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.
There’s now an exciting development for United, as the carrier has today taken delivery of its very first A321XLR, which has the registration code N64321. As of the time I’m publishing this post, the plane is enroute from Hamburg (XFW) to Tampa (TPA). Why Tampa? Because it’s going to get Starlink installed there, before entering commercial service.
Anyway, with the plane entering service in the coming weeks, let’s recap what we can expect from this long range, narrow body plane…
In this post:
How United will use its Airbus A321XLR aircraft
Before we talk about cabins, let’s talk about United’s route plans for Airbus 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 (EWR) to Bogota (BOG) and Edinburgh (EDI)
- 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
What’s interesting is that separately, United will also be introducing some premium Airbus A321neos, with similar interiors to A321XLRs. The idea is that the A321XLRs will be used on international flights, while the A321neos will be used on premium transcontinental routes, and will therefore be a bit higher density.
American was the first US carrier to take delivery of the A321XLR, so it’s interesting to see the different approaches the airlines are taking, as American is using A321XLRs for both international and premium transcontinental flights.
I imagine that in the coming days, United will formally announce its first A321XLR routes. Don’t be surprised to see the planes first operating some domestic flights for crew familiarization, etc., before launching long haul service.
United’s Airbus A321XLRs will be in a three-cabin layout
All of United’s Airbus A321XLRs will boast a total of 150 seats, including 20 Polaris (business class) seats, 12 Premium Plus (premium economy) seats, 36 Economy Plus (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 (shared between premium economy and economy), along with a small snack bar.
In Polaris (business class), United will be introducing an all-new product, given that wide body business class seats often can’t be efficiently installed on narrow body aircraft. So the airline will (unfortunately) be going with herringbone seats, meaning that seats will face the aisle, rather than facing the windows (this is more space efficient, but generally considered to be less comfortable). Seats will have privacy doors.
Seats will face the aisle at a 49 degree angle, and will boast just 28″ of pitch, so this is a rather dense layout. On the plus side, seats will convert into 75-78″ beds. I believe this seat is based on the Elevate Altitude product, and that United has a patent for this exact product.
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.
On the plus side, I tend to think that Premium Plus (premium economy) on the A321XLR is a nice experience, given the 2-2 layout, and the new premium economy seat being introduced. The lavatory situation won’t be ideal, but other than that, I think this is about as good as premium economy gets on a US carrier, as this will be comparable to domestic first class (the same is true on American’s A321XLRs).
As expected, economy will be in a 3-3 configuration, and the most noteworthy feature there is that there will be a little snack bar in the back of economy.
The planes will also feature Starlink Wi-Fi as soon as they enter service, so MileagePlus members can look forward to fast and free connectivity.
Bottom line
United Airlines has just started taking delivery of Airbus A321XLR aircraft, which will be in a three-cabin configuration, and will primarily be used for flights to Europe and South America. The plane will boast 150 seats, including 20 business class seats, 12 premium economy seats, and 118 economy seats. There will also be a snack bar in the back of the plane, plus free Starlink Wi-Fi.
While the A321XLR is a great plane in terms of opening up long and thin routes, from a passenger experience standpoint, it definitely doesn’t have a wide body feel. It’s certainly a better product than what’s found on the 757s that are being replaced, but the reality is that United will also significantly expand narrow body long haul flying.
What do you make of United’s Airbus A321XLRs?
Looks beautiful and herringbone seems superior to reverse with window access and head being positioned away from the aisle and noise. Certainly better than recliners. Also, this is a choice between these and a connection, not this and a wide body. Simple economics of long thin routes. United is hitting on all cylinders.
Herringbone is the worst. CX introduced it 20+ years ago and it was a disaster. It’s like a flying coffin (that’s what feedback from CX premium members said) and I concur. UA will lose customers for this seat.
Walter Mitty Dunn …. Delta’s droning donkey …. hee-haw, hee-haw!
A commonplace, unadventurous person who seeks to escape reality through his daydreams. Yep! Dream-on Walter, dream-on.
poor you!
An American insults a fake Brit over grammar and we get the pi789ing match of the internet.
It's a beautiful thing. :-)
@ Tim Dunn -- We're waiting to learn which EWR-LAX frequencies UA operates with 737-900ERs, please!! These are the important details!
Walter Mitty Dunn, your assumption that I am something other than a born and bread English Gentleman, is proof, if proof was ever needed, that you are incapable of rational thought.
Spend some time replying to Eskimo, who has been repeatedly asking you for clarification of one of your posts. Clearly you will attempt any diversional tactics to avoid giving a truthful answer. Rest assured that nobody will ever accuse you of being a gentleman Walter.
Oh, I have replied to him. He just doesn’t know how to use the tools available to him.
As for you, the evidence is available for all to see. A Brit that can’t use English is an embarrassment to the empire
@ Tim:
Is the evidence in the room with us right now?
Unlike Delta, UA has terrible baggage loss/delay metrics according to the DOT, which is all that counts.
The difference in mishandled baggage rate, YTD 2026, between Delta and United is 0.35% (Jan thru Mar numbers, which are the latest reported DOT numbers).
And Delta ranks #4, behind Allegiant, Southwest, and JetBlue. Don't believe someone's hype about Delta leading the industry. They do in his mind, but not in the stats.
now tell us the difference in baggage handling rates between DL and UA - it is about 70%.
clearly, I have struck a raw nerve and that is a VERY GOOD THING
Sure, Tim! Happy to tell you.
The difference in mishandled baggage rates is 0.35% between Delta and United.
But we already went over that once before in a thread a few days ago. Besides poor math skills, bad statistical analysis, and weak reading ability, I can now add low memory retention to your characteristics. Again, here are the actual numbers, Jan-Mar, 2026, from the DOT (the latest that are available)
Delta: Enplaned 24,084,179 bags. Mishandled...
Sure, Tim! Happy to tell you.
The difference in mishandled baggage rates is 0.35% between Delta and United.
But we already went over that once before in a thread a few days ago. Besides poor math skills, bad statistical analysis, and weak reading ability, I can now add low memory retention to your characteristics. Again, here are the actual numbers, Jan-Mar, 2026, from the DOT (the latest that are available)
Delta: Enplaned 24,084,179 bags. Mishandled 108,929 bags. % mishandled: 0.45%
United: Enplaned 19,003,174 bags. Mishandled 152,527 bags. % mishandled: 0.80%
The DIFFERENCE in baggage handling rates between DL and UA is 0.35%, not 70%.
You can try to claim that "United mishandled 70% MORE bags than Delta" with a COMPARATIVE argument - but that's not what you said, and the math doesn't work for you in that case anyhow. It would be 78% more, not 70%. So your math is still wrong.
But that's why comparative statistics are not used (unless you are trying to hide the underlying numbers) - you lose perspective when what's being compared are both good or both bad - the resulting "comparison" can be the same for either case.
For example, if 1Q 2026 Delta mishandled 100 bags, and United mishandled 200 bags (both extremely low and exceptional numbers!) comparative statistics say, "United mishandled 2x what Delta did!" despite both airlines having statistically negligible mishandled bags. And if Delta mishandled 1,000,000 bags, and United mishandled 2,000,000 bags (both HORRIBLY high amounts), comparative statistics would also say "United mishandled 2x what Delta did!". But that's a WAY different reality, yet it sounds the same.
That's why we don't use the comparative statistics - unless we are trying to spin a small change and make it sound big, or to spin a big change and make it sound small. Comparative statistics makes something look greater or smaller than it really is.
Watch. I'll show you how.
In 1Q 2026, the DIFFERENCE between Delta's (3.70%) and United's (2.57%) cancellation rate is 1.13% (3.70% - 2.57%). But using COMPARATIVE numbers, Delta cancelled 44% more flights than United! (2.57 x 1.44 = 3.70)
Also, in 1Q 2026, the DIFFERENCE between United's and Delta's on-time rate is 1.17% (UA 77.91% - DL 76.74%). But COMPARATIVELY, United had 1.53% more on-time flights! (76.75 x 1.0153 = 77.91). If "1.17%" doesn't sound big enough (differential) I can switch to comparative to get "1.53%" and a bigger number!
But wait! There's more! I can use the SAME on-time data to get an even BIGGER number than "1.53% more" about United doing better than Delta with on-time flights. 77.91% "on time" means 22.09% late (United). 76.74% "on time" means 23.26% late (Delta) - still 1.17% difference. BUT - I can say that Delta had 5.3% more late flights!
(22.09 x 1.053 = 23.26). Same data - bigger number to crow about!
In the 1st Q of this year, saying "Delta is 5.3% more late" is a bigger, more impressive number than "United is 1.53% more on-time" but both are a spin on the (more statistically honest) "United had a 1.17% better on-time rate than Delta".
The statistically accurate answer to your question is still a difference of 0.35%.
See how that works?
But even if you DO see and understand it, and can be honest about it, "70% anything" regarding Delta's and United's mishandled baggage is a wrong number. Especially by the terms YOU are using - " the difference in baggage handling rates between DL and UA".
TL/DR: The DIFFERENCE in baggage handling rates (which, by definition, is a comparison of the gap between percentages) is 0.80% - 0.45% = 0.35%. But feel free to ignore the real data - you always do.
"...clearly, I have struck a raw nerve and that is a VERY GOOD THING..."
Nope. The only "nerve" you have struck is my intolerance for anyone spouting falsehoods that simple data easily refutes, especially when the person making the original falsehood is presented with the data, but is still incapable of saying, "Hey - you know what? I was wrong."
UA has the worst baggage handling of the US airline industry while DL has the best of the big 3 and better than some LCCs.
It is tough for you to admit, I know, but the difference between DL and UA's baggage handling is not fractions of a percent given that the difference in baggage mishandling is more than UA.
accept the reality and truth. then move on to something about which you can...
UA has the worst baggage handling of the US airline industry while DL has the best of the big 3 and better than some LCCs.
It is tough for you to admit, I know, but the difference between DL and UA's baggage handling is not fractions of a percent given that the difference in baggage mishandling is more than UA.
accept the reality and truth. then move on to something about which you can really matter.
UA is a second tier airline that well never get to top tier as long as it cannot fix its baggage handling - which has been in the bottom tier for years. It is getting worse, not better, relative to the industry
Just as I thought. Repeat assertion, ignore the data, double down on inaccuracy.
The DIFFERENCE between Delta's and United's baggage handling IS a fraction of a percent. 0.35% to be exact, YTD 2026, on the latest statistics available. DOT data. Read the above post again. I laid it all out for you.
And I never denied that United is currently last. They are, as a whole. But you are making a new, wrong assertion again,...
Just as I thought. Repeat assertion, ignore the data, double down on inaccuracy.
The DIFFERENCE between Delta's and United's baggage handling IS a fraction of a percent. 0.35% to be exact, YTD 2026, on the latest statistics available. DOT data. Read the above post again. I laid it all out for you.
And I never denied that United is currently last. They are, as a whole. But you are making a new, wrong assertion again, which the data easily refutes, again.
"...It is getting worse, not better, relative to the industry"
Nope. Not true. United is getting better relative to the industry (bigger improvement than Delta and American, YTD YOY). Here's the "big 3" data:
United, YTD 2025 vs 2026: 0.85% vs 0.80% / 0.05% improvement
Delta, YTD 2025 vs 2026: 0.47% vs. 0.45%. / 0.02% improvement
American, YTD, 2025 vs 2026: 0.67% vs 0.77% / 0.10% decline
United had the highest improvement, and there's zero way you can claim they are "getting worse". American did that, not United. So you are wrong, yet again.
Better have another cup of coffee. Going to be a long day for you.
anyone that thinks this will be superior to a widebody is smoking some serious stuff.
thankfully AS and DL are committed to all widebody transoceanic premium configured aircraft.
If "transoceanic" includes KEF, AS should be excluded.. They fly 737-8 on SEA-KEF
Tim were you going to reply to Eskimo?
Cat got your tongue?
No you stupid cuck Tim D - it allows long thin routes that can’t support a wide body. UA will do routes DL can’t and won’t as a result.
God what a twat you are.
And the A321XLR with herringbone seats.
New 321XLR NB that actually operates, and is more likely on-time vs. an old 767-300 that's late or cancels?
Yes, please.
Still prefer wide body to Europe
@ Tim Dunn -- We're waiting to learn which EWR-LAX frequencies UA operates with 737-900ERs, please!! These are the important details!
Kind of amazing he won't simply go with the an option like, "Hey - I was wrong. I can't find any recently." or "Hey - my mistake. I think that happened, but it might be a dozen years ago or more."
He'd actually get MORE credibility that with one of those, but he's going with the "ignore you and hope you go away" option instead and burning down any remaining credibility he may have left.
Hilarious!
Wait you said Tim had some credibility?
Esp since DL may now be flying the A220 on the thinner TCON routes. Very sad!
you truly are fixated.
just check flight aware history.
YOU claimed it happened.
Meaning YOU saw the alleged flights.
YOU do the work - just post the flights you said you saw.
Pic or it didn't happen. But we all know that it didn't happen. You just cannot admit you were wrong.
Tim is (again) ignoring any calls to prove his assertions, and I'm no going to do his work for him either.
But I'll let AI do it. The answer: The last time United had 737s (any type) scheduled between LAX and EWR was in 2015.
But hey! Most of Tim's points are based on out-of-date data. Why should this time be any different?
I have repeatedly said to follow flight aware.
no one except their sales person could have stated it more often.
Like everything else, pretending it didn't happen because you don't like the data changes nothing
Hey! How about this? Same logic!
Tim - I DID just go through flightaware, day by day, looking at EWR-LAX and EWR-SFO, both directions, for the last 5 years, over each and every day, one-by-one, flight by flight.
There was not a SINGLE flight operated by United in a 737-900ER in there.
If you don't believe me, go ahead and look in flightaware yourself...
@Tim
Cut the BS.
Either admit your mistake (I'm giving you an easy exit short of calling you a liar)
Or point.me and the rest of us to the exact date and flight this happen.
And I quote some idiot...with some edits of my own...
"Like everything else, pretending it DID happen because you CAN'T FIND the data changes nothing"
Seat pitch for business class seating of only 28" sounds tight as you said ("...and will boast just 28″ of pitch, so this is a rather dense layout..."). Spirit had a 28" pitch in standard economy, for comparison.
But (like you noted) the seats will be at a 49 degree angle. This changes the geometry. For those who cannot see it - imagine the seats were at a 90 degree angle (perpendicular to the aisle)....
Seat pitch for business class seating of only 28" sounds tight as you said ("...and will boast just 28″ of pitch, so this is a rather dense layout..."). Spirit had a 28" pitch in standard economy, for comparison.
But (like you noted) the seats will be at a 49 degree angle. This changes the geometry. For those who cannot see it - imagine the seats were at a 90 degree angle (perpendicular to the aisle). A low-sounding "28-inch seat pitch" would mean 28 inches of seating width (less the actual couple of inches of the seat sides themselves). IOW - about 24" wide seats instead of standard 17-18 inch wide seats despite a bad-sounding "28 inch seat pitch". A smaller seat pitch takes on less significance as the seats are angled.
At 45 degrees (easier to calculate) the equal, smaller sides of the triangle are +/- 70 percent of the long side. So 28 / .70 = 40. Taking out the width of the seat itself, this seating arrangement should give about 36" from your seat cushion to stretch out your legs, and remain within your "space". That's plenty.
This setup will do fine. And even though I like looking out the windows, fewer passengers do the same these days. Most won't care they have their backs to the wall. The bigger complaint we're seeing on the AirBus 321s (NEO, XLR...) comes from two things: One is from passengers and the lav arrangement, without any mid-cabin lav like the -900ER or -Max9 has. The other is from flight attendants, and the way the aft galley is setup (lav access interferes with their jumpseats, for example).
Seat "pitch" is a pretty sloppy description (and pretty useless for comparison purposes) when the seats are highly angled (as they are here). Need to find a better descriptor.
Agreed. For herringbone, the biggest issue seems to be shoulder space - aside from not looking out the window. So a measure of linear shoulder width, account for the angle, is likely a better measure.
it will be a very tight seat.
DL's 763ERs will seem absolutely voluminous in comparison
So will the seats in the terminal when Delta cancels another flight.
And the seats on Delta's 767s WILL have to be comfortable - because you will spend more time in them, since Delta has a worse on-time rate too.
The Starlink WiFi will be a big bonus. Glad it will be already available.
Already-delivered 321s are finally getting Starlink now, too, joining the 737s that have been getting them since March. Unitedfleetsite says two 321NEOs are done, and one more is getting a Starlink install right now (so just three of the total 66 321NEOs delivered).
It's good news, but there's still a long way to go on the mainline fleet. United claimed they'd get the 737 fleet done by the end of the year. I show 211...
Already-delivered 321s are finally getting Starlink now, too, joining the 737s that have been getting them since March. Unitedfleetsite says two 321NEOs are done, and one more is getting a Starlink install right now (so just three of the total 66 321NEOs delivered).
It's good news, but there's still a long way to go on the mainline fleet. United claimed they'd get the 737 fleet done by the end of the year. I show 211 days left - and 544 737s without it. Even if you remove the -700s (40) and the -900s (12), planes most likely to be on the short list for retirement (and notably planes that haven't had any updated bigger bins or seatback screen upgrades), they still have 492 planes to go.
We're talking about 2.5 planes a day to make the goal. Tick tock tick tock! The clock is running! I'm betting they don't get the 737s done this year.
Honestly I would expect the 2027 timeline for Starlink to slip. Not by much, but probably by a little. United NEXT was supposed to be 100% complete by the end of 2025, and well.... mid 2026 and no -700s have it, no 753s have it, and a chunk of -900ERs and A320s/A319s don't have it. So... United has a history of timeline's slipping. Hopefully Starlink installations pick up even more, but usually I see about...
Honestly I would expect the 2027 timeline for Starlink to slip. Not by much, but probably by a little. United NEXT was supposed to be 100% complete by the end of 2025, and well.... mid 2026 and no -700s have it, no 753s have it, and a chunk of -900ERs and A320s/A319s don't have it. So... United has a history of timeline's slipping. Hopefully Starlink installations pick up even more, but usually I see about 2 or so every couple days go into IAB/MLB for Starlink retrofit and on average take 4 days to go in and come out with Starlink retrofit.
And the 78L's still don't have Starlink. So there's that too... unfortunately. But, UA Express Starlink installations did go by faster than I thought, so who knows!
Lucky, you should run a poll on herringbone vs. reverse.
Every article you write makes it seem obvious that reverse is much more popular, but I'm not sure that's the case, especially on these narrowbodies.
Head being further from the aisle and more able to look out the window matters more to me on these relatively short flights.
According to DOT statistics, Delta superior seat selection that will be certified in 2128 is already more efficient than this UA configuration.
whew 28 pitch is gonna be rough if you have broad shoulders
Is there a seat map anywhere? I know that United has fewer seats than AA but I can’t find a recent seat map
I am a bit surprised there isnt yet a seatplan on Aerolopa for this.
They added an indicative seatplan for hte upgraded 787-9 way before United took delivery or published their own.
This looks far from "fine". It is horrible.
Snack bars on planes, especially in Y, really just means less work for FAs and more time for them on their smartphones scrolling social media.
Win win then I guess
These planes are eventually going to be on international routes to Europe and South America and most airlines set up a snack area in the back end of the plane in-between services. Why not have a dedicated snack area instead of how some airlines have it now where they place snacks on galley carts braced up against the aft doors.