Latest Airbus single aisle aircraft innovations
airbus.com47 points by r2sk5t 3 days ago
47 points by r2sk5t 3 days ago
Main points:
- "seats measure up to 18-inches wide in economy, the same standard configuration found on Airbus widebody aircraft"
- "To minimise cabin pressure effects on the body, the cabin maintains a 6,000-feet average altitude pressure, roughly equivalent to that of a mountain ski town. This is the same cabin pressure as the modern A350 widebody, and it helps to reduce physical fatigue, headaches and jet lag."
- "Modern next-generation LED lighting systems aboard the A321XLR gently transition through customised hues, mimicking natural sunrises and sunsets to help reset the body’s circadian rhythm. Temperature control is split into three actively controlled zones, and airlines can even opt for heated floor panels to give passengers an extra touch of cozy luxury. Last but not least, advanced acoustic technologies have been integrated through the aircraft’s frame to minimise engine noise, resulting in a 50% noise footprint reduction compared to previous-generation single-aisle aircraft."
I've always wondered why airlines are so bad at managing jet lag for passengers. On a long-haul with Virgin Airways from SFO to LHR, instead of telling people to sleep early in the flight and waking them up for food before arriving at Heathrow at 12pm local time. They kept everyone up for hours with food and then let them sleep for about 2 hours before waking people up for arrival at 12pm.
Weird. My general approach is to switch to destination time as soon as I am seated and then act like I am in the destination timezone. Sleep as best I can if it is night at the destination and force myself awake if it is still day time. Seems much easier to synchronize that way.
The LEDs might work well though if they have been designed to do the job.
Generally because they prioritize ease of operations over helping customers overcome jetlag. In this particular situation I'd guess the ease of operation comes from:
* full customers are easier to deal with than hungry customers
* Doing meal service early avoids the risk that weather turns rough, making a late meal service hard/impossible.
* Crews are fresher earlier in the flight, and so are do a better job and prefer doing meals early.
* Waking customers up is extra work for crews, and may not be wanted by passengers.
Generally your body can only adjust 1 hour per day (varies by direction of travel). So shifting at the start of your travel is a bit late. You probably want to shift gradually a few days before travel if it’s a major shift.
But that argues equally strongly for what the parent suggests in terms of flight meal/sleep timing.
On SFO to LHR flights I tend to eat in the lounge, down a shot of Dream Water and just sleep until LHR.
Sadly the Virgin arrivals lounge closes by the time you get through immigration and baggage collection, so you'll need to grab a bite to eat, but it's not the end of the world. I can usually average 6-8 hours of decent enough sleep doing that.
>They kept everyone up for hours with food and then let them sleep for about 2 hours before waking people up for arrival at 12pm.
Weird, must be airline specific? All the intercontinental flights I've taken recently follows a "take-off -> food -> dark -> food -> landing" schedule, regardless of what time it is outside.
Yeah there's no way you're going to fix the jet lag on SFO-LHR or any similar city pair in one day
Will the speakers sound like a dollar store model or are we going to finally understand what the pilots are saying?
My dislike for single aisle aircraft isn't about cabin pressure or the "impression of a wider open space". It's about the fact that it is ACTUALLY cramped, and the _one_ aisle will be blocked for most of the flight.
In a typical single aisle airplane, sitting in coach, you're expected to use the restroom "in your cabin" which is at the rear. If you're sitting anywhere _except_ the rear, your access to the restroom will be blocked for a significant portion of shorter flights by food/bev carts.
By contrast, on a widebody, there are restrooms front and rear. If your access to one is blocked, you can go the other way, and you can _also_ use the front or rear to access the _other_ aisle. It's the difference between feeling totally confined versus freedom to move about (other than having to hassle any passengers between yourself and the aisle).
I admit, with limited cabin service in economy, on a longer flight, the blocked aisle isn't such an issue -- but on the typical 1.5-3h narrowbody flight, the food/bev service does seem to be a significant obstruction.
I'm someone who would happily pay up for a lie-flat more frequently if it was priced at 2-3x a regular ticket rather than 5x+. Airlines are slowly expanding premium cabins, and I'd be hopeful that narrowbodies like this permit further growth, but the demand seems to be increasing faster than the supply, so the prices are still crazy.
The new, larger narrowbodies are adding a lav at the front of economy which helps with this. https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/aircraft/boeing-737...
True, but it's not all roses. If you like to sit at the front of economy to exit as fast as possible when arriving, you will be sitting next to a heavily-used lav which is not enjoyable. You have to sit 4-6 rows back from the lav to avoid the annoyance.
Is there a term for a product which is really only really for a minority of it's users?
Air travel seems like this as most airlines and manufacturers seem to bend over backwards for their wealthy and high margin passengers and basically treat economy class as "fine I guess we'll throw the rest of you in the back"
Mobile games seem the apotheosis of this as a lot of games are really about finding whales and any enjoyment anyone else has is really an accidental side effect.
You’re describing the “whale model”. The entire product is aimed at the few big participants and everyone else is brought there only because there’s a chance they might be one. So it’s a probabilistic thing.
In any case, I don’t actually agree with you. The advent of Basic Economy as a category shows that. I always wanted an ultra cheap category in the US when I was young and now it exists. That category is valuable to the kind of person who is aiming simply to be transported from one place to another and can withstand discomfort.
Overall, I really like air travel in the US. There’s a straightforward sliding scale of comfort and price and you pick where you want to be on it. Flights are available often and easily. The prices also seem to align with things that would cost airlines and because they surge prices etc they’re able to balance availability and accessibility.
European air travel is also good with many options but I don’t have much experience with it recently. And of course the E Asian airlines are good. I don’t mind a classic Cathay but a Starlux plane is very nice even in Economy.
As someone who has flown every class available and routinely selects based on what and with whom I’m traveling, I think air travel today is more accessible and nicer than ever before.
Airlines treat people like cattle then wonder why people behave like animals. I just did a cross country trip, about 4 hours per hop. I was so sore after that I've basically sworn off traveling that way ever again.
You can tell they keep removing space to fit more bodies in at all costs because they don't even try to line up seats with windows anymore. Multiple seats had windows in places that made them basically useless and one seat from what I could tell had two windows just due to the placement.
Don't even get me started on the cart that goes up the aisle handing out dry cookies to everyone followed by the person with a trash bag coming along to gather it from you.
I had school buses as a kid that were more comfortable and the people better behaved.
Everybody but the wealthy shops for airline tickets with price as their only criterion. Airlines are rational agents who operate in a famously competitive and low-margin business, so they respond to this demand-- indeed, they don't have any choice.
I have a lot of complaints about products and services that I can chalk up to various market failures or sinister actors, but poor airline experience is entirely on us, the consumer. Our revealed preference is for the lowest possible ticket price all else be damned.
I have racked up some air miles in my time. I am not wealthy, and price is a major criterion, but there are some airlines and airports I avoid at nearly all costs. I wish there were enough like me to put pressure on airlines to do better, but alas it's a losing battle it seems.
The safety, even on the budget airlines is amazing. You wonder though, if they sold seats for $50, to get to the other side of the world, but you had a 10% chance of dying, how many people would take it.
Nilay Patel (I'm gonna get this slightly wrong) has this story where he was talking to an airline CEO about standing-only tickets and the guy said "I know two things. If we did standing-only tickets we'd get roasted by the public, and those tickets would need the most popular tickets by far."
This was RyanAir's CEO. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/feb/28/ryanair-sta...
This would make for an interesting aspect of a dystopian future. Accepted liability as a slider basically. There would obviously be entire regimes around auditing the published numbers (since companies would be incentivized to make their options appear less risky than they are). Pretty anarcho-capitalist.
Ah but it’s 1% that you bought though 2 out of 100 of the last flights crashed. You ask for a refund or you pull out the pandas to check the likelihood they aren’t living up to the promise?
It's worth remembering that the airline market is very competitive and this happens because it matches consumer preferences. Yes, nobody wants to be crammed into a tiny seat. But given the choice between a large seat or a tiny seat that costs $5 less, people reliably choose to save $5. The only reason the experience is so miserable is because the flying public will accept nearly anything to save a little money.
It's also worth remembering that there are various premium options available. You can pay extra for economy plus or really splurge on business/first. "That's too expensive" OK well you made your choice....
Premium Economy is so much more expensive than steerage class that it's not a realistic 'option' for the majority of potential passengers.
> " OK well you made your choice...."
The only choice for most people is "fly cheap" or "don't go".
The parent poster said "Economy plus", not "Premium Economy".
And while the names are confusingly similar, Economy Plus is usually a seat with extra legroom (but no additional width) and is a small price bump, but Premium Economy is a larger wider seat with generous recline (but not lay-flat), and is a large price increase, sometimes approaching business class pricing.
Also adding to confusion is that different routes (and distances) have different hard products.
"Premium economy" on an international long haul flight is often the same (or very similar) seat as "first class" on a domestic flight.
I've recently been blessed with being able to afford flying on lie-flat seats (international business class). That said, I've found what you are calling "economy plus" to be the sweet spot.
You get slightly more leg room, but also priority boarding so that you don't have to worry about getting your bag gatechecked. It's also only slightly more expensive than main cabin regular economy.
"Premium economy" is significantly more expensive, and while you do get a bigger seat, it's not lie-flat. You can recline more, but the few times I've flown it, you are still able to piss off the passenger behind you when you recline with all the shenanigans that can entail. Thus I find it not worth the premium.
Flying LAX to SYD and return in Delta Premium Select, at least 30 of the 40 seats wer empty, despite economy being full. I was curious about this, and learned that Delta had made a decision to largely stop bumping passengers up in many cases because they felt that they were passengers who would have paid for PS, but it had gotten to the point of passengers taking their chances ("I'll buy a Comfort Plus ticket, that usually gets me upgraded, and is cheaper.")
Then be grateful that travel is cheap enough that you can go, even if it's uncomfortable.
We flew from IAD to DUB on Aer Lingus a month ago. Outbound was an A321neo LR/XLR and it was not bad at all. Legroom was fine (for me at 5'7"), big overhead bins should be required these days, and the entertainment setup was passable. The only complaint was flaky seat-back trays that required a real SLAM to latch. The damn things were constantly dropping down, getting slammed back not quite hard enough, and falling again. Not all of them, but enough it was noticeable.
Return was on their A330, which was noticeable worse in every way EXCEPT it's 2-4-2 seatings, so we had a pair of outside seats to ourselves, where on the A321, it's 3-3, so you have a neighbor in the window seat.
Because everyone sleeps soundly with bright blue LED lighting blaring in their faces.
I fail to see what's innovative about "we shoved business class seats into a narrow-body aircraft".
An A321 is still an A321.
Flying internationally in a single-aisle aircraft is under any circumstances torture no matter how you sugar coat it: "Come fly in our modern, innovative sardine can."
By the way BA did this years ago with their London City A318 which doesn't exist anymore because it was a failure that merely burned money.
That flight was an odd bird from the outset. It didn't have the range to make NY in a single go, so it stopped in Shannon Ireland to refuel, where passengers deplaned, went through US Preclearance, and rebounded. IIRC, the US->UK return was non-stop. So one leg was longer than normal. Ultimately, it was dying on it's own when COVID drove the final nail into the coffin.
> Because everyone sleeps soundly with bright blue LED lighting blaring in their faces.
Apropos of anything else, and leaving aside intensity, almost all of the research into blue light and sleep points to it having nearly no effect. Maybe less surprising when one of the earlier corporate proponents of this was Luxottica who just saw another opportunity to make money.
I never understood why the airplane size matters so much to an individual passenger. What's the difference to me, as a standard economy passenger, between flying internationally in an A321 or a 787? I have the same tiny seat either way. My knees are crammed into the next seat's back the same on both. I see this sentiment stated frequently and I just don't get it.
The pressurization system being improved is the only thing of note in this promotional material that is for some reason on HN.
Not covered: the inevitable even-smaller lavatory to further insult the dignity of the flying public.
At this point, the designers of narrow-body interiors should be actively shamed for how hostile they have made lavatory designs. In a world in which every major flying population is aging and more overweight, yet every generation of airplane lavatories is even narrower and less accessible for everyone.
Lavatories are seen as a waste of space because they cannot seat passengers in it. A regulation is required when the incentives are misaligned with the reality.
Indeed, regulation is the only way to protect passengers from market greed here, but the airplane makers play a critical role in what designs they make available to airlines. Airbus and Boeing both like to market their newer designs and interiors in terms of passenger comfort (lower cabin altitude, reduced noise, larger windows, etc) so clearly they (and their customers) understand that passenger comfort justifies spending somewhat more than the bare minimum. And given past designs (and designs still fitted in widebodies) they very much know how to build useful lavatories.
I suspect in time there will actually be safety consequences to the continued downsizing of airplane lavatories. There are already a number of serious incidents that have been caused by fluid leaks from galleys and lavatories (IIRC Quantas came pretty close to losing a 747-400 due to a kitchen leak leading to massive water intrusion into the main electrical/avionics bay - once you end up pouring large quantities of water on your avionics all bets are off about the systems failures that will happen and you are well beyond any backup/redundancy that has been designed in, and during the 60s and 70s the USAF experienced serious corrosion of flight control cables on C-130s due to urine "leakage"). Too-small lavatories basically guarantee that water and urine are going to end up in undesirable locations and at best they will cause expensive interior corrosion and at worst they will cause serious corrosion to the airframe or critical equipment.
The first class seats look like a nightmare if you have kids.
In what way? So many international first class seats are similar to this already. Either there is a massive barrier between seats or separated.
Qatar's 777s have a fairly good setup, where the middle business class rows can be turned into something of a pod, with separators removed in both axes so you can have four people in a 2x2 facing each other setup...
... for a cost.
How about seats that are adjustable to fit small people. I'm sick of sitting in seats with concave lumbar regions. It tears up my back. I know, I know, the seats need to accommodate large, more spherical people. Cant there be an adjustable lumbar support though?
Any time you say "adjustable" the manufacturer and operator only here "heavier" which translates to "more expensive to operate."
The manufacturers are willing to put in whatever seats the operators want, and airlines want to have the lightest, most compact seats possible because that allows them to offer the lowest price, which is what passengers choose.
My wife's short so she's actually quite uncomfortable in a business class seat unless it's reclined-- seat bottom length is an issue for her, sometimes even in economy. On the flipside, I'm of pretty average height, but the flat seat cushions mean I always feel like I'm sitting awkwardly on my tailbone. I wonder why they couldn't just be more like a car seat, with some thigh support. I'm not sure I've ever been in a car seat less comfortable than the _best_ economy airline seat.
> I wonder why they couldn't just be more like a car seat, with some thigh support. I'm not sure I've ever been in a car seat less comfortable than the _best_ economy airline seat.
Car seats are a lot heavier than airplane seats.
Seats are airline equipment. They depend on the airline and it's suppliers and are optionally assembled by Airbus.
Since we are voicing seat related complaints, I want seats that don't recline. I don't want that asshole in front of me ruining my flight again.
You could consider sitting in an exit row. The seats in front of that row are typically prohibited from reclining in order not to block the exit. Or you can sit behind a bulkhead.
I don't get the griping with the reclining. I see it all over reddit and here. Never in real life. It has never affected my life in the least bit to have someone in the seat ahead of me recline their seat. It doesn't affect knee room at all. You lose what maybe 3 inches of dead air space if that at the top of their seat.
It's only dead space if you are not using it. I like to open my laptop and place it on the tray. When the person in front reclines, I am forced to sit still for the duration of the flight. I usually fly from Europe to Asia, so 10-12 hours.
I don't get this attitude. The seats are meant to recline, as soon as takeoff is finished I recline. If you want more space, you should too.
Yeah, I'm six foot, always in the most basic economy, and never once has the person in front reclining impacted me.
It feels like the same phenomenon when people bitched and moaned about having to take even the slightest COVID precautions.
There are people that are taller than six foot and it also depends heavily on whether you have long legs or a long torso.
If you are tall, then no amount of reclining is going to give you more space. The knees are too far forward to stretch your legs, _especially_ when the person in front of you reclines.
In other words, you are inconsiderate.
I'm unusually tall and flying has always been unpleasant no matter what. I can actually deal with the reclining because it's actually physically impossible for the person ahead of me to recline since my knees are in the way. What really gets me is the fact that the seat back only comes up to my neck and I can't sleep because my head just flops around. I've been meaning to find some security-friendly contraption that could extend the back a little bit to immobilize me a bit better.
Remember that airlines almost always opt for the more cramped and cheaper variants of interiors, asking "ok but how do we fit even more cattle in here?"
But also remember that airline customers also opt for the more cramped and cheaper variants.
I long ago swore to pay for economy plus. It isn't much more and the space is nice. Enough people do that they still offer the this service
But also remember they do that because their employer has opted to pay them as little as possible
How far do you want to take this? :)
The thing is, this is far from universal. People don't buy a substantially worse smartphone or car to save $5. But they'll accept a substantially worse product to save $5 on airline tickets.
Which two airlines have substantially different products for a $5 difference?
If you didn't mean literally $5 perhaps you can give us some real examples of cost differences?
Personally I find so little difference between airlines in economy these days. And Premium Economy is nowhere close to a '$5' difference long haul these days
[flagged]
Ah, look at all these things I will never be able to afford
Maybe its due to the lessons learned, the extreme conservatism in air travel should be up to a disruption. It's nice that they make blue light to look like the sky but:
1) The windows are disappointing. This is, I think, due to the fatigue caused by large rectangular windows that previously caused a disaster but it begs for improvement. A way to make large windows or get rid of all the windows and use very high definition screens to imitate windows with live footage would be nicer
2) Noise is still a problem. I am sure they are trying hard, even the engines are designed around addressing the noise issue but it would be a huge improvement to have this solved. ANC maybe?
3) Automate the pilot out. This is I believe an area where plane makers are pioneers but we still got pilots, I would love to see flying with a plane becoming about the same as taking an elevator.
IMHO travel times are reasonable, the improvements in comfort, cost and practicality are due. Airports themselves too are due for an overhaul, it shouldn't be taking hours to get on a travel machine.
It only takes hours for administrative reasons. Pre-COVID, I used to show up at IAD 25 minutes before departure time when I knew security would be fast and I could get right to my gate.
Overall, facilities that handle millions of people tend to have a lot of "standing in line" and the slightest disruptions can mean you'll be standing in line for an extra hour.
> Automate the pilot out.
That's a complete non-starter for now and the next decades. Fully automated operation for 1-dimensional transport (trains) is a solved issue, for 2D, not so much and most certainly not for 3D.
Even though modern planes are very reliable, too many things can go wrong during flight to leave it to a machine - and for what? Just for bragging rights?