LAX772LR wrote:

You may wish to inform SQ of that, seeing as standard A359s subbed in on LAX-SIN-LAX several times once the second flight began operating.

When did it happen? From flight24 record, it seems that all flights between LAX and SIN are operated by ULR frames (9V-SG*). Did I miss anything?

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/sq35
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/sq36
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/sq37
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/sq38

tommy1808 wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

majano wrote:

If the question of this thread is how the a350 is performing for DL and not what "someone's friend" said, then look no further than viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1411779
Post #28 (for now). Perhaps "someone's friend" is not really in the know?

So DL's 276 MTOW variant flew with 238 pax + 25t of cargo, So a payload of almost 50 tons in a 12+ hour flight, yet DL is complaining!

I am starting to believe that this 'friend's friend' does not even exist.

So that means 42-43t for the 268t variant. Add fuel for 90 min, 10t, and we are looking at 33t LAX-SYD. ... plenty for a full cabin.

Best regards
Thomas

For DTW-PEK. the issue spoken about was LAX-SYD at 268t. this is *specifically* what was mentioned

as a point of clarification from mods, are we not allowed to reference statements made on other fora? I noticed a lot of posts scrubbed

trav777 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

So DL's 276 MTOW variant flew with 238 pax + 25t of cargo, So a payload of almost 50 tons in a 12+ hour flight, yet DL is complaining!

I am starting to believe that this 'friend's friend' does not even exist.

So that means 42-43t for the 268t variant. Add fuel for 90 min, 10t, and we are looking at 33t LAX-SYD. ... plenty for a full cabin.

Best regards
Thomas

For DTW-PEK. the issue spoken about was LAX-SYD at 268t. this is *specifically* what was mentioned

Yes, exactly. It means the 268t variant would do lax-syd with a full cabin, the 276t variants adds cargo to that.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

So that means 42-43t for the 268t variant. Add fuel for 90 min, 10t, and we are looking at 33t LAX-SYD. ... plenty for a full cabin.

Best regards
Thomas

For DTW-PEK. the issue spoken about was LAX-SYD at 268t. this is *specifically* what was mentioned

Yes, exactly. It means the 268t variant would do lax-syd with a full cabin, the 276t variants adds cargo to that.

Best regards
Thomas

ok so I should:
a) believe people here telling me that DL's jet can do this route with acceptable payload
b) believe DL pilots who flew the thing on the actual route

gosh this is a toughie...

trav777 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

For DTW-PEK. the issue spoken about was LAX-SYD at 268t. this is *specifically* what was mentioned

Yes, exactly. It means the 268t variant would do lax-syd with a full cabin, the 276t variants adds cargo to that.

Best regards
Thomas

ok so I should:
a) believe people here telling me that DL's jet can do this route with acceptable payload
b) believe DL pilots who flew the thing on the actual route

gosh this is a toughie...

Actually it shouls be more like:

A) believe data that comes right out of a real time flight computer ( in front of all of us to see)

B) believe unfoundes rumors.

This should be easier.

Eyad89 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Yes, exactly. It means the 268t variant would do lax-syd with a full cabin, the 276t variants adds cargo to that.

Best regards
Thomas

ok so I should:
a) believe people here telling me that DL's jet can do this route with acceptable payload
b) believe DL pilots who flew the thing on the actual route

gosh this is a toughie...

Actually it shouls be more like:

A) believe data that comes right out of a real time flight computer ( in front of all of us to see)

B) believe unfoundes rumors.

This should be easier.

go take it up with the DL pilots...I'm done with it. DL uprated to 275t purely for the lulz, gotcha. theology

trav777 wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

ok so I should:
a) believe people here telling me that DL's jet can do this route with acceptable payload
b) believe DL pilots who flew the thing on the actual route

gosh this is a toughie...

Actually it shouls be more like:

A) believe data that comes right out of a real time flight computer ( in front of all of us to see)

B) believe unfoundes rumors.

This should be easier.

go take it up with the DL pilots...I'm done with it. DL uprated to 275t purely for the lulz, gotcha. theology

No. For the cargo. As mentioned.

Best regards
Thomas

trav777 wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

ok so I should:
a) believe people here telling me that DL's jet can do this route with acceptable payload
b) believe DL pilots who flew the thing on the actual route

gosh this is a toughie...

Actually it shouls be more like:

A) believe data that comes right out of a real time flight computer ( in front of all of us to see)

B) believe unfoundes rumors.

This should be easier.

go take it up with the DL pilots...I'm done with it. DL uprated to 275t purely for the lulz, gotcha. theology

Caught red handed, the A350 stinks: Tokyo, empty cargo loaders, empty holds, just sucking fuel .. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/6/7/5345765.jpg?v=v44f017d51d0

tommy1808 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

Actually it shouls be more like:

A) believe data that comes right out of a real time flight computer ( in front of all of us to see)

B) believe unfoundes rumors.

This should be easier.

go take it up with the DL pilots...I'm done with it. DL uprated to 275t purely for the lulz, gotcha. theology

No. For the cargo. As mentioned.

Best regards
Thomas

sorry, is this an english comprehension thing or something? FOR delta the a350 that THEY ordered, the 268t 359, was not doing the routes THEY wanted with ACCEPTABLE payload according to THEIR pilots. And you come back with 7t for cargo...duh! what part of "acceptable payload" is the issue we're struggling with here? Nobody said the 268 couldn't do the route empty or with a light pax load...the title of the thread is how is this plane doing for THIS company and it was not doing what they wanted so they got a 7t uprating! Maybe now they are happy with it, we will have to wait for commentary from DL pilots/crew/personnel to know this rather than depend on theology.

This company was not happy with this jet for them. SQ's experience with their models is irrelevant. QR's experience with their models is irrelevant. What matters is how DL's actual model actually performed for them with the payloads they wanted to carry with it.

trav777 wrote:

what part of "acceptable payload" is the issue we're struggling with here?

I think the issue is: you claimed that DL's A359 cannot lift full pax w/o any cargo on routes like DTW-PEK; some others in this thread claimed that they can lift full pax plus some cargo on the same route.

trav777 wrote:

This company was not happy with this jet for them. SQ's experience with their models is irrelevant. QR's experience with their models is irrelevant. What matters is how DL's actual model actually performed for them with the payloads they wanted to carry with it.

Yup, got it. Delta bought the wrong variant. I bet Airbus would have loved to sell the heavier version right from the start.

Have you ever entertained the idea that Deltas plans for the aircraft shifted and the uprating was done for the new role/the changed market.
Delta, smart purchasers that the are, didn't buy more aircraft as they expected to need at the time. Turns out the needed more plane. They now have it.

Best regards
Thomas

moyangmm wrote:

trav777 wrote:

what part of "acceptable payload" is the issue we're struggling with here?

I think the issue is: you claimed that DL's A359 cannot lift full pax w/o any cargo on routes like DTW-PEK; some others in this thread claimed that they can lift full pax plus some cargo on the same route.

Not just claimed, there is a video where you can see the data on the flight computer.

Best regards
Thomas

trav777 wrote:

This company was not happy with this jet for them. SQ's experience with their models is irrelevant. QR's experience with their models is irrelevant. What matters is how DL's actual model actually performed for them with the payloads they wanted to carry with it.

But the thread's topic is how an aircraft performs, not whether the company is satisfied with it or not.

moyangmm wrote:

trav777 wrote:

what part of "acceptable payload" is the issue we're struggling with here?

I think the issue is: you claimed that DL's A359 cannot lift full pax w/o any cargo on routes like DTW-PEK; some others in this thread claimed that they can lift full pax plus some cargo on the same route.

I didn't claim that at all.

I claimed that DL's pilots had said, several of them, unless it's just random internet trolls all agreeing with one another, that their jet wasn't doing LAX-SYD with acceptable payload.

This answers the question "how is the a350 performing for DL"

Answer to this question is "not as well as they'd like."

So they bought too little jet, we are not privy to how the conversation/negotiation was done. However, that's not relevant. It's not for us to defend a manufacturer or frame when that isn't the issue. The issue was, again, how is the A350 performing for DL

DL was not happy with what they had; they got an uprating. Perhaps those negotiations turned nasty, and this is why they deferred a bunch of orders to 339s...who knows. Would certainly fit the facts and all the time vendors and buyers get into pissing matches between high-ego executives. All the time.

The real problem is that people on this forum DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING NEGATIVE, EVER about this frame or this manufacturer. Even if the blame is on DL for being "too stupid" to get 275t (which is y'all's thesis). So you throw at me what SQ is doing...how is SQ relevant? Or a QR pilot, regardless of whether he ever has any bias, how is a QR pilot relevant to how a different variant is performing for a different airline in a different part of the world on different routes?

The answer remains: the 350 was not performing for DL the way they wanted it to.

"But the thread's topic is how an aircraft performs, not whether the company is satisfied with it or not."

I cannot even fathom a response to something like this...is this earth I am on here?

trav777 wrote:

The answer remains: the 350 was not performing for DL the way they wanted it to.

It performed exactly the way they wanted it to, the 268t variant does not perform what they now want it to do. It's not that hard.
Delta has realized that 7 extra tons of TOW let the A359 creep into 77L missions enough to allow more longer long haul flights without buying additional 77L. The A359 became available with the option to get 9t more tow on the A339.

Best regards
Thomas

trav777 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

go take it up with the DL pilots...I'm done with it. DL uprated to 275t purely for the lulz, gotcha. theology

No. For the cargo. As mentioned.

Best regards
Thomas

sorry, is this an english comprehension thing or something? FOR delta the a350 that THEY ordered, the 268t 359, was not doing the routes THEY wanted with ACCEPTABLE payload according to THEIR pilots. And you come back with 7t for cargo...duh! what part of "acceptable payload" is the issue we're struggling with here? Nobody said the 268 couldn't do the route empty or with a light pax load...the title of the thread is how is this plane doing for THIS company and it was not doing what they wanted so they got a 7t uprating! Maybe now they are happy with it, we will have to wait for commentary from DL pilots/crew/personnel to know this rather than depend on theology.

This company was not happy with this jet for them. SQ's experience with their models is irrelevant. QR's experience with their models is irrelevant. What matters is how DL's actual model actually performed for them with the payloads they wanted to carry with it.

Airbus would have had enough data available so that DL would know exactly what it was getting when it signed up for the 268t variant. If DL received the info and ordered the aircraft anyway, hoping they could still make it work on said routes, then DL is tremendously stupid. However, I doubt that's actually the case. As others have said, it's much more likely the role for the aircraft shifted over time. DL is a business and they will buy what works for them, not what makes the pilots happy. Just because the pilots may not like it, and we don't actually know it to be the case other than a few posting on another forum, doesn't mean that DL is unhappy with it.

trav777 wrote:

whatever else so that no matter what, NOTHING COULD EVER BE WRONG with any version of this jet or any offering from this manufacturer.

It is fair to say an aircraft is "wrong" only if it underperforms its specs. But there is no evidence for that either, right?

Call me crazy, but all this seems to be stemming from pilot's reactions to the aircraft's purported lack of ability to carry a certain payload...on a route it has never been scheduled to fly (ie. LAX-SYD), and that Delta hasn't publicly indicated it wants it to fly.

luckyone wrote:

Call me crazy, but all this seems to be stemming from pilot's reactions to the aircraft's purported lack of ability to carry a certain payload...on a route it has never been scheduled to fly (ie. LAX-SYD), and that Delta hasn't publicly indicated it wants it to fly.

...i'd hazard a guess- probably bc they knew it wouldn't do it based upon data from other legs, iow, real world data.

The fact that DL is paying/arguing/suing/whatevering to uprate to 275t is kinda...not necessarily proof but strong circumstantial evidence that they weren't satisfied with the 268t jet they had, isn't it? I mean that ought to be a thread closer there.

We'll know in time if this was their own fault or AB hornswaggled them. DL's strategic plan had seemed to be that this was gonna be their flagship and the centerpiece of their LH operations, though, at least that's what you could glean from their advertising, so I'd be highly surprised if they were just so dumb that they blundered into a jet configuration while being told it wouldn't do what they clearly planned for it. DL isn't an airline that is gonna wantonly block seats like has been described upthread; they've been too well run for some time to make major mistakes like this.

As an aside, however, I will say that this exposes the flaw in discussing how "the" A350 is performing for DL. There is no "the" A350. There are a bunch of mfr variants and every airline has its own config. Thus there is no what is "the" range of the 350 or 789 or any other plane. An operator with a different variant and config may be very happy with their frames while a different operator with different variant and config may think theirs is lacking

Problem with paper weight rating changes, is customers with undelivered orders expect the upgrade for free, often retrospectively extended to aircraft already delivered.

If the timing coincides with a new order for the same model (or even a completely different model), the customer will always try to extract a better deal for existing orders.

To increase the odds in your favour, negative comments which could be addressed by the enhancement sought, work well.

trav777 wrote:

I didn't claim that at all.

I claimed that DL's pilots had said, several of them, unless it's just random internet trolls all agreeing with one another, that their jet wasn't doing LAX-SYD with acceptable payload.

So the plane doesn't carry an acceptable payload... on a route that the plane does not fly nor is slated to fly in the foreseeable future, because they have a lower weight variant than they want (now). With this being the case, why is it such a cause for concern?

This answers the question "how is the a350 performing for DL"

Answer to this question is "not as well as they'd like."

So they bought too little jet, we are not privy to how the conversation/negotiation was done. However, that's not relevant. It's not for us to defend a manufacturer or frame when that isn't the issue. The issue was, again, how is the A350 performing for DL

I think it's strange to say that a plane isn't performing as well as an airline would like if the airline's requirements changed after they made the initial order (and too late for them to change it).

DL was not happy with what they had; they got an uprating. Perhaps those negotiations turned nasty, and this is why they deferred a bunch of orders to 339s...who knows. Would certainly fit the facts and all the time vendors and buyers get into pissing matches between high-ego executives. All the time.

If they turned nasty then ordering an additional 10 A339s and merely deferring the last 10 A359s is a very strange way to hit back at the manufacturer. Seems to me more like they wanted the A339s anyway, and as a concession for the deferral they ordered more aircraft. The deferral also allows them time to consider what capabilities they want, and it could maybe tie in as a 77L replacement down the line.

The real problem is that people on this forum DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING NEGATIVE, EVER about this frame or this manufacturer. Even if the blame is on DL for being "too stupid" to get 275t (which is y'all's thesis). So you throw at me what SQ is doing...how is SQ relevant? Or a QR pilot, regardless of whether he ever has any bias, how is a QR pilot relevant to how a different variant is performing for a different airline in a different part of the world on different routes?

Many people are interested in accurate facts and analysis. SQ and QR fly the aircraft with a good payload a long way further than LAX-SYD, which indicates that the aircraft is capable of flying the route with a good payload, but DL for whatever reason doesn't have the weight variant which has the performance requirements. I really fail to see why not being able to do this specific route constitutes 'underperforming'. SYD-LAX, just like ATL-JNB is the preserve of the 77L at present, and there's no reason for DL to be discarding such young aircraft that can do these ultra-long routes with impressive payload. It really is amazing how failure to fly ONE ROUTE is such a cause for criticism. Why not criticise the 737 for not being able to fly the route while we're at it?

The answer remains: the 350 was not performing for DL the way they wanted it to.

"But the thread's topic is how an aircraft performs, not whether the company is satisfied with it or not."

I cannot even fathom a response to something like this...is this earth I am on here?

The A359 may not be performing as DL wants it to now, but if their requirement changed after they ordered a lower weight variant then I fail to see why it's underperforming, maybe the real underperformers are DL's crystal ball gazers?

moyangmm wrote:

When did it happen? From flight24 record, it seems that all flights between LAX and SIN are operated by ULR frames (9V-SG*). Did I miss anything?

Yes, you did.

For example, on November 19, SIN-LAX-SIN was operated by 9V-SMS, a standard A359.
I know that personally, as I had a friend on it, and was standing there spotting when they landed.

LAX772LR wrote:

moyangmm wrote:

When did it happen? From flight24 record, it seems that all flights between LAX and SIN are operated by ULR frames (9V-SG*). Did I miss anything?

Yes, you did.

For example, on November 19, SIN-LAX-SIN was operated by 9V-SMS, a standard A359.
I know that personally, as I had a friend on it, and was standing there spotting when they landed.

Good catch. I do find the record for 9V-SMS on flightradar 24: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/9v-sms

trav777 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Call me crazy, but all this seems to be stemming from pilot's reactions to the aircraft's purported lack of ability to carry a certain payload...on a route it has never been scheduled to fly (ie. LAX-SYD), and that Delta hasn't publicly indicated it wants it to fly.

...i'd hazard a guess- probably bc they knew it wouldn't do it based upon data from other legs, iow, real world data.

The fact that DL is paying/arguing/suing/whatevering to uprate to 275t is kinda...not necessarily proof but strong circumstantial evidence that they weren't satisfied with the 268t jet they had, isn't it? I mean that ought to be a thread closer there.

We'll know in time if this was their own fault or AB hornswaggled them. DL's strategic plan had seemed to be that this was gonna be their flagship and the centerpiece of their LH operations, though, at least that's what you could glean from their advertising, so I'd be highly surprised if they were just so dumb that they blundered into a jet configuration while being told it wouldn't do what they clearly planned for it. DL isn't an airline that is gonna wantonly block seats like has been described upthread; they've been too well run for some time to make major mistakes like this.

As an aside, however, I will say that this exposes the flaw in discussing how "the" A350 is performing for DL. There is no "the" A350. There are a bunch of mfr variants and every airline has its own config. Thus there is no what is "the" range of the 350 or 789 or any other plane. An operator with a different variant and config may be very happy with their frames while a different operator with different variant and config may think theirs is lacking

I read some professional analysis which found the 77L carries a greater payload between SYD-LAX/ LAX-SYD than any other widebody twin, because the 787-9 is smaller, the 77W and ERs and up weight restricted, the A330 hasn't got the range and the A350 has a smaller payload. If DL can sell that payload out of SYD at the right price then it's kind of obvious the 77L is better for that mission, even if the 77L burns more fuel. To the last point, pilots can see fuel burn and payload but not revenue or cost, so their viewpoint on commercial matters is often incomplete.

I just don't follow the logic that DL moving to a 275t variant is a meaningful review of A350 operations, circumstantial other otherwise. When you assess what jets to operate, it's based upon long term assumptions of future prospects. You can't know what fuel prices will be, what yields will exists, what cargo revenue/demand will be, which sectors will be operated in a network etc etc etc. So you can only use assumptions. New insight emerges all the time, being 'well run' has nothing to do with it. If new insight changes your assumptions over time it will impact your fleet choices. For example, if you think long term fuel will be more expensive and cargo will migrate to specialist operators, it favours shorter sectors and lighter weight variants. For example, if new events or insights change your long term fuel cost view downwards it opens up ULH; if your cargo view changes to say freight will stay with pax flights then it means more payload, both of which would make heavier variants more attractive. There's an infinite number of possible reasons why a heavier variant might now be judged more attractive now, no thread closer at all.

Maybe DL will end up with 10 QF-prompted "project sunrise" A350-1000s for 77L replacement including LAX SYD and LAX JNB.

timh4000 wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.

That sounds like to me they were already cutting it a bit close, unless you were sitting on the taxiway for a very long time. You don't often hear of planes that have to go back to top off because they used up all their taxi fuel and were into trip fuel.

That? Depends on the Captain. At United? We had a B747-400 Captain the wouldn't even Taxi unless he had 375.000 # fuel. And we Knew His flight plan was for 290K Fuel. You couldn't hate the guy because he was Nice as can be, But he was a Pain in the BUTT! Some of the Routings were north out of JFK over the North Pole then South into NRT. I flew SFO-NRT and didn't turn west until abeam with Anchorage where we turned SSW. When we Approached NRT we were flying Due South as the sun was on our right side. That routing could have been fuel Specific but I've had to fly it twice while at United and landed with 46K LBS of fuel on top of NRT.

What I've seen on the Delta Airlines site is that the A359 represents the future of aviation and, of course, it will be, Delta has a very old fleet, the airline is looking to have the most modern fleet in the entire United States. with the arrival. of the A350 says it will be a support both in its passenger capacity and in its huge fuel savings

strfyr51 wrote:

timh4000 wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

I know they must be saving a ton on fuel. I was flying JFK-NRT-MNL on the 744 we had to return to the gate to top off with fuel because we taxied too long and we couldnt make it to NRT with the fuel on board.

That sounds like to me they were already cutting it a bit close, unless you were sitting on the taxiway for a very long time. You don't often hear of planes that have to go back to top off because they used up all their taxi fuel and were into trip fuel.

That? Depends on the Captain. At United? We had a B747-400 Captain the wouldn't even Taxi unless he had 375.000 # fuel. And we Knew His flight plan was for 290K Fuel. You couldn't hate the guy because he was Nice as can be, But he was a Pain in the BUTT! Some of the Routings were north out of JFK over the North Pole then South into NRT. I flew SFO-NRT and didn't turn west until abeam with Anchorage where we turned SSW. When we Approached NRT we were flying Due South as the sun was on our right side. That routing could have been fuel Specific but I've had to fly it twice while at United and landed with 46K LBS of fuel on top of NRT.

From one extreme to the other? I've read, which needs to be taken with a grain of salt granted that one of pilots biggest complaints of their companies is fuel quantity allowed. And YouTube is full of ATC fuel emergency recordings... which is probably after having to deviate for weather or traffic or a couple of go arounds. The guy at United certainly won't have that problem. I guess I can relate I feel uncomfortable when my car goes to ,1/4,. He's probably the same. Would rather land heavier as a result I'm taking it.

trav777 wrote:

The fact that DL is paying/arguing/suing/whatevering to uprate to 275t is kinda...not necessarily proof but strong circumstantial evidence that they weren't satisfied with the 268t jet they had, isn't it? I mean that ought to be a thread closer there.

Aside from a factual, indisputable video showing just how good the A350 is, facts are conspicuous by their absence in this thread.

Suggestions that DL were somehow hoodwinked by Airbus are preposterous and frankly insulting to DL.

scbriml wrote:

trav777 wrote:

The fact that DL is paying/arguing/suing/whatevering to uprate to 275t is kinda...not necessarily proof but strong circumstantial evidence that they weren't satisfied with the 268t jet they had, isn't it? I mean that ought to be a thread closer there.

Aside from a factual, indisputable video showing just how good the A350 is, facts are conspicuous by their absence in this thread.

Suggestions that DL were somehow hoodwinked by Airbus are preposterous and frankly insulting to DL.

And the inference that they or any airline buys based on brochure ranges.

Crazy discussion actually. Sounds a bit like my neighbour has a cousin and that cousin's bff's sister heard the 350 is not doing well at DL......At least that is what the neighbour's uncle told me.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

seabosdca wrote:

As for alleged pilots creating anonymous threads, if it were up to pilots, payload range would be all that matters, and every widebody in airline fleets would be a 77L.

Yes. What the pilots think is interesting, but irrelevant in determining whether Delta management is happy with the plane !

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Maybe DL will end up with 10 QF-prompted "project sunrise" A350-1000s for 77L replacement including LAX SYD and LAX JNB.

LAX-JNB? That's quite ambitious. I'll believe it when I see it.

tommy1808 wrote:

Have you ever entertained the idea that Deltas plans for the aircraft shifted and the uprating was done for the new role/the changed market.
Delta, smart purchasers that the are, didn't buy more aircraft as they expected to need at the time. Turns out the needed more plane. They now have it.

Which mirrors what DL did with the 772ER, which for the first several years of its ops with DL operated at 648,000lb MTOW, and was only uprated to 656,000lb when the airline launched JFK-BOM nonstop, prior to the arrival of the 772LR.

TTailedTiger wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Maybe DL will end up with 10 QF-prompted "project sunrise" A350-1000s for 77L replacement including LAX SYD and LAX JNB.

LAX-JNB? That's quite ambitious. I'll believe it when I see it.

99% percent chance that he meant ATL-JNB, as he clearly said "77L replacement" and that's a route that those aircraft currently fly exclusively.

LAX772LR wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Maybe DL will end up with 10 QF-prompted "project sunrise" A350-1000s for 77L replacement including LAX SYD and LAX JNB.

LAX-JNB? That's quite ambitious. I'll believe it when I see it.

99% percent chance that he meant ATL-JNB, as he clearly said "77L replacement" and that's a route that those aircraft currently fly exclusively.

Thanks LAX772LR, I meant ATL

tommy1808 wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

So DL's 276 MTOW variant flew with 238 pax + 25t of cargo, So a payload of almost 50 tons in a 12+ hour flight, yet DL is complaining!

I am starting to believe that this 'friend's friend' does not even exist.

So that means 42-43t for the 268t variant. Add fuel for 90 min, 10t, and we are looking at 33t LAX-SYD. ... plenty for a full cabin.

Best regards
Thomas

ok...238pax +25t = around 48t.

drop 8 to get to the 268. 40t.

I think 10t of fuel for the extra 744nm is fair...might need a ton more (fuel on fuel). So 11t fuel takes us to 29.

29t payload. Heck say 30 bc it's a round number if you want.

30t. DL's config is 300pax.

This is an airline that is tryin to carry 25t of revenue cargo on a DTW-PEK flight. 25t. At 30t of payload on LAX-SYD with 268t jet, they would be able to carry a full cabin. But be right at the edge of the range. LAX-SYD. And people say the 78J has a range problem (I estimate it could do lax-syd with 300pax)

DL would need to fly with NO cargo. Again, to finally put this to rest, THIS IS WHY DL was "unhappy" or "not satisfied" or whatever with their 359 at 268t. I am questioning whether they'll be happy with the 276 either, as they're adding less than 8t of cargo capability *only* to the putative LAX-SYD route (the extra 8t will require more fuel and the fuel on fuel penalty)...so will they even be happy with what the 276 can fly? They left 60 seats empty on that DTW-PEK flight at 275.4t TOW.

DL wants to fly around with 25t cargo and 300pax...airlines trying to lift that much payload need 777s. But bc they seem to hate Boeing right now in the WB space at least, maybe the 35K is where they need to go...I don't see how the 359 could ever have satisfied them given this real world data.

This would seem to explain why DL ordered another L and continues to run these birds quite a bit.

seabosdca wrote:

If they want to fly 55 t payloads on long TPAC segments, they need a 77L, full stop. Nothing else in service can do that.

But I doubt that's the usual situation, or, if it is, that the marginal cargo is worth the additional operating cost of the 77L compared to modern equipment on these long segments.

I have to agree with this view. The fact that they flew 25T of cargo from PEK does not mean they will want to, or indeed need to, fly similar loads of cargo to all their TPAC routes. To assume they need to is to assume that every TPAC route has the demand for a daily 25T of cargo.

majano wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

If they want to fly 55 t payloads on long TPAC segments, they need a 77L, full stop. Nothing else in service can do that.

But I doubt that's the usual situation, or, if it is, that the marginal cargo is worth the additional operating cost of the 77L compared to modern equipment on these long segments.

I have to agree with this view. The fact that they flew 25T of cargo from PEK does not mean they will want to, or indeed need to, fly similar loads of cargo to all their TPAC routes. To assume they need to is to assume that every TPAC route has the demand for a daily 25T of cargo.

I don't know how usual or unusual it is at all...why don't we get some info from DL about their cargo profile first before making assumptions?

Bc if this is what DL is trying to do...yeah they got one jet option for it. But, there was a thread awhile ago talking about how UA is "printing money" with its cargo division, justifying usage of 777s on domestic routes bc they have a whole cargo side business. Maybe DL is trying to do this...i dunno. Would certainly explain that DTW-PEK mission.

Need to see more flight data from them. But my point still stands, they're not gonna be happy with this jet even at 280t if they are actually trying to haul around double digit tons on LH missions. But at the same time that's like getting angry at a 5' tall dude for not being able to dunk a basketball.

Stop making crap up!!!

As I mentioned earlier, DL ordered the 77L to open up ULH routes. Eight years later, it ordered the 359 as a direct 744 replacement.

There’s absolutely NO EVIDENCE that DL ever intended to operate the 359 on ULH routes. Again, the 77L was acquired — less than eight years earlier — for ULH routes. The reduction in 359 orders is likely tied to the reduction of DL’s Pacific flying, since the order was initally announced.

The yields are weak in most prospective A350 Delta destinations. The benefit of getting more A350 does not pay. Nice plane poor yields.

trav777 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

So DL's 276 MTOW variant flew with 238 pax + 25t of cargo, So a payload of almost 50 tons in a 12+ hour flight, yet DL is complaining!

I am starting to believe that this 'friend's friend' does not even exist.

So that means 42-43t for the 268t variant. Add fuel for 90 min, 10t, and we are looking at 33t LAX-SYD. ... plenty for a full cabin.

Best regards
Thomas

ok...238pax +25t = around 48t.

drop 8 to get to the 268. 40t.

I think 10t of fuel for the extra 744nm is fair...might need a ton more (fuel on fuel). So 11t fuel takes us to 29.

29t payload. Heck say 30 bc it's a round number if you want.

30t. DL's config is 300pax.

This is an airline that is tryin to carry 25t of revenue cargo on a DTW-PEK flight. 25t. At 30t of payload on LAX-SYD with 268t jet, they would be able to carry a full cabin. But be right at the edge of the range. LAX-SYD. And people say the 78J has a range problem (I estimate it could do lax-syd with 300pax)

DL would need to fly with NO cargo. Again, to finally put this to rest, THIS IS WHY DL was "unhappy" or "not satisfied" or whatever with their 359 at 268t. I am questioning whether they'll be happy with the 276 either, as they're adding less than 8t of cargo capability *only* to the putative LAX-SYD route (the extra 8t will require more fuel and the fuel on fuel penalty)...so will they even be happy with what the 276 can fly? They left 60 seats empty on that DTW-PEK flight at 275.4t TOW.

DL wants to fly around with 25t cargo and 300pax...airlines trying to lift that much payload need 777s. But bc they seem to hate Boeing right now in the WB space at least, maybe the 35K is where they need to go...I don't see how the 359 could ever have satisfied them given this real world data.

This would seem to explain why DL ordered another L and continues to run these birds quite a bit.

My estimates are good.

30t LAX-SYD still air range.

Introduce winds and you don't make it with a full cabin.

You guys' own numbers of an actual FC, it won't do LAX-SYD. Even with 33t (the other more rosy estimate where 48 "=" 50), it would be likely to block seats.

the 268t 359 DL has will not do LAX-SYD. DL has a big round "8000sm" range on its 359 fleet page. Bottom line, they're not seeing this range, it's coming up like 300nm+ short of it. Thus they are dissatisfied. Dunno whose "fault" this is. Doesn't really matter.

People here owe those poor DL pilots an apology

trav777 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

So that means 42-43t for the 268t variant. Add fuel for 90 min, 10t, and we are looking at 33t LAX-SYD. ... plenty for a full cabin.

Best regards
Thomas

ok...238pax +25t = around 48t.

drop 8 to get to the 268. 40t.

I think 10t of fuel for the extra 744nm is fair...might need a ton more (fuel on fuel). So 11t fuel takes us to 29.

29t payload. Heck say 30 bc it's a round number if you want.

30t. DL's config is 300pax.

This is an airline that is tryin to carry 25t of revenue cargo on a DTW-PEK flight. 25t. At 30t of payload on LAX-SYD with 268t jet, they would be able to carry a full cabin. But be right at the edge of the range. LAX-SYD. And people say the 78J has a range problem (I estimate it could do lax-syd with 300pax)

DL would need to fly with NO cargo. Again, to finally put this to rest, THIS IS WHY DL was "unhappy" or "not satisfied" or whatever with their 359 at 268t. I am questioning whether they'll be happy with the 276 either, as they're adding less than 8t of cargo capability *only* to the putative LAX-SYD route (the extra 8t will require more fuel and the fuel on fuel penalty)...so will they even be happy with what the 276 can fly? They left 60 seats empty on that DTW-PEK flight at 275.4t TOW.

DL wants to fly around with 25t cargo and 300pax...airlines trying to lift that much payload need 777s. But bc they seem to hate Boeing right now in the WB space at least, maybe the 35K is where they need to go...I don't see how the 359 could ever have satisfied them given this real world data.

This would seem to explain why DL ordered another L and continues to run these birds quite a bit.

My estimates are good.

30t LAX-SYD still air range.

Introduce winds and you don't make it with a full cabin.

You guys' own numbers of an actual FC, it won't do LAX-SYD. Even with 33t (the other more rosy estimate where 48 "=" 50), it would be likely to block seats.

the 268t 359 DL has will not do LAX-SYD. DL has a big round "8000sm" range on its 359 fleet page. Bottom line, they're not seeing this range, it's coming up like 300nm+ short of it. Thus they are dissatisfied. Dunno whose "fault" this is. Doesn't really matter.

People here owe those poor DL pilots an apology

Followup- just realized that the FC video is downwind FROM PEK. The 268t estimate for LAX-SYD is only valid for SYD-LAX downwind. Upwind, the 268t has no hope whatsoever of making it with 30t. 33t is very maybe.

trav777 wrote:

moyangmm wrote:

trav777 wrote:

what part of "acceptable payload" is the issue we're struggling with here?

I think the issue is: you claimed that DL's A359 cannot lift full pax w/o any cargo on routes like DTW-PEK; some others in this thread claimed that they can lift full pax plus some cargo on the same route.

I didn't claim that at all.

I claimed that DL's pilots had said, several of them, unless it's just random internet trolls all agreeing with one another, that their jet wasn't doing LAX-SYD with acceptable payload.

This answers the question "how is the a350 performing for DL"

Answer to this question is "not as well as they'd like."

So they bought too little jet, we are not privy to how the conversation/negotiation was done. However, that's not relevant. It's not for us to defend a manufacturer or frame when that isn't the issue. The issue was, again, how is the A350 performing for DL

DL was not happy with what they had; they got an uprating. Perhaps those negotiations turned nasty, and this is why they deferred a bunch of orders to 339s...who knows. Would certainly fit the facts and all the time vendors and buyers get into pissing matches between high-ego executives. All the time.

The real problem is that people on this forum DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING NEGATIVE, EVER about this frame or this manufacturer. Even if the blame is on DL for being "too stupid" to get 275t (which is y'all's thesis). So you throw at me what SQ is doing...how is SQ relevant? Or a QR pilot, regardless of whether he ever has any bias, how is a QR pilot relevant to how a different variant is performing for a different airline in a different part of the world on different routes?

The answer remains: the 350 was not performing for DL the way they wanted it to.

"But the thread's topic is how an aircraft performs, not whether the company is satisfied with it or not."

I cannot even fathom a response to something like this...is this earth I am on here?

You say: "The real problem is that people on this forum DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING NEGATIVE, EVER about this frame or this manufacturer." Wrong! The real problem is that some on both the A side and the B side have nothing good to say ever about the other side. I don't know if that includes you. So my question is: Does the A350 in its various variants underperform, perform adequately, or outperform the specs that Airbus promised? Anybody have an answer?

Why bother anymore with him?

I don't mean to get in the way of a perfectly good rumor but it's been pointed out here and in multiple other threads that DL's A359's are 275t yet 200+ replies later people are still using 268t in their calculations