Air Canada buys 26 A321NEO-XLR

[anonymous]

Air Canada Announces the Acquisition of 26 Airbus A321neo Extra-Long Range Aircraft

State-of-the-art, single-aisle aircraft offers greater comfort and range Projected fuel efficiency gain of up to 23%, yielding environmental benefits Order drives corporate priorities to elevate customer experience, expand network and lower costs MONTREAL, March 22, 2022 /CNW Telbec/ - Air Canada today announced it is acquiring 26 extra-long range (XLR) versions of the Airbus A321neo aircraft. The aircraft has sufficient range to serve all North American and select transatlantic markets, while offering customers added comfort and improving the carrier's fuel efficiency to advance its environmental programs.  Deliveries are to begin in the first quarter of 2024 with the final aircraft to arrive in the first quarter of 2027. Fifteen of the aircraft will be leased from Air Lease Corporation, five will be leased from AerCap and six are being acquired under a purchase agreement with Airbus S.A.S. that includes purchase rights to acquire an additional 14 of the aircraft between 2027 and 2030. "Air Canada is committed to further strengthen its market-leading position, especially through investments in new technology. The acquisition of the state-of-the-art Airbus A321XLR is an important element of this strategy and will drive our core priorities of elevating the customer experience, advancing our environmental goals, network expansion and increasing our overall cost efficiency. This order also shows that Air Canada is emerging strongly from the pandemic and is ideally positioned to grow, compete and thrive in a reshaped global aviation industry," said Michael Rousseau, President and Chief Executive Officer of Air Canada. Air Canada's A321XLRs will accommodate 182 passengers in a configuration of 14 lie flat Air Canada Signature Class seats and 168 Economy Class seats. Among the aircraft's amenities, customers will enjoy next generation seatback entertainment, access to inflight Wifi and a spacious cabin design featuring generous overhead baggage storage bins. With a range of approximately 8,700 kilometres and an ability to fly up to 11 hours, the A321XLR can operate non-stop anywhere across North America and, pending Transport Canada approval for overseas operations, also fly transatlantic missions, bolstering the carrier's hubs and network. Air Canada is in the process of selecting an engine manufacturer for its A321XLR aircraft.

[conehead]

2 hours ago, anonymous said:

Air Canada is in the process of selecting an engine manufacturer for its A321XLR aircraft.

So, will it be the CFM Leap, or the PW geared turbo fan? Any bets?

[Maverick]

I would think the CFM Leap since it's on the AC 737 -8's

[conehead]

Although the AC A220s are powered by the PW GTF... so they have experience with both types.

[GDR]

I imagine they wish they'd gone with the 320Neo instead of the 737 Max at this point.

[Super 80]

I was expecting Air Canada's first A321neos would come from Alaska Airlines.

[JL]

I wonder if the MAX10 was ever in the running in this purchase decision.

[Seeker]

7 hours ago, JL said:

I wonder if the MAX10 was ever in the running in this purchase decision.

I hope not.  For no other reason than I just watched the Netflix documentary on the Boeing 737 Max debacle and I'm vindictive.

[Super 80]

I think it was Klaus Goersch who championed the MAX order and he has been gone for years.

[Maverick]

7 hours ago, Super 80 said:

I think it was Klaus Goersch who championed the MAX order and he has been gone for years.

Or maybe the fact that Boeing was basically giving them away to prevent AC from renewing their narrow body fleet with the A320 NEO. Seems to have worked for the A319 and A320 though. Boeing had nothing remotely close performance wise to the A321 NEO and the A321 NEO-XLR is just icing on the cake. 

[Seeker]

I have never flown a 737 or an Airbus but I've spent a lot of time in the back of both and a lot of time in the jump seat of both.  I'll say this;  many 737 pilots have an opinion of the aircraft that does not seem to match reality as I see it.  When you ask them, most 737 pilots will say it flies great but when you ask about the systems, workflows, livability of the flight deck or ergonomics only those with no familiarity of the Airbus will prefer the 737.

[rudder]

5 hours ago, Seeker said:

I have never flown a 737 or an Airbus but I've spent a lot of time in the back of both and a lot of time in the jump seat of both.  I'll say this;  many 737 pilots have an opinion of the aircraft that does not seem to match reality as I see it.  When you ask them, most 737 pilots will say it flies great but when you ask about the systems, workflows, livability of the flight deck or ergonomics only those with no familiarity of the Airbus will prefer the 737.

The 737 was designed and built in the middle 1960’s.

Current incarnation still retains many of those features. Not good. It is a dinosaur with fuel efficient engines (and MCAS).

[Guest1]

3 hours ago, rudder said:

The 737 was designed and built in the middle 1960’s.

Current incarnation still retains many of those features. Not good. It is a dinosaur with fuel efficient engines (and MCAS).

But on the other hand it operated for many years without many major problems.  Better pilots back then? Perhaps present day pilots rely more on the computer than learned aviator skills from many hours working up to the jets?  

[Kip Powick]

Call me "old school- a dinosaur", I really don't care ...but those of us that were lucky enough to fly the "T-Rex" in the industry knew we were flying a "stick and rudder" aircraft  and we had fun doing it. 

I won't argue fuel range/comfort /economy but am merely stating that the advancement of technology in aircraft will not stop but from a "stick and rudder guy" the fun of flying has decreased immensely. Yes, being x-military I loved yank and bank and a lot of "G", ( I used to be 6'2") and 60 degree banked turns were not a rare occurrence.

Yes, the kids of the day fly the glass with ease, and a lot has to do with their background entertainment and I don't have have a problem with that. I went from the C-130 in all roles, including tactical, to the A-310 and was amazed at the technology and was not completely comfortable for the first year or so.  Just to prove the technology we took off from YYZ one day and as we hit 18 degrees of pitch, plugged in George  and from then on we used the FMS and never  TOUCHED the controls until on the runway in YVR......amazing but for me...not much fun.

WD A310s went to DND and I ended up on the T-Rex and had the best 10 years of airline flying in my life.

Be safe out there 

[boestar]

the current 737 variations are an abomination of 1960s, 1970.s, 1980's etc technology.

The integration of systems is no-existent and is mainly duct taped together to create the aircraft.

it may look pretty in the (lower) cockpit but behind those screens is still analog and steam.

The type is WAY past its prime and needs a full replacement.

 

[Kip Powick]

1 hour ago, boestar said:

The type is WAY past its prime and needs a full replacement.

 

       

[Floyd]

"But on the other hand it operated for many years without many major problems."

Not to get into a slinging match, but I think that statement ignores a number of fatal rudder hard-over crashes and one or more close calls.

I totally agree that it is now past its prime and the current version should instead have been a clean sheet design.  Any new production airliner should have more than two air data systems.  I am also not positive on this point, but I understand the 727 could not have been certified by more modern standards (this going back about twenty years) due to inadequate cockpit visibility.  Is the 737 any better in this department than the 727?

I also acknowledge that people can enjoy flying a particular type, but then I have always enjoyed flying whatever I was in!

[IFG]

1 hour ago, Floyd said:

....  I am also not positive on this point, but I understand the 727 could not have been certified by more modern standards (this going back about twenty years) due to inadequate cockpit visibility.  Is the 737 any better in this department than the 727?

I also acknowledge that people can enjoy flying a particular type, but then I have always enjoyed flying whatever I was in!

Hi, Floyd - As far as I know, 727 & 737 have the same windows. Boeing did away with the "eyebrow" windows on later models, but they weren't any use for flight visibility anyway.

re: ".... but then I have always enjoyed flying whatever I was in!" - BIG 

Cheers - IFG 

[boestar]

The 727 and the 737 share the same cockpit section.  

My point was initially that they are attempting to make 1060s technology integrate with 2000 technology and it has many issue.  From a pilot and backend perspective its all bright lights and shiny new things but under the skin is is a nightmare of independent systems trying to work together.  Does it work?  Sure.  is it efficient or reliable? not really.  Does it measure up to the competition?  not by a longshot.

 

[st27]

22 minutes ago, boestar said:

they are attempting to make 1060s technology integrate with 2000 technology

I know it’s old but……

[boestar]

oops....You get my point

 

[conehead]

38 minutes ago, st27 said:

I know it’s old but……

William of Boeing was working on this design while his cousin, William the Conqueror, was leading the Norman invasion of England.

[rudder]

The 737 production line survives due to:

1. fleet commonality (not a surprise considering a 57 year tenure where many large customers are ‘trapped’ with hundreds in service)

2. very deep pricing discounts from Boeing

[Guest1]

43 minutes ago, rudder said:

The 737 production line survives due to:

1. fleet commonality (not a surprise considering a 57 year tenure where many large customers are ‘trapped’ with hundreds in service)

2. very deep pricing discounts from Boeing

re deep discounts, are they selling the aircraft at a loss and if so why?

[Floyd]

Those cockpit sections go back to the 707, so really the fifties.  They are definitely at retirement age.  Even VW recognized at some point they had to retire the original Beetle.  By hanging onto such an old design Boeing, as mentioned above, lost out on so many opportunities for innovation.  Yes, they came to market at about the same time as  the improved 320 family: a short term gain for a lot of long term pain for many victims.