Qantas' New A321XLR

[RooFlyer]

we may need to adjust our mindset, it may offer J services where previously a wide body was the only option.

Qantas lemmings can adjust their mindset and accept narrowbody instead of widebody if they want - they tend to be long suffering, after all. Given the choice of a long/medium haul narrowbody on Qantas and a widebody on one someone else (which will also probably be cheaper) anyone with any sense will choose the latter. But of course Qantas will fill their craft with pax with their tongues hanging out for Qantas points, notwithstanding they are paying dearly for points with limited value and use.

Can someone explain me the issue with long haul narrobody? As long as the seats are the same, in Y, PE, or J, I don t understand what is the negatif feeling.

I don't wish to be rude, but is that a serious comment?

Widebody - bigger galleys, better catering; more overhead locker space, more space for pax, space for bedding etc, more toilets/pax. As for seats - Qantas will put domestic config birds on international/med haul routes and then the seat won't be the same (at least in J). This will start with a few irrops "woops, sorry" and then gradually slide it in, as they get pax accustomed to the concept.

Do you sit in your seat for an entire long-haul flight? You'll have to with long haul narrowbodies, as the aisles will be clogged with service carts, and in J, none of those nice 'lounges', stretching/snack areas, galley areas when not in use.

There is a reason why the first long haul widebody, the B747, was outstandingly successful. Would the A321xlr get the same reaction if launched back then?

The last time I did 5+ hours in a narrowbody was on S7 (Russian). Never again.

Back in the days of DC8 and 707 There was no compaints.

They were the days, eh? Luxury. Reminds me of a Python sketch.

 

[Himeno]

The last time I did 5+ hours in a narrowbody was on S7 (Russian). Never again.

I've done the AA DFW-ANC return twice. Once on a 757, once on a A320neo (on the return leg of that trip, the pax across the aisle asked the cabin crew what the "neo" meant. Had to help her answer. )

Those 6ish hour flights were fine for the outbound day flight. Not so nice for the return overnight.

 

[ChrisMars]

Qantas lemmings can adjust their mindset and accept narrowbody instead of widebody if they want - they tend to be long suffering, after all. Given the choice of a long/medium haul narrowbody on Qantas and a widebody on one someone else (which will also probably be cheaper) anyone with any sense will choose the latter. But of course Qantas will fill their craft with pax with their tongues hanging out for Qantas points, notwithstanding they are paying dearly for points with limited value and use.



I don't wish to be rude, but is that a serious comment?

Widebody - bigger galleys, better catering; more overhead locker space, more space for pax, space for bedding etc, more toilets/pax. As for seats - Qantas will put domestic config birds on international/med haul routes and then the seat won't be the same (at least in J). This will start with a few irrops "woops, sorry" and then gradually slide it in, as they get pax accustomed to the concept.

Do you sit in your seat for an entire long-haul flight? You'll have to with long haul narrowbodies, as the aisles will be clogged with service carts, and in J, none of those nice 'lounges', stretching/snack areas, galley areas when not in use.

There is a reason why the first long haul widebody, the B747, was outstandingly successful. Would the A321xlr get the same reaction if launched back then?

The last time I did 5+ hours in a narrowbody was on S7 (Russian). Never again.



They were the days, eh? Luxury. Reminds me of a Python sketch.

No need to be rude. We all value different things. Personally, not too concerned about less aisles or galley footprint per pax for say an 8h flight. Not sure the caterring has to get worse, it s not like the food is prepared onboard. Overhead locker, those 321 XLR one come with 60% more bag storage capacity, which more than compensate the number of overhead bin rows per pax ratio drop.
Sure, overall the flight experience won t be as nice, but if the seats are the same, I am more than happy to get a thin route opened, like CBR-SIN, rather than having to transit via MEL, or worse SYD, even more on the way back with customs.

 

[jpp42]

No need to be rude. We all value different things. Personally, not too concerned about less aisles or galley footprint per pax for say an 8h flight. Not sure the caterring has to get worse, it s not like the food is prepared onboard. Overhead locker, those 321 XLR one come with 60% more bag storage capacity, which more than compensate the number of overhead bin rows per pax ratio drop.
Sure, overall the flight experience won t be as nice, but if the seats are the same, I am more than happy to get a thin route opened, like CBR-SIN, rather than having to transit via MEL, or worse SYD, even more on the way back with customs.

For those who value aisle seats, it's easier to get one on a widebody as there are four per row instead of only 2. And the A330/B767 2-4-2 layout is preferred by couples as getting a seat pair with no strangers elbowing you is great. So I don't think it's fair to say that seating is all identical. That said, I think that A321's have slightly wider seats than B787 (3-3-3 config) or B777 (3-4-3), but willing to be corrected.

 

[Qantas747]

Something I'm not looking forward to is the likely changes to Indonesian routes. I can easily see all Indonesian routes (SYD-DPS, SYD-CGK, MEL-DPS and MEL-CGK) moving to A321s at some stage or seasonally... which would be an upgrade for MEL-DPS but a significant downgrade for the others. It doesn't matter if the A330s are older planes - 2-4-2 in economy is unbeatable, and there is almost no difference in their business offerings with that of the A380s/787s.

I imagine removing the widebodies off these routes will finally push some of us over to Garuda (for those who aren't there already)... especially when these routes will also be prime contenders for irrops changes to the domestic config.

 

[RooFlyer]

Sorry, no offence intended, but you were querying why the negative feelings about narrowbody/widebody. I gave a few reasons. If you are fine with a little plane for 8+ hours, fantastic. You are the type of customer Qantas loves.

Not sure the caterring has to get worse, it s not like the food is prepared onboard.

Sure won't be in a narrowbody. One little galley up the front, room for 1 crew member at a time, same at the back. God knows what you'll get with, say, 2 meal services on a long haul. Where on earth will they store it all, and presumably kept chilled. Also the all drinks.

Speaking generally, wide bodies have a 1/2 WB width galley at the front, and also a 'full width' one in the middle (and I think 1 behind, for whY). On the better airlines, the food is plated, not just uncovered and shoved on a tray. Sure, you might not care about that either, but plenty will, and do.

 

[Scarlett]

If they put this kind of seat in J (ITA Airways A321neo) I couldn’t care less whether it was narrow body or wide body…

 

[SYD]

If they put this kind of seat in J (ITA Airways A321neo) I couldn’t care less whether it was narrow body or wide body…

That’s the plan - well, at least something lie flat.

If you are fine with a little plane for 8+ hours, fantastic. You are the type of customer Qantas loves.

IB seem to think their customers are ok with 10hrs MAD-SJU (coming next month). That’s not much more than MAD-IAD (also A321XLR). JFK and BOS also. Plenty of other airlines lining up!

Trans Atlantic has had NB aircraft plying the skies for decades - horrible B757s being the preferred for a long time. And they actually carry more PAX than an A321XLR!

 

[jase05]

If they put this kind of seat in J (ITA Airways A321neo) I couldn’t care less whether it was narrow body or wide body…

Yep, that’s the same for me.
Anything much longer than 5hrs must be a lie flat seat otherwise I have no interest

 

[RooFlyer]

IB seem to think their customers are ok with 10hrs MAD-SJU (coming next month). That’s not much more than MAD-IAD (also A321XLR). JFK and BOS also. Plenty of other airlines lining up!

More power to them! I'll be on the adjacent, proper long haul aircraft leaving about the same time. And like I said, QF will be joining them, eventually.

IB. Heh.

 

[MelbFlyer]

If they put this kind of seat in J (ITA Airways A321neo) I couldn’t care less whether it was narrow body or wide body…

If QF also did this, then I'd be a bit better with it, but I'd still rather a widebody.

 

[milehighclub]

re won't be in a narrowbody. One little galley up the front, room for 1 crew member at a time, same at the back. God knows what you'll get with, say, 2 meal services on a long haul. Where on earth will they store it all, and presumably kept chilled. Also the all drinks.

The 737 has enough space to do plated meals and currently does 1 full meal and 1 refreshment (same as if a wide body was operating it) like on MEL DPS. To compare, the 737 has 2 half carts and 3 full carts at the front. The A321 has 4 half carts and 4 full carts (which are also chilled unlike 737), so it would certainly have the space. And it may be the 16 with lie flat have a different galley again.

 

[evanb]

Qantas carried 15,000 tons of cargo inbound from Hong Kong over the last 12 months. They ain't switching Hong Kong to a narrowbody!

 

[SYD]

Qantas carried 15,000 tons of cargo inbound from Hong Kong over the last 12 months. They ain't switching Hong Kong to a narrowbody!

I can’t imagine CGK changing anytime soon either?

 

[jase05]

Qantas carried 15,000 tons of cargo inbound from Hong Kong over the last 12 months. They ain't switching Hong Kong to a narrowbody!

Bingo!

 

[RooFlyer]

The 737 has enough space to do plated meals and currently does 1 full meal and 1 refreshment (same as if a wide body was operating it) like on MEL DPS. To compare, the 737 has 2 half carts and 3 full carts at the front. The A321 has 4 half carts and 4 full carts (which are also chilled unlike 737), so it would certainly have the space. And it may be the 16 with lie flat have a different galley again.

Thanks for that extra info, all good. But I have never, in over 1,400 flights, had a narrow body J meal approaching like I can get on a widebody and I'm not intending to try for the new gen LR narrows.

We know why the airlines are going it, but I'm puzzled at the quiet acceptance if it by some - ?many - here. It simply can't be as good an experience from the passenger point of view, no matter how good the crew are. Even if someone decided they could tolerate it, why wouldn't they shift across to another airline's widebody (likely cheaper), if they could?

 

[markis10]

Qantas carried 15,000 tons of cargo inbound from Hong Kong over the last 12 months. They ain't switching Hong Kong to a narrowbody!

Helped just a tad by three dedicated A330 freighter flights a week

 

[evanb]

Helped just a tad by three dedicated A330 freighter flights a week

Indeed, but they're still carrying huge loads on the pax flights. In 2019, they carried 12,000t inbound on pax flights, however they had much larger capacity with the additional BNE-HKG and 2nd daily SYD-HKG. With pax demand to/from HKG way down, and thus half the pax flights, the freighter has become valuable. But they're still carrying huge cargo loads on the pax flights.

To put in context just how much, even if they carried max payload on A330-200 freighter that would amount to 9000t a year. But that's impossible as it would max out due to volume well before that. Nevertheless, assuming 6000t on the pax flights, that's an average of 8t on each pax flight!

 

[elanshin]

Indeed, but they're still carrying huge loads on the pax flights. In 2019, they carried 12,000t inbound on pax flights, however they had much larger capacity with the additional BNE-HKG and 2nd daily SYD-HKG. With pax demand to/from HKG way down, and thus half the pax flights, the freighter has become valuable. But they're still carrying huge cargo loads on the pax flights.

To put in context just how much, even if they carried max payload on A330-200 freighter that would amount to 9000t a year. But that's impossible as it would max out due to volume well before that. Nevertheless, assuming 6000t on the pax flights, that's an average of 8t on each pax flight!

Not to mention all the CX flights a day and Cathay 747 Freighters. Freight from HK is going to still be a hugely strong demand with the geographical location of HK. (those iPhones need to make their way here somehow!)

 

[evanb]

Not to mention all the CX flights a day and Cathay 747 Freighters. Freight from HK is going to still be a hugely strong demand with the geographical location of HK. (those iPhones need to make their way here somehow!)

Yep, HKG is a huge cargo hub, particularly to/from China, but for Australia specifically to/from Europe. Cathay carry a lot to/from Australia (50,000t). Tasman are also significant (16,000t), mostly for DHL. That said, HKG is still smaller than SIN for QF (19,000t) and US (21,000t). These are all inbound numbers. Outbound is a very different picture.