Don't miss out! Join the thousands of people who subscribe to our once-daily email or our free miles and points Facebook group with all the best travel news. Points With a Crew has partnered with CardRatings for our coverage of credit card products. Points With a Crew and CardRatings may receive a commission from card issuers.
Airbus just officially announced the launch of their much-anticipated A321XLR aircraft, timed perfectly with the Paris Air Show this year. With a seriously troubled Boeing currently focused on damage control over the 737MAX debacle, they are poised to best the U.S. jet manufacturer at the biannual event. I expect that the A321XLR will be a hit with airlines, given its fuel efficiency and incredible range for a single-aisle aircraft.
But will it be a hit with passengers?
Would you fly 8 hours on a narrow-body jet?
The Airbus A321XLR has the range to fly routes that previously would were previously impossible for any narrow-body aircraft. It can make a 4,700 nautical mile (~5,400 miles) trek nonstop. This opens up a large number of routes currently only served by wide-body aircraft to A321XLR service. Examples of some of the city pairs that could be served are:
- San Francisco to Reykjavik
- Houston to Buenos Aires
- New York to Honolulu
- Philadelphia to Athens
- Seattle to Tokyo
- Singapore to Auckland
Would you fly any of those? I can attest that I feel so much more comfortable sitting in the cabin of a wide-body. Even if the seats aren’t any larger, the more spacious cabin makes the plane feel so much less cramped. I’ve been on many completely full flights across the country, and even if it is an enjoyable experience (SEE: Delta 737-900 Economy Review), I cannot deny that I’m happy to deplane. I’m not sure I could fly twice as far, unless I was sitting up front.
What do you think of the potential routes that could be flown with the A321XLR? Would you spend 8-9 hours on a single-aisle plane?
Points With a Crew has partnered with CardRatings for our coverage of credit card products. Points With a Crew and CardRatings may receive a commission from card issuers. Responses are not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser. It is not the bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered. Other links on this page may also pay me a commission - as always, thanks for your support if you use them
Dan Miller travels with his wife and 6 (SIX!) children. He loves to help families travel for free / cheap, especially larger families. If you are looking for help, drop him an email at 
No way!
My concern is that there is no lie down rest area for cabin cabin crew and other crew. This will lead to grumpy, less alert service.
It is also obvious that the galley will be very tight and at times, access to emergency exits will be blocked by food carts. I have already seen this on AA 757 flights.
Interesting. I never thought about the need for crew rest.
@ Donato. There is no valid reason to be concerned about exits being blocked at 30,000 feet. It’s done all the time on domestic flights. In addition, crews on long narrow body flights have cabin crew rest seats. They are different from regular coach seats and pilots have a business class assigned seat. It’s been done for years so relax!
I’ve flown an 8 hour 6300km A321neo flight on a Philippine Airlines from Sydney to Manilla and an A321neo with ACT tanks effectively giving it near XLR range. It was very comfortable and excellent hot meals serviced from the galley. Airbus use a 18 inch wide seat with a 2 inch armrest and because they can squeeze more in on a single aisle you get more width on an A321 than any Boeing (17.2 inch standard) or widebody which has more squeezed in and can go as low as 16. For flights of 10 hours, (and the A321 wont go much beyond this), crews will get a seat with minimum 40 degree recline and depending on airline policy a full recline business class seat that is curtained of. Toilet access is not an issue, there are 4 (1 front for business class, two middle one rear). On a long 8-10 hour flight you have plenty of time to go (its only a problem on short flights) and there just aren’t that many people needing to use the lavatory. The flight attendants are always moving the trolley several times to the galley during service or just move back a moment for you to get back to seat. Its not an issue. Airbus have reduced pressurisation altitude from 8000ft to 6000ft, increase water storage from 200Litres to 490 Litres and fitted massive overhead bins so that everyone can fit a full sized roller bag. I find it odd as I recall flying on B707 to Europe. The A321 will increase your comfort because it will enable direct flights instead of hub and spoke and also more frequent.
I flew from Buenos Aires to Panama in a 737 on Copa Airlines, and I’m about to fly from Porto, Portugal to NYC on TAP Air Portugal on an Airbus A321. Both of those flights are about 8 hours. It’s not that bad as long as you keep yourself distracted with some videos or reading
Buenos Aires to Panama is more like 6 hours, I’d think? Still, with proper planning, I don’t think it’d be all that bad.
I’d fly it if there was pretty much no other option.
This plane wouldn’t even be around if Boeing was so stupid enough to quit making the 757. That was a great plane. As for riding in a narrow body for 8 hours, well I did ride 14 hours to Asia in coach in a 777 with 10 abreast. I will never do that again even if it’s free. Not fun at all. Eight hours might be OK if it was in Premium Economy or Business Class.
The 757 is underappreciated. I’ve not tried the 10-across 777 seating, but it does sound horrible.
I don’t think wide- bodies are necessarily better: the A321 has wider economy seats than what you’ll find on most B777. You trade that for carts in the aisle…
Besides, on many routes the choice won’t be wide-body vs narrow-body, but non-stop on an A321 or connecting on a wide-body to narrow-body or even regional jet…
Good points. I think I’d likely choose a narrow-body nonstop over a wide-body with a connection. But…it depends on the wide body. I’d fly a 747 just for the avgeek factor.
I flew from Tel Aviv to London recently with Turkish via Istanbul on two A330s. Even though BA uses widebody planes for that route the timing of the flight out of Tel Aviv was much better than the early AM BA flight, which with the long security check-in time at Tel Aviv would have involved getting up at 3:30 am. The transit time in the superbly organized Istanbul airport was only 70 minutes. It was a great experience and one that, whilst two hours longer than flying direct, was far more convenient and pleasant than the early start would have been, not to even discuss the loco narrow body services.
Absolutely not.
I flew in the past from Newark to Manchester UK on a 757 Continental flight, a nightmare !
Back in the day I used to fly from Vancouver to Barbados on a 707 charter (10 hours) and it was regular to cross the pond on a 707 or DC8.
These were narrow body 4 engine with 130 – 160 passengers, similar to the twins of today only smaller capacity. With much greater seat pitch probably a larger cabin.
We did it – but boy did we rejoice when the 747 was introduced in the 70’s.
I can handle a 737 for up to 6 hours but beyond that it has to be a bed.
Smaller aircraft generally have a much bumpier ride.
About 2 years ago I was sked to fly on an award ticket in B-777 first class on 8 hr IAH to HNL. The UA plane at IAH had a hydraulics problem, so, no nonstop. Replacement 777 Connected in SFO with a 777. The seats on both didn’t decline automatically and both jets were old enough to resemble B-29s retrofitted with jet engines.
Given a wide body 1st class was bad, no way in Hades I’d fly a 321XLT on that or any other route. Remember, Airbus or the carriers flying this one always could reduce seat pitch to “Devil’s Island small.