back to article Airbus takes its long, thin, plane on a ten-day test campaign

Airbus has commenced functional and reliability testing of its A321XLR, a passenger plane expected to open up new routes by allowing the aviation workhorse that is the A320 family to easily handle transatlantic trips and journeys of ten hours or more. The XLR in A321XLR stands for "extra long range" – a moniker earned by the …

  1. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Stop

    in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

    Ah, the configuration in which your shoulders and elbows share space with your neighbours to the side, your knees are rammed into the back of the seat in front (complete with hard knobbly bits just where it hurts), the seats can't be reclined, and the table is is no practical use whatever?

    No thanks.

    1. jmch Silver badge

      Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

      "your shoulders and elbows share space with your neighbours to the side, your knees are rammed into the back of the seat in front (complete with hard knobbly bits just where it hurts), the seats can't be reclined, and the table is is no practical use whatever?"

      Not much difference to a 2-4-2 or 3-3-3 long-haul economy, is it? The seats might have the physical ability to recline *if* the seat behind you is empty, but since there inevitably is someone, their knees are blocking your seat from moving back (and very often, also pushing your on seat whenever they move)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

        I was always more a fan of 4-2-4 with wingers who can fall back to cover the midfield...... are we talking about the same thing? :-)

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

          I prefer 4-6-2 configuration, those A3 classes are classics.

          1. seven of five Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

            Interesting. I am more the 666 kind of person. :)

          2. ChrisC Silver badge

            Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

            2-10-0 on the other hand...

          3. Red Ted
            Go

            Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

            The 2-8-2 "Mikado" configuration can be quite powerful too...

            1. Someone Else Silver badge

              Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

              Well, since this is upposed to be for "big boys", how about the 4-8-8-4?

      2. Joe W Silver badge

        Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

        Last job had a lot of international travel. I do not miss it.

        The table is useful if you don't have one of those huge "laptops" (luggables, I'd say, or your lap is bigger than mine). I bought an eleven inch Lenovo, low power, ten hours on battery, small enough to work on a plane (if I did not booze myself up in the lounge to numb the pain of air travel and slept most of the flight - a viable plan). Having a high-ish frequent flyer status made some things less aggravating, but since I traveled a lot (too much) the sum of annoyance was high enough to make me not want to go on holidays anywhere I need to fly. Admittedly, one gets used to all sorts of things and is pretty unfazed by most curveballs airtravel throws you. Winter storm, flight cancelled? Ah, I'll spend a night at some hotel, maybe can explore the snowy city. Flight delayed, missed connection? Lounge, have lunch / breakfast / dinner, drink a nice glass of wine (depends on the airline), they'll get me on the next plane. Luggage lost? I got most things with me, it'll turn up eventually, yeah, I'll take the "socks, undies, shirt" money and get changed. Just... relax. Especially when talking to ground staff, who are really not at fault for any of these things. Have a friendly word for them, the job is stressful enough. Show patience. And just... relax. Ask them for a voucher to enter the lounge, some actually can give these out (if you are not eligible) but only if there's not a massive mob of angry paxes that would then shout "UH ME WANT THAT TOO!"

        1. MyffyW Silver badge

          Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

          @Joe_W this is the Zen of air travel. Leave your cares and false dignity behind. I was once a regular commuter on the Dublin - Liverpool Ryanair route. No pre-assigned seating. The knack was not boarding until the vary last minute, when you are literally the last passenger. Don't keep them waiting, just walk up once there is no longer a queue to board. You walk serenely onto the plane, to possibly the only remaining seat, the staff find somewhere for your luggage to go, you buckle up and off we go. Even the screaming child you're probably beside can't pull you out of this moment of perfect mindfulness.

          1. Vincent Ballard
            Go

            Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

            Back in the day only regular travellers had noticed the rear stairs. I would drink a coffee in a bar with a view to the gate, and when the queue for passport control was almost empty I'd join, walk past the long queue for the front stairs to the non-queue for the rear stairs, and be seated within a minute of passport control. I think Ryanair brought back assigned seating because it makes it easier to split people 50/50 between the two sets of stairs.

            1. werdsmith Silver badge

              Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

              I think Ryanair brought back assigned seating because it makes it easier to split people 50/50 between the two sets of stairs.

              Ryanair brought back assigned seating so they could separate families and people who were travelling together, they could then charge them money to choose seats.

          2. Ken G Silver badge
            Windows

            Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

            I liked Ryanair in the late 90's, early 2000's when seating was about timing and the aircraft were second hand 737's bought cheap from failing state airlines. Leather seats and good leg spacing.

        2. Richard Gray 1
          Pint

          Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

          I had to travel Angola Air for a previous job.. an aging 747, and as you can imagine not very busy.

          The in flight magazine was very self impressed that it had finally managed to pass a financial audit from many years previous.

          I dread to think about the engineering records...

          Anyway as it wasn't busy as soon as the doors were closed I noticed the middle row near me was empty, and thought "MINE!"

          as soon as the seatbelt sign was off, I moved over, put all the armrests up, got all the cushions and blankets, lay down with the seatbelt around the outside.

          I asked the very nice lady cabin crew politely for a large whisky, which she graciously supplied (several times). I fell asleep fully stretched out across all the centre seats.

          Woke up just before landing.. one of the best flights I've ever had..

          1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

            Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

            I had a similar experience on a BA 747 to San Francisco not long after 9/11. There were only about 50 people in the whole economy cabin.

            1. werdsmith Silver badge

              Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

              I did this frequently on some NorthWest Airlines flights back from Boston to London years ago. DC-10 in those days. Loads of people do it.

          2. ssharwood

            Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

            I once set my alarm to get up at 0500 to get a flight from LHR-BKK. But I had forgotten to change my alarm clock from French time so it went off at 0400. Then I had a middle seat and didn't get a wink.

            Next, the 12 hour layover in BKK, which I spent being driven around in a TukTuk to see the sights.

            On the BKK-SYD leg I fell asleep the minute I sat down, and woke up when the wheels hit the ground.

            Best flight ever.

        3. Orv Silver badge

          Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

          I've become a tablet-with-kickstand plus Bluetooth keyboard person. Or, if I'm really traveling light, phone plus Bluetooth keyboard. I found a laptop made my shoulder bag heavier than I cared to carry around, especially by the time I added other necessities of travel.

          If I want more computing power than that I can remote into my desktop. No point in lugging it around with me.

      3. Neil Barnes Silver badge

        Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

        It's almost as if no-one's noticed the average size of a human these days is somewhat in excess of 1.50 metres and 50kg... the people that design economy class cabins should be required to live and work in them for a month. Or more.

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

          "the people that design economy class cabins should be required to live and work in them for a month"

          Designed by oompa-loompas?

        2. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

          It's almost as if no-one's noticed the average size of a human these days

          Oh the people configuring cabin layouts know exactly how to keep people just uncomfortable enough to persuade them that paying for business class becomes more acceptable.

      4. Tron Silver badge

        Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

        I would rather walk. Single aisle are tolerable for short flights, although it does feel rather like sitting inside a guided missile.

        1. Graham Dawson

          Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

          At least, with the missile, you'll know where you are at all times.

      5. Big Ed Mustopha

        Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

        A little sacrifice is necessary I am afraid. Without it airline executives would not be able to continue to make 30 times more than the employee with the next highest salary.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

      3-5-3 on many old 747's was equally terrible, and had the added bonus of being very loud. Non-reclining seats is an advantage; because you don't have the moron in front jamming their headrest into you, and you don't also get to annoy the person behind by doing the same.

      I don't really regard the difference in cabin configuration as a big deal; but an inch or so of elbow and leg room would go a long way if it could be found.

      Best airliner I've been on in decades was the ex-Bombardier C-series (now A220). Genuine difference in noise levels and acceptable economy config.

    3. Stu J

      Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

      Honestly I'd far rather fly long haul in a 3-3 A321 layout than either:

      * 3-3-3 that most airlines (excluding JAL on their international routes) have adopted on the 787 instead of the 2-4-2 it was originally envisaged as

      * 3-4-3 that several airlines have refit their 777s with, as opposed to the 3-3-3 they used to be.

      At least the A321 was designed to be 3-3 rather than having extra seats squeezed in to every single row later on.

      I've flown A32x Neo aircraft on flights over 5 hours, and they're absolutely fine - comparable (if not slightly better than) 757s being used on medium-long haul routes.

      1. Cynical Pie

        Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

        The trick with the 777 3-4-3 configuration is to book onto the back 2 rows where it is only 2-4-2 due to the narrowing of the fuselage.

        The aisles are wider so you get more elbow room in an aisle seat and the window seats aren't as tight to the aircraft body.

        You also get the bonus of the standing space by the rear doors to stretch your legs, look out of the window (at The Grand Canyon and Vegas for me as I was flying to LA) and the galley area where you can chat to the aircrew and get free reign over the drinks and snacks. BA have a very passable Brewdog IPA called Speedbird on their long haul flights along with all the shortbread you could consume in 10.5hrs.

        1. NeilPost

          Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

          Best space experience I can relay was A350XWB Malaysian Airlines to Bangkok. Plenty space, io to date seat tech, and plenty of baggage stowage.

          3-3-3 in cattle class.

    4. Someone Else Silver badge

      Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

      Sounds like manna from heaven for Ryanair...

    5. spold Silver badge

      Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

      Maybe British Airways can bring back the flight from London (City) to New York that was using an A319 which was entirely Business Class - that one had to make a stop in Shannon to top up the fuel tanks (but people cleared US immigration there) but this could do it in one hop.

      1. NeilPost

        Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

        Aer Lingus still do that - through Dublin - though not in an A319. It works a treat.

      2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

        This does look like a good option for some routes.

    6. NeilPost

      Re: in a 3-3 economy class configuration.

      Aer Lingus currently fly the A321 ‘neo’ LR Dublin to USA. It’s not too bad space wise and I had no complaints. I can’t see 321XLR being (subjectively) worse even with a few extra hours to say LA.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    10 hours you say

    In Oz, we call those commuter hops.

    1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

      Re: 10 hours you say

      Yeh this Aussie calls those Aussies and other nationalities morons.

      Beats me why they travel 10 hours just to drink a coffee and stay in a hotel which is identical to the one back at home.

    2. 080

      Re: 10 hours you say

      Hopefully not with Tiger

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 10 hours you say

      Because they fly your kangaroos to the office?

  3. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

    Really ? Because they're going to decide not to put 250 seats in if they can ?

    If they could, they would.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

      New!

      Two to a seat.

      Lap or lapee?

      1. Someone Else Silver badge

        Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

        Shhh! You're giving Ryanair ideas! Stop it, now!!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

          “Giving Ryanair ideas”

          If you’re flying Ryanair, then you’re doing flying wrong.

        2. Ken G Silver badge
          Pirate

          Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

          Michael O'Leary already trialed the idea of cross atlantic flights with a mix of premium (seated) and budget (standing between cargo nets) tickets.

      2. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

        Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

        Actually the two new ideas on the block are standing saddles, where you get to enjoy turbulence while sitting in a 10 speed bicycle seat while almost standing, or a double decker seat where nobody gets a window and the lower deck gets to stare directly into the ass hole of the person in the upper deck. And remember that some airports serve Mexican and Indian food so, hot blast of that literally one foot from your nose.

    2. ssharwood

      Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

      Not necessarily. QANTAS plans relatively spacious layouts, and premium prices, for the A350s it will fly nonstop from Oz to LHR and JFK.

      People won't fly them otherwise.

      1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

        Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

        'Premium' has so many meanings... is this the 'inexpensive' meaning, or the 'expensive' one?

      2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

        If you are in Australia why would you pay premium anything to visit a filthy dirty place like NYC ?

        Some people have no brains.

        1. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

          NYC is an excellent place if you like big cities with a buzz about them. I used to go for weekends, loved it.

          1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

            What does that even mean ? Given you cant even list a few interesting or worthwhile activities basiclly proves my point.

            What exactly is interesting in NYC ? Walking down streets with traffic and people everywhere ? People who you most avoid and will neve rtalk too, and stand in front of you in line or cause crowds and slow you down ? Im sure its very interesting to smell car fumes, and endless repetitive buildings,...

            Some people are so boring they waste their weekends or holidays commuting or travel or whatever you want to call it.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

          to escape the spiders?

    3. xyz Silver badge

      Re: "leaving airlines to decide if they want to cram passengers in"

      Don't tell Suella....

  4. Malcolm Weir

    First, although no-one would use an A321XLR on LHR-LAX, they couldn't as that sector is over 4,700nm (it's 4,741nm).

    Second, there's much whining about the thing only having a single aisle. But a regular 777 has seats in 3-4-3 anyway, so it's not like your getting any less space: the 777 has 4 middle seats per row, the A321 has 2.

    Key point for me would be journey time. If I can fly DEN-EDI non-stop I'll take it over faffing around in London, Amsterdam or New York.

    (when aircraft type is a factor in my decision process, it's the cabin altitude that determines, not often the seat layout, although JAL's 787s win big on both...)

    1. david 12 Silver badge

      Cabin height is better on the 777 than on the 320. I don't have the numbers for floor-to-bin for the A320, but from memory, I didn't have to crouch as much to get into and out of the 777.

      1. ChrisC Silver badge

        Unless the previous poster was just indulging in a spot of aviation-related wordplay, then I suspect when they referred to cabin altitude they genuinely were referring to altitude rather than height (especially given their comment re the 787 scoring well in this regard) - i.e. once the doors are closed, what is the equivalent altitude that the cabin is pressurised to...

        1. david 12 Silver badge

          Door height in the A320 is around 6' 1'' -- 1854 mm. Some of us have to duck to get in. On the 777 its 6' 2" -- 1880. I still have to duck, but that extra inch is welcome.

          Wide-body jets have a wider, flatter tube. That means there is less difference between the aisle height and the clearance height at the window.

          My memory is that on the 777 I didn't have to crouch as much to get into the seat, as I do on the A320.

          1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            So you are complaining about ducking 1inch less, but you dont complain about travelling hours todo exactly the same thing you do at home ?

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge
      Joke

      "4,741nm"

      4.741 nanometres. That close? That's the problem with overloading TLAs.

      1. en.es
        Coat

        TLA: Transatlantic Light Aircraft?

        I'll get my coat...

    3. ChrisC Silver badge

      You might not be getting any more personal space once you're seated, but the switch from twin to single aisle does mean you're more likely to be trapped in that space at a time you'd prefer to be moving around the cabin. Plus, on a longer haul flight where you might have a few people trying to get in some leg exercise, having twin aisles allows them to loop around the cabin without ever getting in each others way.

      And another aspect of twin aisles that shouldn't be understated for long haul flying is how the wider/more open cabin space makes you feel once you've been sat in it for more than a few hours compared with being sat in a narrower/more confined single aisle cabin.

      1. Stork

        For me pitch is much higher up the list than number of aisles. And I am only 1.89 or so, my poor son is 1.95 and possibly still growing.

        1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

          Stay home and ride a bike far more interesting than sitting in a prison for hours.

          1. ssharwood

            Or you could sit in the prison to get to a more interesting place to ride bikes ..

    4. Orv Silver badge

      I don't like window seats on single-aisle planes because of the way the curve of the fuselage pushes in on me. Widebodies are better because the radius is larger. But that complaint is easily dealt with by booking an aisle seat.

  5. FILE_ID.DIZ
    FAIL

    I guess someone had to...

    come up with a crappy 757 replacement.

    I really disliked my EWR-HAM flights.

    Nothing like a jam five people deep in the lone single aisle next to the lav with the service trolley trying to push through.

    FUCK THAT SHIT!

    1. ChrisC Silver badge

      Re: I guess someone had to...

      Only ever had the pleasure of the 757 experience on one return flight between the UK and Florida (with a refuelling stop in Maine, IIRC) when I was a kid, so I was small enough not to be fussed about how little room the seats gave to adult-sized passengers, and too excited about being on holiday to care much about anything else anyway :-)

      These days I can just about tolerate being stuck on an A321 for however long it takes to get between the UK and Cyprus, though in fairness I think at least part of the reason this length of flight is now my limit for single aisle airliners has as much to do with how much more time the overall journey now takes thanks to having to arrive earlier at the departure airport, then the inevitable delays in takeoff, then the correspondingly longer delays getting through border control when you land thanks to that thing we did a few years back that an increasing number of people seem to now be regretting... I guess if I could just rock up to the airport an hour before takeoff, I might allow the flight itself to extend another couple of hours before wondering WTF I hadn't opted to fly with someone that used a twin aisle on that route, but as those days are long gone, then 4-5 hours in the air is about where I draw the line between single vs twin aisle.

      1. tip pc Silver badge

        Re: I guess someone had to...

        my tolerance is defiantly that 4hrs lon to cyprus on a single aisle.

        any longer would be torture

        lon to balearics is far more acceptable 2hrs.

        last trip via ryanair i could smell burnt toast and looked like smoke in the cabin at the same time. easier to steady nerves for 2hrs instead of 4. i had to drive at the other end so no booze for me :(

        i've done a lot of 8hr flights on wide body planes and get cranky after that but a few drinks helps to sooth the nerves, unless of course i need to drive at the the other end like when arriving back in uk.

        1. Korev Silver badge

          Re: I guess someone had to...

          i've done a lot of 8hr flights on wide body planes and get cranky after that but a few drinks helps to sooth the nerves, unless of course i need to drive at the the other end like when arriving back in uk.

          After a red-eye flight is it actually safe enough to drive (even with no booze)?

          1. keith_w

            Re: I guess someone had to...

            no, not even after a shower.

    2. martinusher Silver badge

      Re: I guess someone had to...

      I was going to post about the "757 Experience". The pits indeed -- there we were stuck at Copenhagen for a few hours because of an "equipment change" which, loosely translated, meant "Substituting a 767 with a 757" -- you could tell we were in deep crap the way the jetway went down to this tiny aircraft. We're packed in and off we go to New York which is just reachable. A hell of a flight. I vowed to never travel that airline again.

      But wait -- there's worse. Range extended 737s. Those new ones, the ones that feature build-in aerodynamic instability and a restroom that is literally too small to get into, are being pushed for long haul replacements. You can't complain, of course, because then you'll be hauled off as a terrorist.

      Airbuses are somewhat more comfortable than Boeings but the airlines work hard to make the experience suck for everyone and anyone. It marginal on short half routes but long distance is just awful beyond description.

      1. Diogenes

        Re: I guess someone had to...

        No - 'the pits' is a 707 on what was supposed to be Sydney-Singapore-Bangkok-New Delhi-Athens-Rome-Frankfurt flight.

        Well, it was a 707 as far as Athens where we deplaned as the pilots refused to fly the plane further because of the stench despite an hours' worth of cleaning*. Passengers for Rome went with other flights, and we went straight to Frankfurt. As I was travelling as an unaccompanied minor, I sat very close to the stewardesses and they were saying while it was a semi regular occurrence for the plane on that segment to need a deep clean, this was the worst they had ever seen.

        A year later I had a DC9 for my flight home. My memory is that it was a much nicer plane.

        *Naive, one week shy of my 11th birthday, me, wondered why they had instructions to sit on the toilet seat and not squat.

  6. Crypto Monad Silver badge

    "a target of approximately 100 hours flying time over ten days with no systems power-down"

    They won't catch the Boeing bug where the plane needs to be rebooted after 51 days then...

  7. Timochka

    This article appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding that more aisles means more room. It very much does not.

    An A32x with 3+3 seating has some of the widest seating in the market; most widebodies these days (and indeed the execrable 737 narrowbody) have seats one or two inches narrower than that '321 will have. A 787 with 9 across seating will have, as a percentage of seating, fewer window seats (20% vs 33%), the same number of 'middle' seats (33%), and only marginally more aisle access seats (40% vs 33%).

    The A32x family is a decent cabin environment, and particularly with the NEO engine option a much quieter and nicer place to be than most Boeing widebodies - 787 included.

    If you want a truly miserable experience - try 7 hours on a 737 (available right now from the likes of FlyDubai.)

  8. rdhma

    Ten hours max

    "easily handle transatlantic trips and journeys of ten hours or more"

    Ten hours max. A 2 person flight crew is allowed to fly no more than 10 hours in a 24 hour period.

    Widebodys can fly for longer as they have crew rest areas and more pilots on board.

    The A321XLR with a range of 8,700km (or 8500 km if obliged to fit fuel tank liners) will be running up against the 10 hour limit on longer routes.

    1. Malcolm Weir

      Re: Ten hours max

      You do know that crew rest areas are a cabin configuration choice, right?

      American Airlines use (or used) A321s for premium transcon routes (mainly LAX-JFK, but also SFO-JFK and I think LAX-MIA). These were configured with international first class seating (lie flat seats, arranged 1+1), then international business class (2+2) and finally regular coach (3+3).

      Allocating one of those 1+1 seats for flight deck crew rest would be utterly routine.

      (And 4700nm and Mach 0.8 would take ~10h15. So we're not dealing with a huge challenge -- worst case you'd only need the relief pilot for a couple of hours!)

      1. rdhma

        Re: Ten hours max

        EASA requirements to add a lining for the rear fuel tank mean the The A321XLR range will actually be only about 4500nm.

        The econonomics of losing passenger seating and paying an extra pilot, for no gain in range do not make sense.

  9. sebacoustic

    MAX anyone?

    I wonder what awkward engineering choices had to be made here, in order to sell this modified plane as "more of the same" into fleets without having to re-certify their pilots?

    1. ChrisC Silver badge

      Re: MAX anyone?

      Likely none at all, because unlike Boeing who felt pressured into modifying the 737 into something it had never intended to be, Airbus had a much clearer vision from the outset of which variants they'd likely need to produce within the A320 family, making it a lot easier to design each variant to suit its requirements whilst still providing the level of commonality required to enable aircrew to switch from one to the other with little or no retraining required.

      1. Stork

        Re: MAX anyone?

        To be fair, the A320 is a more recent design than the original 737 which has got more facelifts than the average Hollywood star

        1. ChrisC Silver badge

          Re: MAX anyone?

          That too, but the fact the Airbus team actually put in the effort up front to properly consider the long-term strategy for the design and make it happen pretty much seamlessly over the years, really shouldn't be glossed over.

          Whatever the reason for it though, attempting to imply any sort of Boeing-like foul play here was out of order from the OP, and their downvotes entirely deserved.

    2. bazza Silver badge

      Re: MAX anyone?

      One of Airbus's big successes has been in making all their aircraft basically the same from a pilot point of view. They even handle more or less the same (the fly by wire system is programmed to make that so). Airlines with Airbuses have a lot of crew flexibility, it being easy to have pilots and cabin crew qualified on all Airbus types. Fleet upgrades are also very easy to integrate with existing crew.

      Boeing? Less so. Attempting to emulate that crew continuity in the 737 family lead to the MAX, MCAS and a lot of dead people.

    3. martinusher Silver badge

      Re: MAX anyone?

      One of the selling points of Airbus is that all their planes have exactly the same look, feel and flying characteristics. It comes from flying what is essentially a simulated airliner that just happens to be connected to real hardware. The downside to this for the pilots (so I've been told) is that the plane constrains the maneuvers the pilots can do making it boring to fly while a Boeing was described as "a bit of a hot rod".

      From the perspective of the "schmuck in the back" the Airbus is far more comfortable to fly in. There are exceptions to this rule -- the 777 seems to me to be very un-Boeing and maybe this long range Airbus is going to test the waters as to just how uncomfortable you can make an Airbus before the passengers start getting really grumpy.

      1. Stork

        Re: MAX anyone?

        Thinking about it, I guess I prefer my flying boring.

      2. Orv Silver badge

        Re: MAX anyone?

        On the other hand there's the whole "if you use the rudder too much it'll snap off" thing. There was also that A320 that nearly crashed because they cross-wired the roll channel on the pilot's stick.

      3. Crypto Monad Silver badge

        Re: MAX anyone?

        > the plane constrains the maneuvers the pilots can do

        Although the older A300 and A310 were apparently used more-or-less unmodified for the ESA's zero G "vomit comet"

        https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/67591/could-modern-unmodified-airbus-aircraft-be-used-for-zero-g-flight

  10. Michael Hoffmann Silver badge
    Unhappy

    One step above a regional jet

    I wonder what biz class will look like in these things. If they even bother. There's just no room for a decent product. Maybe a handful of seats in herring-bone arrangement?

    1. Malcolm Weir

      Re: One step above a regional jet

      It's actually pretty good: AA used non-XLR A321s; check out images for the A321T cabin. The First seats were awesome, and the biz were quite OK but newer, more angled designs would be even better!

      1. Stu J

        Re: One step above a regional jet

        AA's A321T is a great way to travel

      2. Michael Hoffmann Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: One step above a regional jet

        I just did and - colour me impressed. For years I avoided US carriers because their product had been years behind other top carriers (only BA and LH were worse, which didn't bother me on trans-Pacific flights). Has anybody really tall (>190cm/6ft) had a change to try it? That's become a problem (again) when even airlines like Singapore "re-invented" their C-class and cut inches such that I can no longer properly stretch out all the way.

        (the foot well in the 321 does look a bit tight, same problem as with Singapore: big feet get squashed and you can't fully stretch out)

  11. s. pam
    Mushroom

    Spam in a can, no thanks!

    How much longer do we need to develop more ways to torture passengers?

    How many more cases of DVT will these ultra long-haul economy flying nightmares create?

  12. Marty McFly Silver badge
    Joke

    Next up...

    Airbus announces ultra dense pack seating. Travelers will be shrink-wrapped to a pallet and loaded in to the cargo area. Focusing on lower costs per passenger (not "seat cost") this will be going to market as "luggage class" ticketing.

    1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
      Gimp

      Re: Next up...

      There are some (Icon) that would pay a hefty premium to be shrink wrapped like that.

  13. Blackjack Silver badge

    "endure long-ish haul flight in a 3-3 economy class configuration."

    Airlines keep making economy class worse so no thanks

  14. steelpillow Silver badge
    Boffin

    An interesting experiment

    Back in the day, long-distance flights were all hub-and-spoke: short commute to a major airport, giant widebody to another one a long way away, commuter hop to actual destination. Traffic volumes eventually grew so much that the hubs ran out of capacity. Enter direct flights by smaller widebody-ish planes - more convenient, avoiding the struggling hubs, and enough traffic to make them economically viable. But what with Green Covid and whatnot, volumes shrank back and the hubs got cheap'n'cheerful again; even the A380 production line came out of retirement.

    So here we see this weird experiment: can a small narrowbody sibling still offer enough convenience and price competitiveness to beat off the revitalised hubs and A380? I guess betting both ways does increase your chances. One to watch.

    1. bazza Silver badge

      Re: An interesting experiment

      One of the main reasons is to squeeze Boeing into a corner. The 737 has no more growth in it, A320 does. Airbus are able to stretch the A320 into 757 territory.

      For Boeing this is an absolute nightmare because they wanted to do a new midsized aircraft. However, a stretched long range A321XLR eats away at the purpose of the new Boeing at the bottom end. Meanwhile the A330neo - biggish though it is - is actually very good, low cost, eats away at the top end of the new Boeing's market, whilst also being close enough to the 787 in performance to make selling 787s for high profit difficult. So Boeing has an incredibly small specification window to aim at that is not covered by Airbus, so the market size is doubtful.

      And the market has spoken. Airbus has 400 orders, for very little development cost. Boeing would never get those orders now for a new midsized aircraft, and has the full development costs to bear. No wonder NMA got canned.

    2. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

      Re: An interesting experiment

      The problem is people keep buying those tickets. If they'd stop, and I mean REALLY stop, the airlines would either give and make seating better or go out of business.

    3. Crypto Monad Silver badge

      Re: An interesting experiment

      > even the A380 production line came out of retirement.

      Citation needed? Existing planes are coming out of mothballs, but I haven't seen an announcement about production restarting.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#End_of_production

      1. bazza Silver badge

        Re: An interesting experiment

        It is as you say.

        However, it's pretty likely that if Airbus still made it, and offered RR's Ultrafan on it as an engine option, Emirates would be ordering them.

        And the way the airline industry is headed, the need for an updated A380 is only growing, not declining. Hub and spoke is still growing, and what is being found is that the "lots of long, thin" routes model is leading to more "long, fat" routes instead. For example here in the UK, there's A380s operating out of all of Gatwick, Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow, several times a day in most cases. There's a really good breakdown Aviation Week. There's some really important, profitable airports being served by the A380, and it's not possible to fly more aircraft into those airports, so the most profitable growth lies in more bigger aircraft.

  15. Kev99 Silver badge

    Oh, hell yes the airlines will want to cram human sardines into that can. They've already made the seats too small for anyone over 5'4", 100 pounds.And unsafe for any emergency evacuation.

  16. IJD

    Give me an A380 any day. Quietest and most comfortable plane I've ever been on...

  17. nautica Silver badge
    FAIL

    Don't tell me; I've already guessed. This plane was really 'designed' by Boeing.

    From the title:

    "...Those of you happy to spend ten hours in a single-aisle A321, take note."

    OK...you nine can now put your hands down.

  18. EricB123 Silver badge

    Hazing?

    "Thank you sir, can I have another!"

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like