According to Airbus both variants of the A350 have more range than the 789. The 359 can fly 15000km while the 35K 14800km according to them. Considering routes like PER-LHR and LAX-SIN are both under 14500km, could the A350 do them? Would payload restrictions apply?

A350 does SFO - SIN, so it can do LAX - SIN.

Yes and yes (just not as severe as 787’s).

OA940 wrote:

According to Airbus both variants of the A350 have more range than the 789. The 359 can fly 15000km while the 35K 14800km according to them. Considering routes like PER-LHR and LAX-SIN are both under 14500km, could the A350 do them? Would payload restrictions apply?

PER to LHR GC distance is longer than the Boeing quoted range for the B789... in reality and factor in headwinds, It's even longer. Boeing and Airbus use different factors for quoted brochure range calculations.

But to your original question, the higher gross weight versions for the 350 definitely can do the 787's ULH distances.

Yes

UA flies 789s EWR - SIN. SQ flies A359s same route. Ironically, both have 250 seats

jagraham wrote:

UA flies 789s EWR - SIN. SQ flies A359s same route. Ironically, both have 250 seats

No, UA flies SFO-SIN, LAX-SIN on 789s.

Every a350-900 weight variant starting with the 268t mtow will carry a greater payload than the 787-9 over long haul flights. The payload range charts in the ACAP show this. The 787-9 will burn less fuel.

jagraham wrote:

UA flies 789s EWR - SIN. SQ flies A359s same route. Ironically, both have 250 seats

Of the three "facts" you've stated, ZERO are true.

1. United doesn't operate that route AT ALL.
2. Singapore doesn't yet operate that route, either, but will start in October; they won't, however, be using standard A359s, but rather the ULR variant that holds 24,000 liters of additional fuel.
3. The Sing A350 will seat just 162, not 250. Because the plane wouldn't make it with 250 seats, even being the -ULR variant.

Better luck next time!

SFO - SIN, sorry

ap305 wrote:

Every a350-900 weight variant starting with the 268t mtow will carry a greater payload than the 787-9 over long haul flights. The payload range charts in the ACAP show this. The 787-9 will burn less fuel.

The 359 is a larger aircraft than the 789, of course it will carry larger payload. The 268T version configured with the same seat/sq ft as the QF 789 is not going to do PER to LHR without heavy payload restrictions. You'd need the higher gross weight versions.

waly777 wrote:

ap305 wrote:

Every a350-900 weight variant starting with the 268t mtow will carry a greater payload than the 787-9 over long haul flights. The payload range charts in the ACAP show this. The 787-9 will burn less fuel.

The 359 is a larger aircraft than the 789, of course it will carry larger payload. The 268T version configured with the same seat/sq ft as the QF 789 is not going to do PER to LHR without heavy payload restrictions. You'd need the higher gross weight versions.

The thread is "Could the A350 do the 789's ULH?"... My answer was for that. Any a359 at and above 268t can do all the ulh routes the 789 does and do it with a better payload.

ap305 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

ap305 wrote:

Every a350-900 weight variant starting with the 268t mtow will carry a greater payload than the 787-9 over long haul flights. The payload range charts in the ACAP show this. The 787-9 will burn less fuel.

The 359 is a larger aircraft than the 789, of course it will carry larger payload. The 268T version configured with the same seat/sq ft as the QF 789 is not going to do PER to LHR without heavy payload restrictions. You'd need the higher gross weight versions.

The thread is "Could the A350 do the 789's ULH?"... My answer was for that. Any a359 at and above 268t can do all the ulh routes the 789 does and do it with a better payload.

DL has a whole bunch of 268t A350s, yet their longest route with those A350s is ATL-ICN, barely over 7100sm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you if you think a 268t A350 at the 9000sm mark, carrying ~18 tons more fuel and therefore ~18 tons less payload than ATL-ICN sector, still outlifts a 789 at that distance. DL certainly doesn't think they do, as they are deferring their A350s and retrofitting their 77Ls to serve their longest routes for the forseeable future/until higher MTOW versions come online.

JustSomeDood wrote:

ap305 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

The 359 is a larger aircraft than the 789, of course it will carry larger payload. The 268T version configured with the same seat/sq ft as the QF 789 is not going to do PER to LHR without heavy payload restrictions. You'd need the higher gross weight versions.

The thread is "Could the A350 do the 789's ULH?"... My answer was for that. Any a359 at and above 268t can do all the ulh routes the 789 does and do it with a better payload.

DL has a whole bunch of 268t A350s, yet their longest route with those A350s is ATL-ICN, barely over 7100sm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you if you think a 268t A350 at the 9000sm mark, carrying ~18 tons more fuel and therefore ~18 tons less payload, still outlifts a 789 at that distance. DL certainly doesn't think they do, as they are deferring their A350s and retrofitting their 77Ls to serve their longest routes for the forseeable future/until higher MTOW versions come online.

What are you talking about... go look at the acap payload charts. The 268t a350 out lifts the 789 across the board. Dl already has the 275t version and it can certainly fly longer than ATL-ICN if they want it to.

JustSomeDood wrote:

ap305 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

The 359 is a larger aircraft than the 789, of course it will carry larger payload. The 268T version configured with the same seat/sq ft as the QF 789 is not going to do PER to LHR without heavy payload restrictions. You'd need the higher gross weight versions.

The thread is "Could the A350 do the 789's ULH?"... My answer was for that. Any a359 at and above 268t can do all the ulh routes the 789 does and do it with a better payload.

DL has a whole bunch of 268t A350s, yet their longest route with those A350s is ATL-ICN, barely over 7100sm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you if you think a 268t A350 at the 9000sm mark, carrying ~18 tons more fuel and therefore ~18 tons less payload than ATL-ICN sector, still outlifts a 789 at that distance. DL certainly doesn't think they do, as they are deferring their A350s and retrofitting their 77Ls to serve their longest routes for the forseeable future/until higher MTOW versions come online.

And yet more and more airlines have ordered the A359 as well as the 789. The A359 clearly offers them something the 789 can’t.

JustSomeDood wrote:

ap305 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

The 359 is a larger aircraft than the 789, of course it will carry larger payload. The 268T version configured with the same seat/sq ft as the QF 789 is not going to do PER to LHR without heavy payload restrictions. You'd need the higher gross weight versions.

The thread is "Could the A350 do the 789's ULH?"... My answer was for that. Any a359 at and above 268t can do all the ulh routes the 789 does and do it with a better payload.

DL has a whole bunch of 268t A350s, yet their longest route with those A350s is ATL-ICN, barely over 7100sm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you if you think a 268t A350 at the 9000sm mark, carrying ~18 tons more fuel and therefore ~18 tons less payload than ATL-ICN sector, still outlifts a 789 at that distance. DL certainly doesn't think they do, as they are deferring their A350s and retrofitting their 77Ls to serve their longest routes for the forseeable future/until higher MTOW versions come online.

That has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft capability and everything to do with cost, given that the 77L's are paid for. Remind me again how many passenger B77L's have been sold in the last 5 years? Same reason why you see 20+ year old 767's and 757's still flying around.

ap305 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

ap305 wrote:

The thread is "Could the A350 do the 789's ULH?"... My answer was for that. Any a359 at and above 268t can do all the ulh routes the 789 does and do it with a better payload.

DL has a whole bunch of 268t A350s, yet their longest route with those A350s is ATL-ICN, barely over 7100sm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you if you think a 268t A350 at the 9000sm mark, carrying ~18 tons more fuel and therefore ~18 tons less payload, still outlifts a 789 at that distance. DL certainly doesn't think they do, as they are deferring their A350s and retrofitting their 77Ls to serve their longest routes for the forseeable future/until higher MTOW versions come online.

What are you talking about... go look at the acap payload charts. The 268t a350 out lifts the 789 across the board. Dl already has the 275t version and it can certainly fly longer than ATL-ICN if they want it to.

What makes you think that those payload-range numbers in the A350 ACAPs refer to the 268t MTOW?

According to those charts, the A350 can fly MZFW payload of ~53t up to ~5800nm. That's a flight time of around 13h. Assuming an OEW of ~139t (ACAPs data leans conservative), with your assumption, that leaves a total possible fuel load of 268-139-53 = 76t, including reserves. I would like to know what sort of fuel burn numbers for the A350 you are seeing that make the above possible...

JustSomeDood wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

DL has a whole bunch of 268t A350s, yet their longest route with those A350s is ATL-ICN, barely over 7100sm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you if you think a 268t A350 at the 9000sm mark, carrying ~18 tons more fuel and therefore ~18 tons less payload than ATL-ICN sector, still outlifts a 789 at that distance. DL certainly doesn't think they do, as they are deferring their A350s and retrofitting their 77Ls to serve their longest routes for the forseeable future/until higher MTOW versions come online.

It's not a matter of thinking, it's reality and numbers. I would accept the the bridge in Brooklyn though, once you digest that the A350 is always a more capable bird that the CrapLiner. I hope it doesn't hurt.

Delta has reams more numbers about their 268t A350s than you or I could ever have, and they have elected NOT to put their 268t A350s on stage lengths that 787s exceed easily. Now that's reality and facts.

eamondzhang wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

until higher MTOW versions come online.

270, 272, 275 and even 277t MTOW versions are ALREADY certified and operational. It's just Delta who chose NOT to get the MTOW version. Get the facts right before your Boeing fanboy show.

Michael

Please read the comment I was replying to, ap305 stated that a 268t A350 will outlift a 787 across the board, I disputed that statement by showing that DL is not using their A350 in a way that is in any way consistent with that statement. I apologize for mistating that higher MTOW A350s haven't come online, I meant that Delta hasn't received any higher MTOW A350s yet to my knowledge.

First of all -DL has the 275t not the 268t. Secondly just because they have chosen not to deploy the aircraft on 15hr routes at this present moment does not mean it cannot fly those routes. Go look at the acaps payload range chart and stop making up theories. The 268t a350 will indeed out lift the 789 across the board.

Airbus payload range charts are for WV000

JustSomeDood wrote:

ap305 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

DL has a whole bunch of 268t A350s, yet their longest route with those A350s is ATL-ICN, barely over 7100sm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you if you think a 268t A350 at the 9000sm mark, carrying ~18 tons more fuel and therefore ~18 tons less payload, still outlifts a 789 at that distance. DL certainly doesn't think they do, as they are deferring their A350s and retrofitting their 77Ls to serve their longest routes for the forseeable future/until higher MTOW versions come online.

What are you talking about... go look at the acap payload charts. The 268t a350 out lifts the 789 across the board. Dl already has the 275t version and it can certainly fly longer than ATL-ICN if they want it to.

What makes you think that those payload-range numbers in the A350 ACAPs refer to the 268t MTOW?

According to those charts, the A350 can fly MZFW payload of ~53t up to ~5800nm. That's a flight time of around 13h. Assuming an OEW of ~139t (ACAPs data leans conservative), with your assumption, that leaves a total possible fuel load of 268-139-53 = 76t, including reserves. I would like to know what sort of fuel burn numbers for the A350 you are seeing that make the above possible...

As Zeke has repeatedly said- that payload/range chart is indeed the basic 268t weight variant. The a350 has a fuel burn of 5.8-5.9t per hour which adds up to your 13hrs. The maintanence weight in the acaps(if that's what you are referring to) is not the oew.

airbazar wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

ap305 wrote:

The thread is "Could the A350 do the 789's ULH?"... My answer was for that. Any a359 at and above 268t can do all the ulh routes the 789 does and do it with a better payload.

DL has a whole bunch of 268t A350s, yet their longest route with those A350s is ATL-ICN, barely over 7100sm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you if you think a 268t A350 at the 9000sm mark, carrying ~18 tons more fuel and therefore ~18 tons less payload than ATL-ICN sector, still outlifts a 789 at that distance. DL certainly doesn't think they do, as they are deferring their A350s and retrofitting their 77Ls to serve their longest routes for the forseeable future/until higher MTOW versions come online.

That has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft capability and everything to do with cost, given that the 77L's are paid for. Remind me again how many passenger B77L's have been sold in the last 5 years? Same reason why you see 20+ year old 767's and 757's still flying around.

If this is only a cost concern, then why are Delta putting the significantly more fuel-hungry aircraft (77L) on the longer sectors, where fuel cost is a far bigger component of the per-flight costs? Common logic would dictate that older, less efficient aircraft get put on lower utilization, shorter routes, where the fuel burn disadvantage is a smaller component of per-flight costs. Besides, according to DL's 10-K, their 77Ls only have an average age of 8.8 years (year end 2017), with the oldest being ~10 years old, even without detailed knowledge of depreciation schedules for each aircraft type, I find it very hard to believe that the 77Ls are on Delta's books for salvage value, and not conributing to yearly depreciation expenses.

ap305 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

ap305 wrote:

What are you talking about... go look at the acap payload charts. The 268t a350 out lifts the 789 across the board. Dl already has the 275t version and it can certainly fly longer than ATL-ICN if they want it to.

What makes you think that those payload-range numbers in the A350 ACAPs refer to the 268t MTOW?

According to those charts, the A350 can fly MZFW payload of ~53t up to ~5800nm. That's a flight time of around 13h. Assuming an OEW of ~139t (ACAPs data leans conservative), with your assumption, that leaves a total possible fuel load of 268-139-53 = 76t, including reserves. I would like to know what sort of fuel burn numbers for the A350 you are seeing that make the above possible...

As Zeke has repeatedly said- that payload/range chart is indeed the basic 268t weight variant. The a350 has a fuel burn of 5.8-5.9t per hour which adds up to your 13hrs. The maintanence weight in the acaps(if that's what you are referring to) is not the oew.

13hrs*(5.8-5.9t/hr) + fuel reserves (let's say 5-6t) ~= 76t? These numbers very much don't add up. And that's assuming your figure of 5.8-5.9t/hour is correct, which would conflict with fuel burn figures I have seen from an A350 flight plan on this forum.

Although not explicit, this article from Leeham also supports my claim that the nominal range numbers being thrown around for the A359 are for higher MTOW variants. https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/airbus-increases-a350-900-range-8100nm/.

The A359 has numerous, numerous advantages over the 789 (more cabin/cargo area, more structural payload, pax comfort) , but your claim that every non-regional MTOW A359 would be superior to the 789 in terms of payload-range just doesn't hold up to finer scrutiny.

So, to sum up, CAN the A359 do the same ULH flight QF uses their 789 on (PER-LHR)?

JustSomeDood wrote:

[


13hrs*(5.8-5.9t/hr) + fuel reserves (let's say 5-6t) ~= 76t? These numbers very much don't add up. And that's assuming your figure of 5.8-5.9t/hour is correct, which would conflict with fuel burn figures I have seen from an A350 flight plan on this forum.

Although not explicit, this article from Leeham also supports my claim that the nominal range numbers being thrown around for the A359 are for higher MTOW variants. https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/airbus-increases-a350-900-range-8100nm/.

The A359 has numerous, numerous advantages over the 789 (more cabin/cargo area, more structural payload, pax comfort) , but your claim that every non-regional MTOW A359 would be superior to the 789 in terms of payload-range just doesn't hold up to finer scrutiny.

What scrutiny? You are unable to refute any facts placed in front of you yet you make some baseless claims based on the operating pattern of one airline. Show me that flightplan which you have seen on this forum that conflicts with those figures. You are simply making up your arguments as you go along. Go to this video of an Ethiopian a350 flight to London http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68Fo03ukNCc&t=124s ... forward to 1:50 where they show the flighplan sheet - That's 40t of trip fuel for a 7:10 sector. Do the math. Fuel burn will go up slightly on longer sectors but nothing above 5.8-5.9t. There are plenty of open source photographs from actual a350 cockpits which prove this.

ap305 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

[


13hrs*(5.8-5.9t/hr) + fuel reserves (let's say 5-6t) ~= 76t? These numbers very much don't add up. And that's assuming your figure of 5.8-5.9t/hour is correct, which would conflict with fuel burn figures I have seen from an A350 flight plan on this forum.

Although not explicit, this article from Leeham also supports my claim that the nominal range numbers being thrown around for the A359 are for higher MTOW variants. https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/airbus-increases-a350-900-range-8100nm/.

The A359 has numerous, numerous advantages over the 789 (more cabin/cargo area, more structural payload, pax comfort) , but your claim that every non-regional MTOW A359 would be superior to the 789 in terms of payload-range just doesn't hold up to finer scrutiny.

What scrutiny? You are unable to refute any facts placed in front of you yet you make some baseless claims based on the operating pattern of one airline. Show me that flightplan which you have seen on this forum that conflicts with those figures. You are simply making up your arguments as you go along. Go to this video of an Ethiopian a350 flight to London http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68Fo03ukNCc&t=124s ... forward to 1:50 where they show the flighplan sheet - That's 40t of trip fuel for a 7:10 sector. Do the math. Fuel burn will go up slightly on longer sectors but nothing above 5.8-5.9t. There are plenty of open source photographs from actual a350 cockpits which prove this.

If you can't see the fuel consumption difference between a flight taking off at 221T and a ULH flight taking off at near MTOW, then I don't know if we can continue the argument.

Some youtube sleuthing also got me to find this flight from a LATAM A350 to Milan. Which I believe the forum poster got his numbers from. https://youtu.be/gVM8XZaZ5ok?t=33s The flight plan sheet on this shows 65.5t trip fuel for a 10:30 sector, with a takeoff weight of ~258t (on a 268t MTOW plane no less ). That averages out to ~6.2t fuel burn per hour, I fail to grasp why the flight plan shown for your flight would be more relevant than the one shown here...

AA737-823 wrote:

3. The Sing A350 will seat just 162, not 250. Because the plane wouldn't make it with 250 seats, even being the -ULR variant.

Wouldn't argue with the rest of what you wrote, but that's an assumption that Airbus claim is incorrect. SIA have seemingly gone with 168 seats as a matter of choice rather than constraint.

Airbus says that this figure has been "incorrectly assumed" to be the limiting range of the twinjet, which will be delivered to Singapore Airlines from next year.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... us-437060/

The reality is that both aircraft have met their specs in service. The performance figures are easy to interpret thanks to the data available from open sources and the likes of Zeke. It is however this constant running against reality and questioning of the performance of the a350 week after week which is getting a little annoying.

JustSomeDood wrote:

According to those charts, the A350 can fly MZFW payload of ~53t up to ~5800nm. That's a flight time of around 13h. Assuming an OEW of ~139t (ACAPs data leans conservative), with your assumption, that leaves a total possible fuel load of 268-139-53 = 76t, including reserves. I would like to know what sort of fuel burn numbers for the A350 you are seeing that make the above possible...

Most of what you are saying makes sense, you are just out a bit in speeds and weights. HKG-MAN would be around 5800 air nautical miles (ground miles adjusted for the headwinds), that flight time is a little under 12 hrs, not 13. An average of 6.2 tonnes per hour in the real world, I.e ATC level restriction, non standard atmosphere with a good payload over that distance seems reasonable. Alternate and reserve fuel 4-4.5 tonnes.

The manufacturers empty weight for the A350-900 is around 120 tonnes, the nominal marketing configuration is a very bland configuration that I would expect to see a basic weight under 130 tonnes. We would carry over 5 tonnes of catering and a tonne of water on a flight that long which would added plus crew to the basic weight to give the dry operating weight.

A350-900 WV000
MTOW 268 t
MZFW 192 t gives 76 t fuel at maximum payload
OEW ca. 135 t, gives 57 t max payload, max 103 t fuel for 30 t payload.
OEW ca. 140 t, gives 52 t max payload, max 98 t fuel at 30 t payload

Regarding payload on shorter ranges there is also the 268 t version WV003 with a MZFW of 195.7 t giving a max payload of 60.7 t with an OEW of 135 t.

A350-900 WV001
MTOW 275 t
MZFW 195,7 t gives 79.3 t fuel at maximum payload
OEW ca. 135 t, gives 60.7 t max payload, max 110 t fuel for 30 t payload.
OEW ca. 140 t, gives 55.7 t max payload, max 105 t fuel for 30 t payload

A350-900 WV010
MTOW 280 t
MZFW 195,7 t gives 84.3 t fuel at maximum payload
OEW ca. 135 t, gives 60.7 t max payload, max 115 t fuel for 30 t payload.
OEW ca. 140 t, gives 55.7 t max payload, max 110 t fuel for 30 t payload

There are more versions of the A350-900 available.

If we look now at the WV000 268 MTOW version.
5.6 t fuel burn per hour. 6 t reserve. Than it should be able to fly 16.4 hours, still air range about 8,010 nm at 30t payload and OEW of 140 t.
5.8 t fuel burn per hour. 6 t reserve. Than it should be able to fly 15.9 hours, still air range about 7,740 nm at 30t payload and OEW of 140 t.
or
5.6 t fuel burn per hour. 6 t reserve. Than it should be able to fly 17.5 hours, still air range about 8,540 nm at 30t payload and OEW of 135 t.
5.8 t fuel burn per hour. 6 t reserve. Than it should be able to fly 15.9 hours, still air range about 8,240 nm at 30t payload and OEW of 135 t.

I think the 5.6 fuel burn number would agree quite well with the range at ISA conditions in the payload/range table in the aircraft characteristics document at Airbus.

If we look now at the WV001 275 MTOW version.
5.6 t fuel burn per hour. 6 t reserve. Than it should be able to fly 17.8 hours, still air range about 8,710 nm at 30t payload and OEW of 140 t.
5.8 t fuel burn per hour. 6 t reserve. Than it should be able to fly 17.2 hours, still air range about 8,410 nm at 30t payload and OEW of 140 t.


For the 787-9
MTOW 254 t.
MZFW 181.5 t 72.5 t fuel at max payload
OEW 129 t, gives 52.5 t payload, max 95 t fuel for a 30t payload.

Giving us 5 t reserves and 5.4 t fuel per hour, That would give us 16.6 hours and 8,130 still air range. The payload range chart points to about 7,500 nm with a 30 t payload.


I would assume the 275 t A350-900 will beat the 787-9 in payload range quite handily.
With the 268 t version it would be a question regarding the real world configurations and the resulting OEW.

ap305 wrote:

Dl already has the 275t version

ap305 wrote:

First of all -DL has the 275t not the 268t.

Seems DL's aircraft are still 268T aircraft.

They're easily capable of being 275T (or actually, 277T) but the airline wasn't operating them at that at the beginning of this year, and I'm unable to find any external evidence that they've uprated them.

What is your source for them now being 275T?

BaconButty wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

3. The Sing A350 will seat just 162, not 250. Because the plane wouldn't make it with 250 seats, even being the -ULR variant.

Wouldn't argue with the rest of what you wrote, but that's an assumption that Airbus claim is incorrect. SIA have seemingly gone with 168 seats as a matter of choice rather than constraint.

It's 161 seats.

And SQ has also said just 5days ago that they expect payload restrictions during winter... so one might conclude that they *did* go for 161 seats out of (at least some concern for) constraint, rather than just pure choice for configuration.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ul-449158/

"Singapore Airlines (SIA) could face some cargo payload restrictions on its A350-900ULR flights to the USA, especially during the northern winter. “There could be some payload concerns, but on the cargo side particularly,” says SIA chief executive Goh Choon Phong. The restrictions would likely apply to westbound flights to Singapore during the winter months. “When we get the aircraft we do have modelling rules, but this depends on actual weather.”"

LAX772LR wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

3. The Sing A350 will seat just 162, not 250. Because the plane wouldn't make it with 250 seats, even being the -ULR variant.

Wouldn't argue with the rest of what you wrote, but that's an assumption that Airbus claim is incorrect. SIA have seemingly gone with 168 seats as a matter of choice rather than constraint.

It's 161 seats.

And SQ has also said just 5days ago that they expect payload restrictions during winter... so one might conclude that they *did* go for 161 seats out of (at least some concern for) constraint, rather than just pure choice for configuration.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ul-449158/

"Singapore Airlines (SIA) could face some cargo payload restrictions on its A350-900ULR flights to the USA, especially during the northern winter. “There could be some payload concerns, but on the cargo side particularly,” says SIA chief executive Goh Choon Phong. The restrictions would likely apply to westbound flights to Singapore during the winter months. “When we get the aircraft we do have modelling rules, but this depends on actual weather.”"

I wonder how "often" they do "westbound" as they even do "eastbound" from EWR to SIN in winter
With only "partial" of westbound flights being restricted, I think overall is pretty good

LAX772LR wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

3. The Sing A350 will seat just 162, not 250. Because the plane wouldn't make it with 250 seats, even being the -ULR variant.

Wouldn't argue with the rest of what you wrote, but that's an assumption that Airbus claim is incorrect. SIA have seemingly gone with 168 seats as a matter of choice rather than constraint.

It's 161 seats.

And SQ has also said just 5days ago that they expect payload restrictions during winter... so one might conclude that they *did* go for 161 seats out of (at least some concern for) constraint, rather than just pure choice for configuration.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ul-449158/

"Singapore Airlines (SIA) could face some cargo payload restrictions on its A350-900ULR flights to the USA, especially during the northern winter. “There could be some payload concerns, but on the cargo side particularly,” says SIA chief executive Goh Choon Phong. The restrictions would likely apply to westbound flights to Singapore during the winter months. “When we get the aircraft we do have modelling rules, but this depends on actual weather.”"

There are payload restrictions and payload restrictions. Blocking revenue seats and bags is a payload restriction where I come from. Cargo is more a reflection, not on aircraft capability, but on any true longhaul operation where MZFW cannot be utilized. Hence "restricted" below MZFW... not sure that is a substantial revelation. Maybe it is, this is just my thought.

Worthwhile thread - those who have said "the answer is obvious," well, kind of not really true as it turns out. Eventually I expect the A350 to utterly dominate, but are those versions flying and demonstrating that? Seems not. Time will tell.

LAX772LR wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

3. The Sing A350 will seat just 162, not 250. Because the plane wouldn't make it with 250 seats, even being the -ULR variant.

Wouldn't argue with the rest of what you wrote, but that's an assumption that Airbus claim is incorrect. SIA have seemingly gone with 168 seats as a matter of choice rather than constraint.

It's 161 seats.

And SQ has also said just 5days ago that they expect payload restrictions during winter... so one might conclude that they *did* go for 161 seats out of (at least some concern for) constraint, rather than just pure choice for configuration.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ul-449158/

"Singapore Airlines (SIA) could face some cargo payload restrictions on its A350-900ULR flights to the USA, especially during the northern winter. “There could be some payload concerns, but on the cargo side particularly,” says SIA chief executive Goh Choon Phong. The restrictions would likely apply to westbound flights to Singapore during the winter months. “When we get the aircraft we do have modelling rules, but this depends on actual weather.”"

That bodes well for them as westbound they most likely will carry less cargo due to more trade cargo coming from Asia to the US than cargo from US to Asia. hey need less cargo westbound s they can easily cut cargo volume in winter rather than passenger seats.

Flighty wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

Wouldn't argue with the rest of what you wrote, but that's an assumption that Airbus claim is incorrect. SIA have seemingly gone with 168 seats as a matter of choice rather than constraint.

It's 161 seats.

And SQ has also said just 5days ago that they expect payload restrictions during winter... so one might conclude that they *did* go for 161 seats out of (at least some concern for) constraint, rather than just pure choice for configuration.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ul-449158/

"Singapore Airlines (SIA) could face some cargo payload restrictions on its A350-900ULR flights to the USA, especially during the northern winter. “There could be some payload concerns, but on the cargo side particularly,” says SIA chief executive Goh Choon Phong. The restrictions would likely apply to westbound flights to Singapore during the winter months. “When we get the aircraft we do have modelling rules, but this depends on actual weather.”"

There are payload restrictions and payload restrictions. Blocking revenue seats and bags is a payload restriction where I come from.

Which is rather academic here, considering that this aircraft is already "blocking" by being equipped with 100+ fewer seats than is typical of its capacity.

airbazar wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

ap305 wrote:

The thread is "Could the A350 do the 789's ULH?"... My answer was for that. Any a359 at and above 268t can do all the ulh routes the 789 does and do it with a better payload.

DL has a whole bunch of 268t A350s, yet their longest route with those A350s is ATL-ICN, barely over 7100sm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you if you think a 268t A350 at the 9000sm mark, carrying ~18 tons more fuel and therefore ~18 tons less payload than ATL-ICN sector, still outlifts a 789 at that distance. DL certainly doesn't think they do, as they are deferring their A350s and retrofitting their 77Ls to serve their longest routes for the forseeable future/until higher MTOW versions come online.

That has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft capability and everything to do with cost, given that the 77L's are paid for. Remind me again how many passenger B77L's have been sold in the last 5 years? Same reason why you see 20+ year old 767's and 757's still flying around.

What difference does it make to mission planning if the 77Ls are "paid for" and the A359s aren't?

LAX772LR wrote:

Which is rather academic here, considering that this aircraft is already "blocking" by being equipped with 100+ fewer seats than is typical of its capacity.

You are comparing capacity for different seating. 168 business ( lie flat too? ) seats take more room than 300+ economy seats.

DfwRevolution wrote:

What difference does it make to mission planning if the 77Ls are "paid for" and the A359s aren't?

Specific to performance? None.

Specific to fleet/asset utilization? Cost.

WIederling wrote:

You are comparing capacity for different seating. 168 business ( lie flat too? ) seats take more room than 300+ economy seats.

64 business seats, not 168.

And yes, aware of spacial limitations, but again would question how much of that is desire versus necessity.

ap305 wrote:

The reality is that both aircraft have met their specs in service. The performance figures are easy to interpret thanks to the data available from open sources and the likes of Zeke. It is however this constant running against reality and questioning of the performance of the a350 week after week which is getting a little annoying.

If you're talking about my original question I had no intention of questioning any performance. It was just curiosity.

LAX772LR wrote:

64 business seats, not 168.

It is an all premium cabin, their premium economy seat is of the same style that is marketed in Norrh America as first class, and elsewhere as regional business.

They have no 7 kg EY seats installed.

zeke wrote:

It is an all premium cabin, their premium economy seat is of the same style that is marketed in North America as first class, and elsewhere as regional business.

They have no 7 kg EY seats installed.

Any idea about their dead weight ( per monument.)?

WIederling wrote:

Any idea about their dead weight ( per monument.)?

Be around 30 kg a seat

rbavfan wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

Wouldn't argue with the rest of what you wrote, but that's an assumption that Airbus claim is incorrect. SIA have seemingly gone with 168 seats as a matter of choice rather than constraint.

It's 161 seats.

And SQ has also said just 5days ago that they expect payload restrictions during winter... so one might conclude that they *did* go for 161 seats out of (at least some concern for) constraint, rather than just pure choice for configuration.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ul-449158/

"Singapore Airlines (SIA) could face some cargo payload restrictions on its A350-900ULR flights to the USA, especially during the northern winter. “There could be some payload concerns, but on the cargo side particularly,” says SIA chief executive Goh Choon Phong. The restrictions would likely apply to westbound flights to Singapore during the winter months. “When we get the aircraft we do have modelling rules, but this depends on actual weather.”"

That bodes well for them as westbound they most likely will carry less cargo due to more trade cargo coming from Asia to the US than cargo from US to Asia. hey need less cargo westbound s they can easily cut cargo volume in winter rather than passenger seats.

This may be true in total volume of trade, but there's a good chance that there is plenty of high-value/time-sensitive US-Asia trade from NY/NJ such as pharmaceuticals and high tech that would absolutely fill this bird as it could cut down many hours of travel if the intended destination is Malaysia (which has alot of manufacturing that companies are afraid of putting in China for IP reasons)...

JustSomeDood wrote:

ap305 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

[


13hrs*(5.8-5.9t/hr) + fuel reserves (let's say 5-6t) ~= 76t? These numbers very much don't add up. And that's assuming your figure of 5.8-5.9t/hour is correct, which would conflict with fuel burn figures I have seen from an A350 flight plan on this forum.

Although not explicit, this article from Leeham also supports my claim that the nominal range numbers being thrown around for the A359 are for higher MTOW variants. https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/airbus-increases-a350-900-range-8100nm/.

The A359 has numerous, numerous advantages over the 789 (more cabin/cargo area, more structural payload, pax comfort) , but your claim that every non-regional MTOW A359 would be superior to the 789 in terms of payload-range just doesn't hold up to finer scrutiny.

What scrutiny? You are unable to refute any facts placed in front of you yet you make some baseless claims based on the operating pattern of one airline. Show me that flightplan which you have seen on this forum that conflicts with those figures. You are simply making up your arguments as you go along. Go to this video of an Ethiopian a350 flight to London http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68Fo03ukNCc&t=124s ... forward to 1:50 where they show the flighplan sheet - That's 40t of trip fuel for a 7:10 sector. Do the math. Fuel burn will go up slightly on longer sectors but nothing above 5.8-5.9t. There are plenty of open source photographs from actual a350 cockpits which prove this.

If you can't see the fuel consumption difference between a flight taking off at 221T and a ULH flight taking off at near MTOW, then I don't know if we can continue the argument.

Taking off at 221T is ~79% of MTOW (assuming 280T) and if we assume that lift induced drag is ~50% of cruise drag then we could easily deduce that the overall drag would be ~90% if that of the MTOW aircraft. So for 50% of the flight it’s even and for 50% it’s about 90% if the MTOW version so I would expect a full flight fuel burn rate to be somewhere in the order of 5% greater than that of the lower TOW. So 5.6-5.8 would go to 5.9-6.1.

Which for a 18.5 hr flight is 112t.

That’s my first principles look at the situation anyway.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LAX772LR wrote:

ap305 wrote:

Dl already has the 275t version

ap305 wrote:

First of all -DL has the 275t not the 268t.

Seems DL's aircraft are still 268T aircraft.

They're easily capable of being 275T (or actually, 277T) but the airline wasn't operating them at that at the beginning of this year, and I'm unable to find any external evidence that they've uprated them.

What is your source for them now being 275T?

I had to keep my mouth shut till I got a public source.... Thankfully Sam Chui has a video up for the DL a350. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3yUhEjzVcc Go to 2:50- the display on the cockpit shows the weight of 607,200 lbs equal to 275.4t.

ZEDZAG wrote:

While all of you are discussing weights, I would like to know if anyone knows the following:

OEW- Is this figure summed up as the following; MEW+furnishings+galleys+..... or is an aircraft actualy weighed upon completion?

TOW- How does a Captain or FO know its actual TOW at the start of the flight? Obviously they know OEW, the fuel load, catering, luggage(its weighed at check in..), but passangers are not weighed. So is the figure assumed or is there some other method?

We don’t use an OEW, we have a basic weight, and then depending on the flight we are doing we get to a dry operating weight. Some flights we need additional cabin crew to do the service on short sectors, other times we may need additional pilots and cabin crew for long sectors. We might take catering for 2-3 sectors at a time, or a single sector for with one or two meals. We currently have 12 different galley loads on our A350s depending on the route it is flying.

The TOW initially comes from the planning stage we have an idea of the zero fuel weight from load control who look after all the weight and balance, the route, weather etc.

Closer to pushback we get a load sheet that accounts for all the checked in luggage, cargo, catering, fuel, crew, and passengers.

zeke wrote:

Closer to pushback we get a load sheet that accounts for all the checked in luggage, cargo, catering, fuel, crew, and passengers.

I am curious which of those items are actual weights and which are estimates. Does the A350 have built in load cells in the gear as a check?

I would assume that luggage, cargo, and fuel are actual weights while catering, crew, and passengers are estimates.

JayinKitsap wrote:

zeke wrote:

Closer to pushback we get a load sheet that accounts for all the checked in luggage, cargo, catering, fuel, crew, and passengers.

I am curious which of those items are actual weights and which are estimates. Does the A350 have built in load cells in the gear as a check?

I would assume that luggage, cargo, and fuel are actual weights while catering, crew, and passengers are estimates.

Baggage uses standard weights, not actual, just like passengers.

About the weight of the ULR… In this article referenced in the A350 thread:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ld-449495/
it is mentioned that the forward cargo hold is deactivated in the ULR.

Quote:

Airbus A350 marketing director François Obé says: "From the first ULR delivery to Singapore Airlines, all A350-900s will be eligible to be purchased in the ULR [specification] or with a maximum take-off weight of 280t.

"The A350-900ULR can be ‘reversed’ into a standard -900 if the airline decides. From an airframe perspective it is ‘paperwork’ and you need to re-activate the forward cargo hold…and install the cargo-loading system."

What is the cargo-loading system's weight?

LAX772LR wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

3. The Sing A350 will seat just 162, not 250. Because the plane wouldn't make it with 250 seats, even being the -ULR variant.

Wouldn't argue with the rest of what you wrote, but that's an assumption that Airbus claim is incorrect. SIA have seemingly gone with 168 seats as a matter of choice rather than constraint.

It's 161 seats.

And SQ has also said just 5days ago that they expect payload restrictions during winter... so one might conclude that they *did* go for 161 seats out of (at least some concern for) constraint, rather than just pure choice for configuration.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ul-449158/

"Singapore Airlines (SIA) could face some cargo payload restrictions on its A350-900ULR flights to the USA, especially during the northern winter. “There could be some payload concerns, but on the cargo side particularly,” says SIA chief executive Goh Choon Phong. The restrictions would likely apply to westbound flights to Singapore during the winter months. “When we get the aircraft we do have modelling rules, but this depends on actual weather.”"

Are you guys Pitching the A350 for SALES? If Not? Then this entire argument is "academic" Airlines typically order airplanes for cost and performance aside from getting a GOOD deal. Which single airline flies or is going to fly both the A350 and the B787 in head to head service? Which head to head routes are already flown by the A350 and the B787-8/9?? Quote those routes and Fuel burn vs passengers and freight to get a true answer Otherwise? You're comparing Apples and Oranges and who enjoys what. Which airplane is more cost effective over a given route? because they both do not have the same fuel burn per ton uplifted !!