5
$\begingroup$

I am a bit puzzled by the routes that the A321 XLR is (about to be) operating.

For example, MAD-BOS is barely 3000 NM, meaning even a 321 not even LR would be able to make it.

Unless I missed something, not a single of the announced routes would require the 4700NM range of the XLR, an LR would be able to cover them all.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks!

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Note that the range quoted by the manufacturer is without wind (and there is usually significant headwind over the Atlantic due to the jetstream) and does not include additional reserves that may be needed for EDTO (Extended Diversion Time Operations) flights over oceans. $\endgroup$
    – Bianfable
    Commented Nov 26 at 13:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Any chance you own an electric car? Stuff about spec range vs adverse conditions range will become more experience-born, including, relevantly, wind. $\endgroup$
    – Harper - Reinstate Monica
    Commented Nov 28 at 0:47

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
13
$\begingroup$

The "maximum range" given by the manufacturer is not the same as the maximum range of a typical airline flight. An airline flight has to consider additional factors that are not included in the basic payload/range calculations:

Wind - If there is a headwind, the range will be reduced.

Temperature - Above standard (ISA) conditions will reduce performance and range.

Regulations - Having "just enough" fuel to reach your destination is not a good idea in practice. An airline flight will also add contingency fuel to account for any unexpected conditions, alternate fuel to allow a missed approach at the destination and flying to an alternate airport, and then final reserve fuel. There also needs to be enough fuel to reach a diversion airport in the case of engine failure. MAD-BOS is an oceanic flight, meaning that diversion airport may be hours away, and fuel consumption in this situation becomes higher than normal due to the failed engine and lower altitude required to fly on the remaining engine. All of these factors reduce the actual range capability.

If you look at the generic payload/range diagrams from Airbus, the A321LR (97t MTOW with 2 or 3 ACT) just barely achieves a maximum range of 3,000 NM at max payload. The extra fuel required for the reasons above would require reducing the payload (and therefore revenue) for the flight. The extra range of the A321XLR allows full payload capability while carrying the required fuel.

So to answer the question: no, the A321XLR is not necessary for a route like MAD-BOS, but it is much better suited than the other A321 variants.

Payload/range for A321neo Source

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ If the airline operated an all-business-class flight, then an A321LR would fit the bill nicely. $\endgroup$
    – gparyani
    Commented Nov 28 at 1:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .