Are you certain about that? I've never boarded through L2 on ANY A321 on US or any other airline for that matter. You would know better that I would as a US CP, I've only flown about 6 US A321 segments this year. I'm pretty certain though the only planes in the US fleet that board though L2 are the 757 and the A330.

Not sure if you're joking or not, but a plane that Airbus is putting out feelers now to possibly begin thinking about maybe designing will, to say the least, not be flown LAX-LIH next year! So if AA's planning to fly Airbus planes to Hawaii next year, it's not related to this story.

The BA A318 configuration is 32J/0Y.

N830MH was referring to what (s)he thought the configuration of a possible AA TATL A321LR would be.

No matter the aircraft a 14J/F cabin doesn't really make sense unless there's some kind of galley or lav to navigate around. This would mean there would be a row of a pair on one side and not the other.

Now of course 7 rows of a 1-1 config like that found on the 321T would make sense.

I'd guess AA would use the 321T business seat (the current UA business seat) if they move forward with a 321NEO LR or something similar. The all-aisle access 'F' 321T seat takes up a lot of room on a narrowbody.

While it isn't all-aisle access, it still is lay flat. These LR planes would be flying non-premium routes like PHL-SNN. No competition, so any lay flat non-stop would still beat slogging through LHR. I would think they would want to make the 321NEO LR similar to the 757E on Delta, or the 757 on United that flies thin transatlantic routes. Let's face it, a 321LR would beat the current AA or US 757 fleet if they do not upgrade the cabins.

Reading this thread reminds me of how so many global maps in the U.S. have North America smack dab in the middle, with Asia split in two and placed at each end. Pick any of the hub cities for the Gulf carries. Then go out about 4000-4500 miles. How many cities does that cover? So, it's not all about the TATL market.

But if Airbus wants to do this right, it needs to add about 6-8 feet onto the current 321, just behind doors 2L/R. That will allow for better boarding. And make the passenger count closer to 180 seats in a J/Y configuration. You can already fit 16 J seats in the current 321 between doors 1L/R and 2L/R.

Ah, but we can speculate about whether they'll evaluate future TATL single-aisle aircraft just in being able to make the journey "most" of the time (like 757s) or all of the time (like the dual-aisle aircraft can).

What would really nice is to get rid of those sometimes-but-not-always unscheduled fuel stops on those TATL single-aisle flights. If you want to stop in Bangor, ME, provide schedule service to there!!! :eek:

There is a way to avoid that possible stopover, fly on a widebody via hub. If you want direct flights to smaller cities or more frequency you have to give somewhere. Yes some airlines on certain routes are definitely pushing it to the limit and causing problems (UA CDG-IAD on a 752 is one of them) for their patrons but if you want to be sure you won't have an unexpected stopover it's simple.Schedule your stopover as you want via a hub.

I agree, however I don't know that it's possible with the current A320 wing design. The A321 was already a stretch and from my understanding, it isn't exactly know for its stellar performance. I'm wondering if with 6-8 more feet the aircraft would even get off the ground with the current wing.

I thought one of the "new" aspects of this version is that it would have longer wings. In addition to the fuselage being 6 inches wider.

Ahh, that would definitely change things up. I was under the impression that this was the same thing as an A321 just with some new engines and extra fuel tanks.

Well to maintain balance, there has to be matching plugs fore and aft of the CG. What you would likely see is larger plugs in place of the plugs used to produce the A321. In that case I guess you'd call that an A322. The next question would be if the gear are tall enough to handle the takeoff rotation without a tail strike. This is one of the challenges with the Q400. Lastly, at least in this post, would be is the current wing big enough to lift the increased MTW? Maybe a new wing would also be in store.

All this sounds like a much bigger program than making the current A321neo into an LR. I'd say more along the line of a higher thrust version of the neo engine options and additional fuel tanks. I don't know if the neo wing has the lift to carry the increased weight.

To some extent I wonder if they can do a technology transfer from the A350 to make this all possible. Given all this and you're looking to be operational in 5-7 years minimum. Can the B757 fleet last that long?

Yep, I dont think there would be any change to fuselage. just new engines and a tank.

But the question is can the wing carry the increased gross weight?

I think that's just the 321 NEO (which AA has on order). Just as there will be a 320 NEO. This is suppose to be a bit more different in design than those.