people are so desperate to "holiday" they'd be towed behind the thing.

Duct-tape class -- half the regular ticket price but they duct-tape you to the wings.

"Duct-tape class -- half the regular ticket price but they duct-tape you to the wings."

I thought that was RyanAir & EasyJet !!!

:)

Don't be silly. The duct tape would be a paid-for extra on that service.

Is 4,700 nano-metres really that far?! Maybe if it were 4,700NM I'd see more clearly what its unique selling point is :-)

If my seat is comfortable why would it matter how wide the body is, and why would more people onboard be more comfortable for me.

Rich people tend to fly in smaller aircraft with less people around, after all.

The real issue is how wide the body next to you is...

The Concorde interior was tiny, though you didn't have to spend much time in it.

On the rare occasions I fly, I find it's (lack of) length that hurts more than width.

Ooooh - Matron!

Both width and length are overrated (in absolute terms). It's how comfortable I am in the specific situation.

You are so not joking. We were on an intra-US Delta flight having booked one of their extra-wide, extra-legroom seats when this git of a large American crashes down into the seat beside me, knocking me aside in the process and slapping his hands down on the armrests. Happy chappy - got both armrests despite being late on the plane. I said nothing but gradually proceeded to invade his space over the course of the next half-hour until he was so uncomfortable that he moved across to the other side of his seat.

You don't always have to make a fuss...

Full marks for that expert repulsion of a space invader.

The real issue is how obesely wide the bodies were next to me (Two on one side & one on the other) for a 13 overnight flight from hell in 1999 back to the UK.

In flight movie was Wild WIld West.

Not a flight I will forget (& I have tried - Icon).

Not so much why as how?

When I see the flight attendants struggling with trolleys and things up the single aisle I wonder how they put up with it. It doesn't look easy. So what is the magic trick?

Having 200+ people on flights lasting up to 11 hours I do hope that they put more loos in. Standing waiting in the aisle for the loo with other people trying to get back to their seats is not one of my favourite occupations. Single aisle aircraft are the cattle trucks of the skies. Flying in a twin aisled a/c is chalk and cheese with a single aisled one. You can at least move in twin aisled ones.

I hope that I am lucky enough never to have to fly in an A321XLR.

Or do as we have done on a couple of occasions - plan a long-haul flight a year to eighteen months ahead and save for Business Class. It doesn't hurt as much when it's done on a bit-by-bit basis and you cannot beat being able to sleep flat on an overnight ten-hour flight.

Or fly on a half empty A380 and get the whole row to yourself. Lift the armrests and lay down. Had that a few times.

Rich people tend to fly in smaller aircraft with less people around, after all.

Fewer people. Lesser people fly commercial.

If my seat is comfortable...

Then I'm in business class or whatever offers a flat bed on long-haul flights. Unfortunately, I'm one of the lesser people and therefore usually jam myself in economy. And hate being in this uncomfortable seat, unsuccessfully trying to sleep and getting grumpier by the minute.

515 advance orders is a result.

If Boeing weren't so focused on stretching the design of their oldest models instead of starting anew, they could be sharing in some of that demand.

Good point except that this is a case of Airbus beating Boeing at their own game. The clue is in the name: the 321 has always been a stretched 320 (just like the 319 is a short body). This is truly Revolution through Evolution based on a really well engineered starting point, instead of cost cutting

Most importantly, this airframe is a modification to a modern one designed with the aid of computer modelling for high-bypass turbofans.

The latest 737 is yet another rework-too-far of something built when turbojets, pencils and sliderules were the latest technology.

And more importantly this will be certified to be flown by A320, A319 (and some other model) pilots because the cockpit, computers and handling will be the same by design rather than trying to add computers to make it feel like a different 50year old airframe

Speaking of pilots, they'll need more than one pair for a journey this long. Where will their rest cabin be? And the same goes for the cabin crew.

The result of cabin crew with no rest -->

Generally a curtained-off row of first class seats - it's what everybody used for years until the S.E Asian long hauls started spec-ing crew rooms

The LR version has no designated crew rest area. It's highly likely that the XLR won't have either. The normal way of getting round this is to designate one First Class/Business Class seat next to the cockpit and rotate the flight crew in to it. Unfortunately the cabin crew aren't so lucky.

The legroom, it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine there could potentially be room for an entite basketball league. Or 100 more Ohioans.

Surely, what people really want is long and wide?

Aussies know the benefits of a proper long haul jet.

Single aisle planes are a nightmare. Food trolleys, bog queues, kids and even sleeping sticky-out legs (I’m not joking).

Give me a true wide-body for genuine long haul, ahh yes, the A380 is perfection, especially upstairs!

>Single aisle planes are a nightmare.

Hence my revolutionary new Mobius aisled aircraft

Amazed they've extended the 1980s-era platform so far, but it was a good forward-thinking design. It can fit proper new-generation engines under the wing (unlike the 737), and even has real undercarriage doors (unlike the 737 with its exposed 'light aircraft' wheels). So well done to Airbus - and all on the original wing, albeit with those giant winglets. Surprised they've managed to roll this one with no actual increase in wing area.

As for comfort, that's all down to the airlines and how much they are prepared to screw you by reducing seat pitch and fitting in an extra row. No reason this can't be a comfortable machine - but whether it /will/ be is another question.

> No reason this can't be a comfortable machine

Yes, one: Profit.

As you said they will try to squeeze some 40 additional seats in length and an extra row in width, after all most passengers are starved leg-amputated pygmies, aren't they. What counts is the price per seat they can announce. (And if they coax more people into going business class, the more profit for them. Win-win.)

Airbus is re-certifying the shorter A320 for 194 passengers now. Seat width is locked in (18", 3+3, still better than a 737), but they reckon they can get away with 28" seat pitch for another row. Mind you, other long haulers are already doing that. Grim - Malaysia Airlines used to have 34" economy pitch on their old 747s!

Delta had 36" pitch on the their first 777s and made a big fuss about it. It didn't last long, but I did get one run from LHR to ORD before the extra seats went back in.

Get back to me when 12,000 miles in a single hop is comfortably doable—Manchester to Auckland.

Having said that, after the first ten hours it's quite nice to get off, stretch the legs, have a decent coffee(!), etc., before steeling oneself for the next 12-13 hours. If only it didn't involve 'clearing Security' all over again. That really does take the shine off the pit-stop.

Plus, I'll add my vote for more leg room any day. I usually pay extra to make sure I get it.

[sigh]

The first ten hours you'll be queuing at security at MAN

I got "special assistance" through Manchester Airport a few years ago. I was wheeled in a pretty much straight line through the airport whereas the building made everyone else snake around in quite an indirect route.

I guess having a nice chap wheel me costs money, whereas the passengers are just supposed to spend as much money as possible before they fly.

“ The first ten hours you'll be queuing at security at MAN”

Who do you know?

Why so fast?

Jealous.

> Plus, I'll add my vote for more leg room any day. I usually pay extra to make sure I get it.

Don't worry, they will make sure you'll have to pay to get some.

Next, pay extra to remove the poisoned spikes from your seat.

"...all the comforts of a wide-body interior..."

Outside of First- and Business-Class, remind me what those are.

A greater choice of toilets to queue in front of!

...the part that gives me the heebeegeebees is being in a flying sardine can. The shape of the can is not the important part.

Flying is safe. Not flying (when you should be) on the other hand...

Long haul flights and a tired crew. Sounds like a wonderfully safe arrangement!

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr-crew-rest/

Anyway, I don't care because 21st century air travel has become so unbearable that I've decided to forgo the experience entirely.

Anyway, I don't care because 21st century air travel has become so unbearable that I've decided to forgo the experience entirely.

Air travel is environmentally completely unjustifiable and none of us should be doing it, no matter how nice the experience. You'd be amazed at how quickly the Guardian nukes comments pointing out that "The ten best long haul yoga holidays" is not remotely compatible with their stance on climate change.

> Air travel is environmentally completely unjustifiable

That might be true, but try to go to Australia by train...

In our even accelerating society and economy, it's unfortunately unavoidable. Ocean liners won't cut it with business men, especially on trips like New York - Tokyo. Heck, by the time you arrive there your smartphone will be out of support!

My point is, not all air traffic is vacations: IIRC the last time I traveled by plane for a vacation was 1990...

(Didn't downvote you.)

But, to be fair, how many business people really NEED to travel these days? Have they not discovered Zoom?

And bringing back the great ocean cruise ships sounds like a pretty neat idea. S.S. Oriana from Southampton to Sydney via Bombay and Singapore. And the food's better than British Airways.

I'm waiting for the option to be anaesthetised, flat packed and shipped as freight.

Rather than being bent at hips and knees and shipped as freight?

On the face of it, the packing density ought to be better so it's a little surprising that no-one has tried this yet.

> it's a little surprising that no-one has tried this yet.

Wildly different form factors: You'd have to accommodate the average US (walrus-sized) male as well as the average (tiny) asian female. Now I know those are stereotypes, and many of you will feel offended if not outraged, but beyond your righteous wrath I hope you get the gist: It's cheaper and safer to let the animals passengers load and unload themselves.

They have: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/08/thinking-inside-the-box-the-welsh-teen-who-tried-to-post-himself-home-from-australia .

There was also the Nigerian politician who didn't book the freight trip https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20211380

You should read "Altered Carbon" by Richard Morgan