A321XLR (finally) enters into service
The first Airbus A321neo XLR finally entered into service with Iberia this month after a succession of delays. Initially scheduled for entry into service in 2023, it was delayed as regulators required design modifications to the Rear Center Tank (RCT). While the XLR has several subtle differences to other A321neo, the RCT is the key innovation that brings the aircraft to life.
The first XLR was delivered to Iberia on 30 Oct 2024, conducting its first flight on 6 Nov. Its first week was spent flying short sectors from Madrid to Paris, Stockholm and Barcelona. A little over a week later it conducted its first “long haul” flight from Madrid to Boston. In recognition this we thought it would be a good time to revisit the XLR.
Is the XLR misunderstood?
The XLR has received a lot of attention with most emphasis on the aircraft’s range. Airbus’s marketing materials show an indicative range of 4700nm, compared to 4000nm and 3500nm on the LR and baseline versions. The increased range generates narrowbody economics on routes that were previously limited to widebody aircraft. However, the aircraft is largely misunderstood!
While the aircraft is capable of flying longer distances than its predecessors it doesn’t mean that airlines should or will exploit it for that purpose. Understanding how the increased range has been achieved and the trade-off between payload and fuel provides a more thorough understanding of the aircraft and its business case.
We first considered this in April when analysing Qantas’s decision to ordered the XLR and equip it with a shorthaul onboard product. Many AvGeeks seemed perplexed at why Qantas would do this, seeming to second guess the airline. But chances that Shane on Facebook doesn’t understand the aircraft better than the airline.
Our hypothesis was nuanced. Some readers and commentators misunderstood it by focusing on a narrow issue and not the macro picture. Qantas is replacing the B737-800 which is the workhorse of their shorthaul operation. The B738 flies a variety of routes, but spends most of its time on the so-called “golden triangle”, the high frequency routes between Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney, and other routes between 1 and 2 hours. But is also flies a range of longer routes: Trans-Tasman routes to/from New Zealand and transcontinental routes to/from Perth. These sectors can exceed 5 hours on the westbound legs.
The brief was simple: Qantas wanted a larger aircraft to to replace the B738 to allow for capacity growth from slot limited airports like Sydney. While the B737 MAX 9/10 was a candidate, the XLR was chosen so we will focus the discussion on the A321neo.
Trading size for range
This is where it starts to get challenging! The A321 is a stretch of the A320 with the baseline versions having the same fuel capacity. With its lower weight and smaller payload the A320 has a longer nominal range than the A321. This is typical of narrowbody aircraft, thus Qantas’s goal of seeking a larger replacement for the B738 comes with a trade-off.
With westbound transcontinental routes regularly exceeding 5 hours (e.g. BNE-PER can regularly reach 5.5 hour flight time and sometimes more) and other B738 routes exceeding 6.5 hours (e.g. MEL/SYD-DPS), the A321 is going to run into problems. On these sectors the baseline A321 will suffer from payload restrictions, limiting passengers loads, nevermind carrying cargo. Payload restrictions will become more acute when carrying additional fuel due to en route or destination weather, or other operational challenges including EDTO and ATC requirements. These aren’t unusual given the remoteness of these routes.
The A321neo LR increases range by carrying more fuel through the addition of 2 or 3 “Additional Center Tanks” (ACT) and a 3.5t bump in the Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) to help lift the fuel. However, the ACTs are installed in the cargo hold, coming at the cost of 3 of the 10 cargo positions in the hold when 2 ACTs are installed, and 4 of the 10 when 3 ACTs are installed. 2 ACTs increases fuel capacity by 6.2t (33% increase), while 3 increase fuel capacity by 9.3t (50% increase).
The innovation of the XLR is not just the further increase in fuel capacity and further bump in MTOW to carry it, but the innovative RCT that gives up less volumetric space while carrying even more fuel. The XLR carries nearly 3t more fuel than the LR with all 3 ACTs but only gives up 2 cargo positions. Adding a single ACT (optional extra) bumps fuel capacity another 3.1t at the cost of 2 more cargo positions, but few carriers will utilise it.
So why did Qantas choose the XLR then?
Qantas have chosen the XLR as a B738 replacement but not due to the aircraft’s range. It seeks the A321’s size but not with the constraint of payload restrictions that would hang over the baseline version. The LR version won’t suffer from payload restrictions but it does so by giving up a lot of volumetric cargo space - 40% of the cargo positions. Meanwhile, the XLR on the other hand also overcomes the payload restrictions while giving up far less volumetric cargo space - only 20% of the cargo positions.
Some have interpreted this incorrectly, thinking that we’re arguing that Qantas are acquiring it for its cargo capacity. It’s not acquiring for the cargo capacity but simply that the XLR is more capable than the baseline and that it gives up less volumetric cargo space to overcome the baseline’s payload constraints on longer sectors. It’s as if the narrative of range got ahead of everyone!
The proof is in the pudding
The range narrative has become immediately obvious in the first round of routes that Iberia are deploying the XLR on. Iberia’s longest XLR route is shorter than several existing LR routes. But wasn’t the XLR supposed to fly longer routes?! Let’s compare and contrast Iberia’s XLR operations with that of SAS who deploy the LR on transatlantic routes.
A refresher on range, payload and fuel
Never trust a manufacturer’s range chart, never ever! They are incredibly misleading. They’re just marketing spin that doesn’t reflect the operational choices and trade-offs that airlines have to make.
Let’s consider the basics of the XLR:
Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW): 101t
Empty weight (OEW): 50t
Maximum payload: 26t
Fuel capacity: 32t
This means the the remaining usable weight is 51t (MTOW less OEW), but the maximum payload and fuel combines to 58t. So you can’t take both! Carrying maximum fuel means payload is limited to 19t, while maximum payload allows only 25t of fuel. This leads to an important conclusion, if an airline intends to exploit the entire range of the XLR it’ll not be able to carry anywhere close to its maximum payload.
This is no different to any other aircraft. Consider a Boeing 787-9 with a MTOW of 254t and an OEW of 129t, leaving 125t available to be utilised for payload and fuel. It’s maximum payload is 53t and maximum fuel capacity of 101t. The combination of maximum payload and fuel amounts to 154t, massively exceeding the 125t available. If it carries the maximum fuel, payload will be limited to just 28t, whereas maximum payload will limit its fuel load to just 72t. This is assuming the entire MTOW is available.
Every aircraft has a trade-off between payload and fuel, albeit at different rates. Some might say that aircraft “suffer” from this trade-off but this would be a poor characterisation since it’s intentional feature that provides operators with the neccessary flexibility.
SAS don’t operate the XLR, however they operate the LR on transatlantic routes from Copenhagen to Boston and Washington, and Oslo to New York. The longest is Washington at 3540nm. The LR has a lower MTOW of 97t and lower fuel capacity of 26t with the same maximum payload and OEW. This means a usable weight of 48t. It’ll need all 26t of block fuel for the trip which conceivably leaves 22t of payload available. But 26t of fuel won’t fly 22t of payload 3540nm. Instead, it’ll only allow 14t of payload.
A 22t payload would burn more than the 26t of fuel the LR can carry. This explains why SAS configure their LRs with only 157 seats, yes just 157 seats! They make up for the small passenger load with a premium heavy cabin consisting of 22 business, 12 premium economy and 123 economy class seats.
A Spaniard walks into a bar …
Now let’s turn our attention to Iberia’s XLR that will operate from Madrid to Boston and Washington. Washington is the longest at 3316nm, 224nm shorter than SAS’s Washington route. This is where it gets interesting as the XLR is a lot more capable.
Iberia aren’t utilising this capability to fly further, rather flying more payload (and carrying more fuel). Iberia “pack” their XLR with up to 182 passengers (14 business and 168 economy class). The XLR can carry 26t of fuel without even having to fit the optional ACT. It can carry 29t of fuel with just the RCT, 3t more than the LR with all 3 ACTs.
So to put it in perspective, SAS required an incredibly light passenger load, meaning a higher unit cost (i.e. CASM/CASK). They can counteract that with higher yields and the configuration certainly suggests that they’re trying to achieve that - it’s not just fewer passengers but the high proportion of business and economy premium economy class seats. But they still have to sell those seats and at high enough prices. This strategy aligns with SAS’s other longhaul aircraft with a similar proportion of business class seats (e.g. 14% 12% 13% on the A321LR A330-300 and A350-900).
On the other hand, Iberia are not bound by the same payload constraints, allowing them a more typical layout. They have the flexibility to have a high or low density layout. This is important since Iberia don’t have the same yield profile as SAS. For example, their A330-200s only have a 7% business class proportion and no premium economy, while even their “premium heavy” A330-300s and A350-900s have only 10% and 9% of the seats allocated to business class.
Their XLRs have 8% business class, similar to the rest of their fleet. But so what? Firstly, the relatively high density configuration of the XLR wouldn’t be possible on the LR. But secondly, they won’t have to make trade-offs when stretching its legs. SAS are at the limit flying to Washington, but Iberia could likely stretch further.
How about Madrid-Atlanta? At 3767nm it’s 227nm further than Copenhagen-Washington. This is possible, but it’s starting to come up against the limit with 182 passengers. Beyond this it’ll have to start trading-off payload (i.e. passengers). So much for Airbus’s 4700nm range chart! It’ll need a far more premium heavy configuration for westbound transatlantic operations to achieve that sort of distance!
Don’t fall for the hype
So much of the hype around the XLR’s range has distracted us from the fact that it’s still a narrowbody aircraft and still has the performance parameters of a narrowbody. A widebody aircraft has a much wider range of performance parameters as seen by the large trade-offs between fuel and payload that the B789 makes.
It’s also clear that the XLR’s higher MTOW and improvements in fuel storage efficiency increase the scope in other ways by making the aircraft more flexible. But it’s important to recognise that not every airline is going to utilise the choice between payload and fuel the same way, and they’re not idiots for not utilising it for range. This would be akin to arguing that Singapore Airlines are idiots for utilising the A350-900 in a derated version with a regional configuration on short and medium haul routes, or the same for United using the B789 on transatlantic routes. In both cases the aircraft is operating well within its range, what that critique would fail at is that in both cases the airlines are carrying much higher payloads than it would on its ultra long haul flights!
Qantas’s are at the front of this with so many convinced that they were ordering the XLR to open new routes, connecting secondary cities in Australia with major markets, or connecting their hubs with a range of secondary cities in Asia. Their own PR materials helped convince everyone!
The reaction to Qantas then announcing a 200 seat configuration with a short haul business class product (not a lie flat seat) led to a strong reaction from the commentariat. Qantas must be wrong because “something, something … XLR has range for 4700nm.” But the crux of the matter comes down to this:
Qantas want a bigger aircraft to replace the B738, however the baseline versions of the larger A321neo would be payload restricted on their longer routes (e.g. trans continental routes to Perth).
The A321 LR is capable and won’t suffer from payload restrictions and would be viable for such routes. To carry the additional fuel, the LR is equiped with 2 or 3 ACTs that give up 3 or 4 of 10 cargo positions.
The A321 XLR is even more capable and gives up less cargo space to carry the fuel due to the efficient design of the new RCT. In fact, the XLR (even without the optional ACT) can carry more fuel than the LR with all three ACTs and only gives up 2 of 10 cargo positions.
While the XLR is more expensive to acquire than the LR, it’s safe to assume that Qantas have considered the marginal revenue it’ll earn over the LR over its life.
And finally, some have questioned why not have a subfleet of XLRs among a larger fleet of baseline versions. Key to this is that Qantas want interoperability with the same aircraft operating the longer trans continental routes and shorter routes to maximise aircraft utilisation while maintaining flexibility.
Yet, there are some that appear convinced that Qantas have made a mistake and don’t know what they’re doing. It sounds a bit like Stockholm syndrome, held hostage by the notion that the XLR is only about range, missing that a subtle but important difference between the LR and XLR that allows the XLR to carry more fuel utilising less space.
That also doesn’t mean that the LR is redundant. In many respects, the LR is just a baseline with the ACTs that can be removed, returning it to a baseline version overnight, albeit with a slightly higher MTOW (which could also be derated). The XLR is different as the RCT can’t be removed and other modifications including flaps and rudder are permanent. Some operators will find the LR more suited to their needs.
Some have argued that the permanency of these features reduces flexibility for carriers. This is partly true and while the RCT can’t be removed, the MTOW can be derated. In fact, we expect Qantas to derate the XLR from the start as they’re unlikely to really stretch its legs. Notably this is the case for Iberia whose MTOW is certified at 97t.
So every time we see another airline coming out with an XLR shorter route and/or dense cabin configuration for the XLR we tip out cap in appreciation to the network planning teams that understood the aircraft all along. That’s not to say some won’t fly further, but flying more payload or giving up less fuel to carry that payload can be very important.