Chaostheory wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The Trent 1000 is causing problems due to spare part, blade and overhaul issues and the related Trent 1000 ten and Trent 7000 are delayed

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 7s-439068/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... 0-engines/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... icing-snag

I don't expect this to impact Delta taking A330neos. Delta is not first in line for A330neos so other airlines can deal with initial entry into service problems. Converting to A350s would lose some of the launch discount pricing that they got.

I think you're clutching at straws.

1 - There isn't a spare parts issue. The largest RR spares warehouse is located in Singapore which has a plethora of flights to BKK a day. That Thai is having issues with its spares pool is more indicative of a logistics or communication issue than one caused by the RR supply chain. Larger RR 787 fleets don't have any issues with spares so I'm not sure why Thai does.

2 - There are no T1000 blade and overhaul "issues". In fact looking at the LLP cycle limits, the two engine types compare favourably.

3 - The T1000 is proving to be a far more robust engine than the GEnx. I recall from a recent feedback session that the GEnx has a higher EGT degradation rate than the RR. In the first 1000 cycles, the GEnx1 at 76k rating loses 3C more than the Trent and with hotter climes and higher ratings, that difference is even more marked in favour of the latter.

Well how do you explain these quotes if you believe it is straws?

"Due to the shortage of Boeing 787 Dreamliner engine spare parts, it is necessary that some aircraft of this type must be parked and temporarily cannot be operated, which is a problem that affects Thai and other airlines worldwide whose 787 aircraft are equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines that have turbine blade problems," says Thai's acting president, Usanee Sangsingkoo, in a statement.

Or

Last week ANA said fan blades in the turbines of Trent 1000 engines on aircraft making short-haul flights were suffering from corrosion faster than expected.

As a result, the airline said it could cancel up to 300 flights as it takes aircraft out of service for repairs to the engines.

The Trent 1000, Trent 1000 ten and Trent 7000 have some issues. They aren't impossible to overcome, but there is risk with the engine that could impact deliveries for Delta as it is delaying the whole A330neo program and could be a reason for Delta to convert A330neos to A350s

Newbiepilot wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The Trent 1000 is causing problems due to spare part, blade and overhaul issues and the related Trent 1000 ten and Trent 7000 are delayed

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 7s-439068/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... 0-engines/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... icing-snag

I don't expect this to impact Delta taking A330neos. Delta is not first in line for A330neos so other airlines can deal with initial entry into service problems. Converting to A350s would lose some of the launch discount pricing that they got.

I think you're clutching at straws.

1 - There isn't a spare parts issue. The largest RR spares warehouse is located in Singapore which has a plethora of flights to BKK a day. That Thai is having issues with its spares pool is more indicative of a logistics or communication issue than one caused by the RR supply chain. Larger RR 787 fleets don't have any issues with spares so I'm not sure why Thai does.

2 - There are no T1000 blade and overhaul "issues". In fact looking at the LLP cycle limits, the two engine types compare favourably.

3 - The T1000 is proving to be a far more robust engine than the GEnx. I recall from a recent feedback session that the GEnx has a higher EGT degradation rate than the RR. In the first 1000 cycles, the GEnx1 at 76k rating loses 3C more than the Trent and with hotter climes and higher ratings, that difference is even more marked in favour of the latter.

Well how do you explain this if you believe it is straws?

"Due to the shortage of Boeing 787 Dreamliner engine spare parts, it is necessary that some aircraft of this type must be parked and temporarily cannot be operated, which is a problem that affects Thai and other airlines worldwide whose 787 aircraft are equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines that have turbine blade problems," says Thai's acting president, Usanee Sangsingkoo, in a statement.

Why is this shortage of blades not impacting larger fleets? Doesn't add up. Furthermore, there is talk of the blade problems linked to a higher Sulpher content in fuels.

]

AngMoh wrote:

Whatsaptudo wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Prove it. The A350-900 is a newer design with newer engines.

Seems fairly harsh. Can you prove the opposite?

The fact that quite a number of airlines have both 787 and A350 in their fleets shows that it depends on how you use them. And none of us have the details, and even if someone has the details, he/she will be fired if it is communicated here.
So black and white statements that A is better than B or B is better than A is just fanboy talk.

I agree and think blanket statements like that are silly fanboy talk. The A350 and 787 aren't identical in size and each has the operating conditions where they excel and have challenges. There are so many assumptions and variables involved that there is no clear answer. Typical public resources like ACAPs, marketing charts and third party bloggers don't have clear enough data to do real world comparisons. There are plenty of airlines that have ordered both airplanes and have real data, but so far no one is sharing it publicly.

Part of the reason for the A350 deferral could be Delta wanting a certain quantity of the 280 ton version. If the current weight variant is inadequate, for the SYD route, wait for the one that can make it. With the incoming deliveries Delta gets to know the aircraft and the 77L keeps the route going. When the heavier 359 comes in, it can do the SYD, JNB, DEL? routes and carry more payload on shorter routes.

Strato2 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

The 787-9 is more efficient than the A350-900 at 300 seats.

Prove it. The A350-900 is a newer design with newer engines.

Look at the weights. Newer engines can't change the laws of physics.

Varsity1 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

The 787-9 is more efficient than the A350-900 at 300 seats.

Prove it. The A350-900 is a newer design with newer engines.

Look at the weights. Newer engines can't change the laws of physics.

I know I am probably going to regret this.....but yeah.....you're correct from what I've seen.
The 787-9 is more efficient than the A359 on missions under 6000 nm. At extreme range missions the A359 has the edge.

The heavier frame is generally better equipped to be more efficient the longer the mission because the weight reflects structure needed to hold more fuel for longer missions. That's why DL flies the 77L on sectors such as ATL-JNB versus ATL-DTW.

The 77L is very efficient on an extreme range routes.....but would be very inefficient on a short route. The 787-9 is lighter than the A359. I would think it obvious for most missions except at very long range it would be more efficient than a A359.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Prove it. The A350-900 is a newer design with newer engines.

Look at the weights. Newer engines can't change the laws of physics.

I know I am probably going to regret this.....but yeah.....you're correct from what I've seen.
The 787-9 is more efficient than the A359 on missions under 6000 nm. At extreme range missions the A359 has the edge.

The heavier frame is generally better equipped to be more efficient the longer the mission because the weight reflects structure needed to hold more fuel for longer missions. That's why DL flies the 77L on sectors such as ATL-JNB versus ATL-DTW.

The 77L is very efficient on an extreme range routes.....but would be very inefficient on a short route. The 787-9 is lighter than the A359. I would think it obvious for most missions except at very long range it would be more efficient than a A359.

If I remeber correctly, the 789 and A350 have alsmost identical trip fuel consumption (1.5t-1t in favour of the 789) on a (from memory) 5000nm mission. I can't remember who posted the figures, but it was about a year ago on here. The figures were from the same airline in regular service. So yes, the 789 is marginally more efficient on trip fuel, but on a per seat basis the A350 is the more efficient plane on the majority of routes, as long as the seats are filled, which to my mind is the reason why some airlines have bought both planes, to cover as best as they can the most variety of route lengths and pax numbers per route. Flying a route with 10 seats empty is more efficient than flying with 45 seats empty, since the two planes are so close in efficiency on a per trip basis with the 789 having that slight edge.

350helmi

350helmi wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Look at the weights. Newer engines can't change the laws of physics.

I know I am probably going to regret this.....but yeah.....you're correct from what I've seen.
The 787-9 is more efficient than the A359 on missions under 6000 nm. At extreme range missions the A359 has the edge.

The heavier frame is generally better equipped to be more efficient the longer the mission because the weight reflects structure needed to hold more fuel for longer missions. That's why DL flies the 77L on sectors such as ATL-JNB versus ATL-DTW.

The 77L is very efficient on an extreme range routes.....but would be very inefficient on a short route. The 787-9 is lighter than the A359. I would think it obvious for most missions except at very long range it would be more efficient than a A359.

If I remeber correctly, the 789 and A350 have alsmost identical trip fuel consumption (1.5t-1t in favour of the 789) on a (from memory) 5000nm mission. I can't remember who posted the figures, but it was about a year ago on here. The figures were from the same airline in regular service. So yes, the 789 is marginally more efficient on trip fuel, but on a per seat basis the A350 is the more efficient plane on the majority of routes, as long as the seats are filled, which to my mind is the reason why some airlines have bought both planes, to cover as best as they can the most variety of route lengths and pax numbers per route. Flying a route with 10 seats empty is more efficient than flying with 45 seats empty, since the two planes are so close in efficiency on a per trip basis with the 789 having that slight edge.

350helmi

Surprised that SQ and CX have no B787-9 in their fleets if that is the case. They fly multiple flights to Australia which are sub 6000m routes with the A359

ElroyJetson wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Prove it. The A350-900 is a newer design with newer engines.

Look at the weights. Newer engines can't change the laws of physics.

I know I am probably going to regret this.....but yeah.....you're correct from what I've seen.
The 787-9 is more efficient than the A359 on missions under 6000 nm. At extreme range missions the A359 has the edge.

The heavier frame is generally better equipped to be more efficient the longer the mission because the weight reflects structure needed to hold more fuel for longer missions. That's why DL flies the 77L on sectors such as ATL-JNB versus ATL-DTW.

The 77L is very efficient on an extreme range routes.....but would be very inefficient on a short route. The 787-9 is lighter than the A359. I would think it obvious for most missions except at very long range it would be more efficient than a A359.

The initial statement was that the 789 is more efficient than the A359 at 300 seats. Yes it most likely is, because you will be wasting space in the A350 if both are fitted with the same 300 seats. If, however the aircraft are filled with a similar seating density then the A359 will seat more and have more revenue potential than the 789. Its a nothing statement as its an apples to apples comparison of the two frames.

scotron11 wrote:

350helmi wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I know I am probably going to regret this.....but yeah.....you're correct from what I've seen.
The 787-9 is more efficient than the A359 on missions under 6000 nm. At extreme range missions the A359 has the edge.

The heavier frame is generally better equipped to be more efficient the longer the mission because the weight reflects structure needed to hold more fuel for longer missions. That's why DL flies the 77L on sectors such as ATL-JNB versus ATL-DTW.

The 77L is very efficient on an extreme range routes.....but would be very inefficient on a short route. The 787-9 is lighter than the A359. I would think it obvious for most missions except at very long range it would be more efficient than a A359.

If I remeber correctly, the 789 and A350 have alsmost identical trip fuel consumption (1.5t-1t in favour of the 789) on a (from memory) 5000nm mission. I can't remember who posted the figures, but it was about a year ago on here. The figures were from the same airline in regular service. So yes, the 789 is marginally more efficient on trip fuel, but on a per seat basis the A350 is the more efficient plane on the majority of routes, as long as the seats are filled, which to my mind is the reason why some airlines have bought both planes, to cover as best as they can the most variety of route lengths and pax numbers per route. Flying a route with 10 seats empty is more efficient than flying with 45 seats empty, since the two planes are so close in efficiency on a per trip basis with the 789 having that slight edge.

350helmi

Surprised that SQ and CX have no B787-9 in their fleets if that is the case. They fly multiple flights to Australia which are sub 6000m routes with the A359

Excellent point......which is exactly why SQ is acquiring the 787-10 IMHO. It will be perfect for the type of sector you mentioned.

350helmi wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Look at the weights. Newer engines can't change the laws of physics.

I know I am probably going to regret this.....but yeah.....you're correct from what I've seen.
The 787-9 is more efficient than the A359 on missions under 6000 nm. At extreme range missions the A359 has the edge.

The heavier frame is generally better equipped to be more efficient the longer the mission because the weight reflects structure needed to hold more fuel for longer missions. That's why DL flies the 77L on sectors such as ATL-JNB versus ATL-DTW.

The 77L is very efficient on an extreme range routes.....but would be very inefficient on a short route. The 787-9 is lighter than the A359. I would think it obvious for most missions except at very long range it would be more efficient than a A359.

If I remeber correctly, the 789 and A350 have alsmost identical trip fuel consumption (1.5t-1t in favour of the 789) on a (from memory) 5000nm mission. I can't remember who posted the figures, but it was about a year ago on here. The figures were from the same airline in regular service. So yes, the 789 is marginally more efficient on trip fuel, but on a per seat basis the A350 is the more efficient plane on the majority of routes, as long as the seats are filled, which to my mind is the reason why some airlines have bought both planes, to cover as best as they can the most variety of route lengths and pax numbers per route. Flying a route with 10 seats empty is more efficient than flying with 45 seats empty, since the two planes are so close in efficiency on a per trip basis with the 789 having that slight edge.

350helmi

I completely agree with your statement. The 787-9 has the edge on fuel burn over the A359. However, most seating arrangements I've seen show the A359 seating around 25-30 more pax than a 787-9.

So the question is if you can consistently fill those extra seats. If you believe you can....the A359 is probably the better choice. Also, the A359 appears to have slightly better fuel burn at extreme ranges...(I.e. 6000 nm or more) than the 787-9.

So, if you are DL and you're flying a very long route such as DTW to ICN as an example, the A359 is probably the better choice if you can fill the extra seats.

Bottom line....both are excellent and highly efficient birds. The question for airlines is capacity and general mission type you plan to deploy.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I completely agree with your statement. The 787-9 has the edge on fuel burn over the A359. However, most seating arrangements I've seen show the A359 seating around 25-30 more pax than a 787-9.

So the question is if you can consistently fill those extra seats. If you believe you can....the A359 is probably the better choice. Also, the A359 appears to have slightly better fuel burn at extreme ranges...(I.e. 6000 nm or more) than the 787-9.

So, if you are DL and you're flying a very long route such as DTW to ICN as an example, the A359 is probably the better choice if you can fill the extra seats.

Bottom line....both are excellent and highly efficient birds. The question for airlines is capacity and general mission type you plan to deploy.

On a per seat basis I would argue the A350 to be more efficient beyond about 4000-4500nm, provided both planes have similar seating densities and both are filled with the same load factor.
Anyway, this has gone a little off topic. I don't believe DL will convert the orders one way or the other since long term they will need more of both types. I believe they got a slightly better deal on both types since they orderd them together, even if it was for two different RFPs and in converting they would most likely lose that slight extra discount they had (1-3% probably).

350helmi

Why would Delta convert any of their 330NEOs to the 359? It's not like they're ordering any 788/9s anytime soon to replace their aging 767 fleet. Each one of those 339 aircraft will be badly needed by the next decade.

Can't help but think that MOM might take the place of some 763ERs/764ERs in DL's fleet; if those 763ERs can make it that long!

flyabr wrote:

Can't help but think that MOM might take the place of some 763ERs/764ERs in DL's fleet; if those 763ERs can make it that long!

Yes, I could see Delta obtaining about 50 MOM in about 10 years to replace the 753, 763, and 764 for routes where the 339 is too much plane. I could see the MOM being the next Boeing plane Delta orders.

[\quote]
Unless DL moves to the A330/A350 having a single crew (right now I think they are separate at DL) the training benefits between the two are minimal. Who gets placed on the A350 will be dependent on seniority not prior equipment and the training will likely be more rigorous than the theoretical minimum between the types.[/quote]

Delta is finding the 350 and 330s have way more differences than they thought. Further I was told the FAA would require crew members to fly both the 350 and 330 every 90 days in a combined category, or be subject to some sort of refresher training. Since there is no way to force pilots to bid a specific aircraft or route, this would generate a lot of training. Zero chance of the 350/330 being a combined category at Delta.

okie73 wrote:

[\quote]
Unless DL moves to the A330/A350 having a single crew (right now I think they are separate at DL) the training benefits between the two are minimal. Who gets placed on the A350 will be dependent on seniority not prior equipment and the training will likely be more rigorous than the theoretical minimum between the types.

Delta is finding the 350 and 330s have way more differences than they thought. Further I was told the FAA would require crew members to fly both the 350 and 330 every 90 days in a combined category, or be subject to some sort of refresher training. Since there is no way to force pilots to bid a specific aircraft or route, this would generate a lot of training. Zero chance of the 350/330 being a combined category at Delta.[/quote]

Oh..so the FAA is now the judge on what aircraft pilots can fly? I thought the A330 and A350 are common type rated....correct me if Im wrong.

scotron11 wrote:

Further I was told the FAA would require crew members to fly both the 350 and 330 every 90 days in a combined category, or be subject to some sort of refresher training. Since there is no way to force pilots to bid a specific aircraft or route, this would generate a lot of training. Zero chance of the 350/330 being a combined category at Delta.

Boeing's FAA division busily leveling the table

flyabr wrote:

For whatever reason(s) the entire purchase went to Airbus.

359 is larger than 789, you can pack few tons extra in 359 (depending on version of course, but I assume the difference to be ~15klbs). This could be the factor. Also, since A350 is doing better than promised by Airbus, it's quite likely it's matching 789 efficiency (within 1-2%). Price could also be the factor.

So, quite a lot of reasons to go for A350s.

Cheers,
Adam

scotron11 wrote:

okie73 wrote:

[\quote]
Unless DL moves to the A330/A350 having a single crew (right now I think they are separate at DL) the training benefits between the two are minimal. Who gets placed on the A350 will be dependent on seniority not prior equipment and the training will likely be more rigorous than the theoretical minimum between the types.

Delta is finding the 350 and 330s have way more differences than they thought. Further I was told the FAA would require crew members to fly both the 350 and 330 every 90 days in a combined category, or be subject to some sort of refresher training. Since there is no way to force pilots to bid a specific aircraft or route, this would generate a lot of training. Zero chance of the 350/330 being a combined category at Delta.

Oh..so the FAA is now the judge on what aircraft pilots can fly? I thought the A330 and A350 are common type rated....correct me if Im wrong.[/quote]
Yes, the FAA does set the rules for common type, they always have in the US. WN is retiring the 737 classics for this very reason. FAA will not allow them to be common with the NG and the Max. They would have to operate the classic or the Max as a separate pilot group.

One of my pilot buddies just upgraded to 777 from the 767. He said the word in training at DL is the A350 is way different from the A330. It may be one of the hardest upgrades for some pilots.

We have a CX pilot in these forums who stated that he flies both A350 and A330 in the same week.

scotron11 wrote:

Further I was told the FAA would require crew members to fly both the 350 and 330 every 90 days in a combined category, or be subject to some sort of refresher training.

I think we need to see the definitive word from the FAA.

Eyad89 wrote:

We have a CX pilot in these forums who stated that he flies both A350 and A330 in the same week.

Entirely possible and other airlines are doing it. LH for example.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-433856/

scbriml wrote:

Entirely possible and other airlines are doing it. LH for example.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-433856/

Unless the FAA finds a reason to avoid it. Let's say leverage the table on Boeing's behalf (due to Boeing's lack of capability to compete) for example. Not the first time, not the last one...

I believe the 787/777 can be flown as a common type. I don't believe any of the US carriers do that however, and it may have the same restrictions with the FAA (i.e. have to fly both within 90 days) as supposedly on the A330/A350.

Believe it or not, not every decision regarding Airbus/the FAA is the product of some vast Boeing conspiracy to hurt Airbus and help the home team.

Jayafe wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Entirely possible and other airlines are doing it. LH for example.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-433856/

Unless the FAA finds a reason to avoid it. Let's say leverage the table on Boeing's behalf (due to Boeing's lack of capability to compete) for example. Not the first time, not the last one...

There is not a conspiracy at the FAA to promote Boeing causing this. I simply can't imagine that happening. I suspect the truth is that the FAA has a set of requirements that may require simulator time that Delta would not want to go through the expense of maintaining. The FAA has oversight of pilot training programs and can levy requirements that one airline believes is too onorus whereas another will go through with it.

Newbiepilot wrote:

There is not a conspiracy at the FAA to promote Boeing causing this. I simply can't imagine that happening.

Their mission statement used to include "The promotion of American aviation and aerospace" (wording may not be exact, but it's certainly the gist) which some considered a conflict of interest given their oversight role.

That said...

Newbiepilot wrote:

I suspect the truth is that the FAA has a set of requirements that may require simulator time that Delta would not want to go through the expense of maintaining. The FAA has oversight of pilot training programs and can levy requirements that one airline believes is too onorus whereas another will go through with it.

Agreed. Which is why I said upthread that I'd like to see the definitive FAA ruling on this (not just a "I heard that...").

scbriml wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

There is not a conspiracy at the FAA to promote Boeing causing this. I simply can't imagine that happening.

Their mission statement used to include "The promotion of American aviation and aerospace" (wording may not be exact, but it's certainly the gist) which some considered a conflict of interest given their oversight role.

That said...

Newbiepilot wrote:

I suspect the truth is that the FAA has a set of requirements that may require simulator time that Delta would not want to go through the expense of maintaining. The FAA has oversight of pilot training programs and can levy requirements that one airline believes is too onorus whereas another will go through with it.

Agreed. Which is why I said upthread that I'd like to see the definitive FAA ruling on this (not just a "I heard that...").

Whether it is the 737CL/NG/MAX issue at Southwest or 777/787 Or A350/A330, the FAA has been hesitant to accept common type ratings common pilot groups without separate training requirements.

I guess someone can interpret promoting US aviation as promoting Boeing, but I think that is more of a conspiracy theory. They are responsible for promoting aviation in the United States and they are pretty much equally harsh to everyone in my opinion.

Scorpio wrote:

Polarisguy wrote:

really disappointed in DL decision to go all out on Airbus. Must be a hangover of the former NW now DL management paired with HUGE AB discounts assisted by the EU insisting on AirBus purchases in order to approve the NW/DL merger. Really would prefer 78/8/9's to McPlanes

Lots of hearsay and misinformation in this post. First, there is NO indication Airbus offered discounts that were deeper than what Boeing was willing to offer, or that they routinely do so as some people, especially in the US appear to believe. Second, where are you getting the idea the EU insisted on Delta ordering Airbus planes in order for them to approve the DL/NW merger? I've never heard anything about that. Furthermore, this order was placed several years AFTER the merger had already happened. The EU approved the merger in 2008, these planes were ordered in late 2014.

And McPlanes? Really?

Prior to the merger, DL had a sole source agreement with Boeing. The EU Commission which oversees the mergers and acquisitions required DL to walk away from the Boeing deal which apparently DL has done. And yes, McPlanes

I'm wondering if AA would to a deal with DL to take over their 350 slots?

AA seems less then enthused about bringing the 359's on property.
on the other hand, DL is all in on the 350's

Polarisguy wrote:

Prior to the merger, DL had a sole source agreement with Boeing. The EU Commission which oversees the mergers and acquisitions required DL to walk away from the Boeing deal which apparently DL has done.

No they didn't. But why let pesky facts get in the way?


In case you're interested in the facts, it's been a long time since I had to wheel this out, but here goes...

From the horse's mouth:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/1997-07-23- ... Commission

Boeing agreed not to enter into any new "exclusive" supplier agreements with commercial aircraft purchasers until Aug. 1, 2007, except where another aircraft manufacturer has offered such an agreement. Finally, although Boeing questions whether the company's "exclusive" agreements with its U.S. customers should be the subject of demands by the European Commission, to secure merger approval Boeing further agreed not to enforce the exclusivity provisions in its existing agreements with American Airlines, Delta Airlines and Continental Airlines. The agreements remain otherwise unaffected.

So, while Boeing agreed not to enforce the exclusivity clause, the exclusive agreements remained in effect. The deadline on the EC's demands also expired 10 years ago, so if DL had wanted to, they could have signed a new agreement with Boeing in 2007. But they didn't.

Polarisguy wrote:

And yes, McPlanes

Can't argue with such a well reasoned and logical response.

Sooner787 wrote:

I'm wondering if AA would to a deal with DL to take over their 350 slots?

AA seems less then enthused about bringing the 359's on property.
on the other hand, DL is all in on the 350's

In May DL deferred their last 10 A350 2-3 years "with additional delivery flexibility." (aka they will decide in a few years whether they want still want those last 10 A350s, defer them further, or convert them into something else).

If DL wanted as many A350s as fast as possible they would not have done that.

Polarisguy wrote:

Prior to the merger, DL had a sole source agreement with Boeing. The EU Commission which oversees the mergers and acquisitions required DL to walk away from the Boeing deal which apparently DL has done.

No they didn't.

The only requirement of the EU was that Boeing no longer enforced the exclusivity part of the deal with DL, AA and CO. And that was as a condition to approve the merger between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, a full decade before the DL / NW merger. It had nothing at all to do with that merger. And as scbriml already pointed out, DL has had every opportunity since to sign another such deal with Boeing. In fact, the ten year deadline had expired by the time of the DL / NW merger, so there was nothing stopping DL from signing a new deal with Boeing.

They didn't.

And yes, McPlanes

This can only be pure comedy gold, so I'll bite: why are they 'McPlanes'?

Scorpio wrote:

Polarisguy wrote:

Prior to the merger, DL had a sole source agreement with Boeing. The EU Commission which oversees the mergers and acquisitions required DL to walk away from the Boeing deal which apparently DL has done.

No they didn't.

The only requirement of the EU was that Boeing no longer enforced the exclusivity part of the deal with DL, AA and CO. And that was as a condition to approve the merger between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, a full decade before the DL / NW merger. It had nothing at all to do with that merger. And as scbriml already pointed out, DL has had every opportunity since to sign another such deal with Boeing. In fact, the ten year deadline had expired by the time of the DL / NW merger, so there was nothing stopping DL from signing a new deal with Boeing.

They didn't.

And yes, McPlanes

This can only be pure comedy gold, so I'll bite: why are they 'McPlanes'?

Because Hamburgers fit them out. Boom! Boom!. Thank you ver much!

350helmi wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I completely agree with your statement. The 787-9 has the edge on fuel burn over the A359. However, most seating arrangements I've seen show the A359 seating around 25-30 more pax than a 787-9.

So the question is if you can consistently fill those extra seats. If you believe you can....the A359 is probably the better choice. Also, the A359 appears to have slightly better fuel burn at extreme ranges...(I.e. 6000 nm or more) than the 787-9.

So, if you are DL and you're flying a very long route such as DTW to ICN as an example, the A359 is probably the better choice if you can fill the extra seats.

Bottom line....both are excellent and highly efficient birds. The question for airlines is capacity and general mission type you plan to deploy.

On a per seat basis I would argue the A350 to be more efficient beyond about 4000-4500nm, provided both planes have similar seating densities and both are filled with the same load factor.
Anyway, this has gone a little off topic. I don't believe DL will convert the orders one way or the other since long term they will need more of both types. I believe they got a slightly better deal on both types since they orderd them together, even if it was for two different RFPs and in converting they would most likely lose that slight extra discount they had (1-3% probably).

350helmi

Yes, you are generally correct.
Here are the figures:
The Boeing 787-9, with 294 passengers burns 5.85 kg/km of fuel on a 4650 nm (8,610 km) trip. That's about 2.49L/100 km per seat.
In a higher density configuration with 304 passengers over 4,972 nmi (9,208 km), the plane will burn around 2.31L/100 km per seat.
However, the 787-9 on a 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) trip with the standard 291 passengers, burns 7.18 kg/km or about 3.01L/100 km per seat.

The Airbus A350-900, with 315 passengers burns 6.03 kg/km of fuel on a 4,972 nmi (9,206 km) trip. This is slightly higher overall than the 787-9's 5.85 kg/km, however per passenger, it is more fuel efficient burning only 2.39L/100 km per seat.

On a long haul 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) trip with 315 passengers, the A350-900 burns 7.07 kg/km. That's about 2.81L/100km per seat. So yes, in the long haul, the A350-900 has a considerable advantage over the 787-9. However, with 304 passengers, the 787-9 has an advantage on shorter range routes around 4,900 nmi or less.

Interestingly, the A330-900neo with 300 passengers on a 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) trip burns 5.94 kg/km, which is only slightly more than the 787-9 flying the same distance. But because the A330-900neo seats 9+ more passengers, the A330-900neo burns 2.48L/100 km per seat. That's actually slightly less than the 787-9's 2.49L/100 km per seat, assuming the 787-9 seats the standard 291 passengers.

Polarisguy wrote:

Scorpio wrote:

Polarisguy wrote:

really disappointed in DL decision to go all out on Airbus. Must be a hangover of the former NW now DL management paired with HUGE AB discounts assisted by the EU insisting on AirBus purchases in order to approve the NW/DL merger. Really would prefer 78/8/9's to McPlanes

Lots of hearsay and misinformation in this post. First, there is NO indication Airbus offered discounts that were deeper than what Boeing was willing to offer, or that they routinely do so as some people, especially in the US appear to believe. Second, where are you getting the idea the EU insisted on Delta ordering Airbus planes in order for them to approve the DL/NW merger? I've never heard anything about that. Furthermore, this order was placed several years AFTER the merger had already happened. The EU approved the merger in 2008, these planes were ordered in late 2014.

And McPlanes? Really?

Prior to the merger, DL had a sole source agreement with Boeing. The EU Commission which oversees the mergers and acquisitions required DL to walk away from the Boeing deal which apparently DL has done. And yes, McPlanes

Sounds fair! And if anyone makes McPlanes it is Boeing, as McDonalds is known worldwide as "American Food".

gatibosgru wrote:

Sounds fair!

But it isn't true. See my earlier reply to his post.

Newbiepilot wrote:

There is not a conspiracy at the FAA to promote Boeing causing this.

Such statements invariably have a limited lifetime.
They all go to pieces when coming in contact with reality.

I simply can't imagine that happening.

nice story. fantastic entertainment.

TPlouffe wrote:

350helmi wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I completely agree with your statement. The 787-9 has the edge on fuel burn over the A359. However, most seating arrangements I've seen show the A359 seating around 25-30 more pax than a 787-9.

So the question is if you can consistently fill those extra seats. If you believe you can....the A359 is probably the better choice. Also, the A359 appears to have slightly better fuel burn at extreme ranges...(I.e. 6000 nm or more) than the 787-9.

So, if you are DL and you're flying a very long route such as DTW to ICN as an example, the A359 is probably the better choice if you can fill the extra seats.

Bottom line....both are excellent and highly efficient birds. The question for airlines is capacity and general mission type you plan to deploy.

On a per seat basis I would argue the A350 to be more efficient beyond about 4000-4500nm, provided both planes have similar seating densities and both are filled with the same load factor.
Anyway, this has gone a little off topic. I don't believe DL will convert the orders one way or the other since long term they will need more of both types. I believe they got a slightly better deal on both types since they orderd them together, even if it was for two different RFPs and in converting they would most likely lose that slight extra discount they had (1-3% probably).

350helmi

Yes, you are generally correct.
Here are the figures:
The Boeing 787-9, with 294 passengers burns 5.85 kg/km of fuel on a 4650 nm (8,610 km) trip. That's about 2.49L/100 km per seat.
In a higher density configuration with 304 passengers over 4,972 nmi (9,208 km), the plane will burn around 2.31L/100 km per seat.
However, the 787-9 on a 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) trip with the standard 291 passengers, burns 7.18 kg/km or about 3.01L/100 km per seat.

The Airbus A350-900, with 315 passengers burns 6.03 kg/km of fuel on a 4,972 nmi (9,206 km) trip. This is slightly higher overall than the 787-9's 5.85 kg/km, however per passenger, it is more fuel efficient burning only 2.39L/100 km per seat.

On a long haul 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) trip with 315 passengers, the A350-900 burns 7.07 kg/km. That's about 2.81L/100km per seat. So yes, in the long haul, the A350-900 has a considerable advantage over the 787-9. However, with 304 passengers, the 787-9 has an advantage on shorter range routes around 4,900 nmi or less.

Interestingly, the A330-900neo with 300 passengers on a 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) trip burns 5.94 kg/km, which is only slightly more than the 787-9 flying the same distance. But because the A330-900neo seats 9+ more passengers, the A330-900neo burns 2.48L/100 km per seat. That's actually slightly less than the 787-9's 2.49L/100 km per seat, assuming the 787-9 seats the standard 291 passengers.

I appreciate your post and the data you provided corresponds to the data I have seen. Basically, on a 4600nm mission the 787-9 burn about 3% less fuel per mile than the A359. That is very significant over the life of the frame.

On a 6542nm mission the A359 burns about 1.6% less fuel per mile than a 787-9. But since obviously the vast majority of missions for either aircraft will be well under 6542nm the clear winner in fuel burn is the 787-9. Also...for missions under 5000nm the 787-9 also appears to have a 3% lower CASM than the A359 if you assume 304 seats an 315 for each respective frame. They are virtually identical if you assume the 787-9 at 291 seats.

So, as I said previously, in my mind the choice between the 787-9 and the A359 comes down to those extra seats on the A359. Can you consistently fill those extra 20 or so seats? If so, the A359 might be the better choice. If 290-300 seats is the sweet spot probably the 787-9 unless you also consistently deploy each frame on ultra long missions.


And btw.....I also show the 787-9 has a 2% lower CASM than the A339-Neo om a 3350nm flight assuming 304 seats and 310 seats. The 787-9 at 291 seats they are virtually identical.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

TPlouffe wrote:

Interestingly, the A330-900neo with 300 passengers on a 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) trip burns 5.94 kg/km, which is only slightly more than the 787-9 flying the same distance. But because the A330-900neo seats 9+ more passengers, the A330-900neo burns 2.48L/100 km per seat. That's actually slightly less than the 787-9's 2.49L/100 km per seat, assuming the 787-9 seats the standard 291 passengers.

But... But.. But... A330-900neo hasn't flown yet ( http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... end-summer ) so where is this data coming from?

Revelation wrote:

TPlouffe wrote:

Interestingly, the A330-900neo with 300 passengers on a 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) trip burns 5.94 kg/km, which is only slightly more than the 787-9 flying the same distance. But because the A330-900neo seats 9+ more passengers, the A330-900neo burns 2.48L/100 km per seat. That's actually slightly less than the 787-9's 2.49L/100 km per seat, assuming the 787-9 seats the standard 291 passengers.

But... But.. But... A330-900neo hasn't flown yet ( http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... end-summer ) so where is this data coming from?

Damn...pesky facts. If the assumptions Airbus is making about the A339 are true....and honestly, they probably are....at TATL flight lengths the A339 and 787-9 will be virtually identical in terms of fuel burn and CASM.

The difference...the 787-9 is a much more robust and capable aircraft. The other difference...even though the list price for the A339 is higher than the 787-9....Airbus is probably willing to sell it at a cheaper price than the competition.

I think DL's decision to use the A339 as a TATL frame is probably a very good one.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The other difference...even though the list price for the A339 is higher than the 787-9....Airbus is probably willing to sell it at a cheaper price than the competition.

Airbus and Boeing list prices are not for the same thing - Airbus list prices are for the airframe as well as the fittings. Boeing list prices are only for the airframe, i.e. empty plane. As such, Airbus list prices appear to be higher than Boeing list prices.

ElroyJetson wrote:

..... on a 4600nm mission the 787-9 burn about 3% less fuel per mile than the A359. That is very significant over the life of the frame.

On a 6542nm mission the A359 burns about 1.6% less fuel per mile than a 787-9. But since obviously the vast majority of missions for either aircraft will be well under 6542nm the clear winner in fuel burn is the 787-9. Also...for missions under 5000nm the 787-9 also appears to have a 3% lower CASM than the A359 if you assume 304 seats an 315 for each respective frame. They are virtually identical if you assume the 787-9 at 291 seats.

Almost every discussion you put regarding the 359 vs. 789 is based on the assumption that both have same seating capacity, which is unfair and unrealistic comparison.

Which airlines operate both types? So far, Vietnamese. (Ethiopian not yet)
Their A359s have: 29 J, 45 W, 231 Y (total: 305)
Their B789s have: 28 J, 35 W, 211 Y (total: 274)
Although the 359 is slightly more premium heavy, for the sake of argument lets consider both to have similar seating ratios!

It's obvious that in this case ( according to the data quoted), the 359 will have better fuel cost per seat at ~4k nm by 4% and at ~6k nm by 7%.

Dalmd88 wrote:

scotron11 wrote:

okie73 wrote:

[\quote]
Unless DL moves to the A330/A350 having a single crew (right now I think they are separate at DL) the training benefits between the two are minimal. Who gets placed on the A350 will be dependent on seniority not prior equipment and the training will likely be more rigorous than the theoretical minimum between the types.

Delta is finding the 350 and 330s have way more differences than they thought. Further I was told the FAA would require crew members to fly both the 350 and 330 every 90 days in a combined category, or be subject to some sort of refresher training. Since there is no way to force pilots to bid a specific aircraft or route, this would generate a lot of training. Zero chance of the 350/330 being a combined category at Delta.

Oh..so the FAA is now the judge on what aircraft pilots can fly? I thought the A330 and A350 are common type rated....correct me if Im wrong.

Yes, the FAA does set the rules for common type, they always have in the US. WN is retiring the 737 classics for this very reason. FAA will not allow them to be common with the NG and the Max. They would have to operate the classic or the Max as a separate pilot group.

One of my pilot buddies just upgraded to 777 from the 767. He said the word in training at DL is the A350 is way different from the A330. It may be one of the hardest upgrades for some pilots.[/quote]



At least in the US, FAA certification aka common type rating is only as good as the differences training the certificate holder is able to get approved by the FAA. It makes sense to be cross trained to the fullest allowable type range if working for a company with a small number of both. IMO proficiency wise it would take a lot more time and money to do so and I don't think the airlines feel it is worth it to do so.

I don't know the Airbus product at all. But when my company was flying the 752/762/763 the FAA would not add on the 764 under the same certification. Apparently the 777 to 787 transition offered was much more involved than previously thought so at least at my carrier they will remain separate. Fortunately both fleet sizes are fairly large. I am quite skeptical when I hear about common type ratings these days...just another
unrealistic stretch by the manufacture to sell airplanes for the most part.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Revelation wrote:

TPlouffe wrote:

Interestingly, the A330-900neo with 300 passengers on a 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) trip burns 5.94 kg/km, which is only slightly more than the 787-9 flying the same distance. But because the A330-900neo seats 9+ more passengers, the A330-900neo burns 2.48L/100 km per seat. That's actually slightly less than the 787-9's 2.49L/100 km per seat, assuming the 787-9 seats the standard 291 passengers.

But... But.. But... A330-900neo hasn't flown yet ( http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... end-summer ) so where is this data coming from?

Damn...pesky facts. If the assumptions Airbus is making about the A339 are true....and honestly, they probably are....at TATL flight lengths the A339 and 787-9 will be virtually identical in terms of fuel burn and CASM.

Sure, but when someone reports numbers with three digits of significance I begin to wonder how precise their data is, and then when I realize it's for an airplane that hasn't flown yet, I get flashbacks to my days decades ago in engineering school where a grey beard professor of mine (long dead, I went to the dedication of his memorial) would raise holy hell if a student would dare to do something like this. As Scotty would say, ye cannae do it that way, Captain!

Basically, the whole post is now in the 'fake news' bucket as far as I'm concerned.

Revelation wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Revelation wrote:

But... But.. But... A330-900neo hasn't flown yet ( http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... end-summer ) so where is this data coming from?

Damn...pesky facts. If the assumptions Airbus is making about the A339 are true....and honestly, they probably are....at TATL flight lengths the A339 and 787-9 will be virtually identical in terms of fuel burn and CASM.

Sure, but when someone reports numbers with three digits of significance I begin to wonder how precise their data is, and then when I realize it's for an airplane that hasn't flown yet, I get flashbacks to my days decades ago in engineering school where a grey beard professor of mine (long dead, I went to the dedication of his memorial) would raise holy hell if a student would dare to do something like this. As Scotty would say, ye cannae do it that way, Captain!

Basically, the whole post is now in the 'fake news' bucket as far as I'm concerned.

Point taken, although as I'm sure you know, both Boeing and Airbus pre-sell aircraft with performance guarantees regarding range, fuel burn etc. It is rare they miss these guarantees.

The last significant one I remember was the MD-11 and it's lack of guaranteed range.

I assume Airbus will be pretty damn close on fuel burn with the A339. However, I cede to your point. The comparison between frames would look a whole lot better with real world data.

ElroyJetson wrote:

TPlouffe wrote:

350helmi wrote:

On a per seat basis I would argue the A350 to be more efficient beyond about 4000-4500nm, provided both planes have similar seating densities and both are filled with the same load factor.
Anyway, this has gone a little off topic. I don't believe DL will convert the orders one way or the other since long term they will need more of both types. I believe they got a slightly better deal on both types since they orderd them together, even if it was for two different RFPs and in converting they would most likely lose that slight extra discount they had (1-3% probably).

350helmi

Yes, you are generally correct.
Here are the figures:
The Boeing 787-9, with 294 passengers burns 5.85 kg/km of fuel on a 4650 nm (8,610 km) trip. That's about 2.49L/100 km per seat.
In a higher density configuration with 304 passengers over 4,972 nmi (9,208 km), the plane will burn around 2.31L/100 km per seat.
However, the 787-9 on a 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) trip with the standard 291 passengers, burns 7.18 kg/km or about 3.01L/100 km per seat.

The Airbus A350-900, with 315 passengers burns 6.03 kg/km of fuel on a 4,972 nmi (9,206 km) trip. This is slightly higher overall than the 787-9's 5.85 kg/km, however per passenger, it is more fuel efficient burning only 2.39L/100 km per seat.

On a long haul 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) trip with 315 passengers, the A350-900 burns 7.07 kg/km. That's about 2.81L/100km per seat. So yes, in the long haul, the A350-900 has a considerable advantage over the 787-9. However, with 304 passengers, the 787-9 has an advantage on shorter range routes around 4,900 nmi or less.

Interestingly, the A330-900neo with 300 passengers on a 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) trip burns 5.94 kg/km, which is only slightly more than the 787-9 flying the same distance. But because the A330-900neo seats 9+ more passengers, the A330-900neo burns 2.48L/100 km per seat. That's actually slightly less than the 787-9's 2.49L/100 km per seat, assuming the 787-9 seats the standard 291 passengers.

I appreciate your post and the data you provided corresponds to the data I have seen. Basically, on a 4600nm mission the 787-9 burn about 3% less fuel per mile than the A359. That is very significant over the life of the frame.

On a 6542nm mission the A359 burns about 1.6% less fuel per mile than a 787-9. But since obviously the vast majority of missions for either aircraft will be well under 6542nm the clear winner in fuel burn is the 787-9. Also...for missions under 5000nm the 787-9 also appears to have a 3% lower CASM than the A359 if you assume 304 seats an 315 for each respective frame. They are virtually identical if you assume the 787-9 at 291 seats.

So, as I said previously, in my mind the choice between the 787-9 and the A359 comes down to those extra seats on the A359. Can you consistently fill those extra 20 or so seats? If so, the A359 might be the better choice. If 290-300 seats is the sweet spot probably the 787-9 unless you also consistently deploy each frame on ultra long missions.


And btw.....I also show the 787-9 has a 2% lower CASM than the A339-Neo om a 3350nm flight assuming 304 seats and 310 seats. The 787-9 at 291 seats they are virtually identical.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

I am sorry, but how did you reach a 3% CASM advantage for 789? For any similar seating configuration, A359 would definitely have the better CASM. Your assumption was only made by increasing the number of seats on 789 while keeping the seats on A359 as they are. Why would you choose to compare an A359 with 315 seats to a 789 with 304 seats?

A359 is 3.8 meters longer than 789, so we could easily get at least 4 extra Y rows on the A359 (if not more), resulting in at least 36-45 more seats. To get a perspective, 779 is 2.1 meters longer than 77W. that's almost half the difference in length between 789 and A359. using this ratio, the difference of 11 seats you identified between A359 and 789 means that operators of 10-abreast 77W would only get 6 extra seats when switching to 779?!! (of course you would get 10 seats per row, but I am just using the ratio of extra meters of length)

The only airline that has configured both planes on 3-class arrangement is Vietnam Airlines, and they have 31 more seats on the A359 even though it has 12 more J seats. Had they had the same number of J seats, the difference would have jumped to 40 seats.


The CASM comparison made by 350helmi used an A359 of 315 seats and a 789 with 291 seats, that is still unfair to be honest even though A359 had better CASM on that). If you want to use the seating configuration used by Boeing of 290 seats, then you should at least do the same with A359 and give the 325 seats that Airbus uses by default. this would still increase the CASM further in favor of the A359.

As much as I like the A330 and can't wait for the neo to arrive, the statistics quoted for the A330neo above just don't seem to add up. I know that it is a very capable frame nowadays with the constant improvements it has made since it's first specification, however, for it to be beating the 787 (a clean sheet design) over the atlantic by use of more efficient engines and some aerodynamic tweaks just seems difficult to believe...

By that logic the 748 would have been a difficult plane to turn down, even with the additional engines in relation to a twin.

TPlouffe wrote:

Yes, you are generally correct.
Here are the figures:
The Boeing 787-9, with 294 passengers burns 5.85 kg/km of fuel on a 4650 nm (8,610 km) trip. That's about 2.49L/100 km per seat.
In a higher density configuration with 304 passengers over 4,972 nmi (9,208 km), the plane will burn around 2.31L/100 km per seat.
However, the 787-9 on a 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) trip with the standard 291 passengers, burns 7.18 kg/km or about 3.01L/100 km per seat.

The Airbus A350-900, with 315 passengers burns 6.03 kg/km of fuel on a 4,972 nmi (9,206 km) trip. This is slightly higher overall than the 787-9's 5.85 kg/km, however per passenger, it is more fuel efficient burning only 2.39L/100 km per seat.

On a long haul 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) trip with 315 passengers, the A350-900 burns 7.07 kg/km. That's about 2.81L/100km per seat. So yes, in the long haul, the A350-900 has a considerable advantage over the 787-9. However, with 304 passengers, the 787-9 has an advantage on shorter range routes around 4,900 nmi or less.

Interestingly, the A330-900neo with 300 passengers on a 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) trip burns 5.94 kg/km, which is only slightly more than the 787-9 flying the same distance. But because the A330-900neo seats 9+ more passengers, the A330-900neo burns 2.48L/100 km per seat. That's actually slightly less than the 787-9's 2.49L/100 km per seat, assuming the 787-9 seats the standard 291 passengers.

Thank you for the figures, much appreciated! Would it be possible to have a graph of all three planes with the standard seating (789 - 291pax, A359 - 315pax, A339 - 300), say trip fuel used vs. distance from 2000nm to 8000nm? We can leave cargo out of this equation. If it isnt too much trouble? Would help with visualising how close the planes actually are in terms of fuel burn and give a better idea of the missions where each has the advantage compared to the others.

350helmi

Eyad89 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

TPlouffe wrote:

Yes, you are generally correct.
Here are the figures:
The Boeing 787-9, with 294 passengers burns 5.85 kg/km of fuel on a 4650 nm (8,610 km) trip. That's about 2.49L/100 km per seat.
In a higher density configuration with 304 passengers over 4,972 nmi (9,208 km), the plane will burn around 2.31L/100 km per seat.
However, the 787-9 on a 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) trip with the standard 291 passengers, burns 7.18 kg/km or about 3.01L/100 km per seat.

The Airbus A350-900, with 315 passengers burns 6.03 kg/km of fuel on a 4,972 nmi (9,206 km) trip. This is slightly higher overall than the 787-9's 5.85 kg/km, however per passenger, it is more fuel efficient burning only 2.39L/100 km per seat.

On a long haul 6,542 nmi (12,116 km) trip with 315 passengers, the A350-900 burns 7.07 kg/km. That's about 2.81L/100km per seat. So yes, in the long haul, the A350-900 has a considerable advantage over the 787-9. However, with 304 passengers, the 787-9 has an advantage on shorter range routes around 4,900 nmi or less.

Interestingly, the A330-900neo with 300 passengers on a 4,650 nmi (8,610 km) trip burns 5.94 kg/km, which is only slightly more than the 787-9 flying the same distance. But because the A330-900neo seats 9+ more passengers, the A330-900neo burns 2.48L/100 km per seat. That's actually slightly less than the 787-9's 2.49L/100 km per seat, assuming the 787-9 seats the standard 291 passengers.

I appreciate your post and the data you provided corresponds to the data I have seen. Basically, on a 4600nm mission the 787-9 burn about 3% less fuel per mile than the A359. That is very significant over the life of the frame.

On a 6542nm mission the A359 burns about 1.6% less fuel per mile than a 787-9. But since obviously the vast majority of missions for either aircraft will be well under 6542nm the clear winner in fuel burn is the 787-9. Also...for missions under 5000nm the 787-9 also appears to have a 3% lower CASM than the A359 if you assume 304 seats an 315 for each respective frame. They are virtually identical if you assume the 787-9 at 291 seats.

So, as I said previously, in my mind the choice between the 787-9 and the A359 comes down to those extra seats on the A359. Can you consistently fill those extra 20 or so seats? If so, the A359 might be the better choice. If 290-300 seats is the sweet spot probably the 787-9 unless you also consistently deploy each frame on ultra long missions.


And btw.....I also show the 787-9 has a 2% lower CASM than the A339-Neo om a 3350nm flight assuming 304 seats and 310 seats. The 787-9 at 291 seats they are virtually identical.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

I am sorry, but how did you reach a 3% CASM advantage for 789? For any similar seating configuration, A359 would definitely have the better CASM. Your assumption was only made by increasing the number of seats on 789 while keeping the seats on A359 as they are. Why would you choose to compare an A359 with 315 seats to a 789 with 304 seats?

A359 is 3.8 meters longer than 789, so we could easily get at least 4 extra Y rows on the A359 (if not more), resulting in at least 36-45 more seats. To get a perspective, 779 is 2.1 meters longer than 77W. that's almost half the difference in length between 789 and A359. using this ratio, the difference of 11 seats you identified between A359 and 789 means that operators of 10-abreast 77W would only get 6 extra seats when switching to 779?!! (of course you would get 10 seats per row, but I am just using the ratio of extra meters of length)

The only airline that has configured both planes on 3-class arrangement is Vietnam Airlines, and they have 31 more seats on the A359 even though it has 12 more J seats. Had they had the same number of J seats, the difference would have jumped to 40 seats.


The CASM comparison made by 350helmi used an A359 of 315 seats and a 789 with 291 seats, that is still unfair to be honest even though A359 had better CASM on that). If you want to use the seating configuration used by Boeing of 290 seats, then you should at least do the same with A359 and give the 325 seats that Airbus uses by default. this would still increase the CASM further in favor of the A359.

The data I provided assumes either 291or 304 seats for the 787-9 and 315 seats for the A359.

Regardless.....and let me make this crystal clear....the 787-9 burns less fuel than the A359 except for the most extreme long range missions.

If you can consistently fill those extra seats on the A359.....goody....buy it. If you need a plane with slightly fewer seats but better fuel burn buy the 787-9.

I hope everyone can understand this. It seems very simple to me.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Regardless.....and let me make this crystal clear....the 787-9 burns less fuel than the A359 except for the most extreme long range missions.

If you can consistently fill those extra seats on the A359.....goody....buy it. If you need a plane with slightly fewer seats but better fuel burn buy the 787-9.

OK, so let's now get back to the basics. Delta plans.

They bought A359 for 744 replacement. This already is downgauge in terms of available seats. Would be even more when compared to 789. 78J would match the capacity.

They also bought A359 for TransPac. As an European, I have no idea on range required, but probably it would be close to 6000nm, especially when starting from central US and/or going to HKG, SIN, etc. Sometimes maybe even more. 789 would be perfect match, but oops up there we stated it's too much of a shrink. And 78J is nowhere close to required range at full.

And hello, A359 payload is more than 10klbs extra over 789. So, while shunting full board, it takes more range, or more cargo over the same distance. Think that played for Delta too, since Asian flights are quite often full on cargo.

That's why they bought A359. Right plane for their mission. Case dismissed.

Cheers,
Adam