. AA will operate transcons so it can be deployed do a highly-efficient rotation of a JFK-LAX-JFK-CDG-JFK. The premium-heavy XLR with its lower operating costs has far different financials
- maintain service in low seasons: leisure demand drops for all airlines (inc. DL) in Jan/Feb but they maintain service. You can see in the PANYNJ stats - the avg. intl LFs at JFK in Jan/Feb are in the mid 70's. The lower capacity and cost basis of the XLR to those destinations will significantly reduce losses where they already lose money today or eek more profits.
Now what is still to be determined is how lucrative XLR service will be to dots beyond that range that will require crew rest area like ZRH, NCE, ARN, CPH, etc. This will likely come down to yields and premium demand which is TBD. The potential is it can open new markets for UA and AA that they do not currently serve, but those would have to be more premium markets. However, there's a lot of premium demand at these dots (including business demand) - the bet is an 18-19J cabin can still be profitable whereas a widebody often may not. We shall see but you don't have the answer on hand yet (no one does).
and yet UA does use 757s on routes that are over 8 hours which require a 3rd crew member now and will with the XLR - which probably will cruise slightly slower than the 757.
Yes, the A321NEO can economically fly 8 hour routes but you don't need an XLR and the routes you mention are not premium revenue focused; that is why most of the European carriers that are using (or will use the...
and yet UA does use 757s on routes that are over 8 hours which require a 3rd crew member now and will with the XLR - which probably will cruise slightly slower than the 757.
Yes, the A321NEO can economically fly 8 hour routes but you don't need an XLR and the routes you mention are not premium revenue focused; that is why most of the European carriers that are using (or will use the XLR) have seat counts more in line w/ what UA (and DL) has on their 757s.
as for the argument that these flights might be too big for a widebody, UA flies multiple routes w/ 2 narrowbodies where DL uses one widebody. ex. JFK vs. EWR to EDI - DL operates a 767 while UA uses 757s
and continental Europe to NYC and south is more than 8 hours on any airline. B6 flies AMS to JFK on a 321NEO and it is blocked at more than 8 hours.
also, even if the flight is exactly 7 hrs and 59 minutes, there is virtually no hold time if there are any delays - and the flight has to be cancelled or a new crew found which will delay some flight.
UA runs a lot of 2 man crews ORD DUB, EWR DUB, EWR LIS, etc
as for your comment about maintaining service in the winter, air fares collapse over the Atlantic in the winter but crew costs do not. You cannot maintain service with a much smaller number of passengers to cities that don't work year round; either you cancel the flight and reduce capacity or you take losses.
The XLR is a shiny new toy that AA thinks will fix its TATL network problems and UA thinks will allow...
as for your comment about maintaining service in the winter, air fares collapse over the Atlantic in the winter but crew costs do not. You cannot maintain service with a much smaller number of passengers to cities that don't work year round; either you cancel the flight and reduce capacity or you take losses.
The XLR is a shiny new toy that AA thinks will fix its TATL network problems and UA thinks will allow it to fly routes that very likely do not make money on the 757 now but UA thinks they "have to" fly them in order to generate network mass which doesn't translate into greater profitability than DL
Routes that UA thinks will make money where the 757 doesn't?
What about routes that make money on the 757 but need a new aircraft since 757s are approaching a retirement date?
What about a plane that will allow UA to get a premium from customers who prefer a nonstop to smaller destinations (compared to the large cities) over connecting in AMS and CDG, the way DL will force its customers to be routed? DL's...
Routes that UA thinks will make money where the 757 doesn't?
What about routes that make money on the 757 but need a new aircraft since 757s are approaching a retirement date?
What about a plane that will allow UA to get a premium from customers who prefer a nonstop to smaller destinations (compared to the large cities) over connecting in AMS and CDG, the way DL will force its customers to be routed? DL's smallest international plane will soon be the A330, limiting its ability to serve smaller cities where yields would be hurt by sending a plane that's too large.
Remember, UA makes the most airline revenue and is the most profitable US airline in terms of airline operations, so I think we all trust their judgment on network and fleet decisions more than we trust yours.
@ Ben
Why do reverse herringbone seats take up more space than herringbone? Does each seat take up more space or is it due to the way that the reverse herringbone bulkhead seats have that extra space?
Long haul narrow body? Been there, done that in the 70s, 80s and 90s! Not getting my dime for that rubbish in coffin seats. It’s purely for yuppies that want to fly to remote barren islands full of goat herders just to say they have been there. Enjoy!
6Millionmiles says, "Long haul narrow body? Been there, done that in the 70s, 80s and 90s! Not getting my dime..."
And while I'm sure the airline execs are quaking in their boots regarding that prospect plenty of passengers value avoiding an extra connections to secondary markets to which they want to travel. Even you have "been there, done that" for three more youthful decades.
You're comparing the amenities of a 707 to the amenities offered on an A321XLR? Lie flat seats, personal screens for everyone, free wifi?
Ok.
You really have to wonder how every article about United sends a certain fanboy into an absolute predictable mental tailspin. Over on VFTW, he's off on his usual Scott Kirby freudian obsession.
Imagine waking up every morning worrying that a comment section may respect Scott Kirby and feeling forced to expose your own jealous obsession with him.
you have to wonder why someone wakes up EVERY. SINGLE. DAY worried about what other people have to say and incapable of discussing the topic.
the topic is the XLR and specifically for UA, Max,
do you think you could take your meds and focus on that topic and debate the issues which I raise which is that the XLR is a much more expensive airplane to operate considering ownership costs, fuel (which doesn't come...
you have to wonder why someone wakes up EVERY. SINGLE. DAY worried about what other people have to say and incapable of discussing the topic.
the topic is the XLR and specifically for UA, Max,
do you think you could take your meds and focus on that topic and debate the issues which I raise which is that the XLR is a much more expensive airplane to operate considering ownership costs, fuel (which doesn't come close to being low enough to offset much higher ownership costs), and crew costs on an aircraft that UA intends to operate with 20 something fewer seats than on their 757s; a few premium economy and a few more business class passengers to not offset the costs.
and, while you are at it, you and the rest of your ilk can explain why DL manages to consistently generate profits substantially higher than AA or UA on the respective international route systems - and it isn't because airlines calculate costs and revenue differently, Max.
DL made $1.1 billion flying the Atlantic last year, UA made just over $800 million and AA lost a half billion.
There are real reasons for those differences and you and others can't accept that chasing every fad is precisely why AA and UA trail DL in profitability across most of their international networks.
it really is amazing how much free space I occupy in your brain every day, Tim. It's far too easy to rile you up to write paragraphs to me. Get a life.
But, as usual, thank you for reverting to your usual off-topic talking points to make yourself feel better when you're very aware that I'm quite right about your obsession with Scott Kirby and United. You're VERY predictable.
Positive United Article? Cue Tim...
it really is amazing how much free space I occupy in your brain every day, Tim. It's far too easy to rile you up to write paragraphs to me. Get a life.
But, as usual, thank you for reverting to your usual off-topic talking points to make yourself feel better when you're very aware that I'm quite right about your obsession with Scott Kirby and United. You're VERY predictable.
Positive United Article? Cue Tim Dunn childish rant. ;) Don't be so predictable and it won't be so easy to make fun of you.
Still waiting on your math for the XLR that is so superior to AA/UA fleet planners and other blue-chip carriers around the globe.
and yet you are the one that jumps into article after article to discuss me rather than the topic.
You and anyone else to post any fact-based article or comment you want about any airline including DL
The usual comments we get are about the DL 767-300ER business class cabin while ignoring the fact that most of DL's 767-300ERs compete in the transcon market against AA's current 321Ts which multiple people admit are in bad...
and yet you are the one that jumps into article after article to discuss me rather than the topic.
You and anyone else to post any fact-based article or comment you want about any airline including DL
The usual comments we get are about the DL 767-300ER business class cabin while ignoring the fact that most of DL's 767-300ERs compete in the transcon market against AA's current 321Ts which multiple people admit are in bad shape and against UA's domestic configured 777s and UA's 757s which have substantially inferior product to DL's 767s.
I don't have article rights to write an article about the math involved with the XLR. Those that know how to read DOT data can figure it out.
for now, all you have to do is accept that there are valid reasons why DL generates much higher margins across its international network than AA and UA do and it has nothing to do with accounting between different regions and everything to do with flying routes that make money and putting the right airplane on the route rather than thinking that new airplanes will do things that no airplane can do at US airline labor rates which are the highest in the world.
Tim, you keep bringing up that DL is more profitable than UA in the international markets, even though UA is more profitable than DL in terms of airline operations.
So, following your logic, if UA is more profitable overall, in terms of airline operations, but underperforms internationally (something that is seriously in doubt). So you're saying DL underperforms UA domestically, since UA has to make up that lost international ground somewhere?
That's the first time...
Tim, you keep bringing up that DL is more profitable than UA in the international markets, even though UA is more profitable than DL in terms of airline operations.
So, following your logic, if UA is more profitable overall, in terms of airline operations, but underperforms internationally (something that is seriously in doubt). So you're saying DL underperforms UA domestically, since UA has to make up that lost international ground somewhere?
That's the first time you've implied DL underperforms UA domestically. It must be everything they're allocating to underperforming hubs and focus cities in SEA, LAX, AUS.
Of course, UA will figure out how to cram more seats into the same space - just like they did with Polaris which makes Polaris a lower quality product than other airline traditional business classes.
And it is beyond foolish to think that AA or UA will have greater profitability on the XLRs with 20 less seats than they have (had) on the 757; a handful of premium economy seats does not offset the lower...
Of course, UA will figure out how to cram more seats into the same space - just like they did with Polaris which makes Polaris a lower quality product than other airline traditional business classes.
And it is beyond foolish to think that AA or UA will have greater profitability on the XLRs with 20 less seats than they have (had) on the 757; a handful of premium economy seats does not offset the lower seat count. Fuel is at record low levels adjusted for inflation and no President who wants to stay in power is going to slow down low fuel prices.
The XLR simply does not economically work at the configurations AA and UA are proposing for 8+ hour flights which require 3 pilots; and it should also be noted that all crew rest on the XLR will be in blocked off passenger seats since narrowbodies cannot have crew rest facilities off of the main passenger deck as widebodies can and do have.
you really need new talking points. you hated the 787 too until Delta purchased it. You currently hate the XLR but will love it if Delta can ever get the purchase terms for them that AA and UA did.
And given Delta's only response to the XLR is the 763 to serve smaller European markets, I don't think anyone at AA or UA is worried about your feelings of cramped space in the new...
you really need new talking points. you hated the 787 too until Delta purchased it. You currently hate the XLR but will love it if Delta can ever get the purchase terms for them that AA and UA did.
And given Delta's only response to the XLR is the 763 to serve smaller European markets, I don't think anyone at AA or UA is worried about your feelings of cramped space in the new XLR configurations. Delta's only response to these small markets will be an outdated antique of a 763 product.
"The XLR simply does not economically work at the configurations AA and UA are proposing for 8+ hour flights which require 3 pilots;"
Funny how two different airlines disagree with you yet you always know better, Tim. And it's pretty well-known the only reason Delta didn't get the XLR is because they couldn't get as good of terms as AA and UA got by deferring or canceling their A350 orders.
And the current premium-heavy configurations of the XLR on both US airlines is the entire reason it will work since that's where the money is. If you need something your small little mind comprehends, it's the same reason why Delta is going all-in for premium heavy widebodies in their new A350 orders despite years of going VERY dense economy with a relatively lower J count ratio vs competitors.
Get some new talking points. Your current ones are aged, at best, but ignorant as usual.
@MaxPower
You thinking that you're any better than Tim Dunn, after writing that whole yappuccino just like Tim Does, is just amusing.
Just like some woman with multiple profiles who comes back at every single comment Tim posts.
As well as Tim's BA alter ego thinking that this is 1985.
There's also the hodge podge of Delta One cabins, which run from terrible and narrow (767-300/400), to dated and disheveled (A330-200/300), to the standard, (359/339). Delta does a lot on the ground because in the air, the product is anything but uniform nor is it particularly premium.
@ Tim Dunn -- "And it is beyond foolish to think that AA or UA will have greater profitability on the XLRs with 20 less seats than they have (had) on the 757." Right, but eventually the 757s have to be retired. They won't be flying in 20 years. So it's not a function of deciding between the 757 and A321XLR, it's a function of deciding whether there's a need for a lower capacity long...
@ Tim Dunn -- "And it is beyond foolish to think that AA or UA will have greater profitability on the XLRs with 20 less seats than they have (had) on the 757." Right, but eventually the 757s have to be retired. They won't be flying in 20 years. So it's not a function of deciding between the 757 and A321XLR, it's a function of deciding whether there's a need for a lower capacity long haul jet.
Also, I disagree with your math. United's 757s have 176 seats, including 16 business class seats and 160 economy seats. United's A321XLRs will have 26 fewer total seats, but will have four extra business class seats and 12 premium economy seats. There's no reason the airline couldn't make up for the fewer seats with higher fares. Never mind that most flights aren't 100% full.
"No President who wants to stay in power..." Last I heard, there were term limits, and Trump is on his second term.
Tim, since you have such an issue with the A321XLR, I'd like you to come out and say it -- it would be a bad move if Delta ever ordered this plane (now or in the future), correct? And it would make sense if a decade down the road, Delta's smallest long haul aircraft is the A330-900neo?
No, Ben, I have the math which says that 8 hour plus flights on narrowbodies don't work at US labor rates.
the XLR costs much more than the 757 does to own; the 757 does not have high maintenance costs. The difference in fuel burn is not enough to offset the much higher ownership costs.
The increased revenue from more premium seats does not and will not offset fewer seats.
You and others swoon...
No, Ben, I have the math which says that 8 hour plus flights on narrowbodies don't work at US labor rates.
the XLR costs much more than the 757 does to own; the 757 does not have high maintenance costs. The difference in fuel burn is not enough to offset the much higher ownership costs.
The increased revenue from more premium seats does not and will not offset fewer seats.
You and others swoon over the XLR but can't seem to explain why it makes sense for AA and UA to have spent years upgauging their domestic fleet to larger aircraft but then spend billions to buy smaller narrowbody international aircraft.
and, Max, DL has not ordered the 787 but you, as usual, can't even get the facts straight. Never have I "hated" the 787. I have, accurately said that the A350 is more capable and cost efficient - because it is.
Touche on the direct order, Tim. but no one can forget your swooning over the rumored 787-10 order by Delta. It's documented forever in the comment section of every blog as is your hypocrisy. You spent most of your day commenting on this article.
https://onemileatatime.com/news/delta-boeing-787-order/
And do show us the math you have, Tim. Then follow it up about why your math is correct but people that do this for a living don't agree...
Touche on the direct order, Tim. but no one can forget your swooning over the rumored 787-10 order by Delta. It's documented forever in the comment section of every blog as is your hypocrisy. You spent most of your day commenting on this article.
https://onemileatatime.com/news/delta-boeing-787-order/
And do show us the math you have, Tim. Then follow it up about why your math is correct but people that do this for a living don't agree with you on the XLR economics whether at AA/UA or many blue-chip airlines across the globe? You have the math?
It just boggles the mind why no airline employs you with this unique set of math skills ;)
Tim, as others have requested, show you math.
And please, as others have requested, go on the record saying it would be a huge mistake for DL to ever order the A321XLR in the future.
Also, the A321XLR will have less seats overall than the 757, but more premium seats. This follows exactly with what other airlines did when premium economy rolled out. They removed coach seats in order to add premium economy.
Are you...
Tim, as others have requested, show you math.
And please, as others have requested, go on the record saying it would be a huge mistake for DL to ever order the A321XLR in the future.
Also, the A321XLR will have less seats overall than the 757, but more premium seats. This follows exactly with what other airlines did when premium economy rolled out. They removed coach seats in order to add premium economy.
Are you saying it would be better if UA didn't install PE on these planes, in order to have more coach seats? Are you saying the extra revenue gained from 20 Polaris and 12 PE seats won't cover the costs of few coach seats, even though all airlines have said international premium has continued to be strong?
Are you saying DL's strategy of having the A330 as their smallest international plane, leaving them unable to profitably serve smaller cities, is the right strategy?
I think we've learned why you don't run an airline. We've also learned why Scott Kirby speaks to media and global audiences, while you, as you have said multiple times, comment on blogs that belong to others in order to go up against Kirby, someone who has no idea you exist.
Ben says, "...eventually the 757s have to be retired...So it's not a function of deciding between the 757 and A321XLR..."
Exactly.
Ben says, "Also, I disagree with your math."
What math? Suppositions aren't math. I would love to see his math, but is anyone holding their breath?
Once again Tim - without access to route plans, passenger yields, cost structures, planned fares, frequencies, and corporate contracts - knows more than the executives at UAL who DO have access to all this information.
Thanks, Tim!
Why must a great United Post get littered by comments about Delta? The XLR will be great and serve its purpose. Ben explained it really well.
I’m old and have not or will not ever fly Delta. Lifetime GS on UA. Consider me a bitter Eastern and Pan Am fan. I wish Ben would put a character limit on comments.
nowhere in my original post above did I mention DL
you and others cannot accept that there are valid reasons why AA and UA's profitability trails DL's and hear the criticism of UA's plans.
Airlines do report costs to the DOT; for all UA loves to talk about how it can model the profits of other airline hubs, other airlines and analysts - like me - can model the profits of certain fleet types.
...nowhere in my original post above did I mention DL
you and others cannot accept that there are valid reasons why AA and UA's profitability trails DL's and hear the criticism of UA's plans.
Airlines do report costs to the DOT; for all UA loves to talk about how it can model the profits of other airline hubs, other airlines and analysts - like me - can model the profits of certain fleet types.
The XLR simply will not generate sufficient profits esp. in augmented pilot operations at US labor rates.
God you are so confidently uninformed it really is stunning.
Daniel says, "God you are so confidently uninformed it really is stunning."
Well said.
As the article says UA is ordering 50 XLRs for the niche secondary markets from EWR and elsewhere that have been so successful and will continue to be. UA also has another 156 NEOs on order in addition to the 44 already flying and another 142 787s with new suites/studios for a total of 221. NPS through the roof.
UA:...
Daniel says, "God you are so confidently uninformed it really is stunning."
Well said.
As the article says UA is ordering 50 XLRs for the niche secondary markets from EWR and elsewhere that have been so successful and will continue to be. UA also has another 156 NEOs on order in addition to the 44 already flying and another 142 787s with new suites/studios for a total of 221. NPS through the roof.
UA: 1,049 aircraft, (227 WB), 187 WB/484 NB on order, 15.6 average fleet age
DA: 990 aircraft, (177 WB), 28 WB/244 NB on order, 14.9 average fleet age
AA: 1,000 aircraft, (137 WB), 26 WB/292 NB on order, 14.1 average fleet age
Tim’s Logic:
-There’s no way 321XLR’s will be profitable
-DL made the choice to purchase A339’s that have a lower seat cost
-There is no way UA & AA can make money with only 150 & 155 seats on their config
-Delta doesn’t use narrow body planes on short TATL/Transcon flights
Also Tim,
-321XLR’s are stupid unless Delta orders them.
-DELTA PACKS FEWER SEATS ON THEIR NEW TRANSCON 321NEO CONFIG FOR SUPERIOR PASSENGER EXPERIENCES.
It’s insanity.
what is insane is that you think you are repackaging what I write and get it all so horribly wrong.
let me provide a brief summary.
the A321NEO will work fine on many flights - but at US airline labor rates and configurations - they will not be profitable for most of the year; anyone can make money flying to Europe in the summer w/ any aircraft.
and the difference between DL and...
what is insane is that you think you are repackaging what I write and get it all so horribly wrong.
let me provide a brief summary.
the A321NEO will work fine on many flights - but at US airline labor rates and configurations - they will not be profitable for most of the year; anyone can make money flying to Europe in the summer w/ any aircraft.
and the difference between DL and AA and UA's premium configured A321NEOs will be only a few seats; DL will be below 150 seats which has implications for FA staffing w/ aircraft w/ suites w/ doors but the total number of seats is not that big of a difference.
The difference is between how AA and UA say they will use the aircraft compared to DL.
EU airlines - as well as QF - have very different labor economics but they also are generally putting more seats on their 321NEOs than US airlines will do.
What do Delta’s look like? You need to talk about DELTA!!!!
Looks mid. I'm flying DELTA!
With 150 seats, I wonder if United wants to push for staffing this aircraft with only three F/As, but I can't imagine how this will work out. They need to staff at least four F/As - two up front and two in the back. I presume one of the J or Y F/As need to do the PE service too.
@ Adrian -- There's a bit more nuance to this. Usually you need one FA per 50 seats (as you point out), but then you need an extra FA if there are doors at seats, due to the extra workload before takeoff and landing. So by having exactly 150 seats, UA can operate this plane with four FAs, rather than five FAs.