American Airlines Senior Vice President of Network Planning Brian Znotins says he’s rubbing “rubs hands together in anticipation” for the carrier’s first Airbus A321XLR – the ‘extended long range’ version of the largest Airbus narrowbody aircraft. Here’s why.
<rubs hands together in anticipation> https://t.co/3qXfkEOpJ1
— Brian Znotins (@BrianZnotins) August 23, 2024
United, American and JetBlue are all counting on this plane. So is Air Canada, Qantas, and numerous other carriers. American in particular needs this aircraft:
- They’ve retired their Boeing 757, 767, and Airbus A330s so they have limited transatlantic capacity. Deliveries of new Boeing 787s are delayed.
- They’re planning to use this on premium cross-country routes, retrofitting their existing A321T planes back into a standard domestic configuration (removing first class, and making coach less comfortable).
A321XLR Business Class, Credit: American Airlines
A321XLR Premium Economy, Credit: American Airlines
These planes are expected to fly on Northeast – Europe routes and also premium cross-country routes.
American plans to drop first class from New York – Los Angeles, San Francisco and other top markets, taking the current Airbus A321T planes and retrofitting them out of a premium configuration and making them standard A321s. That’s sad not just because they lose first class (with access to Flagship First Dining and Chelsea lounges) but also because coach will get less legroom.
American Airlines Airbus A321T First Class
American Airlines A321T Economy
The American Airlines Airbus A321XLR is supposed to be outfitted with 20 business class suites, 12 premium economy seats, and 123 coach seats. Last fall American expected delayed deliveries to begin in December 2024 and to be using these planes for summer 2025 Europe. American was unable to take advantage of last summer’s Europe surge which fueled competitor profitability due to lack of aircraft.
In the past American has shared that these will primarily fly from New York JFK and Philadelphia, though some may operate out of Charlotte and even Chicago O’Hare.
With design changes as a result of concerns over the extra center fuel tank, it’s unclear in practice what range limitations might be and the extent to which the XLR will fulfill its promise operating long, thin routes across the Atlantic, opening up non-stops and additional frequencies between cities where passenger traffic is too limited for a widebody.
Numerous airlines have pinned their hopes on the plane to demonstrate that narrowbodies can make money in transatlantic operations, and that it’s possible to turn seasonal routes into year-round service without the need for as many passengers.
AA has 16 T-Birds. Will AA phase in XLRs and have a mixed fleet on transcon routes? Or, will AA deploy the XLRs on other routes first and (to avoid a mixed fleet on transcon routes) wait until all T-Birds can be replaced at once?
Hmmm? AA is usually wrong on many of their strategic moves. That alone makes me think this must be a flawed strategy based on track record alone.
AA has a long history of thinking that fleet changes will fix their strategic problems only to find out that they still underperform their competitors even after spending billions on new fleet.
There is a reason why the big Euro legacies and DL all are passing on narrowbody transatlantic flights with the XLR so it is particularly striking that AA and UA think they can make the economics of those aircraft work. 150 seats will be worse than the 767-200 which wasn’t viable; whatever lower fuel burn will be more than offset by much higher labor costs and the lack of ability to carry cargo.
How is this plane going to “revolutionize” AA route planning if they’re going to just put them on transcontinental routes that many other narrow bodies can already do? Doesn’t make sense. Besides, almost all your competitors are also getting the XLR too, so how is just having it going to result in you winning?
The A321T’s are ten years old (the first T to replace the 767-200s on JFK-LAX began flying in 2013). The interiors of the T’s show plenty of wear and tear. The Flagship First cabin is old, dated, and out of all 3 cabins on this plane, shows the worst for the wear. AA could either retrofit the 16 T’s which might have made more sense, and bring them to the standard of the incoming XLRs, but with 50 frames, presumably the bean counters figured that option was cheaper.
JFK-LAX may still be a major route for AA, but JFK-SFO is far from it. AA leaned so heavily on B6 during the days of the NEA, it had hoped B6 would just take over that route. Problem is, AA can’t quite exit JFK-SFO.
This plane, if it truly meets the range promise it offers on paper, will ultimately replace many wide bodies on JFK and PHL TATL flying (excluding of course LHR from JFK) during the slower months and perhaps be leveraged for more frequencies (maybe a second JFK-CDG) and a small number of new routes (JFK-ZRH returning, for instance). Doubtful it will run out of CLT beyond a very small number of routes, and out of ORD, also feels unlikely.
American needs a new strategy and new leadership but neither are likely to take hold.
@ Tim Dunn, there are some European legacy carriers that will fly the XLR (IB will be the first). DL has an aging fleet of increasingly unreliable 767-300ERs plowing routes across the Atlantic that can’t work with a plane much bigger than that. DL will need something to replace them with and absent a 787-8 order (that feels extremely unlikely) the rest of the Airbus offering is likely too big on the wide body front.
On the 767-300ER front, UA has the same problem. The dispatch reliability of the 763 is increasingly degraded at both airlines, something AA experienced itself until it got rid of them during COVID.
As to cargo, AA doesn’t care about it (and has said as much).
A lot of rubbing and sadness in this article.
larry,
The UA 767 fleet including the -300ERs is slightly older than DL’s but you continue to think that old aircraft means less reliable or more economical.
you need only look at actual flight cancellation data to see that UA’s 757s and 777-200ERs have some of the highest cancellation rates among US airlines.
AA’s system fuel efficiency is lower than DL’s in part because DL has upgauged more than AA or UA and also got rid of the 777-200ER/LR which is the least fuel efficient US carrier widebody on a per seat basis (other than AA’s 777-300ERs in the current configuration); the A330-300 burns about 15% less fuel than the 777-200ER and serves essentially the same mission over the Atlantic and to S. America while the A330-900ER or A350-900 is a direct replacement on longer 777-200ER routes and both the A330s are far more comfortable and modern.
With all due respect, IB is well down the list of “major” European legacy carriers. The economics of narrowbody long-range aircraft that require 3 pilots is no better and actually worse than the 767-200 which did not last for long.
AA’s transatlantic operations at JFK and PHL are problematic because of a host of issues which have nothing to do with fleet.
UA has a deep-seated fixation with dots on a route map more than profits – which is why they made half the profit than DL made over the Atlantic in 2023 even though DL flew to fewer cities but still more than AA did.
AA will be flying the XLR to cities which DL and UA will serve with widebodies.
And DL’s strategy to Europe is the same as it has been in the US with narrowbodies – upgauge to larger aircraft because the fuel burn on the A330-900 is actually less than for the 767-300ER. The 767-400ERs will replace 767-300ERs with a modest step up in seats while the A330s will replace 764s.
When you can make more revenue on the same cost basis, it makes no sense to keep flying a smaller plane and THAT is why AF/KL, LH Group and BA all have passed on the XLR – as has DL.
The 321-XLR is a great choice for select international routes from JFK & PHL. And maybe BOS if AA ever decides to resume it’s single aisle flights to LHR and MAD. It just might work. Used to fly on its full 752 flights from BOS to LHR all of the time…
Will AA’s new A321XLR’s come with FA’s who actually care about giving good service?
Otherwise, it won’t be much of an upgrade.
@Captain Freedom,
American Airlines never operated 757s from BOS to either LHR or MAD from BOS, or from anywhere for that matter. AA never flew BOS-MAD. As to BOS-LHR, it has operated the route on and off since the early 1990s with 767-300ERs, A300-600s initially, and now 772s..
Up to 10 hours on a narrow body? In economy no PTVs? No hot meals on a long international flight in economy (just cold snack boxes)…Should not be surprised as AA said long time ago after America West bought them that they want to be “just like spirit”.
I flew on my first A321 in Europe a couple weeks ago. British Airways from Hanover, Germany to Heathrow.
I sat in “slightly less horrible economy” behind their “business”.
Plane itself feels like a really really long A320 or 737.
You look back toward to aft of the plane and it looks like it goes on forever. I’d hate to be stuck back there for a longish haul flight.
BTW we really can’t complain much about our domestic carriers. European airlines give you no room and the thinnest seats. Nothing to upgrade to really on continental flights.
From what I’ve flown, KLM seems to be the best so far.
The A321 is my favorite aircraft and I certainly don’t mind flying it across the Atlantic. I do wonder how it will be profitable with no cargo. I have often heard that airlines are profitable off of the cargo alone and the revenue from passengers is gravy. Correct me if I’m wrong.
@shoeguy makes a lot of sense.
Is Airbus keeping their earlier promise to keep seat width at 18 inches or more? Flying long haul on a narrow body plane sounds ghastly.
Robert, Really! Change your sources/sauces!
American Airlines should really be in the air freight business. That would eliminate those announces that other airline rear to as Customers. AA has gotten terrible to deal with for anyone customers, travel professionals and anyone unfortunate enough to have one of their tickets.
Well, maybe a 321XLR in J to Europe will be OK. But, am I willing to risk it? No.
Oh boy! Single aisle across the Atlantic in coach. No way. No how.
@shoeguy
AA absolutely did operate the 757 on BOS-LHR. It operated nearly continuously from April 2010 through March 2013.
@feliciano
It always helps to research even the slightest bit about the incoming plane’s amenities before posting
People are going to think you’re as ignorant as Tim Dunn when it comes to aviation… apparently only he knows how economics work and ignores that DL would buy the xlr happily (and tried to) but can’t get the deal they want from airbus to do it
jane
please show us where Delta tried to buy the XLR.
They didn’t buy it because it doesn’t have the right operating economics.
Good ownership economics can offset less-than-ideal operating economics but they can’t overcome something that will never work.
Did it occur to you that Delta’s massive pilot pay raises might have been designed in part to ensure that competitor strategies don’t work – and that includes ultra low cost carriers as we are now seeing? It is only a matter of time before we see that legacy US carrier pilot salaries on 8 plus hour flights that require 3 pilots don’t work with 150 passengers which is about all you can put on an XLR with a lie flat, premium economy and regular economy cabin.
once again you are part of a group of people that can’t accept that someone else might know what they are talking about so you trash them.
AA hasn’t made money flying the Atlantic for years – they just break even.
UA made half the profit flying the Atlantic that DL did in 2023 even though UA flew more flights (some of which were narrowbodies, the actual number of widebody flights between DL and UA was pretty comparable).
The good news is that narrowbody longrange transatlantic flights don’t work, the planes can be used on shorter flights or AA and UA can pretend their flights make sense
Tim Dunn,
How much does Delta pay you for your bloated fan-boy nonsense? Really?
@shoeguy
I definitely flew on AA’s internationally configured 757 (albeit more than a decade ago) from BOS-LHR (AA124) with 16 B/E Aerospace Diamond seats in J; a late evening departure which aligned with my hectic work schedule at the time.
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL124/history/20120924/0225ZZ/KBOS/EGLL
Tim
What you don’t know surprises no one. Not my job to inform you about delta if you don’t know.
Keep trying to be relevant
Delta pilot raises?
lol
What? The way your mind magically dances around …
Keep dreaming. You truly know nothing about xlr economics or what delta has tried to negotiate. And that’s obvious
Saying delta hasn’t negotiated for the xlr is pure ignorance
Only you thinks you know anything but your humor is amusing
But you are somewhat correct
The xlr can’t be used elsewhere if tatl isn’t the best use despite many airlines buying it for that and it’s lighter than a normal neo
And btw,
Get a life
A 7 paragraph response monitoring this article 17 minutes after my post?
Could you be less of a cliche of the nerd in your mom’s basement?
A few comments: (1) the XLR is just a much-upgraded and more-efficient 757 with more range, slightly wider seats, but less cargo. Regarding comments above about AA wanting to fly on routes where DL/UA use widebodies: it all depends on who is flying where. DL might make money flying from larger US cities to their Sky Team partner hub at AMS, PRG, etc; same for UA flying to their partner hubs ZRH, BRU, etc. But for AA flying to same cities from PHL, it might make sense to use the XLR, especially in winter, or if they want to also fly those cities above from CLT, they could also do it. Alternately, they could fly from larger, non-hub US cities such as STL or PIT to their Aer Lingus partner hub at DUB. They would have good connecting options at DUB, yet not face competition like they see out of larger cities. Or they could fly ORD, PHL and BOS to both DUB and SNN, with Shannon, Ireland also being a focus city for Aer Lingus. Or perhaps fly BOS-MAD, with MAD being their partner hub for Iberia, MAD would also work, XLR distance-wise, for PIT and even STL (use the same large, non-hub cities I mentioned above). (2) we can only PRAY that AA’s notoriously bad flight attendants lose their attitudes after their massive pay increase is approved. Right now between the on-board experience with the FA’s, and AA’s corporate direction to minimize customer service / amenities while hoping they can earn premium fares (truly a pipe dream), AA has nowhere to go but up. Seems that management finally is starting to realize they must have a competitive product, especially since they’ve spent the BIG bucks already on the planes. Why spent billons on planes, then make that a complete waste by nickeling and diming on seatback entertainment, seat comfort, and food/wine choices, is beyond me.
AA’s conversion of A321T to domestic makes sense. Nobody flies long haul first class anymore. Their business product for the XLR looks nice. Should be a decent experience transcon, while giving them a larger fleet hey can also use internationally. I believe I read that AA has 16 321T’s now. They ordered 50 XLR’s. This means they will have about 34 to use internationally. Also, my previous comments here, one thing AA has going for it is the Latin American network. AA can run the XLRs seasonally on secondary routes to Europe, then fly them during high season to the same on secondary routes in deep South America. Or even fly them to larger European destinations during the winter, better-filling those flights, then doing the same during our summertime to southern half of South America, which is their low season because it’s winter down there. So many possibilities!
There was a comment about losing flagship first dining due to loss of A321T flagship first on transcon routes. AA is phasing out their long haul flagship first class systemwide. My guess is that they will expand offerings on that to allow certain flagship business travelers to use the flagship dining. They are obviously dedicated to Flagship lounges, as they are building a new one in PHL.
jane and olives,
the level of proof to show me wrong is to debate facts. retorting w/ your own multi-paragraph replies and trying to trash me because I bring facts to the table which you don’t like simply highlights that I know what I am talking about while you do not.
AA bought the 787-8, a plane that most airlines quit buying when the 787-9 became available hoping to fix its TATL problems. Didn’t work.
AA ditched the A330s and 757s and 767s during the pandemic; DL retired only the 777s (the smallest 777 fleet among the US carriers) while UA retired no types. Guess who has struggled to add capacity post covid? AA.
AA has a long history of thinking that getting “just the right” new fleet type will fix its problems but that has repeatedly failed. the problem is not the fleet but what AA offers which is why AA can’t make money flying either the Atlantic or the Pacific and operates its entire international network at barely more than breakeven levels thanks to its Latin profits which offset massive losses over the Pacific year round and over the Atlantic for 6 months per year.
no current narrowbody flight in premium configuration flying over 8 hours will economically work with 3 pilots and FAs at DL-competitive levels. It isn’t a surprise that AA and UA have both failed to settle with their FAs because alot of routes simply won’t be profitable.
The A321XLR will have much higher unit costs than widebodies; there will be no revenue premium when competing against connections via LHR, AMS, CDG, FRA, ZRH etc.
the only airlines that will lose money with the XLR will be those that have failed to learn from history in the airline industry; niche aircraft types trying to fly routes on which other airlines and aircraft types offer lower costs have always lost money. ALWAYS.
Are we at 20 paragraphs of ignorance now, tim?
You can’t handle the truth and trashing someone else doesn’t change the facts you don’t want to hear.
AA hasn’t made money on most of its international network for over a decade.
A new plane type won’t fix tag but you can cling to hope if it makes you feel better
23 paragraphs of your usual now, tim?
Tim, you talk about network profitability but don’t even understand the costs and revenues of the various markets for aa
But keep dreaming
You are amusing, I’ll give you that.
But sure… keep thinking you’re smarter than everyone else
And yes. Delta has negotiated in depth for the xlr but they haven’t been able to get the deal they wanted and were too late vs aa and ua to get decent slots or launch customer discounts
But sure. You knew that, right?
jane,
feel free to provide data that shows that DL negotiated for the XLR and passed because they couldn’t get the deal they wanted. We’ll wait because you can’t provide it any more than every airline negotiates with every manufacturer but that doesn’t mean they didn’t order because they couldn’t get the right deal
DL stopped flying augmented crew narrowbodies (757s) so NOT ordering the XLR is confirmation that DL decided that current labor rates – which DL set the standard for – do not support profitable augmented crew flying.
AA hasn’t been able to make its TATL network other than to LHR work and even there, they have reduced as much or more capacity as DL and UA.
Of course AA wants to think a new aircraft type will make a difference. It won’t. AA’s TATL network loses money because of multiple reasons including AA’s service reputation, its inability to compete in major coastal competitive markets and because of AA’s distribution strategies which matter much more in international markets.
UA simply has an ego problem that makes them think that larger size matters and yet they made half the money flying the Atlantic that DL made; even though the two had almost identical amounts of widebody capacity, UA flew more total capacity because of 757s and UA’s fuel efficiency on its TATL network is considerably lower than DL’s.
cling to whatever notion helps you sleep at night.
The XLR will not do anything for AA or UA in terms of being more profitable across the Atlantic. Last time I checked, AA, DL and UA are all publicly traded for-profit companies.
American is the worst of the carriers to South America.
“UA has a deep-seated fixation with dots on a route map more than profits – which is why they made half the profit than DL made over the Atlantic in 2023 even though DL flew to fewer cities but still more than AA did.”
Just being the usual liar Timmyboy?
There’s no way for anyone to know the profitability by regions and many people have told you so. Still, you keep your shit at full power. You’re a joke man.
once again, marco, you prove your ignorance and inability to accept reality so you call other people names.
US carriers MOST CERTAINLY DO report their financial performance by global region to the US DOT and the net income aligns with what and adds up to the totals they report on their quarterly financial statements for the company.
Those that are generally interested in the truth can google
“bureau of transportation statistics net income all us carriers all regions”
and find there that American lost almost $800 million flying the Atlantic and almost $90 million flying the Pacific in 2023 while Delta made more than $1.2 billion flying the Atlantic and almost $300 flying the Pacific. United made $582 million flying the Atlantic and just under $360 million flying the Pacific.
Delta most certainly did make twice as much as United flying the Atlantic while American lost money flying both the Atlantic and Pacific. United made only 20% more flying the Pacific than Delta even though UA flew twice as much capacity.
Those regional profits explain why DL made $3 billion more than AA on a system basis and $2 billion more than UA.
It is clear you aren’t the sharpest knife in the kitchen but when you call people liars, you invite the facts that prove you have no idea what you are talking about and also prove that you can’t accept the truth.
The A321XLR won’t fix AA’s problems over the Atlantic or the Pacific. and every indication is that Delta will continue to be by far the most profitable US airline in both domestic and international operations – all without having anything to do with the XLR
Tim
No one needs to prove anything to you
You don’t know the difference between an op Income and net income which is very very evident in the idiotic you talk about aa
But keep it up. You’re funny
Not very funny. But funny
It’s honestly humorous how little you know how delta and the xlr but it proves how little you know about anything internal at delta
But given that you don’t even look at delta investor presentations
That surprises no one
Enjoy your week, tim
You need a life and better sources
It’s getting sad how little you know
But again, tim
You’re the only idiot in the aviation industry that thinks DOT is useful geo region
Despite being told this for years now, you’re just too stupid to learn or listen to what the data is or means
I’d ask if Shabie was helping you learn but we all know your name is a fake you stole.
Listen and learn, tim
You’ll sound smarter when you learn what overall profitability vs geographic profitability means
You’ve gotten very sad even by your own tragic standards of logic
Here’s an idea: take a few weeks and read investor day filings and then learn what dot filings are and aren’t
It’ll make you sound more intelligent
thank you for confirming that you get ALL WOUND UP when anyone provides facts that show WHY AA makes so much less money than DL or UA.
If you don’t like the DOT’s reports, then tell us how the earnings by global region should be redistributed – but the numbers for each region have to add up to the same total that AA reports on its published system financial reports.
Whether you accept it or not, AA loses money on most of its international operation; its Latin operation makes money and just barely offsets its TATL and TPAC losses.
But no one in their right mind – which doesn’t include you – believes that AA makes anywhere near the same amount of money flying the Atlantic or Pacific as DL.
AA didn’t cut deep in its Pacific network because it was profitable. It is not jumping out of dozens of routes this winter because they were making money – regardless of what they are doing with their 777-300ERs.
Airlines don’t cut profitable routes. AA has cut and cut and cut and still loses money.
The A321XLR is not going to fix that problem.