Lufthansa

Lufthansa is a great customer of Airbus, and I believe that this model can not be lacking in its fleet, it is ideal for Munich operations to its high density destinations in North America and Asia, destinations such as Newark, Washington, Chicago, Shanghai, Hong Kong , Tokyo-Haneda, Seoul this model would be perfect for these operations

Iberia

I believe that the Airbus A350-900 for Iberia are a bit small for its operations in Latin America, the Airbus A350-1000 is necessary for its high density destinations such as Mexico City, Bogota, Lima and Buenos Aires where demand is great , a configuration between 380-390 would be perfect!

Delta Airlines

This model would be ideal for its high-density missions in Asia, from its Detroit hub to destinations such as Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo and Seoul and to be able to reopen Hong Kong, or more capacity from Los Angeles as Sidney as Delta has codes shared with Virgin Australia and offer more destinations, it would also be ideal for your hub in Seattle and Atlanta for destinations in Asia

Air India

This model is perfect to offer great efficiency in routes to North America and offer a better capacity, improve its services to Newark, New York, Chicago, Washington and San Francisco where the demand is very large, and the possibility of opening new destinations such as Los Angeles, Houston or Canadian destinations such as Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto

China Airlines

This model would be used as an improvement in its services in North America for destinations such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York, in Europe for Frankfurt or increase capacity on its Amsterdam route, and increase its capacity in Sydney

South African Airways

SAA really needs to replace its inefficient A340's, with the A350-1000 optimizing and improving efficiency on its long-haul routes such as New York, London Heathrow and Frankfurt, also to return its nonstop flight to Washington, and opening up new routes such as Sydney, Miami, Paris

Agreed on all expect :
Delta - Doubtful , but maybe
Air India - not a chance

Iberia seems to be playing cheap with their high density A350-900, hopefully they'll still get A350-1000s or even (dare I say) A380s.

I don't see how SAA is going to acquire anything anytime soon.

Armchair CEO me says there's a good chance KE and AF get some. KE because they'll replace their 77Ws and also because they seem to buy everything in the air (except A330 and A350, up until now).

AF because of the huge 777 fleet and upcoming A350-900s.

LH still has the 779 on order, however they've operated jets of similar size together before. Agreed AI is a no go. But everything else sounds plausible.

-Rowen

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

I don't see how SAA is going to acquire anything anytime soon.

Agreed unfortunately. They could certainly use them.

res77W wrote:

LH still has the 779 on order, however they've operated jets of similar size together before. Agreed AI is a no go. But everything else sounds plausible.

-Rowen

And it's rumoured that LH are looking to downsize their 779 order.

IAGs BA has 18 firm and 18 options on the 35K. As a group, IAG holds 43 firm and 57 options on the A350.

In a recent interview with a CI VP on another thread he said CI internal review of the A350-1000 was quite favorable. They were talking about the A350 operations. They have 6 A359 options which in previous reports need to be exercised in 2018). Could see CI order more -900s or -1000s this year.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=74s&v=ahA9vbxBBPs

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Armchair CEO me says there's a good chance KE and AF get some. KE because they'll replace their 77Ws and also because they seem to buy everything in the air (except A330 and A350, up until now).

Not sure what you mean with the A330...they've had them for nearly 20 years...this March is 20th anniversary. Maybe I mis-interpret your meaning.

Moe

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

Lufthansa

Lufthansa already has the 777-9 on order in that size segment. Unless they want to keep Munich an all-Airbus hub I'm not sure if there is a place at LH for the A350-1000. They're also replacing the A340-600 with the A350-900 so I'm not sure what role the -1000 would serve.

Iberia

They probably could use a few, agreed.

Delta Airlines

Delta hasn't really shown interest in anything larger than the A350-900. They could make use of it, but do they really want it?

Air India

They might or they might not but I'm not sure if particularly the US market warrants this much capacity. They also have a sizeable young 77W fleet.

China Airlines

Probably. After all, every previous 747 operator has experience with aircraft of that size and they wouldn't want to add another type, being such a small carrier.

South African Airways

Most likely not. If anything, they should be better off with the -900.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Armchair CEO me says there's a good chance KE and AF get some. KE because they'll replace their 77Ws and also because they seem to buy everything in the air (except A330 and A350, up until now).

KE has been flying A330 for 20 years.

Michael

I’d also add NZ into the mix for 1000/900/ULR allows them to grow Asia with the 900, North America with the 1000 with JFK,ORD,GRU as ULR. NZ use their 777s on short hops to the pacific island and Trans Tasman to AU where the lighter A350 could be if benefit. Decision is to be made on 777 replacement in the next 18months rumour has it.

Other option is QF, to replace their 744 and A380s but I just feel the 1000 is too small and the 779 and 778 are better fits for the longer and denser QF network

MSPbrandon wrote:

Agreed on all expect :
Delta - Doubtful , but maybe
Air India - not a chance

With regards to DL, howcome? I know aside from the now axed 744 they don't operate planes too large, but with growing air traffic figures, and increasing congestion in airports in Asia particularly I see this being a very viable order in the next 5 years or so...

South African Airways
[/quote]
Most likely not. If anything, they should be better off with the -900.[/quote]

And they have no money..?

If their traffic continues to grow I expect AY to convert some of the remaining 900's to 1000's.

Air Caraïbes has three A350-1000 coming in 2020, each with a whopping 439 seats :O

That may entice Thomas Cook, TUI, Condor etc to order a few for heavy charter destinations...

CRJ900 wrote:

Air Caraïbes has three A350-1000 coming in 2020

I believe Air Caraibes is taking some of the prototypes.

Singapore Airlines maybe convert their options of their -900 to the -1000 if possible.

res77W wrote:

LH still has the 779 on order, however they've operated jets of similar size together before. Agreed AI is a no go. But everything else sounds plausible.

-Rowen

What routes does LH have that need the range/payload of the 779. It’s a lot more expressive aircraft to own and operate compared to the A350 which the already operate.

Could easily see LH operate the A350-1000 on A340-600 routes, even with similar downstairs toilets to increase the number of seats while enjoying 25% lower fuel burn to the 779.

The 77W/A346 cycle is still a few years out from replacement, I think as the years go on the orders will grow. It is very interesting to watch because all the legacy carriers are growing their lower cost brands, and shrinking their premium cabins on their own planes while stuffing more Y passengers in the back.

zeke wrote:

res77W wrote:

LH still has the 779 on order, however they've operated jets of similar size together before. Agreed AI is a no go. But everything else sounds plausible.

-Rowen

What routes does LH have that need the range/payload of the 779. It’s a lot more expressive aircraft to own and operate compared to the A350 which the already operate.

Could easily see LH operate the A350-1000 on A340-600 routes, even with similar downstairs toilets to increase the number of seats while enjoying 25% lower fuel burn to the 779.

What would the passenger and payload difference be in an LH configuration 779 vs A35K?

Didn't CX switch some 1k back to the 900? DL could of course use them, but they may choose Boeing for that segment.

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

Delta Airlines

This model would be ideal for its high-density missions in Asia, from its Detroit hub to destinations such as Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo and Seoul and to be able to reopen Hong Kong, or more capacity from Los Angeles as Sidney as Delta has codes shared with Virgin Australia and offer more destinations, it would also be ideal for your hub in Seattle and Atlanta for destinations in Asia

All of which can be done with the -900. It's already the only thing in their fleet with more than 300seats, doubt they want much more.

I see bright future for A350-1000XWB with many airlines but let's not forget that 35K competes for the same contested territory against its rival Boeing's 777-8 and 777-9. Sure A350-900XWB is very popular but its current popularity/fuel burn/attractiveness dominance and size, is sitting way better while the largest longhauler from Airbus under A380 is being seriously challenged.

IBERIA
I've been saying for years that IB are playing way too risk-averse by not jumping onto the A380 capacity on their extremely strong Latin America trunk routes. The A380 could have been successfully and profitably year-round deployed at least on 5 direct routes: MEX, EZE, GRU, MIA, BOG or even SCL. For once MAD Barajas could have become to IB what LHR is to BA. With current equipment and frequencies IB is basically ignoring the potential to attract transfer traffic in addition to its MAD-LATAM corridor.
Preferably A350-1000XWB has at best 50/50 chance at IB for the replacement of their largest people-mover currently A340-600 if they (IB) really wanted to be bold and I'd go with the 777-9 (its 50 seat advantage) instead because IB needs the extra seats and performance.
In the end both BA (only 18 x 35K) and LA (12 but they may order a bit more) chose A350-1000XWB and IB will get it as well.

LUFTHANSA
A350-1000XWB has at best 50/50 chance at LH. They already have 777-9 on order to replace their older 747-400 and potentially 747-8i. What would be the role of the 35K? Direct replacement for A340-600, possibly but unnecessary.

TURKISH
A350-1000XWB will sit perfectly with TK and IGA Istanbul New Airport as unlike current Ataturk they will have plenty of room to build a powerhouse hub with frequencies (with plenty 35K as it is the most efficient), they have great geographical position. They don't need the 777-9 unless 1) Erdogan makes some US deals and some Boeing deal comes as a package and/or 2) They decide that they need a bigger place simply for bragging rights.

AEROFLOT
SU were very impressed by A350-900 and I heard somewhere they are mulling acquiring way more that their 14 on the books. A350-1000XWB will be part of that top-up order.

AIR FRANCE+KLM
It is another 50/50. Air France loves their 777s with GE engines. Politically makes sense but who knows. KL would rather order more 777s but it is not out of chance for a 35K. Too early to tell.

SOUTH AFRICAN
It is another 50/50. While A350-1000XWB will make sense to replace A340-600, especially on long routes to US, a combination of 777-8 and -9 will make more sense for them.

DELTA
It is another 50/50 but not whether they will choose 777X over 35K, but whether they need anything bigger yet.

LH is replacing their A346 with A359s, when LH orders more A350s I think it will be for the A359.

IB may order some A35K if they continue to do well (making profit). Although I think the A359 is tailor made for them.

DL have deferred 10 of their A350s on order. Rumor is they will used to replce their 77E eventually, which favors the A359 rather than the -1000.

CI will almost surely order the A35K.

SA is better off with the A359, the A35K is too large.

AF will IMO split their 77W replacement, order both A35K and 777-9
KL is better off with the A35K, they need replacement for 6 more 744s full pax, the A359 is unnecessary IMO, they will have 787-9/10 and 77E for the 290-340 seat aircraft already.

And Chinese airlines will order lots of A350-1000, just a matter of time.

Slug71 wrote:

And it's rumoured that LH are looking to downsize their 779 order.

Which they effectively have. Of the 34 LH themselves said were on firm order, only 20 will be taken. These are the ones counted as firm by Boeing, and can't be cancelled without penalty.

Strato2 wrote:

If their traffic continues to grow I expect AY to convert some of the remaining 900's to 1000's.

Yes, pretty likely, they're doing well.

SQ789 wrote:

Singapore Airlines maybe convert their options of their -900 to the -1000 if possible.

I always thought SQ would order the A35K and not the 779, but now that they did order the 779 I think the chance SQ ordering the A35K has shrunk.

zeke wrote:

Could easily see LH operate the A350-1000 on A340-600 routes, even with similar downstairs toilets to increase the number of seats while enjoying 25% lower fuel burn to the 779.

Not even the 77W burns 25% more fuel than the A35K in comparable configurations, the 779 certainly won't. Don't believe the Airbus marketing crap (nor Boeing's).

sofianec wrote:

IBERIA
I've been saying for years that IB are playing way too risk-averse by not jumping onto the A380 capacity on their extremely strong Latin America trunk routes. The A380 could have been successfully and profitably year-round deployed at least on 5 direct routes: MEX, EZE, GRU, MIA, BOG or even SCL. For once MAD Barajas could have become to IB what LHR is to BA. With current equipment and frequencies IB is basically ignoring the potential to attract transfer traffic in addition to its MAD-LATAM corridor.
Preferably A350-1000XWB has at best 50/50 chance at IB for the replacement of their largest people-mover currently A340-600 if they (IB) really wanted to be bold and I'd go with the 777-9 (its 50 seat advantage) instead because IB needs the extra seats and performance.
In the end both BA (only 18 x 35K) and LA (12 but they may order a bit more) chose A350-1000XWB and IB will get it as well.

While I agree with your statement, I'd like to "fine-tune" your concept of risk-averse.

IBERIA's current strategy has four pillars:

1. Focus on yields, not market share. Any additional seat that has to be sold at a discount is a no-no.
2. Focus on short term financial results. And by short they mean this quarter. They are losing market share? They are losing opportunities? Competition is slowly entering their bread and butter routes? No problem, they will deal with these elements if and when they affect the financial results. They can always play victim and NEVER NEVER even think about beginning to admit poor planning. Also, they can run for their lives and set up an "airline" in a few months to address what they consider a significant threat (e.g. LEVEL).
3. Focus on O&D: Madrid has a very large O&D market to most places where IB fly. European flights have tough competition, and encouraging connections LATAM/Europe might affect their yields. This is why we don't see aggresive pricing. They must know what connections are worthy and what connections are not.
4. Penny-pinching: Investment has to be kept at a minimum and carried out only if there is no choice. The A380 would be looked at with a very different light if they cost much less. Why pay Airbus the difference between a 350 and a 380 when that money can be distributed between shareholders that in turn will renew their trust in the board?

By the way, I don't endorse any of these "pillars" but keeping them in mind helps understand many of IBERIA's decisions.

sofianec wrote:

...
IBERIA
...if they (IB) really wanted to be bold and I'd go with the 777-9 (its 50 seat advantage) instead because IB needs the extra seats and performance.

Last thing IB needs is breaking commonality in its delicate situation. Even less for 50 seats.

LH has the 779 on order (but that's arguably in a different class, so maybe), CI's 77W's are brand new, and I can't see SAA buying any plane right now. I'd say IB is the most likely because of the A340-600 fleet they have no replacement planned for.

aeromoe wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Armchair CEO me says there's a good chance KE and AF get some. KE because they'll replace their 77Ws and also because they seem to buy everything in the air (except A330 and A350, up until now).

Not sure what you mean with the A330...they've had them for nearly 20 years...this March is 20th anniversary. Maybe I mis-interpret your meaning.

Moe

A330Neo* my bad

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Iberia seems to be playing cheap with their high density A350-900, hopefully they'll still get A350-1000s or even (dare I say) A380s.

I don't see how SAA is going to acquire anything anytime soon.

Armchair CEO me says there's a good chance KE and AF get some. KE because they'll replace their 77Ws and also because they seem to buy everything in the air (except A330 and A350, up until now).

AF because of the huge 777 fleet and upcoming A350-900s.

KE is operating A330.

OA940 wrote:

LH has the 779 on order (but that's arguably in a different class, so maybe), CI's 77W's are brand new, and I can't see SAA buying any plane right now. I'd say IB is the most likely because of the A340-600 fleet they have no replacement planned for.

CIs 77Ws are indeed brand new, 2014-16 delivery but they were said by a previous CEO to be interim lift. The 6 purchased planes are all on sale leaseback deals as well now.
They still have 4 744s to replace though in the 747 fleet thread it seems the oldest was just in mx for a month so maybe they are getting their 2nd heavy check and will not be retired imminently. That still could mean they need 14 “350” seat planes by the mid next decade.
IIRC at least the 4 Gecas 77w leases are only for 8 years so 2022 could see the first ones leave. Ordering replacements in the next year or two would not seem unreasonable.

jmmadrid wrote:

IBERIA's current strategy has four pillars:

1. Focus on yields, not market share. Any additional seat that has to be sold at a discount is a no-no.
2. Focus on short term financial results. And by short they mean this quarter. They are losing market share? They are losing opportunities? Competition is slowly entering their bread and butter routes? No problem, they will deal with these elements if and when they affect the financial results. They can always play victim and NEVER NEVER even think about beginning to admit poor planning. Also, they can run for their lives and set up an "airline" in a few months to address what they consider a significant threat (e.g. LEVEL).
3. Focus on O&D: Madrid has a very large O&D market to most places where IB fly. European flights have tough competition, and encouraging connections LATAM/Europe might affect their yields. This is why we don't see aggresive pricing. They must know what connections are worthy and what connections are not.
4. Penny-pinching: Investment has to be kept at a minimum and carried out only if there is no choice. The A380 would be looked at with a very different light if they cost much less. Why pay Airbus the difference between a 350 and a 380 when that money can be distributed between shareholders that in turn will renew their trust in the board?

By the way, I don't endorse any of these "pillars" but keeping them in mind helps understand many of IBERIA's decisions.

There is also a 5th pillar, it is to increase frequency. This is a tool much under rated if you wish to be No 1 in a market.

frigatebird wrote:

Not even the 77W burns 25% more fuel than the A35K in comparable configurations, the 779 certainly won't. Don't believe the Airbus marketing crap (nor Boeing's).

This is some analysis I did of the A350-1000 early long flight I did with 310 passengers onboard from the cockpit phtoto which showed the fuel used, fuel flows weights etc. As the name suggests is was very much an early flight, with performance to improve as it enters service. Even in its early days, the A350-1000 was beating the 77W block fuel by more than 25%.

“It is more like 94.7% of the A350-1000 MTOW. The fuel used at that point was 33.25t, if you take 500 kg for taxi, the flight fuel would be 32.75t. Current mass 258.9 t, so TOW=GW+FU = 291.65t. 291.65/308=94.7%.

The TAS is 497 kts at FL350, a 77W taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would be at FL330 with a TAS of 488 kt. The current fuel flow is 6800 kg/hr, a 77W after 4 hrs taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would be burning 8644 kg/hr, that represents 21.3% less fuel flow. In terms of specific range, 77W 8644/488 = 17.7 kg/nm, A350-1000 6800/497= 13.7 kg/nm, that represents a 22.8% reduction.

After 4 hours of flight time a 77W taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would have burnt 41.9 t of fuel, the A350-1000 32.75 t, that also is a 21.8% reduction. However in that time the A350 would have flown about 2% further in distance.

The A350-1000 at that point had 7:22 of flight time left and estimated to burn 45.7 t (65.5-19.8), average burn for the 7:22, 45.7/7:22=6.2 t/hr for the remainder of the flight. Overall total trip fuel would have been 78.45t (45.7+32.75) for 11:22 (7:22+4:00) flight time. A 77W would burn 105.9 t over that flight time. That represents 27.5 t less fuel for the sector in percentage terms a 25.9% reduction.

I should add, anyone suggesting that a 77W will burn less than 9t hr average on a long haul flight is dreaming, that is the sort of fuel burn a 77W will have at around 75% of MTOW, on a 11:22 flight a 77W would burn on average 9.3 t/hr. the A350-1000 6.9 t/hr, a 25.9% reduction.”

From viewtopic.php?t=607139&start=2500

Egerton wrote:

There is also a 5th pillar, it is to increase frequency. This is a tool much under rated if you wish to be No 1 in a market.

Not so sure about this one.

In order to increase frequency in LH you need planes galore, and IBERIA buy their planes with a dropper, most of them as one to one replacements. (See 4th pillar).

Having said that, it is a shame that IBERIA don't have AT LEAST two daily flights to each of their LATAM destinations (except CCS, for now), one leaving in the early afternoon and arriving in Madrid early morning and the other one leaving late evening and arriving in Madrid in the afternoon. I believe only EZE, MIA and MEX follow this pattern.

trex8 wrote:

OA940 wrote:

LH has the 779 on order (but that's arguably in a different class, so maybe), CI's 77W's are brand new, and I can't see SAA buying any plane right now. I'd say IB is the most likely because of the A340-600 fleet they have no replacement planned for.

CIs 77Ws are indeed brand new, 2014-16 delivery but they were said by a previous CEO to be interim lift. The 6 purchased planes are all on sale leaseback deals as well now.
They still have 4 744s to replace though in the 747 fleet thread it seems the oldest was just in mx for a month so maybe they are getting their 2nd heavy check and will not be retired imminently. That still could mean they need 14 “350” seat planes by the mid next decade.
IIRC at least the 4 Gecas 77w leases are only for 8 years so 2022 could see the first ones leave. Ordering replacements in the next year or two would not seem unreasonable.

Correction, all 10 77Ws are on 12 year leases

zeke wrote:

frigatebird wrote:

Not even the 77W burns 25% more fuel than the A35K in comparable configurations, the 779 certainly won't. Don't believe the Airbus marketing crap (nor Boeing's).

This is some analysis I did of the A350-1000 early long flight I did with 310 passengers onboard from the cockpit phtoto which showed the fuel used, fuel flows weights etc. As the name suggests is was very much an early flight, with performance to improve as it enters service. Even in its early days, the A350-1000 was beating the 77W block fuel by more than 25%.

“It is more like 94.7% of the A350-1000 MTOW. The fuel used at that point was 33.25t, if you take 500 kg for taxi, the flight fuel would be 32.75t. Current mass 258.9 t, so TOW=GW+FU = 291.65t. 291.65/308=94.7%.

The TAS is 497 kts at FL350, a 77W taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would be at FL330 with a TAS of 488 kt. The current fuel flow is 6800 kg/hr, a 77W after 4 hrs taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would be burning 8644 kg/hr, that represents 21.3% less fuel flow. In terms of specific range, 77W 8644/488 = 17.7 kg/nm, A350-1000 6800/497= 13.7 kg/nm, that represents a 22.8% reduction.

After 4 hours of flight time a 77W taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would have burnt 41.9 t of fuel, the A350-1000 32.75 t, that also is a 21.8% reduction. However in that time the A350 would have flown about 2% further in distance.

The A350-1000 at that point had 7:22 of flight time left and estimated to burn 45.7 t (65.5-19.8), average burn for the 7:22, 45.7/7:22=6.2 t/hr for the remainder of the flight. Overall total trip fuel would have been 78.45t (45.7+32.75) for 11:22 (7:22+4:00) flight time. A 77W would burn 105.9 t over that flight time. That represents 27.5 t less fuel for the sector in percentage terms a 25.9% reduction.

I should add, anyone suggesting that a 77W will burn less than 9t hr average on a long haul flight is dreaming, that is the sort of fuel burn a 77W will have at around 75% of MTOW, on a 11:22 flight a 77W would burn on average 9.3 t/hr. the A350-1000 6.9 t/hr, a 25.9% reduction.”

From viewtopic.php?t=607139&start=2500

Thanks for reposting this Zeke. It does show how technology has moved forward in the last years that we can look at a 25% reduction in block fuel for similar lift.

The 777-9 is much larger than the A35J and there is very little incremental cost to operating the A35J for an airline that already operates the A359. So I think the chances at Lufthansa are pretty good.

Hopefully Air NZ will replace their 77E and 77W fleets with A359 and A35J.

Motorhussy wrote:

Hopefully Air NZ will replace their 77E and 77W fleets with A359 and A35J.

An A350 in ANZ colours would be stunning!

I can only dream to see one in Virgin Australia or Qantas colours

aviationaware wrote:

The 777-9 is much larger than the A35J and there is very little incremental cost to operating the A35J for an airline that already operates the A359. So I think the chances at Lufthansa are pretty good.

The 77W to 779 is only around 1 row of business and two rows of economy, hardly “much larger”, heavier I would agree with. Our 3 class 77W is configured as 40J/32W/268Y, our A350-1000 configuration is 46J/32W/256Y, just 6 seats different. If you wanted to go to 10 across the empty weight of the 779 goes up, and the dry operating weight goes up further to take into account the additional catering.

Aircraft don’t go flying around 100% load factors all the time, Lufthansa publishes a passenger load factor of 80%. If you extend the LH 359 seat configuration they would have something like 60J/29W/259Y (348 pax) in an A350-1000, that would be a strong contender to replace their 3 class 744s.




Sent from my G650 using Tapatalk

zeke wrote:

frigatebird wrote:

Not even the 77W burns 25% more fuel than the A35K in comparable configurations, the 779 certainly won't. Don't believe the Airbus marketing crap (nor Boeing's).

This is some analysis I did of the A350-1000 early long flight I did with 310 passengers onboard from the cockpit phtoto which showed the fuel used, fuel flows weights etc. As the name suggests is was very much an early flight, with performance to improve as it enters service. Even in its early days, the A350-1000 was beating the 77W block fuel by more than 25%.

“It is more like 94.7% of the A350-1000 MTOW. The fuel used at that point was 33.25t, if you take 500 kg for taxi, the flight fuel would be 32.75t. Current mass 258.9 t, so TOW=GW+FU = 291.65t. 291.65/308=94.7%.

The TAS is 497 kts at FL350, a 77W taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would be at FL330 with a TAS of 488 kt. The current fuel flow is 6800 kg/hr, a 77W after 4 hrs taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would be burning 8644 kg/hr, that represents 21.3% less fuel flow. In terms of specific range, 77W 8644/488 = 17.7 kg/nm, A350-1000 6800/497= 13.7 kg/nm, that represents a 22.8% reduction.

After 4 hours of flight time a 77W taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would have burnt 41.9 t of fuel, the A350-1000 32.75 t, that also is a 21.8% reduction. However in that time the A350 would have flown about 2% further in distance.

The A350-1000 at that point had 7:22 of flight time left and estimated to burn 45.7 t (65.5-19.8), average burn for the 7:22, 45.7/7:22=6.2 t/hr for the remainder of the flight. Overall total trip fuel would have been 78.45t (45.7+32.75) for 11:22 (7:22+4:00) flight time. A 77W would burn 105.9 t over that flight time. That represents 27.5 t less fuel for the sector in percentage terms a 25.9% reduction.

I should add, anyone suggesting that a 77W will burn less than 9t hr average on a long haul flight is dreaming, that is the sort of fuel burn a 77W will have at around 75% of MTOW, on a 11:22 flight a 77W would burn on average 9.3 t/hr. the A350-1000 6.9 t/hr, a 25.9% reduction.”

From viewtopic.php?t=607139&start=2500

Zeke, as always, much love for you and your contributions.

Frigatebird was referring to your earlier post upthread where you claimed that, for LH, the A350-1000 will burn 25% less fuel than the 777-9, not 77W.

"...enjoying 25% lower fuel burn to the 779."

I can understand the 25% difference between the 77W and -1000. That is expected of an aircraft that has 12+ years of advancements from which to benefit. It would be crazy for Airbus and RR to have invested billions in it if it wasn't capable of achieving this.

As much as I prefer the A350 to the 777X, the 25% figure is unrealistic when comparing the -1000 to the 779.

zeke wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

The 777-9 is much larger than the A35J and there is very little incremental cost to operating the A35J for an airline that already operates the A359. So I think the chances at Lufthansa are pretty good.

The 77W to 779 is only around 1 row of business and two rows of economy, hardly “much larger”, heavier I would agree with. Our 3 class 77W is configured as 40J/32W/268Y, our A350-1000 configuration is 46J/32W/256Y, just 6 seats different. If you wanted to go to 10 across the empty weight of the 779 goes up, and the dry operating weight goes up further to take into account the additional catering.

Aircraft don’t go flying around 100% load factors all the time, Lufthansa publishes a passenger load factor of 80%. If you extend the LH 359 seat configuration they would have something like 60J/29W/259Y (348 pax) in an A350-1000, that would be a strong contender to replace their 3 class 744s.




Sent from my G650 using Tapatalk

Again, much love. I am not singling you out for any nefarious reason. It is more the opposite. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on a.net (and the greater interwebs, haha) so people will read your comments and automatically take it as gospel.

I need to correct something, if I may, with all due respect.

While the 779 may not be much larger than the A350-1000, the size difference is not insignificant. For better or worse, each has their own pros and cons.

Just a quick look at the seatmaps on the respective aircraft characteristic pdf docs with my rudimentary knowledge gives the following:


- A350-1000: 324 (54/270),
J @ 2-2-2 with 77" pitch and no direct aisle access
Y @ 32" pitch and 18" width

- 777-9: 365 (63/302),
J @ 2-3-2 with JAL/KE/WY style direct aisle access seats
Y @ 32" pitch and 17.35" width (before anyone chirps, the difference in seat width between the 2 will be almost unnoticeable and/or irrelevant to most people)

The 777-9 seats over 12% more pax with comparable J:Y ratios (and generous aisle access J).

If I calculated the 777-9 with non-firect aisle access, a few more seats could be extracted. So we are talking 12.5-15% greater pax capacity.

If we look at weights, MTOW of A350-1000 is 308t, atm. The 779 351.5t. That is 14%. It is not as unrealistically large and heavy as we may be led to believe.

Again, I much prefer the A350 to the 777X (and wish Boeing went clean sheet with it) so I have no need or desire to unfairly champion the 777X at the expense of the A350.

Just saying...

And yes, airplanes aren't flown full. That would put the A350-1000 (my favourite aircraft) at a greater disadvantage when compared with the A359 since the latter has 83% the capacity in CX own configs.

The 779 actually offers a sizeable step up in capacity over the A359. All things equal, quite possibly 30% more than the A359 so in another class of aircraft and capacity completely.

JamesCousins wrote:

MSPbrandon wrote:

Agreed on all expect :
Delta - Doubtful , but maybe
Air India - not a chance

With regards to DL, howcome? I know aside from the now axed 744 they don't operate planes too large, but with growing air traffic figures, and increasing congestion in airports in Asia particularly I see this being a very viable order in the next 5 years or so...

Delta has been consistent on saying the 777LR/A359 being the largest planes that are right sized for their network.

MoKa777 wrote:

As much as I prefer the A350 to the 777X, the 25% figure is unrealistic when comparing the -1000 to the 779.

Just keep in mind the 779 is going to have in all likelihood more drag in cruise compared to the 77W due to the longer fuselage, larger engine nacelles, and higher wing area all resulting in more skin friction drag.

It is also going to be heavier, the engines are heavier, and the longer fuselage is heavier, more seats inside makes the cabin and catering heavier.

It will take fuel to push those additions through the air.

Tell me since you are so good in criticizing, what percent higher block fuel will the 779 burn compared to the A350-1000 ?

You obviously must know to make the statements you are making ?



Sent from my G650 using Tapatalk

@Zeke: thank you for your kind reply and detailed explanation. 25% difference in trip fuel between A35K and 77W I can accept possible, however I believe the 77W has more revenue potential, certainly with the now current 10Y configs. Nevertheless, the choice of an A35K over a 77W is a no-brainer.

As Moka777 mentioned, the issue I have is with 25% difference between the A35K and 779. If this was the case, no decent airline would have ordered the 779, LH, QR and CX amongst will have done their maths and concluded it was worth ordering the 779 next to the A35K already on order.

@Moka777, thank you, you've kindly explained in detail the point I was trying to make, most likely a lot better than I could

@Zeke, of course the 779 will burn more fuel than the A35K. But tell us how you came to this 25% please.

CRJ900 wrote:

Air Caraïbes has three A350-1000 coming in 2020, each with a whopping 439 seats :O

That may entice Thomas Cook, TUI, Condor etc to order a few for heavy charter destinations...

I'd say Thomas Cook would go for the A330 900 rather than the A350. I just think the A350 1000 would be too big an aircraft for them.
For TUI they seem to be happily an all Boeing fleet so more than likely they'd go for the 787 10 but I think they'll stick with the 789.
The operators that do high density to the sun in the UK is Virgin Atlantic and BA and both have the 1000 on order but I don't think we'll see a high density BA one though imo.

MoKa777 wrote:

A350-1000: 324 (54/270),
J @ 2-2-2 with 77" pitch and no direct aisle access
Y @ 32" pitch and 18" width

- 777-9: 365 (63/302),
J @ 2-3-2 with JAL/KE/WY style direct aisle access seats
Y @ 32" pitch and 17.35" width (before anyone chirps, the difference in seat width between the 2 will be almost unnoticeable and/or irrelevant to most people)

The 777-9 seats over 12% more pax with comparable J:Y ratios (and generous aisle access J).

No idea where you got those numbers from, but it’s not from either ACAPS, I don’t see LH going 7 across in J either, the layout I think would be very similar to the 747-8i. If LH decided to add F to the 777-9 it could conceivably seat less than a 3 class A350-1000.

No need to go and look at the ACAPS to see how they would configure an A350-1000, they already have the A350-900 in service, it is easy to see how many rows would be added.

MoKa777 wrote:

If we look at weights, MTOW of A350-1000 is 308t, atm. The 779 351.5t. That is 14%. It is not as unrealistically large and heavy as we may be led to believe.

That difference is significant, it is equivalent to the weight of 435 passengers. Go back 10 years and dig up all the threads regarding the 747-400, A340-600 vs the 77W. Burning more fuel over the same city pair is only attractive if that demand is there all the time and it pays the yield. Most airlines had no problems with replacing higher capacity 747-400s with 77Ws as the Y passengers that are dropped off were low yield.

MoKa777 wrote:

And yes, airplanes aren't flown full. That would put the A350-1000 (my favourite aircraft) at a greater disadvantage when compared with the A359 since the latter has 83% the capacity in CX own configs.

Very true, hence part of the reason we converted some A350-1000s to A350-900s.

MoKa777 wrote:

The 779 actually offers a sizeable step up in capacity over the A359. All things equal, quite possibly 30% more than the A359 so in another class of aircraft and capacity completely.

The A350-1000 would sit nicely at replacing the 744 and A340-600 on routes that need a 350 seat aircraft with a fair more efficient airframe than a 777-9 for 350 seats.



Sent from my G650 using Tapatalk

Jerry123 wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

Air Caraïbes has three A350-1000 coming in 2020, each with a whopping 439 seats :O

That may entice Thomas Cook, TUI, Condor etc to order a few for heavy charter destinations...

I'd say Thomas Cook would go for the A330 900 rather than the A350. I just think the A350 1000 would be too big an aircraft for them.
For TUI they seem to be happily an all Boeing fleet so more than likely they'd go for the 787 10 but I think they'll stick with the 789.
The operators that do high density to the sun in the UK is Virgin Atlantic and BA and both have the 1000 on order but I don't think we'll see a high density BA one though imo.

And French Blue puts 411 pax in the A359. So the exit limit of 440 would impact them on an A35K. But not worst than 475 on the 779.

zeke wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

The 777-9 is much larger than the A35J and there is very little incremental cost to operating the A35J for an airline that already operates the A359. So I think the chances at Lufthansa are pretty good.

The 77W to 779 is only around 1 row of business and two rows of economy, hardly “much larger”

You neglect to mention the (at least) 30 more Y seats from 10-abreast seating vs 9 abreast seating in the A35J.

And as per load factor, and 80% load factor on yearly average means that there are plenty of times where the plane is filled to the last seat.

aviationaware wrote:

zeke wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

The 777-9 is much larger than the A35J and there is very little incremental cost to operating the A35J for an airline that already operates the A359. So I think the chances at Lufthansa are pretty good.

The 77W to 779 is only around 1 row of business and two rows of economy, hardly “much larger”

You neglect to mention the (at least) 30 more Y seats from 10-abreast seating vs 9 abreast seating in the A35J.

And as per load factor, and 80% load factor on yearly average means that there are plenty of times where the plane is filled to the last seat.

The A35K can also go 10 abreast. In an all economy layout, there is only a 35 seat difference. As zeke said, the 779X is hardly much larger.

Slug71 wrote:

The A35K can also go 10 abreast. In an all economy layout, there is only a 35 seat difference. As zeke said, the 779X is hardly much larger.

Only when you compare apples with oranges. Lufthansa uses 9 abreast in their A359 so there is zero reason to assume they would go 10 abreast in an A35J. Par for par, which is the only thing that matters here, the 779 is significantly (as in more than a 10% total seats difference) larger than the A35J in a Lufthansa configuration. That's just a fact that no amount of squealing will turn invalid.

If the A35J and 779 were really in the same size class, Airbus would hardly have considered launching an A350-1100; and Lufthansa would hardly have taken contract terms that make it so easy to switch from 900 to 1000.