← Back to Squawk list
  • 58

Airbus A321LR Completes First Transatlantic Flight

Soumis
 
On Tuesday, the newest product of the Airbus A320 family, the A321LR, completed the first transatlantic flight, from Le Bourget Airport in Paris, France, to New York’s JFK. The trip was made by a test aircraft, with registration D-AVZO, in 8-hours and 44-minutes. (airlinegeeks.com) Plus d'info...

pilotjag
Jet-setLe choix de la semaineAccro aux infosAu maximumAdjointUtilisateur enthousiasteAmi de confianceTableau d'honneurLa photo du jourExplorateurCritiqueMondainDirectPhotographe amateurPromoteurAltruisteUtilisateur éclairéAnnonceurAutobiographe

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


dee9bee
dee9bee 16
"The A321LR is expected to conquer the middle of the market segment, as Boeing’s response is still on the drawing table."

Boeing had a response, called the 757. Boeing pulled the plug on the 757 when a new engine was just around the corner.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report
bizprop
bizprop 5
8 hours 44 minutes from Paris the New York seems slow. Strong head winds perhaps
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report
jetserf
jetserf 4
Winds on the NATs have been strong recently. It might have needed a slower Mach for range. Paris to JFK is just under 3200nm. The wiki for the 321LR says it’s range is 3200nm with a typical payload.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
xtoler
Larry Toler 3
They really did stretch it a bit. I didn't bread the article yet, but I wonder how much ballast they used if they tried to test for a full flight. Back in the day, the 321's were more for packing people in and not for range. I like how Airbus is doing this as there is a market out here for this segment. It's all up to the customers, i.e. airlines to use their equipment to see fit. The end user who could care less is the passenger, they just want to get from point A to point B.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
xtoler
Larry Toler 2
On a side note, pax don't like mixing and mingling with cargo on USAF C130's and 141's.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
alexa320
alex hidveghy 2
Haha! I know what you mean. Having been stranded on Ascension Island once for a week and then rescued by an RAF L-1011, all we got is sandwiches and maybe some hot coffee stacked next to pallets and LD-3s.............lol.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
thetrain
thetrain 2
Don't agree. The airlines best customers are definitely aware of the equipment. That's why a two aisle future solution, or cheap 767 today, with price stability and oil seemingly well-established, is on the table.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
baingm
Gary Bain 5
Almost 9 hours on a narrow-body single aisle? I consider this passenger torture.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report
yr2012
matt jensen 2
Try flying for 9 hrs in a 737
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
Depends on the seats and pitch. Personally I wouldn’t have a problem with it, and the ability of the 321LR to serve smaller markets directly without having to take connecting flights on both sides of the pond could more than make up for the inconvenience and save time as well as money.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
mdburd
mdburd 0
Not really.
Several years ago, 2009 or '10, I flew KLM's 737-operated flight from AMS to IAH--THAT was a long day in a relatively small aircraft. :-)
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
mdburd
mdburd 0
Sorry, meant to add--and it was quite comfortable.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
martiris
Martiris Smith 1
IF, you did not mind sleeping on the floor!! The all-business class configuration required the seats to lie-flat on the floor. BUT, the additional flight offered a nice late alternative departure A
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
GaAubie
Ken Hardy 4
I am from the old school, when you got just two engines over the Atlantic, and one has to be shutdown, I want something in less than 60 minuets to land on. I am sure the 321LR has the same redubs the 787 does but with all the engine failures these days, when your down to one before you start treading water it can be a little scary
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report
baqwas
Matha Goram 3
Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim min? 90 for A321LR?
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
kbhr57am
Pete Locascio 1
We had to shut down an engine on a 777 several years ago over the North Pacific, on the way back to Houston from Tokyo. The closest alternate was Cold Bay, Alaska so that's where we landed. Anchorage was a lot further and there was nothing in between. One engine over water at night is a lousy combination.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
SAllsgood
Sananda Allsgood -2
Time to hop aboard the 21st century Ken! The only engines having issues is the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000’s. If the airlines would switch over to the GE engines, their fleet could be operational and no worries.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
alexa320
alex hidveghy 3
Not true!
You must have missed that BA 777 incident with GE engines out of LAS a couple of years ago! made international headlines after the abort and evac on the runway at LAS.
And have you heard the EASA putting out an AD on all P & W equipped neo Airbuses lately?
So, it's not just RR. You need to expand your aviation reading knowledge a bit, my friend!
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
SAllsgood
Sananda Allsgood 1
I did hear about the GE-90 but that was...what 4 years ago? I was speaking of current times and no, I didn’t hear about the P & W ruling. Thanks for the info.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report
thetrain
thetrain 3
If you think I would voluntarily buy a coach ticket on a narrow body from Paris to New York with a 9-hour block time you should have your head examined.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report
malarz
Marian Wierzba 1
757s are single aisle, aren't they? And plenty of them fly over the Atlantic daily. People seem to go on them with no problem for 8-9 hours. I am looking at flightradar24 right now, and there is flight AA203 AMS-PHL with the same exact flight time of 8:44.
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report
shrudini
shrudini -1
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAVZO/history/20180213/1420Z
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Se connecter

Mot de passe oublié ?
Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!
Inscrivez-vous à FlightAware
Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Rejeter
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Rejeter