American is opening schedule bidding for pilots on the Airbus A321XLR from New York JFK in February, for flights to begin in March 2026. American has planned to run these brand new narrowbody planes from New York to Los Angeles and San Francisco, since they offer flat bed suites in business class and will have a premium economy.
Airbus A321XLRs will replace the 2014-era Airbus A321T planes with first, business and coach seats, which will get converted to the standard domestic narrowbody product.
However American here is explicit that they will run flights to Europe from New York JFK using these brand new A321XLR narrowbody planes as “the primary mission” though “specific routes…have not yet been finalized” as first reported by aviation watchdog JonNYC.
American will start with 40 pilots and grow this “steadily over time…throughout 2026” as more planes are delivered and more pilots obtain the necessarily qualifications.
AA: XLR pilots, JFK pic.twitter.com/hAoOIAraG9
— JonNYC (@xJonNYC) August 28, 2025
The airline had ordered 50 of these planes and they were originally supposed to be delivered 8 in 2023, 22 in 2024, and 20 in 2025 but they’ve faced delays.
The aircraft may not have the full range originally hoped for but can easily operate out of New York and Philadelphia. There’s been talk in the past about also flying the XLR from Charlotte, Chicago and Miami.
The suggestion here seems to be that they are going to focus on transatlantic growth before moving the full premium cross-country operation to these new planes. American has already started scheduling some widebodies on cross-country flights.
American Airlines Airbus A321 at New York JFK
United, American and JetBlue are all counting on the new XLR. So are Air Canada, Qantas, and numerous other carriers. American in particular needs this aircraft because they’ve retired their Boeing 757, 767, and Airbus A330s so they have limited transatlantic capacity.
No airline has really proven they can make a narrowbody work well across the Atlantic. The cost per seat will be higher than for a widebody, even though the trip cost is lower.
- If you aren’t going to fill a widebody, then a narrowbody might still make money or break even (regardless you’ll lose less). That’s especially important in winter.
- American doesn’t have the robust connecting hub that Delta has at JFK and United has at Newark. The government blocked their partnership with JetBlue which would have created a real third competitor to the New York duopoly.
- Sending A321XLRs transatlantic is a strategy to try something beyond flying to joint venture partner hubs from New York. They’re eventually going to need to use their New York slots and this is showing real signs of strategic life out of Dallas.
- They’ll be able to support two flights to some destinations with an XLR instead of a single widebody (greater flexibility in schedule and picking up more passengers overall) and will be able to add some secondary European cities as well. It’s also an opportunity to run flights year-round that would otherwise only work in summer when it’s possible to fill a widebody.
A321XLR Business Class, Credit: American Airlines
A321XLR Premium Economy, Credit: American Airlines
While I love the spaciousness of a widebody aircraft, I’m really looking forward to the premium experience on these planes. And I’m looking forward to a premium experience on routes that didn’t previously support one.
Love your comment, Gary: “If you aren’t going to fill a widebody, then a narrowbody might still make money or break even (regardless you’ll lose less)”. You’ve just summarized the entire Global Strategy of American Airlines: “We aim to lose less”. Not exactly aspirational, but that sure seems to be what they’re going for.
Is it reasonable to be concerned that a route is close to the maximum range of the aircraft? Or do all flights have similar margin for trouble given that they are only fueled to the extent necessary?
“No airline has really proven they can make a narrowbody work well across the Atlantic. ”
EI has been doing a solid job of that for a while.
At least these have Premium Economy. Some airlines (like Iberia) are just doing Y and J.
This sounds less like a growth strategy then a process to down gauge with a more premium rich environment.
this is the operative statement
“No airline has really proven they can make a narrowbody work well across the Atlantic. The cost per seat will be higher than for a widebody, even though the trip cost is lower.”
You need only look at B6 vs. DL in BOS (and JFK) to see why bringing a narrowbody to a fight w/ a carrier that uses widebodies doesn’t work.
Not only do US labor costs make the idea of using a narrowbody on an 8 hour plus flight unworkable (and even some less than that) but the widebody is often twice the passenger capacity PLUS cargo revenue.
and a narrowbody might be comparable in business class but it is markedly worse than a widebody such as the 767 or A330 in economy.
A321XLRs might make sense from PHL or CLT but not from competitive hubs; but let’s face it that this is about the 16th iteration of AA’s “this will fix our NYC problem”
Ben,
Ireland and Iceland are both close enough that you don’t even need an XLR – a regular 321NEO with additional tanks can work.
and Ireland and Iceland are within 8 hours of many points in the eastern US.
AA and UA intend to deploy their XLRs to continental Europe.
The good news about the XLR is that they can and will function on domestic premium routes. I suspect AA and UA will quickly find out that the economics of the XLR are just not that great, esp. on 8+ hour flights where they need 3 pilots.
AA’s transatlantic system barely breaks even compared to DL’s that makes over $1 billion in profit per year and UA that gets 80% of that with UA’s larger size coming from flying narrowbodies (757s and 737s) across the Atlantic.
The only benefit of the XLR is that it provides for flex capacity to fly to Europe which can then be used on domestic routes outside of the peak summer season. but the XLR is an expensive plane to acquire – far more expensive per seat than widebodies – and fuel is not going to go up given that the current US strategy is to keep US production high to counter a whole bunch of geopolitical issues.
‘HECK YEAH, WE FLY THERE!’ (Oh, wait, that might be United… whoopsie.)
If this AA 321LXR update is for real, I’m excited for it; while those won’t have ‘Flagship First’ the new suites onboard are probably superior, and Soho lounge at JFK is plenty good enough (sorry, Chelsea… for another time, girl…)
Is AA serious about making JFK an international gateway, or have they resigned that to PHL and CLT? Narrowbodies tell me that they just see JFK as a means of handling New York O&D traffic.
Yes the AA leadership in Dallas is SO brilliant.
It’s only been 20 years since Continental blitzed Europe with transatlantic 757 service.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1447413
Can’t wait for their next innovation!
I’m extremely skeptical about this move but I will give American some props for at trying to do something different.
@Pat — I don’t see why AA couldn’t handle simultaneous ‘hubs’ at JFK, PHL, and CLT. Like, I applaud them for attempting this mid-Atlantic ‘triple-penetration’ strategy… and, please, for once, don’t neglect the CLT!
(This post goes well with Gary’s other one from earlier today about the Admirals Club renovations planned for Charlotte; long-overdue!)
Maybe winter flying on some thin routes where there’s premium demand?
After mulling on the XLR experience so far, it’s reminding me of the A310 from NYC to European destinations back in the 1990s. There were compromises in terms of range and passenger experience… but now with the LR/XLR to see the challenges with the smaller galleys/food storage and the reduced number of lavatories, how many compromises can you make to fill out your route map especially from a major OD point such as NYC.
1990,
the problem is that you can’t decide to just focus on the local market while you have competitors that aggressively compete for the local market AND all of the flow traffic that helps fill planes that have better economics.
There just is not that much premium traffic to Europe for 6 months per year. Narrowbodies will work for 6 months per year even given the longer summer season but you have to pay the mortgage and crew salaries for 12 months per year.
DL and UA are growing in the S. Pacific and AA also has S. America to shift widebodies to in the U.S. winter but narrowbodies are either going to lose money flying the Atlantic for 4 or more months per year or get reallocated to domestic markets.
and to dovpilot’s point, you can make a narrowbody comfortable enough but they still fly slower and lower than widebodies which affects not only flight length but also how well you can get above weather. The seatbelt sign might be on for much more of the flight on a narrowbody than on a widebody – and the widebody flight will be shorter anyway.
Well, IMO what I find the most interesting part about this article is the copy of an internal document of American Airlines. And how & why JonNYC thinks it’s okay to put that information out without probable corporate permission. I would appreciate anyone with a true legal background to share their opinion.
@Tim Dunn — Not to get too lost in my suggestive metaphor, but, you know, some like ‘em wide, some like ‘em narrow, I like when they include premium seats, namely lie-flat for those 6+ hour transcon or transatlantic flights. 321neo and XLR can handle it. But, as you’ve noted before, the 3rd pilot issue with +8 routes is a limitation.