• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 2272
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:44 pm

intotheair wrote:
None of that is really true. Airbus has updated the interior to make it look pretty nice, and the A330neo will have essentially the same cabin design as the A350.


Oh, yes, it is objectively true. The A330 is stuck in the era of shelf bins, lower interior pressure, and small windows. Even the NEO is simply lipstick on a pig. It's still long-obsolete interior comfort technology that was surpassed over two decades ago with the 777. The A350 interior is a large step above the old and new A330.

KarelXWB wrote:
Airbus offers more up-to-date cabins, it's up to the airline to retrofit the aircraft.

Have any evidence for that statement besides being an Airbus fan? It's an objectively incorrect statement if used in a general sense.

L410Turbolet wrote:
The only A330s with 3-3-3 I can think of ATM is Air Caraibes which shuttles people to French Caribic islands. Technically a domestic line. It is an atrocity on the same level a typical 777 with 10-abreast is.
I absolutely love flying on 767s and A330 as they seem to be reasonably sized planes with reasonable seating config.


There's a handful of 3-3-3 A330 operators already, and any new orders are planes that will be flying for 20-30 years. Nobody would have guessed that 3-4-3 would be common in the 777 a decade or two ago. You have to think logically into the far future. A new A330 has a good chance to be 3-3-3 in economy by the time it retires.

Simple cabin width calculations say that the A330 is the next aircraft in danger of seeing a mainstream shift to a tighter configuration. The 3-3-3 787 was an easy switch to the mainstream because of the generous width offered by 2-4-2. The 777 was next generous with the 3-3-3, and that one has progressed to majority acceptance of 3-4-3. Next onboard is the A330. The A350 and 767 will be the least likely.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1472
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:33 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Airbus offers more up-to-date cabins, it's up to the airline to retrofit the aircraft.


Have any evidence for that statement besides being an Airbus fan? It's an objectively incorrect statement if used in a general sense.



Its funny, in most cases when we discuss seats and interiors on this site its always the airlines that get the blame if they fit a 787 with crappy seats and bad IFE, but now it seems like it is Airbus's fault. Is this because it is Airbus and not Boeing?


MSPNWA wrote:
There's a handful of 3-3-3 A330 operators already, and any new orders are planes that will be flying for 20-30 years. Nobody would have guessed that 3-4-3 would be common in the 777 a decade or two ago. You have to think logically into the far future. A new A330 has a good chance to be 3-3-3 in economy by the time it retires.

Simple cabin width calculations say that the A330 is the next aircraft in danger of seeing a mainstream shift to a tighter configuration. The 3-3-3 787 was an easy switch to the mainstream because of the generous width offered by 2-4-2. The 777 was next generous with the 3-3-3, and that one has progressed to majority acceptance of 3-4-3. Next onboard is the A330. The A350 and 767 will be the least likely.



Seems like the limit for allowable Y seats for full service airlines are the 17.2" that the 787 offer. Anything less than this falls squarely into the LCC and leisure model and this is the only operators that offer 3-3-3 on the A330. I doubt this will change in future on the A330neo unless the only operators that order the A330 are LCC or leisure airlines.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24746
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:01 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Its funny, in most cases when we discuss seats and interiors on this site its always the airlines that get the blame if they fit a 787 with crappy seats and bad IFE, but now it seems like it is Airbus's fault.


Are there a significant number of vendors for things like sidewalls and overhead bins that airlines can choose from like there are with seating? I generally see the same style of interior structure on an airplane model, regardless of airline, so it seems like something the OEMs limit in terms of choice. As such, we have things like Boeing's Signature Interiors and now Airbus' Airspace interiors predominately fitted to each respective OEM's airframes.
 
bigb
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:20 pm

He is correct about the A330 cabin pressure being low. It averages about 7000-8000 feet with the 777 being 7000-8000 feet and the 787 being 5000-6000
ETSN Baber, USN
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:39 am

Stitch, I think another reason why JL and NH dropped the 787-3 was its relatively short range (around 3,500 nm) made the plane not viable in the used airplane market. Not to mention the fact that by the time the 787-3 finally entered service, it would have to compete against the Hokuriku Shinkansen train in the Tokyo-Toyama and Tokyo-Kanazawa markets, routes that used to be served by NH widebody jets as big as a 777-200!
 
Boeing12345
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:13 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:19 am

The A350 does not look to be joining the UAL fleet in 2018. As others have stated all internal induction work is currently on hold.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24746
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:41 am

RayChuang wrote:
Stitch, I think another reason why JL and NH dropped the 787-3 was its relatively short range (around 3,500 nm) made the plane not viable in the used airplane market.


Except the entire point of the 787-3 was for use on short-haul flights. :) JL and NH both ordered it to replace their domestic 767 and 777 fleets. Structurally it was to be some 10,000kg lighter than a 787-8 through optimization for short-haul flying and it could only tank up to ~49,000 liters of fuel compared to ~126,000 for the 787-8 (I'm guessing the -3 omitted the center tank).

It is true those limitations killed any interest for the plane in Europe and the North American market's focus on frequency meant that it was not of any interest to US carriers, as well. Asia could have been a potential market, but there was extensive construction of new airports across the region that were designed around Code E gates for widebodies so they could take the 787-8 with it's better aerodynamic performance (the 787-3 was designed with a span to fit inside Code D gates used by 757s and 767s).
 
Mrak79
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:57 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:49 am

MSPNWA wrote:
intotheair wrote:
None of that is really true. Airbus has updated the interior to make it look pretty nice, and the A330neo will have essentially the same cabin design as the A350.


Oh, yes, it is objectively true. The A330 is stuck in the era of shelf bins, lower interior pressure, and small windows. Even the NEO is simply lipstick on a pig. It's still long-obsolete interior comfort technology that was surpassed over two decades ago with the 777. The A350 interior is a large step above the old and new A330.


Are you serious? Pivoting bins make cabin more confortable? Cabin press is same like other A/C on A330 except B787 and A350. I floew on board B77W and there was noise from air conditioning that feels you are flying in cabriolet!!! T7 is same technology level and cabin furbishing depends on operator!
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1472
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:44 am

Stitch wrote:
Are there a significant number of vendors for things like sidewalls and overhead bins that airlines can choose from like there are with seating? I generally see the same style of interior structure on an airplane model, regardless of airline, so it seems like something the OEMs limit in terms of choice. As such, we have things like Boeing's Signature Interiors and now Airbus' Airspace interiors predominately fitted to each respective OEM's airframes.



Not sure, but it may just be that the OEM interior is less expensive to fit than going custom made for an airline and why you see interiors that look similar. Doesn't really change the fact that Airbus has updated their A330 interior and it should be possible to change items in the cabin when maintenance in scheduled to fit new style bins or sidewalls and seats and lighting if an airline feels like it.

I am sure with the new deliveries of aircraft you will get a modern feel in the cabin, if you fly around older aircraft that has not had a cabin refresh the interiors will look old if you don't invest in your product. I don't see this as any different to the argument that the comfort of seats in Y is an airline option and nothing to do with the OEM.
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:35 am

MSPNWA wrote:
intotheair wrote:
None of that is really true. Airbus has updated the interior to make it look pretty nice, and the A330neo will have essentially the same cabin design as the A350.


Oh, yes, it is objectively true. The A330 is stuck in the era of shelf bins, lower interior pressure, and small windows. Even the NEO is simply lipstick on a pig. It's still long-obsolete interior comfort technology that was surpassed over two decades ago with the 777. The A350 interior is a large step above the old and new A330.

KarelXWB wrote:
Airbus offers more up-to-date cabins, it's up to the airline to retrofit the aircraft.

Have any evidence for that statement besides being an Airbus fan? It's an objectively incorrect statement if used in a general sense.

L410Turbolet wrote:
The only A330s with 3-3-3 I can think of ATM is Air Caraibes which shuttles people to French Caribic islands. Technically a domestic line. It is an atrocity on the same level a typical 777 with 10-abreast is.
I absolutely love flying on 767s and A330 as they seem to be reasonably sized planes with reasonable seating config.


There's a handful of 3-3-3 A330 operators already, and any new orders are planes that will be flying for 20-30 years. Nobody would have guessed that 3-4-3 would be common in the 777 a decade or two ago. You have to think logically into the far future. A new A330 has a good chance to be 3-3-3 in economy by the time it retires.

Simple cabin width calculations say that the A330 is the next aircraft in danger of seeing a mainstream shift to a tighter configuration. The 3-3-3 787 was an easy switch to the mainstream because of the generous width offered by 2-4-2. The 777 was next generous with the 3-3-3, and that one has progressed to majority acceptance of 3-4-3. Next onboard is the A330. The A350 and 767 will be the least likely.


Lol haters are going to be haters.

Unless Airbus shave the cabin of the A330 mainstream operators won't go for a 3-3-3 on the A330 simply because it is too tight. People are so silly they assume that because the 787 is going 2-4-2 to 3-3-3 the A330 will follow. Boeing manufacture their cabin product to accept both configurations in an acceptable width, Airbus don't and hence the A330 and A350 won't be going high density for mainstream carriers (otherwise as you have kindly pointed out it would have started already).

The A330 and 777 have the SAME cabin pressure of 7000-8000 feet.

I didn't know smaller windows and shelf bins is obsolete technology, sure you can make them pivot and bigger but there's nothing wrong with a proven design. Especially when you dress it up. Nothing suggests that those designs are deterimental to cabin experience.

But of course we are hearing from the same group of people who argue the A350 will never make it to UA.

Boeing12345 wrote:
The A350 does not look to be joining the UAL fleet in 2018. As others have stated all internal induction work is currently on hold.


I rest my case.
Inspire the truth.
 
B737900ER
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:30 am

So UA discussion anyone? Or do we continue with the same POINTLESS A vs B dribble?
 
VC10er
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:31 pm

nikeherc wrote:
VC10er wrote:
I don't want to be put on a new aircraft with a cane. But such is life and the time it takes to design and build a new aircraft. I'm just hoping for some rides on the A350 (and 787-10's) with United out of EWR.


Don't despair. I'm almost 71, have two artificial knees and COPD and I still board planes without a cane. Even if you do need a cane, that's better than flying in the hold under the alias "Mr. Jones."


I applaud you! I truly respect your determination and resilience. I was (hope it was obvious) being sarcastic to underscore how excited I get about boarding a new aircraft and both love and hate the wait. As a big sci-fi fan, I'm disappointed I won't live to see flying cars and antigravity aircraft without wings and skims the edge of space. I do think when that happens it will time to update the United livery for sure! Another thread I will miss!
I prefer flying over the vacation itself! I go on business trips just so I can fly!
 
VC10er
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:37 pm

Will a 787-10 be able to fly west coast USA to Europe? Or EWR to Bombay?

What kind of range will she have vs the 9, or A350 or 77W? I assume once ALL are in service UA will have a lot of flexibility except for the 767/757 replacements - which we currently do not know yet.
I prefer flying over the vacation itself! I go on business trips just so I can fly!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24746
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:55 pm

VC10er wrote:
Will a 787-10 be able to fly west coast USA to Europe? Or EWR to Bombay?


Not with a full load, no. But it will be able to do at least as well as UA's 777-200As and I believe those do East Coast-Europe.


VC10er wrote:
What kind of range will she have vs the 9, or A350 or 77W?


Boeing hasn't published an ACAP yet, so nothing "official".

Airbus claims it will fly 4000nm with a 53,000kg payload. PIANO-X says it will do that with a 59,000kg payload and over 5000nm with a 53,000kg payload.

The Airbus ACAP for the A350-900 shows 6000nm with a 53,000kg payload.

The Boeing ACAP for the 777-300ER shows 5750nm with a 70,000kg payload.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7262
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:15 pm

PhoenixVIP wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
intotheair wrote:
None of that is really true. Airbus has updated the interior to make it look pretty nice, and the A330neo will have essentially the same cabin design as the A350.


Oh, yes, it is objectively true. The A330 is stuck in the era of shelf bins, lower interior pressure, and small windows. Even the NEO is simply lipstick on a pig. It's still long-obsolete interior comfort technology that was surpassed over two decades ago with the 777. The A350 interior is a large step above the old and new A330.

KarelXWB wrote:
Airbus offers more up-to-date cabins, it's up to the airline to retrofit the aircraft.

Have any evidence for that statement besides being an Airbus fan? It's an objectively incorrect statement if used in a general sense.

L410Turbolet wrote:
The only A330s with 3-3-3 I can think of ATM is Air Caraibes which shuttles people to French Caribic islands. Technically a domestic line. It is an atrocity on the same level a typical 777 with 10-abreast is.
I absolutely love flying on 767s and A330 as they seem to be reasonably sized planes with reasonable seating config.


There's a handful of 3-3-3 A330 operators already, and any new orders are planes that will be flying for 20-30 years. Nobody would have guessed that 3-4-3 would be common in the 777 a decade or two ago. You have to think logically into the far future. A new A330 has a good chance to be 3-3-3 in economy by the time it retires.

Simple cabin width calculations say that the A330 is the next aircraft in danger of seeing a mainstream shift to a tighter configuration. The 3-3-3 787 was an easy switch to the mainstream because of the generous width offered by 2-4-2. The 777 was next generous with the 3-3-3, and that one has progressed to majority acceptance of 3-4-3. Next onboard is the A330. The A350 and 767 will be the least likely.


Lol haters are going to be haters.

Unless Airbus shave the cabin of the A330 mainstream operators won't go for a 3-3-3 on the A330 simply because it is too tight. People are so silly they assume that because the 787 is going 2-4-2 to 3-3-3 the A330 will follow. Boeing manufacture their cabin product to accept both configurations in an acceptable width, Airbus don't and hence the A330 and A350 won't be going high density for mainstream carriers (otherwise as you have kindly pointed out it would have started already).

The A330 and 777 have the SAME cabin pressure of 7000-8000 feet.

I didn't know smaller windows and shelf bins is obsolete technology, sure you can make them pivot and bigger but there's nothing wrong with a proven design. Especially when you dress it up. Nothing suggests that those designs are deterimental to cabin experience.

But of course we are hearing from the same group of people who argue the A350 will never make it to UA.

Boeing12345 wrote:
The A350 does not look to be joining the UAL fleet in 2018. As others have stated all internal induction work is currently on hold.


I rest my case.


And if they don't take them in 2018? Does that make you a hater? I'm just trying to keep up with what a "hater" is around here - it seems to be anyone smeone disagrees with but I'm hoping we can do better than that.
-Dave
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24746
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:30 pm

zeke wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The Airbus ACAP for the A350-900 shows 6000nm with a 53,000kg payload.

The Boeing ACAP for the 777-300ER shows 5750nm with a 70,000kg payload.


Neither the 777 or A350 ACAPS make those statements, care to elaborate where you are plucking the numbers from?


Sure. Here are the relevant Payload-Range charts from the Airbus A350 ACAP (November 2016 Edition) and Boeing 777HGW ACAP (May 2011 Edition*):

Image

The Airbus chart shows the Maximum Structural Payload line falling between 50,000 and 60,000kg markers and other slides they have presented comparing the A350-900 to the 787-10 have given that value as 53,000kg. The kink in the line where it starts to fall off is midway between the 5500nm and 6500nm markers.

Image

The Boeing chart shows the kink in the payload starts to fall off midway between the 5500nm and 6000nm markers. The Boeing value for Maximum Structural Payload is provided in Section 2.1.1 of their ACAP:

Image


zeke wrote:
Do people know you are making those statements as a former Boeing employee ? not exactly impartial.


And you are a current pilot for Cathay Pacific who is certified to fly at least the Airbus aircraft in the fleet per your statements on the aircraft you have flown. So we must conclude you cannot be impartial, either?


* - I see Boeing has published a May 2015 edition, but the values for MSP are the same as is the Payload-Range Chart.
 
CX747
Posts: 5873
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:51 pm

Stitch- Thanks for the outstanding information as always.

So we now have 2 seperate posters on this thread stating all internal work to introduce the A350 has been put on hold. In addition, any potential entry to the fleet will be after 2018.

Plenty of internal work going on at United. It seems the brakes have been out on the A350 but they are hot on the Boeing 797 design.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 2971
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:29 am

PhoenixVIP wrote:
But of course we are hearing from the same group of people who argue the A350 will never make it to UA.

Boeing12345 wrote:
The A350 does not look to be joining the UAL fleet in 2018. As others have stated all internal induction work is currently on hold.


I rest my case.


Before you rest your case, you do know that there are folks who know what is going on internally with United right ? Folks in the know, unlike some posters who seem to think they know it all. Your case is full of holes, there is no argument other than the one you are trying to make.

There is something afoot with the Airbus A-350 order. Nothing definite yet.
The gun is a precious Symbol of Freedom
Criminals are the deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence of tyrants who disarm their citizens
 
VC10er
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:56 am

Stitch wrote:
VC10er wrote:
Will a 787-10 be able to fly west coast USA to Europe? Or EWR to Bombay?


Not with a full load, no. But it will be able to do at least as well as UA's 777-200As and I believe those do East Coast-Europe.


Do the 772's do west coast USA to Europe, EWR Bombay with a full load?

So, to be 100% clear, a 787-9 could, a 787-10 is a clear maybe?
I prefer flying over the vacation itself! I go on business trips just so I can fly!
 
CX747
Posts: 5873
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:17 am

Boeing and UA have a great relationship. With that said, the A350 order does bring up questions. UA ordered 65 737-700s and then cancelled/deferred for an unknown type of 737-Max series aircraft in the future. There seemed to be no penalties etc.

All of this occurred with the A350 order still progressing. Would Boeing allow for two separate 73G orders to get smoked by the same people who can afford new A350s???? All of this was done by a new management team. Cancelling one and taking the other isn't going to sit well with the folks getting their order torn up.

UA seems hot to trot on the 797 which should mean no love for the A321. What would they take from Airbus in the 350s place should they try and swap? Maybe 321s as interim lift till the 797?

I think they take the 350 and order the 797 in droves. IF they somehow cancel the 350 order and go with the 797 then Airbus is getting the short end of the stick. That could happen if UA is looking at going to Boeing for all future orders for the next 5-10 years.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24746
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:27 am

VC10er wrote:
Do the 772's do west coast USA to Europe, EWR Bombay with a full load?


I've done LHR-LAX on a UA 777-200ER that had a full passenger load. Don't know what cargo was like.
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:54 am

I've done FRA SFO on the 772 all seats filled. Fair bit of revving before he released the brakes on t/o. My understanding is EWR BOM/DEL/HKG do not go out with full loads if there are strong headwinds.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:06 am

777-200s (non-ERs) did domestic, Hawaii, and east coast-Europe. I don't think they ever did or could do west coast-Europe. Even when they did DEN-LHR for a while, that was always flown with a 772ER. Now, all 19 are in or soon to be converted into the 364 seat domestic configuration.

UA's 772ERs do west coast-Europe and beyond all the time. The PW engines are supposedly not as powerful as the GE90s on the PMCO 772s, but they still have sent PMUA 772ERs on LAX-SYD (albeit weight restricted, I believe) and more.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 CR2 CR7 CR9 Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
WIederling
Posts: 4690
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:11 am

Mrak79 wrote:
Oh, yes, it is objectively true. The A330 is stuck in the era of shelf bins, lower interior pressure, and small windows. Even the NEO is simply lipstick on a pig. It's still long-obsolete interior comfort technology that was surpassed over two decades ago with the 777. The A350 interior is a large step above the old and new A330.


You'd be a perfect specimen for double blind testing :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11526
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:16 pm

Stitch wrote:
Sure. Here are the relevant Payload-Range charts from the Airbus A350 ACAP (November 2016 Edition) and Boeing 777HGW ACAP (May 2011 Edition*):


Despite your pretty pictures, it does not actually say what you have posted i.e.

"The Airbus ACAP for the A350-900 shows 6000nm with a 53,000kg payload.

The Boeing ACAP for the 777-300ER shows 5750nm with a 70,000kg payload."

That is not supported by the pictures you have provided. The key word that is wrong in your post is 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 ? 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 ? Are you aware is vastly different range/payload capabilities of the various A320, A330, and A340 series due to different W/V ?

Do you understand the relationship between ZFW, DOW, and OEW ?

The Boeing picture you have posted does not actually say payload does it, it says "OEW PLUS PAYLOAD" and "TYPICAL MISSION RULES", and look at the Airbus chart it says "STANDARD DAY CONDITIONS TYPICAL INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT PROFILE 95 kg PER PASSENGER INCLUDING BAGGAGE BASIC CONFIGURATION WITH CREW REST COMPARTMENTS AND OTHER OPTIONAL FEATURES", do you understand the differences between the statements made by each vendor ?

What are you missing that does not make the statement you said correct ? What is the difference in assumptions each vendor is using between between the two charts ?

Maybe this article will guide you in the correct direction, I can only assume you are aware of this as you contributed to the thread on a.net when it was discussed. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-415293/

If you think it is as simple as cut and paste from an ACAPS, what do you think fleet planning consultants actually provide for service ? Why do you think there are software vendors like PIANO-X that you mentioned ?

Stitch wrote:
And you are a current pilot for Cathay Pacific who is certified to fly at least the Airbus aircraft in the fleet per your statements on the aircraft you have flown. So we must conclude you cannot be impartial, either?


I have nothing to gain financially if UA were to order A or B aircraft, you cannot say the same. Unlike you, I am rated on both A & B products.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11526
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:25 pm

Mrak79 wrote:
Cabin press is same like other A/C on A330 except B787 and A350. I floew on board B77W and there was noise from air conditioning that feels you are flying in cabriolet!!! T7 is same technology level and cabin furbishing depends on operator!


The cabin pressure on the A330/A340/A380 normally never goes above 6000 ft on long haul flights, you need to be fairly light to get to the flight levels that would cause the cabin altitude to exceed 6000 ft.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7358
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:33 pm

zeke wrote:

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 ? 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 ? Are you aware is vastly different range/payload capabilities of the various A320, A330, and A340 series due to different W/V ?

Do you understand the relationship between ZFW, DOW, and OEW ?

The Boeing picture you have posted does not actually say payload does it, it says "OEW PLUS PAYLOAD" and "TYPICAL MISSION RULES", and look at the Airbus chart it says "STANDARD DAY CONDITIONS TYPICAL INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT PROFILE 95 kg PER PASSENGER INCLUDING BAGGAGE BASIC CONFIGURATION WITH CREW REST COMPARTMENTS AND OTHER OPTIONAL FEATURES", do you understand the differences between the statements made by each vendor ?

What are you missing that does not make the statement you said correct ? What is the difference in assumptions each vendor is using between between the two charts ?

Maybe this article will guide you in the correct direction, I can only assume you are aware of this as you contributed to the thread on a.net when it was discussed. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-415293/

If you think it is as simple as cut and paste from an ACAPS, what do you think fleet planning consultants actually provide for service ? Why do you think there are software vendors like PIANO-X that you mentioned ?

If you have charts/data that show actual payloads over actual ranges using actual real world numbers that are realistic and contain the exact same assumptions and is an exact apple to apple comparison than post them.

In the mean time the ACAPS from Boeing/Airbus is the best we got, knowing that there are limitations to them and comparisons between them. We all know that they are not valid for all 77Ws/A330s ever built and that there will be differences based upon individual airline choices and assumptions. Stitch never said they were be all end all, he was just stating where he got his numbers from. Attacking a poster for using Airbus/Boeing's ACAPS, while offering nothing yourself, just makes you look petty. If you have data that contradicts it, stop complaining and post it.

By the way, you realize you completely changed your argument? First you state that the Airbus/Boeing ACAPS don't give the numbers Stitch stated, and now you are talking about real world operations and the validity of the ACAPS.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:38 pm

CX747 wrote "UA seems hot to trot on the 797 which should mean no love for the A321. What would they take from Airbus in the 350s place should they try and swap? Maybe 321s as interim lift till the 797?

I think they take the 350 and order the 797 in droves"

It would be very enlightening if you could inform us about the 797, an aircraft type that you introduce me to for the first time. Please share with us a thumbnail sketch of its performance characteristics, its availability, and its price, all backed up by some official material from its producer. Is it single or twin aisle? How many seats abreast in Y? Capacity?

Looking forward to your informative reply!
 
jbs2886
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:47 pm

sassiciai wrote:
CX747 wrote "UA seems hot to trot on the 797 which should mean no love for the A321. What would they take from Airbus in the 350s place should they try and swap? Maybe 321s as interim lift till the 797?

I think they take the 350 and order the 797 in droves"

It would be very enlightening if you could inform us about the 797, an aircraft type that you introduce me to for the first time. Please share with us a thumbnail sketch of its performance characteristics, its availability, and its price, all backed up by some official material from its producer. Is it single or twin aisle? How many seats abreast in Y? Capacity?

Looking forward to your informative reply!


There are multiple threads on the 797/MOM/NMA, as well as discussed above. It is not officially launched.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:26 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
sassiciai wrote:
CX747 wrote "UA seems hot to trot on the 797 which should mean no love for the A321. What would they take from Airbus in the 350s place should they try and swap? Maybe 321s as interim lift till the 797?

I think they take the 350 and order the 797 in droves"

It would be very enlightening if you could inform us about the 797, an aircraft type that you introduce me to for the first time. Please share with us a thumbnail sketch of its performance characteristics, its availability, and its price, all backed up by some official material from its producer. Is it single or twin aisle? How many seats abreast in Y? Capacity?

Looking forward to your informative reply!


There are multiple threads on the 797/MOM/NMA, as well as discussed above. It is not officially launched.

Yup, I know, I was just being ironic!

But I just read for the first time above that there is an airline about to commit to the "797", so I just wanted to the poster to tell us all more, and what UA was actually "hot" to order! If anyone were to read all these MOM-threads and their most recent contributions, it would be a very hard stretch to say that anything was remotely clear, and that Boeing was close to offering one paper aeroplane - maybe they are touting 3 or 4 paper planes. No-one contributing here can make a sound business case for any of these planes yet

Is there a thread on the 797 - I dont think I saw such a thread yet?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11526
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:37 pm

Polot wrote:
In the mean time the ACAPS from Boeing/Airbus is the best we got, knowing that there are limitations to them and comparisons between them. We all know that they are not valid for all 77Ws/A330s ever built and that there will be differences based upon individual airline choices and assumptions. Stitch never said they were be all end all, he was just stating where he got his numbers from. Attacking a poster for using Airbus/Boeing's ACAPS, while offering nothing yourself, just makes you look petty. If you have data that contradicts it, stop complaining and post it.

By the way, you realize you completely changed your argument? First you state that the Airbus/Boeing ACAPS don't give the numbers Stitch stated, and now you are talking about real world operations and the validity of the ACAPS.


No ACAPS is not the best information available, it is just an airport planning document.

My initial post stated the quoted text is not in the ACAPS, I stand by that 100%. No operator can carry 70 tonnes of payload in a 77W, and you can carry more than 53 tonnes of payload in an A350. Stitch is fully aware that the Boeing ACAPS does not reflect that capability, he made 6 posts in the "Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions" thread. Where I work the maximum payload available on the 77W is under 65 tonnes, and the maximum payload available on the A350-900 is over 55 tonnes. Now if you were an airline looking at a set or routes, and you average load factor was under 85% (IATA industry average last year was 80.6%), even 85% of 65 tonnes is less than 55 tonnes.

The key problem here is that people do not understand the word payload, all too often "false facts" are thrown around this site without being pulled up on it.

When I pull someone up for being factually wrong, I get personal attacks in return.

Thank you.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7358
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:46 pm

zeke wrote:

No operator can carry 70 tonnes of payload in a 77W, and you can carry more than 53 tonnes of payload in an A350.

And yet the ACAPs says differently. Again he never stated that he was 100% right and that what he said should be taken as gospel. He just stated what the ACAPs said. He even acknowledges in his initial post the existence of Piano-X when talking about the 787-10, and how it is different than what Airbus claims for the plane. You are trying to muddle the waters by including real world information, not available to the public, while also not actually posting any real world numbers. Tell us, what is CX's max payload on the A359, and to what range can it fly it? What is CX's max payload on the 77W, and to what range can it fly it? You are expecting us to just automatically know what the real world numbers are. We don't, we have to get them from somewhere, and often times unless someone tells us the only place we can get them is from the ACAPs.

You are right that ACAPS is not the best information available. But it is the best information publicly available direct from Boeing/Airbus.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:05 pm

sassiciai wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
sassiciai wrote:
CX747 wrote "UA seems hot to trot on the 797 which should mean no love for the A321. What would they take from Airbus in the 350s place should they try and swap? Maybe 321s as interim lift till the 797?

I think they take the 350 and order the 797 in droves"

It would be very enlightening if you could inform us about the 797, an aircraft type that you introduce me to for the first time. Please share with us a thumbnail sketch of its performance characteristics, its availability, and its price, all backed up by some official material from its producer. Is it single or twin aisle? How many seats abreast in Y? Capacity?

Looking forward to your informative reply!


There are multiple threads on the 797/MOM/NMA, as well as discussed above. It is not officially launched.

Yup, I know, I was just being ironic!

But I just read for the first time above that there is an airline about to commit to the "797", so I just wanted to the poster to tell us all more, and what UA was actually "hot" to order! If anyone were to read all these MOM-threads and their most recent contributions, it would be a very hard stretch to say that anything was remotely clear, and that Boeing was close to offering one paper aeroplane - maybe they are touting 3 or 4 paper planes. No-one contributing here can make a sound business case for any of these planes yet

Is there a thread on the 797 - I dont think I saw such a thread yet?


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1357237
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2173
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:10 pm

Why are we debating ACAPS?

Polot wrote:
zeke wrote:

No operator can carry 70 tonnes of payload in a 77W, and you can carry more than 53 tonnes of payload in an A350.

And yet the ACAPs says differently. Again he never stated that he was 100% right and that what he said should be taken as gospel. He just stated what the ACAPs said. He even acknowledges in his initial post the existence of Piano-X when talking about the 787-10, and how it is different than what Airbus claims for the plane. You are trying to muddle the waters by including real world information, not available to the public, while also not actually posting any real world numbers. Tell us, what is CX's max payload on the A359, and to what range can it fly it? What is CX's max payload on the 77W, and to what range can it fly it? You are expecting us to just automatically know what the real world numbers are. We don't, we have to get them from somewhere, and often times unless someone tells us the only place we can get them is from the ACAPs.

You are right that ACAPS is not the best information available. But it is the best information publicly available direct from Boeing/Airbus.



How does this relate to United's widebody fleet plan? 787s, A350s and 777s have a nice variety of capacities and payloads to fit all of the long haul routes in the network over 8 hours. The fleet plan uncertainty is for flights under 8 hours where all of the current widebodies on order are overbuilt to operate and won't need any where near MAX payload.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11526
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:11 pm

Polot wrote:
zeke wrote:
And yet the ACAPs says differently


Incorrect, the ACAPS does not say that.

Manufacturer's Empty Weight (MEW) - "green aircraft"
Operational Empty Weight (OEW) "green aircraft" plus cabin equipment, crews etc
Dry Operating Weight (DOW) - OEW plus catering, potable water…
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7358
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:26 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
zeke wrote:
And yet the ACAPs says differently


Incorrect, the ACAPS does not say that.

Manufacturer's Empty Weight (MEW) - "green aircraft"
Operational Empty Weight (OEW) "green aircraft" plus cabin equipment, crews etc
Dry Operating Weight (DOW) - OEW plus catering, potable water…

They also use the term Maximum Structural Payload- maximum payload allowed by structural constraints and calculated by taking the OEW and subtracting it from the Maximum Zero Fuel Weight (MZFW). We obviously know that OEW will differ based on airline (many airlines include catering in OEW for example) which will in turn effect "maximum payload".
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24746
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:29 pm

zeke wrote:
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?


zeke wrote:
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.


zeke wrote:
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.

zeke wrote:
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.

zeke wrote:
Do you understand the relationship between ZFW, DOW, and OEW?


Yes. You and other pilots have taken the opportunity to explain them to us.

zeke wrote:
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.


zeke wrote:
Maybe this article will guide you in the correct direction, I can only assume you are aware of this as you contributed to the thread on a.net when it was discussed. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-415293/


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. ;)


zeke wrote:
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. :rotfl:

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. :angel:


zeke wrote:
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.


zeke wrote:
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.


Newbiepilot wrote:
Why are we debating ACAPS?


Ask zeke. He's the one who decided to drag the thread off-topic with this whole side-show.
Last edited by Stitch on Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7262
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:32 pm

zeke wrote:
When I pull someone up for being factually wrong, I get personal attacks in return.

Thank you.


I would think attacking someone's credibility is quite personal.
-Dave
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3332
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:46 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Even the NEO is simply lipstick on a pig.


Except the A330 is not and never was a pig. Many passengers prefer the extra comfort of the wider seats and easier aisle access of the 'older' aircraft compared with the larger windows, superior cabin pressure and larger drop-down bins of the 787.
come visit the south pacific
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4491
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:48 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
zeke wrote:
And yet the ACAPs says differently


Incorrect, the ACAPS does not say that.

Manufacturer's Empty Weight (MEW) - "green aircraft"
Operational Empty Weight (OEW) "green aircraft" plus cabin equipment, crews etc
Dry Operating Weight (DOW) - OEW plus catering, potable water…


From what I see, you, Stitch, and Polot are all correct, but managing to speak past each other without actually finding any resolution. This discussion would be a lot more beneficial to instruct them how/where they might be wrong, and in what circumstances their observations are correct/incorrect.

Stitch, your above 777-300ER claim of carrying 70T of payload over 5750nmi is only correct under the following very specific assumptions:
1) an OEW of 168T (+ 70T payload = MDZFW of 238T)
3) Standard day, zero-wind
4) Boeing's "Typical Mission rules"

The truth is virtually none of those assumptions are used by airlines. Each airline has it's own assumptions for product & resulting OEW, "standard day" & winds aloft, and mission rule-sets/reserves. Any deviation from Boeing's assumptions will result in reducing the payload/range of the airplane.

Moral of the story: if you flew a 777-300ER configured at 168T OEW, with zero-winds, and Boeing's rule-set, you could theoretically carry 70T of payload at a maximum range of 5750nm. Virtually no airline/operator uses these assumptions, so the real world probability of this specific data point is near zero. Zeke, would you agree?

For what it's worth, Zeke, every weight statement I've seen from an OEM has included catering weights, potable water, etc. in the Operating Empty Weight. I've never seen a reference to a DOW - just an OEW and then resulting ZFW.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11526
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:50 pm

Polot wrote:
They also use the term Maximum Structural Payload- maximum payload allowed by structural constraints and calculated by taking the OEW and subtracting it from the Maximum Zero Fuel Weight (MZFW). We obviously know that OEW will differ based on airline (many airlines include catering in OEW for example) which will in turn effect "maximum payload".


As I have already pointed out, at the front of the docuemnt Airbnus clearly states, "The aircraft is designed to offer multiple payload capabilities with a consistent range ability across the family", it also lists in in section 2 that the A350-900 aircraft currently has 6 different weight variations. MFZW currently varies between 192 tonnes and 195.7 tonnes, even a "layman" can see that is over a 5 tonne variation. Even a "layman" would acknowedge that over a 5 tonne variation in MZFW would result in a similar variation in payload.

Stitch wrote:
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.


One simply cannot load 70 tonnes of payload onto a 77W, and as you know Boeing has revisited its performance assumptions to make them more realistic. I dont believe the "layman" tag for a second, you are versed enough to run the numbers for the 77W, you just did not know, or chose to ignore what the number means.

Stitch wrote:
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.


I gave you an opportunity when I responded to your post to indicate that you could have been unsure of your facts, instead you went on a pedestal and tried to make fun at my expense. Everything I posted was correct including the fact that you potentially stand to gain financially from the information you post. You are not a "layman", you have stated numerous times in the past to add credibility to your posts that you are former Boeing employee.

Stitch wrote:
And last I checked, having an Air Transport License was not a requirement for posting on this site.


Of course it is not a requirement, however because I am pilot and rated on an Airbus aircraft does not make my contributions any less valuable.

Stitch wrote:
Maybe if you didn't always resort to personal attacks when doing so, you might not get the same treatment in kind.


You confirmed what I posted "Yes, I am a Boeing shareholder" and you have posted that you are a former Boeing employee a number of times before.

Stitch wrote:
Ask zeke. He's the one who decided to drag the thread off-topic with this whole side-show.


I responded to your posted asking where you got your false facts from.

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I would think attacking someone's credibility is quite personal.


When it suits him, he is a "layman", when it suits him he is a "former Boeing employee", when it suits him he is a "Boeing shareholder". I do not have anything financially to gain by spreading false information. People from UA will read this thread, all I did was corrected the record and had personal attacks thrown at me for my trouble.

Thank you.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Joshu
Screener
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:05 pm

Has it been mentioned that United is mulling their A350 order?
Edit: I don't follow this stuff much but I was talking to an Airbus sales employee a couple weeks ago.
Washington-Baltimore Spotters Group
 
bioyuki
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:00 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:08 pm

zeke wrote:
When I pull someone up for being factually wrong, I get personal attacks in return.


Haven't seen such a good example of the pot calling the kettle black on this site in a long time :rotfl:
Next flight: TK 80/864: SFO-IST-TLV
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11526
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:20 pm

heavymetal wrote:
Moral of the story: if you flew a 777-300ER configured at 168T OEW, with zero-winds, and Boeing's rule-set, you could theoretically carry 70T of payload at a maximum range of 5750nm. Virtually no airline/operator uses these assumptions, so the real world probability of this specific data point is near zero. Zeke, would you agree?

For what it's worth, Zeke, every weight statement I've seen from an OEM has included catering weights, potable water, etc. in the Operating Empty Weight. I've never seen a reference to a DOW - just an OEW and then resulting ZFW.


Technically its not DOW, however ‘Dry operating mass’ which is defined as the total mass of the aircraft ready for a specific type of operation, excluding usable fuel and traffic load. We have different catering weights for every sector, a 77W on a 14 hr flight is loaded differently to a regional 1.5 hr turn around that carries double catering, which is loaded differently to a 8 hr medium haul. A 14 hr flight you might have 18 crew, 17 on a short haul, and 16 on a medium haul. The amount of potable water required depends on sector length.

The reason you have not come across DOW before is probably due to you not having exposure to EU-OPS. FAA "standard rules" are different to EU-OPS "standard rules" which is one of the main reasons the data cannot be used at face value.

Under EU-OPS the total mass is the mass of the aeroplane and everyone and everything carried on it or in it. Total mass comprises three elements, the basic mass, the variable load and the disposable load. The basic mass is the aircraft mass plus basic equipment, unusable fuel and undrainable oil. Basic equipment is that which is common to all roles plus unconsumable fluids such as hydraulic fluid. The variable load includes the role equipment, the crew and the crew baggage. Role equipment is that which is required to complete a specific tasks such as seats, toilets and galley for the passenger role or roller convey, tie down equipment for the freighter aircraft. The disposable load is the traffic load plus usable fuel and consumable fluids. The traffic load is the total mass of passengers, baggage and cargo, including any non-revenue load. The disposable load is sometimes referred to as the useful load. Payload is anyone or anything on board the aeroplane the carriage of which is paid for any someone other than the operator. In other words anything or anyone carried that earns money for the airline.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7358
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:29 pm

zeke wrote:
As I have already pointed out, at the front of the docuemnt Airbnus clearly states, "The aircraft is designed to offer multiple payload capabilities with a consistent range ability across the family", it also lists in in section 2 that the A350-900 aircraft currently has 6 different weight variations. MFZW currently varies between 192 tonnes and 195.7 tonnes, even a "layman" can see that is over a 5 tonne variation. Even a "layman" would acknowedge that over a 5 tonne variation in MZFW would result in a similar variation in payload.

You know, just because we are not pilots doesn't mean we are stupid. Give us some credit. We all know there are a margin of error in the numbers, and that the actual plane's capabilities may differ from what is stated in the ACAP. We know if you load a A350 with more than 53t it is not going to automatically crumble into a pile of dust. We are talking about generalized characterization of the planes, you are the one getting upset over small variations. You don't like the fact that Stitch used 53t because your A359s can lift slightly more, and that he used 70t for the 77W because your planes can lift slightly less. Who cares. You are not denying that the 77W can lift more and haven't talked much about the range, so I guess you are not denying that the A359 can lift its max payload, whatever that is, farther. I don't think VC10ER, when asking his initial question, cares that much about the nitty gritty numbers. He is not running an airline, he just wanted ballpark estimates.

zeke wrote:
One simply cannot load 70 tonnes of payload onto a 77W, and as you know Boeing has revisited its performance assumptions to make them more realistic.

The only number that the revised performance assumptions would effect is the OEW and what Boeing considers "typical full pax" payload for marketing ranges. Boeing did not change the MTOW, fuel capacity, or MZFW of the plane. The payload/range chart for the plane is exactly the same pre and post revision.
 
User avatar
Joshu
Screener
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:34 pm

Again I don't know what swamp I stepped into here, but UA will not receive the A350.
Washington-Baltimore Spotters Group
 
AA737-823
Posts: 5197
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:43 pm

bioyuki wrote:
zeke wrote:
When I pull someone up for being factually wrong, I get personal attacks in return.


Haven't seen such a good example of the pot calling the kettle black on this site in a long time :rotfl:


Amen, brother.
The last half of posts in this thread should be deleted.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11526
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:02 pm

Polot wrote:
We are talking about generalized characterization of the planes, you are the one getting upset over small variations.


Across the 6 weight variations on the A350-900 there is a 5 tonne variation to MZFW, and similar to payload. That represents around 10% which I would not call a "small variation", put it another way, it is not 5 passengers, its 50.

Polot wrote:
The payload/range chart for the plane is exactly the same pre and post revision.


My understanding is there was around a 7% drop on range on some types between the former integrated airplane configuration (IAC) and standard. The former IAC payload on the 77W was 386 pax in 3 class with a range of 7850 nm, with standard that reduced to 336 passengers in 3 class and 7370 nm in range.

Now if you still think I am being unfair, reflect on this comment by Freppe "On the lower left I have entered the Operational Empty Weight (OEW) of the 777-200LR as 155t. The ACAP lists this as 145t but Boeing shows it as a more realistic 155t for operational aircraft in other documents. Now follow the OEW + Payload axis upward and you reach the line from A to B which describes the Maximum Zero Fuel Weight (MZFW). This is the maximum payload that can be loaded on top of the empty weight for the aircraft." from https://leehamnews.com/2015/07/24/bjorn ... all-about/

If Boeing is showing a "more realistic" OEW in other documents of 10 tonnes heavier than the ACAPS for the 77L, do you not think it would be fair to conclude difference of the similar magnitude would also exist on the 77W ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2173
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:08 pm

Guys, please stop bickering about ACAPS. Can we talk about United?

Joshu wrote:
Again I don't know what swamp I stepped into here, but UA will not receive the A350.


Can you please elaborate? Is United deferring more orders? I am not completely surprised if UA tries to conserve capital and push back deliveries, but so far any discussion of cancelling widebody orders has been unsubstantiated.
 
VS11
Posts: 1162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:28 pm

Joshu wrote:
Again I don't know what swamp I stepped into here, but UA will not receive the A350.


Well, if they are not taking the A350, not getting more 77Ws, not getting A330NEO but need 767 replacement, which is not 787, then what? Getting A330CEOs?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos