When Airbus launched the A321XLR at the Paris Air Show last year, airlines were
enthusiastic about placing large orders for the long-range narrowbody. In fact, upgrading and
pushing the limits of its A320 family of aircraft – particularly the A321 – has been one of Airbus’
most successful decisions in recent memory. Could it do the same with its newer A220?
The transition from the A320 ‘current engine option’ (CEO) to NEO was, as the name suggests,
done through the upgrading of the aircraft’s engines. Larger powerplants with a higher bypass
ratio have made the A320neo family of jets much more efficient than its predecessors.
However, beyond this, Airbus achieved more range with its A321
through some clever engineering. For the LR and XLR this was achieved by equipping the A321 with
additional fuel tanks as explained by Airbus: “The Rear Center Tank (RCT), which is unique to
the new long-range A321XLR, is a permanently installed high-capacity fuel tank that makes
maximum volumetric use of the aircraft’s lower fuselage. The RCT structure […] is located behind
the main landing gear bay and holds up to 12,900 litres – which is more fuel than several optional
Additional Centre Tanks (ACTs) combined could hold previously in the A321 Family.”
So, then, the big question of the day is, “could Airbus do the same thing with the A220 family?”
The question came to us through a previous YouTube video after discussing the routes that the A321XLR
could fly. It’s an intriguing thought – one that we thought was worth looking at.
As with every aircraft designed and built, there are two factors that Airbus would need to examine:
The engineering required and the potential market demand.
In terms of engineering – it’s certainly possible, but with limitations.
The A321XLR exists because of the inclusion of a rear-center fuel tank.
While Airbus says that this tank takes up less space in the cargo
hold compared to several additional center tanks (ACTs), it nonetheless takes up space.
Adding additional fuel tanks is more feasible with larger aircraft. In terms of proportion and size
relative to the overall aircraft, additional tanks would still leave sufficient room for cargo. But
if an aircraft is smaller, then an extra fuel tank may just gobble up too much space – areas that
would be better served holding baggage and cargo. We can see in this video that with a very small
aircraft, extra fuel tanks quick occupy usable space.
Airbus would need to make sure that an extra fuel tank would be large enough to offer significantly
more range while still leaving enough room in the aircraft’s belly to transport goods.
Then, there’s the big question of whether or not airlines would be interested in such a jet.
At the moment, many long-haul flights are taking off with unfavorable load factors. If airlines
could safely fill their smaller aircraft and still operate long distances, they definitely would.
On the other hand, when it comes to a smaller aircraft and fewer passengers, efficiency in terms
of slot-utilization, staffing, maintenance, and other overhead costs does become a bigger factor.
Again, it’s a fine balance between going the distance and doing it profitably.
Perhaps, then, it’s more likely we would see an A220XLR – but only after the A220-500 is launched
(although it could take awhile). What do you think? Is there a market
for a lower-capacity, ultra-long-range aircraft? Would an A220XLR cannibalize
sales of larger Airbus jets? Let us know your thoughts in the comments!