Qantas reveals A321XLR cabins

[docjames]

A few thoughts:

- completely underwhelming J seating. Doubly so when considering potential stage length these could deploy on
- why give yourself the operational nuisance of two configs (20+177 / 20+180)? Why not all the same?
- IFE via BYOD - yawn. Unless they significantly upgrade the selection available via the app, the issue is still content as much as it is ocnvenience. I get it - saves weight, but then they seem to have under-invested in charge port options as well.
- hope the wifi can cope with 200 people streaming at once (and once they deploy on "mid-haul", they have a "non-Aus mainland" solution in place


- At least the Y seat width will be (marginally) better than the 737s (i'm grasping for positives from a pax perspective). Still QF will be more focused on the CASM than anything else.....

 

[Quickstatus]

Thr 321NEO is what these should be equipped on. I can understand wanting the XLR vs the LR but yes for domestic 737 replacement the standard NEO should've been the go to unless they're running the XLR for transcon.

Regardless, it is still an A321 cabin. The only difference between the NEO and XLR is the increase in MTOW, strenghtened landing gear, slightly better efficiency and longer range. Just fit out a number with more premium cabin fitout for those "premium missions". I don't see the point getting 2 different versions.

Re IFE. I dont see the point in installing them. Everyone has at least one device with a screen these days.

 

[lovestotravel]

I won't be holding my breath for any other A320's to have a flatbed in J, creating another sub fleet is never a good idea...

This layout is just another bean counters dream

No different to Qantas running second officers as much as they can on long-haul flights....

 

[elanshin]

I'm basing this on what analyticflying has claimed in their article here and they seem to know what they're talking about. I think @evanb is the writer there so could comment more here.

I can see the argument in the article, although the slight counter to that would be that the 737-800s are already doing the job. It may be that they want to have a bit more flexibility.

Ultimately though the 321XLR order and 220 order is nowhere near enough to cover the 737-800 replacement program so a separate order needs to be made regardless for either 737Max or 320NEO family in the future as well.

We may just see this first tranche of 321XLR doing transcon exclusively (outside of any major irrops situaiton).

Regardless, it is still an A321 cabin. The only difference between the NEO and XLR is the increase in MTOW, strenghtened landing gear, slightly better efficiency and longer range. Just fit out a number with more premium cabin fitout for those "premium missions". I don't see the point getting 2 different versions.

Re IFE. I dont see the point in installing them. Everyone has at least one device with a screen these days.

The non LR baseline NEO version fits the mission profile for the majority of short haul domestic flying much better than the XLR. It would also cost less to operate and maintain and have bigger cargo capacity than the XLR for routes like SYD - MEL.

It's only when it gets specifically for Transcontinent that there may even be an argument (which was why I was confused by the decision) that the baseline NEO model is inedaquate for the mission profile and the LR version is needed. When comparing the LR and XLR then yes the XLR is definitely better.

One potential situation that may be the case is that they had the interior for the initial aircrafts already locked in during the Joyce-era QF and thought that they could do whatever they wanted and they wouldn't really have any problems.

 

[moa999]

The other argument is these aircraft are a 20-25 years purchase and buying the XLR over the neo provides maximum flexibility for future usage as well as cargo capacity. Use in 10 years might be very different
(Particularly if someone launches a relative cheap widebody focused on short- medium hall - ie. The off mentioned MOM)

 

[Quickstatus]

would also cost less to operate and maintain and have bigger cargo capacity than the XLR for routes like SYD - MEL.

I think the cargo capacity is very similar

 

[yachty]

I think the cargo capacity is very similar

A321neo and A321neoXLR have identical cargo capacity... The XLR gets the range from new built-in tanks, the LR gets it from removable fuel tanks in the cargo hold.

 

[elanshin]

A321neo and A321neoXLR have identical cargo capacity... The XLR gets the range from new built-in tanks, the LR gets it from removable fuel tanks in the cargo hold.

I think the cargo capacity is very similar

The XLR adds a Rear Centre Tank (Fuel) in the rear cargo area over the baseline NEO (which is how it's getting the extra range). This is a permanent tank and thus is a lot more space efficient than using removable tanks for the 321NEO-LR.

This is still a cargo capacity loss compared to the baseline NEO model.

 

[jrfsp]

The XLR adds a Rear Centre Tank (Fuel) over the baseline NEO (which is how it's getting the extra range). This is a permanent tank and thus is a lot more space efficient than using removal tanks for the 321NEO-LR.

This is still a capacity loss compared to the baseline NEO model.

+ empty weight and capital investment costs

 

[elanshin]

Don't get me wrong I'm quite excited overall for the 321XLR as a plane. Just baffling to see it configured for regional unless the goal with this configuration and tranche is strictly PER runs.

 

[p--and--t]

Don't get me wrong I'm quite excited overall for the 321XLR as a plane. Just baffling to see it configured for regional unless the goal with this configuration and tranche is strictly PER runs.

Minimisation of fleet variation, maximisation of fleet flexibility?

Future utilisation and costing factors fed into the modelling/planning for which they haven't shared with you?

 

[Quickstatus]

This is still a cargo capacity loss compared to the baseline NEO model.

Dont forget that cargo capacity is not only measured in space but by weight. The MTOW of the XLR exceeds the other variants

 

[evanb]

Missed the discussion earlier in the week. Our article didn't cover some of the background at the time but it's certainly part of the context now. Following up on some of the discussion:

• The oldest B738s are nearly 23 years old. They'll be due their next D-check around 24 years old, highlighting the timing of the first XLRs. In response to the comment that they don't have enough on order to replace all, that's only true on a very narrow reading.
• They have 75 B738s, while the XLR and A220 order is ostensibly to replace all the B738s and the B717s, including backfilling the B717s that have already been retired and temporarily replaces by the E190s. Original order was for 20x XLR and 20x A330 with 94 options across entire A320/220 family. They have already exercise some options, taking it up to 28 and 29, respectively.
• Historically, Qantas have always exercised short haul options (e.g. all . Ordering them as options doesn't change much in the short term but reduces capital risk. They also still have a fairly big order book for A320 family at Jetstar which is convertible to XLRs (already done it). Taken together, they have more than enough.
• The challenge for Qantas is that they want something bigger than the B738 given that it's their only way to grow capacity to/from slot controlled airports (e.g. SYD and MEL). That leads them to the A321. The neo is going to run into payload restrictions on transcontinental routes. These are significantly worse than on an A320/B738. This means a choice between LR and XLR. Both have the extra fuel, but the LR gives up a lot of volumetric cargo space in the auxiliary fuel tanks. The rear centre tank on the XLR gives up significantly less cargo space. That said, the further increase in MTOW might be redundant and Qantas might even derate them.
• So why not order both neo and XLR? Simply put, they want to operate a single type so that they can maximise utilisation and rotate the same aircraft through the shorter and longer routes. The scheduling inefficiencies of two types would be complex or would reduce flexibility, especially when interacting with IROPS and typical fleet rotation to maximise utilisation during IROPS.

 

[jrfsp]

Missed the discussion earlier in the week. Our article didn't cover some of the background at the time but it's certainly part of the context now. Following up on some of the discussion:

• The oldest B738s are nearly 23 years old. They'll be due their next D-check around 24 years old, highlighting the timing of the first XLRs. In response to the comment that they don't have enough on order to replace all, that's only true on a very narrow reading.
• They have 75 B738s, while the XLR and A220 order is ostensibly to replace all the B738s and the B717s, including backfilling the B717s that have already been retired and temporarily replaces by the E190s. Original order was for 20x XLR and 20x A330 with 94 options across entire A320/220 family. They have already exercise some options, taking it up to 28 and 29, respectively.
• Historically, Qantas have always exercised short haul options (e.g. all . Ordering them as options doesn't change much in the short term but reduces capital risk. They also still have a fairly big order book for A320 family at Jetstar which is convertible to XLRs (already done it). Taken together, they have more than enough.
• The challenge for Qantas is that they want something bigger than the B738 given that it's their only way to grow capacity to/from slot controlled airports (e.g. SYD and MEL). That leads them to the A321. The neo is going to run into payload restrictions on transcontinental routes. These are significantly worse than on an A320/B738. This means a choice between LR and XLR. Both have the extra fuel, but the LR gives up a lot of volumetric cargo space in the auxiliary fuel tanks. The rear centre tank on the XLR gives up significantly less cargo space. That said, the further increase in MTOW might be redundant and Qantas might even derate them.
• So why not order both neo and XLR? Simply put, they want to operate a single type so that they can maximise utilisation and rotate the same aircraft through the shorter and longer routes. The scheduling inefficiencies of two types would be complex or would reduce flexibility, especially when interacting with IROPS and typical fleet rotation to maximise utilisation during IROPS.

I don’t believe the A321N would be payload restricted on transcon - in North America plenty of standard A321N flying transcon.

QFs 738 fleet has sub fleets of different engine rating / MTOWs, doesn’t seem to cause issues when operating a large fleet, especially considering how many flights are short <3 hours.

 

[evanb]

I don’t believe the A321N would be payload restricted on transcon - in North America plenty of standard A321N flying transcon.

QFs 738 fleet has sub fleets of different engine rating / MTOWs, doesn’t seem to cause issues when operating a large fleet, especially considering how many flights are short <3 hours.

Why does it infer that Qantas should do it because they do? They're operating different cabin densities with different operational constraints. Then add in different regulatory requirements, EDTO, etc. I should have been a little more specific - it's not a payload restriction in a typical sense but it'll be fuel limited meaning needing to reduce payload to bring fuel in line with max capacity.

Here is the data for A321neo on a transcon from BNE/SYD to PER:

SYD/BNE-PER with 200 pax plus crew, no cargo, no EDTO diversions, no EDTO limits, BQB alternate, minimum contingencies: needs 16t/19.5t. It's fuel capacity is only 18.4t.

Now add additional hold fuel (needed to busy times at PER) or a further alternate (when BQB or GET isn't available), and a little cargo? Add an extra 3t to 4t. Well above 18.4t.

The B738 comparison isn't that valuable since the variance is much smaller. Only 9x B738s have the lower 75t MTOW, the remaining 66 have 78t or 79t. And just because they currently have it, maybe that is the reason why they want to avoid it in future!

 

[jrfsp]

Here is the data for A321neo on a transcon from BNE/SYD to PER:

SYD/BNE-PER with 200 pax plus crew, no cargo, no EDTO diversions, no EDTO limits, BQB alternate, minimum contingencies: needs 16t/19.5t. It's fuel capacity is only 18.4t.

Now add additional hold fuel (needed to busy times at PER) or a further alternate (when BQB or GET isn't available), and a little cargo? Add an extra 3t to 4t. Well above 18.4t.

Where are you getting this data?