As previous posters have pointed out, the A318 is perfectly capable of crossing the pond already (JFK-London City Airport). It has a stated range of 3,100nm. The existing A321 has a stated range of 3.200nm (not much different), and the A321neo has a stated range of 3,700nm.

Of course, the A318 that BA use is all-business class so presumably a lot less luggage, and fewer seats and people (but probably just as much booze!) than a mixed-cabin aircraft, but I would have thought the additional 600nm range of the A321neo would be sufficient to carry a full complement of passengers and luggage even without significant modifications. But then I'm neither a pilot nor an aeronautical engineer :p

AA currently has 20+ 757s that were built in 2001 and 2002 making them not even 15 years old yet. these aircraft could easily fly around for another 12-15 years. In addition there's quite a few from 1999 as well which are only 15 years old.

How many used 757s has EK been picking up, since this is such an obvious market for them?

(ME carriers that have a superhub are considerably different than USA carriers that don't.)

Exactly. It's the fragmentation of the USA-based airline industry that drives any need for smaller, single-aisle, TATL-capable aircraft. Most other countries have one or two (perhaps as many as three) international gateways. The USA has several on the East Coast alone (where the 757 can make it to Western Europe) and close to two dozen total gateways to Europe.

EK does not by QR and EY both use A320 series aircraft on medium length routes to Europe and South Asia.

Definitely not true. US has always boarded from the 1L door on the A321. It's been said that 2L is too close to the engine, creating a risk of the jetway operator(s) inadvertently bumping it. Not sure if that's true or not, but you'd think Airbus would have thought of that when designing it.

Airbus is not at all likely IMO to enlarge the fuselage diameter of the 321LR, given the A320 family uses the same fuselage plan (slightly larger than the Boeing narrow body diameter already). I can't imagine this pencilling out as any other color than red.

So, with that amazing range and even lower capacity / gross weight, why are they stopping at Shannon? I'm pretty sure it's not for the duty free shopping. ;)

The 321LR, if Airbus chooses to build it, might have the range. But would it have the "high and hot" capabilities of the 757? If they do choose to build, it'll be years away from acceptance and fleet service, so I'm not very excited by this speculation.

Yes, QR and EY use A320 shorthaul configured planes, but there's no need to go to a stretch A321neoLR for a lot of those routes the same way you need to for a US-EU TATL route. Most of what EY/QR do with those A320s is India or North Africa/near Middle East, well within range of an A320.

The market for long, thin routes (or the hot and high things a 757 does well because of all that excess engine) isn't great. If it was Boeing wouldn't have shut down the 757 line. That's why I think anything that shows up will be a stretch/re-engine/optimization of an existing plane, rather than a brand new line with commensurate very high engineering cost and break-even point for selling. Witness how the 748 has gone; lovely plane, LH is already talking about dumping them. The A380 would be a white elephant were it not for the European carriers and EK propping it up. Planes are not a "build it and they will come" proposition.

They also run a 319 all-business config between DOH and LHR.
http://www.qatarairways.com/us/en/ai...xperience.page

Also, US picked up a few 757s last decade that were built around the same time. And the other 757s on the US-east side were delivered new in '94 and '95.

And how many markets in Asia, Africa, and Europe are there that EK/QR/EY would like to fly to from their bases, where a 333 or 777 is too much capacity? Moreover, why would they want a second-hand aircraft whose production line was shut down a decade ago? In fact, most of their current widebody fleet is younger than that.

As mentioned, QR/EY fly A320s to a lot of places (near Middle East, Africa, India). So what markets need excess range in DXB/AUH/DOH? Not many. Much of the excess range the A321neoLR would give them would put the plane in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean (not a lot of markets there, hmm?), and with the way DXB works as a scissors hub, it makes perfect sense for EK to use A380s to HAM, MXP, MAN and so on.

The ME3 don't do long/thin. Again, superhub. They can connect people Australia/SEA Asia/India-XXX-Europe/South America/North America. USA carriers, not so much, so a long/thin plane that goes TATL makes some sense. Believe me, if there was interest outside some niche markets, Boeing would never have cancelled the 757, they'd be building it for the ME3.

The issue was that Docklands runway is not long enough to support a full fuel load in the A318. As well the A318 fit into the size limitations of the airport (which certainly the A320 did not)

Maybe we will see yet another A321 seating arrangement (better J/MCE/Y) for international operations.

Happy wandering

Fred

Flew on this one last month. Although service is always impeccable, the plane is not that great for long haul. It was loud and felt kind of cramped for some reason.