That is not supported by the pictures you have provided. The key word that is wrong in your post is payload.
And yet the Airbus picture says "Maximum Structural Payload
". Is it not unreasonable to expect a layman, seeing the word "payload", to think it is referring to payload?
Why is it no operator is able to carry 70 tonnes of payload in a 77W the distance you have stated, while operators can carry in excess of 53 tonnes of payload in the A350-900 over the distance you have stated?
Ah, it's clear now. I made the faux pas
of suggesting a Boeing product could possibly be better than an Airbus product. I know that's like waving a red cape to a bull with you, so no surprise you came out with guns blazing.
Again, to a layman, when someone sees the words "Maximum Structural Payload", one could reasonably assume this means the maximum payload a plane could conceivably carry.
Why does Airbus state in the front of the ACAPS "The aircraft is designed to offer multiple payload capabilities with a consistent range ability across the family", do you understand the Airbus concept of W/V?
Yes. They are what Airbus refers to as Weight Variants and describe the operating weights of the aircraft. Airbus offers a number of them in the ACAP.
Are you aware is vastly different range/payload capabilities of the various A320, A330, and A340 series due to different W/V?
Yes. I alluded to such in Reply #93 where I noted an airline could choose operating weights below the maximum value offered by the OEMs.
Do you understand the relationship between ZFW, DOW, and OEW?
Yes. You and other pilots have taken the opportunity to explain them to us.
The Boeing picture you have posted does not actually say payload does it, it says "OEW PLUS PAYLOAD"...
And if you take that figure of 238,000kg (rounded up) and subtract the manufacturer OEW of 168,000kg (rounded up), you get 70,000kg (rounded up), which matches the figure given for Maximum Structural Payload.
And having contributed to that thread, you know that I am aware the ACAP is not meant to be used as a resource to file flight plans and that both OEMs, as you have pointed out, state as much in their ACAPs. And that the assumptions it makes are generally a "best case scenario" and not indicative of what one could consider normal airline flight planning rules and scenarios.
But as Polot
noted, it's also the only real information most laymen have access to that is posted by the OEM itself and as such, a layman could reasonably expect it to be, if not impartial, at least not negative about the performance of their products. I could instead make comments using information based off of marketing slides from Airbus and Boeing, but I expect most would not consider them particularly impartial towards the performance of their own product nor that of their competitor's.
I have nothing to gain financially if UA were to order A or B aircraft, you cannot say the same.
Yes, I am a Boeing shareholder. I suppose I should feel flattered to think that not only are UA management reading this thread, but that information I have posted may have a material effect on them making fleet decisions and therefore needs your urgent corrections.
And as I have often stated that the A350 is an excellent choice for United so you should feel confident their A350 order is safe.
Unlike you, I am rated on both A & B products.
And last I checked, having an Air Transport License was not a requirement for posting on this site.
Being an active commercial pilot makes you a valuable source of information. And to the credit of many commercial pilots on this forum, they share what information they are allowed by their company and the OEMs to try and answer the questions of folks like VC10er
. But you, however, tend to use it as a club to try and beat down people you have a disagreement with.
When I pull someone up for being factually wrong, I get personal attacks in return.
Maybe if you didn't always resort to personal attacks when doing so, you might not get the same treatment in kind.
Why are we debating ACAPS?
. He's the one who decided to drag the thread off-topic with this whole side-show.