US and the A321NEO
 

I read that US is in discussions with Airbus to refine the range and performance of the A321NEO - sorta like an A321NEO-ER , if you will.

What kind of range and performance would this aircraft need to deliver to be of value to US? I'm viewing the plane to be the closest replacement to the 757 out there. It would need the legs to fly transcons without a fuel stop, PHX-OGG/HNL without performance problems in that desert heat, and a greater range than a 757 ETOPS. Something like CLT - Brazil or CLT - Europe.

I am not that familiar at all with the cuurent specs for the A321NEO or if what I just outlined above is even feasible for the aircraft. What are your thoughts?

Skycubbie

Your understanding is correct. In particular, US wants the A321-neo to be able to fly year-round from PHX-Hawaii and, perhaps, CLT/PHL-Europe. I'm not sure if there are hard specs at this point. I believe that US is simply lobbying for sufficient range to replace the 757.

Narrowbodies do not belong on transatlantic flights.

Well, the 757 is used extensively on TATL, and it is very profitable for CO.

I think that if the A321NEO can operate TATL, it would be incredibly profitable for US Airways. Whether you think it "belongs" there or not is irrelevant - be thankful for the lower fares and more nonstop/onestop options.

Narrowbodies just feel cramped when you've grown up flying on 777's (and before that DC-10's) across the pond. That said, on transcon flights, the A321's are slightly wider, definitely prefer to a 757-200.

I don't fault US at all - makes sense from a profit standpoint. Along with the 4000nmi range 737-900ER I think we're going to see a lot more narrowbodies on TATL flights and not just on USAir.

The problem I have, and evidently the airlines do too...is that if there are any issues, they can really cause havoc when using a narrow body plane across the Atlantic.

Amost 2 years ago I flew US to MAD. Because of the volcano mess (this was in Phase II), I ended up taking the train to LIS and flew CO to EWR. While I certainly appreciated getting on a flight back, the CO flight over was seriously delayed due to a fuel stop at MAN, and my return flight was even more delayed due to one at GLA.

I'd suspect most A330/B767 would be able to make even a roundabout LIS-EWR trip without a fuel stop. I know my PHL-MAD (I think it was an A330-300) was definitely longer, but we didn't have to stop.

It really is a catch-22. No current narrow body plane is truly designed for trans-Atlantic. On the other hand, there are trans-Atlantic markets that won't support a wide body since 767-200's with about the same capacity are or are being phased out at most airlines. US is currently something of an exception, having no real replacement for the 767's and a lot fewer wide bodies than the other legacies.

Unfortunately, I don't think the A321neo will be a replacement for the 757. Even Airbus, which hasn't put out official range numbers, is only talking about 5% less fuel burn - not enough to give it the range of the 757. The 737MAX may be, since the 737NG already has more range than the equivalent Airbus.

Jim

Perhaps this is where Airbus senses the opportunity. Boeing hasn't created a 757/767 replacement - except for the 787, which is still larger than the original 767 design.

On paper Airbus could envision a highly modified A321 with the capacity and range to outperform an ETOPS 757. I'm just the armchair consultant, however, and now the armchair aerospace engineer.

Skycubbie

Too bad Boeing isn't considering a 767 NG option for the 200 seat market.

With the 737-900ER and the future MAX version just under the 767 and the 787 just above the 767, it would probably be a low demand solution to a problem that won't exist in a few years. For longer range routes that the 900MAX won't do, the efficiency of the 787 will allow it to fly those routes as or more efficiently than the 767 even with the same number of passengers.

In the meantime, there'll be winglets for the 767 that make it more efficient and therefore a more attractive option for replacing the 757's. The problem US has is just lack of many wide bodies - currently 26 vs 100+ for AA, the smallest of the other legacies. And even AA only has a relative few 767-200's (~15 or so) so doesn't have the "no replacement" problem once it starts getting the 787's.

Jim

Actually, the entire 757 can fly over TATL & Hawaii flight, too. This is ETOPS overwater certification by FAA approval.

Sure, in current form, the A321neo won't be able to do TATL easily. But that's the whole point of US' discussions - they are trying to convince Airbus to change the design so that the A321neo will have more legs. Whether that means more fuel capacity, or lightening the airframe somehow, or something else, I don't know.

But I think that if Airbus manages to make the A321neo go TATL reliably, then I think they will have a massive market in the USA of airlines wanting the plane.

Unfortunately, the 321 has the shortest range of the 320 family to start with so would be the hardest to modify for true trans-Atlantic range. Unless it really becomes a different airplane design than the non-neo version, lightening/aerodynamic changes won't make up the difference between it and the 757. The one truism, at least of current aircraft designs, is that you can fill them with people or fuel but not both. Maximum range means little in airline ops - what matters is range with a full load of passengers - hence the reduced seating capacity of the 320/737's that operate trans-Atlantic. The 787 and 350 may change that but it would take a complete redesign of the 321 to accomplish it. And considering the number of 757's operating trans-Atlantic, there wouldn't be a big enough market for a plane that could do only northwestern Europe from the east coast to be economically feasible - Boeing is setting it's 787 prices to break even at 1000 planes.

I truly think that the 787/350 will ultimately be the replacements for the 757 where range is a factor.

Jim

JIm I truly beleive that Airbus could have made a killing if they retooled the A321 to be a true 757 replacement. The A321 works well in europe, however here in the states it has taken a while for the A321 to catch on, I just flew my first A321 FC (PHX-JFK) and was truly impressed with the plane...

With the cost of developing a new airplane, I'm not so sure. Airbus expects the development costs of the neo to be over $1 billion. At list prices of $6 million over the standard 320 family, But then I don't know off-hand how many 757's are being used for routes like trans-Atlantic either.