Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350-10 Versus B773ER Updated Analysis  
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11597 times:

It's time to further update my model based on Airbus announcement that A350s OEW will likely come in higher at 2 tonne, and MTOW will be increased by 3 tonnes. Furthermore, MZFW will increase by 5 tonnes. Airbus also indicated that the range will remain the same, with a 1% fuel burn penalty.

General Specifications:
....................................A3510.......................B773ER
Fuselage Length..............242..........................242.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................19.6........................20.33
Wingspan.......................213..........................213
Wingarea......................4767.........................4605 sq. feet
Seats(3 class).................350..........................365 (210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.....................657,000....................775,000 lbs.
MZFW......................481,700....................524,000
OEW........................328,000...................370,000 (OEW for A3510 is my estimates)
MSP.........................153,700...................154,000
Design Range................8,000.....................7,930 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price........................$299......................$284 million
Engine Thrust..............93,000...................115,500 lbf

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.50...........................0.48
MTOW/Wingarea............138............................168 (777 has much higher wingloading)
MTOW/Thrust....................3.53...........................3.35 (777 has more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)

Under the assumption of a 6,300 nm (HKG-LAX) mission at MTOW:

B773ER burns about 8,500 gallons more at a current cost of $26,000.
B773ER has the potential to carry about 13,000 lbs. additional cargo, and earn about $10,000 at 50% load factor.
B77ER has the potential to earn about $7,000 in additional 15 Y seat revenues at 70% load factor.

Overall, A350-10 has a net advantage of $9,000, or about $3 million annually for a 6,300nm mission.

Under the assumption of a 4,800 nm (NRT-LAX or LAX-LHR) mission at MTOW:

B773ER burns about 7,500 gallons more at a current cost of $23,000.
Minor difference in cargo capability, and therefore not material.
B77ER has the potential to earn about $6,000 in additional 15 Y seat revenues at 70% load factor.

Overall, A350-10 has a net advantage of $17,000, or about $6 million annually for a 4,800 nm mission.

If A350-10 comes in at above specs., the current B773ER will be at a competitive disadvantage.

B777ER has a payload advantage over A350-10 beyond 5,700 nm. So for operators like Cathay, B773ER has its appeal. One must also keep in mind $15 million list price advantage to B773ER.

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11577 times:

In this post, I will compare a hypothetical B77W(10-abreast 390 seat NG) against the A350-10. I will assume a CFRP wing with similar wingarea as the current wing. Overall, I expect the NG to weigh about 5,000 lbs. less even with 25 more seats as the new CFRP wing(lighter by 8,000 lbs.) will offset the higher weight related to seats. I will assume an overall fuel burn that is 4% less(sfc and aero) than the current B77W.

General Specifications:
....................................A3510.......................B77W(NG)
Fuselage Length..............242..........................242.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................19.6........................20.33
Wingspan.......................213..........................213
Wingarea......................4767.........................4605 sq. feet
Seats(3 class).................350..........................390 (210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.....................657,000....................775,000 lbs.
MZFW......................481,700....................524,000
OEW........................328,000....................365,000 (OEW for A3510 and 77WNG are my estimates)
MSP.........................153,700....................154,000
Design Range................8,000.....................8,200 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price........................$299......................$299 million (assume identical list price)
Engine Thrust..............93,000....................115,500 lbf

Under the assumption of a 6,300 nm (HKG-LAX) mission at MTOW:

B773ER burns about 7,000 gallons more at a current cost of $21,000.
B773ER has the potential to carry about 20,000 lbs. additional cargo, and earn about $14,000 at 50% load factor.
B77ER has the potential to earn about $16,000 in additional 40 Y seat revenues at 70% load factor.

Overall, B77W(NG) has a net advantage of $9,000, or about $3 million annually for a 6,300nm mission.

Under the assumption of a 4,800 nm mission at MTOW:

B773ER burns about 5,200 gallons more at a current cost of $15,600.
B77ER has the potential to earn about $13,000 in additional 40 Y seat revenues at 70% load factor.

A350-10 has $2,600 net trip advantage over B77w(NG).

Overall, a 10-abreast 77W(NG) should be able to compete under the specs. and assumptions I have laid out above on long and dense routes. However, the A350-10 has a lower trip cost and is to be preferred on routes which can not absorb the capacity of 77w(NG).


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7201 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11572 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):

If A350-10 comes in at above specs., the current B773ER will be at a competitive disadvantage.

This has been the general consensus that I have seen on this forum. I certainly expect it to turn out this way.

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
One must also keep in mind $15 million list price advantage to B773ER.

This is relatively small potatoes, and considering that planes do not get sold at list, the actual difference is much smaller. According to your figures, the savings from the A3510 would pay for this in as little as three years. And if fuel prices rise significantly the payback will be much quicker. The main advantage that the 77W will have in the next few years is availability. But without improvement or replacement its days are clearly numbered.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11440 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For one carrier I know of, the OEW difference between the 777-300ER and A350-1000 is about 8 tons in favor of the A350-1000 with a seating difference of two less Economy Seats (both configured for 9-abreast).

User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2260 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11364 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
OEW difference between the 777-300ER and A350-1000 is about 8 tons

Well that would just about kill the A350-1000, wouldn't it? Eyeballing the numbers above, you'd need to trade that extra weight for ~11 tons less payload. That's a lot of payload.

Either that, or the brochure OEW figures have absolutely no connection with the porky interiors found in reality.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 11342 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
For one carrier I know of, the OEW difference between the 777-300ER and A350-1000 is about 8 tons in favor of the A350-1000

That would put the OEW of the 350-1000 at 160t and the OEW/MTOW at 0,54, one of the worst figures in the industry.

Based on their qouted payload-range figures the fullPnoC ratio is 11,1 % for 350-1000 and 11,2% for 77W, i.e. they have the same payload/MTOW ratio, i.e. no efficiency gain over 15 years of evolution?.

With this OEW the fuel burn advantage of the 350-1000 would be 31% but Lehay says it is 25% in the last intervju in Toulouse.

This OEW is very airline specific in that case, at the more normal 150t OEW to 298t MTOW the fuel burn fits with the stated 25% advantage for the 350-1000. I will stay with the typical 50% of MTOW for the OEW of the 350-1000 until we know more.



Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 11198 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 5):
That would put the OEW of the 350-1000 at 160...

That matches the projected OEW.

[Edited 2011-05-23 10:14:20]

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11148 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
That matches the projected OEW.

projected by whom, the said airline? There must be something wrong there, perhaps they said 18 tons, if this would be true nothing fits any longer, EKs complains with stated payload deficiencies etc.

Things like the above validates my emphasis for doing some simple check with ratios, for instance:

B starts with the troubled 788 and lands at a OEW/MTOW of about 50%, then they make the stretch and we assume they improve to even 48%.

A makes a very similar frame 4 years later and their first shot most likely lands pretty close to 50% (as per As reveal of MEWs in the Boeing weight problems). Then they make their optimised stretch and they duff down to an industry lowest 54%       . When we get such figures we must react and start to ask questions, wether it is my side of the Atlantic or not. These figures can simply not be based on the same comparison base.

[Edited 2011-05-23 12:26:19]

[Edited 2011-05-23 12:27:59]


Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11125 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 7):
projected by whom, the said airline?

Correct. With (effectively) the same number of seats, the A350-1000 has an 8t lower empty weight than the 777-300ER for this operator.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11054 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 4):
Either that, or the brochure OEW figures have absolutely no connection with the porky interiors found in reality.

A carrier who has the 77W fitted out at about 300 seats has a DOW of ~172t. Others at ~365 seats are at ~175t.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11023 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 9):
A carrier who has the 77W fitted out at about 300 seats has a DOW of ~172t. Others at ~365 seats are at ~175t.

Your numbers are consistent with ferpe's rule of thumb of 50-60 kg per seat(65 X 50 kg = 3,250 kg).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

NH's 247-seat "Inspiration of Japan" 77Ws have a higher DOW than AC's 349-seat 77Ws, but that is because of the much higher percentage of First and Business Class seating on the NH frame.

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10934 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
NH's 247-seat "Inspiration of Japan" 77Ws have a higher DOW than AC's 349-seat 77Ws, but that is because of the much higher percentage of First and Business Class seating on the NH frame.

My understanding of DOW is that it is OEW plus crew and catering. Sometime ago Zeke provided a break out of the weight of catering for each class of seating. In the example used by Stitch by my understanding , the higher weight of the NH frames would be a combination of spread between MEW and OEW plus spread between OEW and DOW.

a useful link is Which Is The Real Meaning Of OEW? (by Ferdinando Apr 1 2007 in Tech Ops)


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10882 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 12):
My understanding of DOW is that it is OEW plus crew and catering.

The standard crew (the safety rule minimum) is part of OEW per definition. The extra crew which might contain more attendants and more exchange pilots as per airline standard would then land on the DOW side if I understand things right.



Non French in France
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2260 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 10781 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
NH's 247-seat "Inspiration of Japan" 77Ws have a higher DOW than AC's 349-seat 77Ws, but that is because of the much higher percentage of First and Business Class seating on the NH frame.

Which goes to show that subtracting OEW (or DOW) and fuel burn-off from MTOW in order to determine useful payload is a nearly meaningless exercise. I've done it too, but with proper caveats... you need to keep in mind that every additional pound of interior is one less pound of available payload, and each airline will have a different trade-off for where that sweet spot might be. It would seem that the outcome of LAXDESI's revenue calculations would be highly sensitive to such OEW variations.

But again, this statement:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
With (effectively) the same number of seats, the A350-1000 has an 8t lower empty weight than the 777-300ER for this operator.

doesn't pass the smell test, because the logical consequence is that the A350-1000 has no chance of competing against the 777-300ER if you substitute those values into LAXDESI's results. And yet "this operator" seems to have bought the A350-1000... What gives?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10768 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Correct. With (effectively) the same number of seats, the A350-1000 has an 8t lower empty weight than the 777-300ER for this operator.
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 14):
doesn't pass the smell test, because the logical consequence is that the A350-1000 has no chance of competing against the 777-300ER if you substitute those values into LAXDESI's results. And yet "this operator" seems to have bought the A350-1000... What gives?

While an A350 customer, this airline has not as yet ordered the A350-1000. And they appear to have access to OEM-provided data to work with and real route planning software to model on.

[Edited 2011-05-25 12:37:57]

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10223 times:

Cross posting from the following thread to keep track of recently announced changes to A350-10.
A350-1000's TrentXWB Gets 5,000lbs Extra Thrust (by PolymerPlane Jun 5 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting sirtoby (Reply 13):
You can find more details here:

http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/2....html

General Specifications:
....................................A3510.......................B773ER
Fuselage Length..............242..........................242.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................19.6........................20.33
Wingspan.......................213..........................213
Wingarea......................4767.........................4605 sq. feet
Seats(3 class).................350..........................365 (210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.....................684,000....................775,000 lbs.
MZFW......................483,000...................524,000
OEW........................333,000...................370,000 (OEW for A3510 is my estimate)
MSP.........................150,000...................154,000
Design Range................8,500.....................7,930 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price........................$299......................$284 million
Engine Thrust..............98,000...................115,500 lbf

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.49...........................0.48
MTOW/Wingarea............144............................168 (777 has much higher wingloading)
MTOW/Thrust....................3.49...........................3.35 (777 has more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)

I would expect the A350-10 to have about 30 Y seats less than the current 10-abreast 773ER in EK configuration(12F, 42J, 304Y). Going by A.net, EK leaves about 30-40 Y seats empty to make DXB-LAX(about 7,250nm) possible.

So on paper, the revised A350-10 would carry the same passenger payload as 77W but burning much less fuel on DXB-LAX/SFO. This should force Boeing to work on 77W(NG) sooner than they would like to.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10098 times:

For future reference, let me post specs. for a hypothetical A350-11(80m).

General Specifications:
....................................A3511.......................B773ER
Fuselage Length..............262..........................242.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................19.6........................20.33
Wingspan.......................213..........................213
Wingarea......................4767.........................4605 sq. feet
Seats(3 class).................380..........................365 (210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.....................730,000....................775,000 lbs.
MZFW......................510,000...................524,000
OEW........................355,000...................370,000 (OEW for A3511 is my estimate)
MSP.........................155,000...................154,000
Design Range................8,500.....................7,930 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price........................$320......................$284 million
Engine Thrust..............104,000...................115,500 lbf

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.48...........................0.48
MTOW/Wingarea............153............................168 (777 has 10% higher wingloading)
MTOW/Thrust....................3.51...........................3.35 (777 has 5% more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)

A350-11 could be Airbus's response to a possible B77W(10 abreast NG) from Boeing.

[Edited 2011-06-10 14:20:50]

User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4070 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9980 times:

As the base A350 has not even flown, I expect the OEW of the A3510 to go up more, at least once. I say the first post is optimistic on the A3510 side, as the 77W is fully operational with proven performance. The second post seems optimistic on the NG version of the 77W. As Boeing looks at updating the 777, there will be weight-gaining enhancements as well, and shaving off 5000 lb of the OEW will be a struggle.

[Edited 2011-06-11 09:36:55]


Stop pop up ads
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9973 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):

Any reason why we need this thread when the thread you started on the same topic is still open ?

A350-10 Versus B773 ER Economic Analysis (by LAXDESI Jun 1 2008 in Tech Ops)

This is the third thread where you have rehashed the same discussion points.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 18):
I say the first post is optimistic on the A3510 side, as the 77W is fully operational with proven performance.

It is actually still tonnes higher than the spec OEW for the A350XWB-1000.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9951 times:

Quoting incitatus (Reply 18):
The second post seems optimistic on the NG version of the 77W. As Boeing looks at updating the 777, there will be weight-gaining enhancements as well, and shaving off 5000 lb of the OEW will be a struggle.

Depends on the size of proposed CFRP wing relative to the current wing. Others have speculated that the current wing is 10,000 lbs. heavier than it should be. I expect 77W(NG) to lose 10,000 lbs. with similarly sized CFRP wing as the current wing, and perhaps add about 5,000 lbs. with other enhancements.

On the other hand, there is news about new Al-Li material from Alcoa that could make it possible to lose some additional weight from the fuselage. Interesting times ahead.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9789 times:

Whilst I accept is is true.Does anybody know how 2 aircraft of equal length,that both seat 9 across,how one has a row and three quarters more people in it? (ie 15 pax)

User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9758 times:

Didn't anyone bother to read the Alcoa release? Those weight savings were for short range / narrow body aircraft only.

http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/news/...eID=20110609005855en&newsYear=2011


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9376 times:

New estimates and comparison based on the following link. The link also suggests that A350-10 will burn 25% less fuel than 77W on a 4,000 nm mission.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...d-to-2017-as-rolls-raises-xwb.html

General Specifications:
....................................A3510.......................B773ER
Fuselage Length..............242..........................242.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................19.6........................20.33
Wingspan.......................213..........................213
Wingarea......................4767.........................4605 sq. feet
Seats(3 class).................350..........................365 (210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.....................679,000....................775,000 lbs.
MZFW......................492,000...................524,000
OEW........................338,000...................370,000 (OEW for A3510 is my estimate)
MSP.........................154,000...................154,000
Design Range................8,400.....................7,930 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price........................$309......................$284 million
Engine Thrust..............97,000...................115,500 lbf

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.50...........................0.48
OEW/MZFW......................0.69...........................0.71(consistent with lighter material of A350-10)
MZFW/MTOW....................0.72...........................0.67(consistent with lower fuel burn of a newer aircraft)
MTOW/Wingarea............143............................168 (777 has much higher wingloading)
MTOW/Thrust....................3.50...........................3.35 (777 has more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)

Using my model, here's what I get for a 4,000 nm trip:

A350-10 burns about 17,480 gallons of fuel, and B77W burns about 22,740 gallons. Based on above estimates, my model yields 23% lower trip fuel burn(compared to 25% in the link above). There is only a slight difference in payload capability. On a per seat basis, the revised A350-10 has a 20% lower GSM(gallon seat mile).

A350-10 0.0125 GSM(gallon seat mile) and 0.0568 GTM(gallon ton mile)
B77W 0.0156 GSM and 0.0738 GTM

As per my model, A350-10 saves about $16,000 in fuel cost. B77W has the potential to earn about $5,000 in additional passenger revenue(15 seats X 70% X $500), leaving A350-10 with a net benefit of nearly $11,000 per 4,000 nm trip.


User currently offlinehal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9249 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 21):
Whilst I accept is is true.Does anybody know how 2 aircraft of equal length,that both seat 9 across,how one has a row and three quarters more people in it? (ie 15 pax)

The 77W figures with typical 365 pax are for 10 abreast. That being said, 15 pax difference seems a bit low. Lets take EK for example. I will try and calculate a possible configuration for EK (currently 354/364 seats).

Currently, six 7-abreast J-rows, and either 2x6 F-Seats or 2x4 Suites, rest is economy (304/310 seats, 29 full rows, more narrow rows in back) Lets suppose, they keep their philosophy of 8/12F and 42J (Thats what they have in everything but the A380).
F would stay the same in length (The suites fit fine in their A345 too). J is already narrow, so they would need to do 7 rows of 6-abreast with the current seats (=1 additional J-row). That takes away 2,5 Y-rows. Now assuming 2 less Y-rows and 27 seats less for all full Y-rows, 47 less Y-seats.
So EK would have a config of 8/42/257 for a long-haul-version 350-1000, totalling 307 pax.

Assuming, they will introduce A380-style J-seats: A "set" has a very similar length to the 777-style seats, however would feature 8-abreast (4+4 staggered actually) on the same cabin length due to design (Lets assume they use the couple of inch extra width just for comfort, as in the F-Suites).
We could have 5 J-rows instead, accounting for 5 more Y-rows than before, or 5.5 J-Rows for, lets say, 3 more Y-rows, that makes either 8/40/302 = 350 or 8/44/284 = 336.

Thus, the 15-pax or less difference could only be achieved with the 380-style J-seats, otherwise it would be more like
a 47 seats difference.
Aaaaah, now I nearly finished this post, and noticed, the 350-1000 is only going to have 8 doors????    So, more seats afterall...   


25 Stitch : EK themselves have said the A350-1000 will seat 317 using the same seats found in their 354-seat 777-300ER.
26 Post contains links PolymerPlane : Wrong. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777rsec2.pdf page 19/ page 13 on the pdf
27 LAXDESI : Thanks to mffoda, I got a link to another blog where there was discussion on the revised specs. for A350-10. It is suggested in the comments section t
28 PolymerPlane : Do you know EK's DOW for 77W? how can you say with certainty that A350-10 can do the mission without knowing the weight of EK's interior? Once you st
29 LAXDESI : I do not know the weight of EK 77W that are used on DXB-LAX mission. I am going by what I have read on A.net from other posters. The distance flown o
30 PolymerPlane : Then how do you declare A350-10 can do the job with the sampe pax count in EK configuration?
31 LAXDESI : As I said earlier, I am going by A.net posters(who I respect) who have indicated that it leaves passengers behind. They could be wrong, and in that c
32 Stitch : EK can be trading passengers for revenue cargo. I've hard from EK fleet ops people that they keep sending the 77L to Houston because of the freight de
33 hal9213 : Somebody a long time ago posted here on A.net, that EK has four 77W (that somebody even posted the regs) which it specifically ordered from Boeing to
34 sunrisevalley : I believe there is . Somewhere someone posted the registration numbers. I would put EK's 77W's at ~174 to 175t although with the seating limitation a
35 astuteman : Those numbers are the ones I've heard As above, the Dry operating weight of EK's 773ER's is said to be some 9 tonnes over the ACAP spec (some 5 tonne
36 ferpe : The not so good thing about the 77W is that it lacks fuel space, it is fuel capacity limited well above it's design range, thus to leave of payload w
37 sunrisevalley : What interests me about EK's DXB-LAX operations is that more than 50% of the elapsed times as recorded by FlightAware for the most recent 13 days in J
38 Stitch : I can believe that. I've heard from EK Flight Planning folks that DXB-JFK has to offload 1.7 tons of cargo if the temps are in the mid-to-upper 30's
39 Post contains images astuteman : Although at 7 800Nm fuel limit range, I don't think it's a huge constraint in most cases I'd assume they know what they're doing Rgds
40 hal9213 : Do you (or anybody) have the regs? I cant find the post anymore.
41 Post contains images sunrisevalley : They seem to be one of the few that are on top of all the controllable aspects of their business
42 mercure1 : a6-ecl, -ecm, -ecn, -eco, -ecp @ 351,534 KG most are 349.2t or 340.1t
43 Post contains images CM : Not wanting to derail the 787 fuel burn thread where this topic was originally raised, I am resurrecting this thread as a good spot to get my question
44 Post contains links and images zeke : This typical of how Boeing presented the numbers, they did not even confirm it was the 767 Aircraft type/sub model, range, and seat configuration wer
45 Post contains links CM : Thanks for that! (here's the link, BTW, for anyone who wants to reference the material being discussed - Airbus_A350_XWB_Launch_Pitch) In the referen
46 Post contains links and images ferpe : In line with the 3510 vs 777 discussion here the continuation of another question from the 787 fuel burn thread which contained both 787, 350 and 777
47 CM : Hi Ferpe. Sorry for the delayed response. Here it is in a nutshell... A wise company would book keep at least 3 separate analysis for any competitor
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A350-10 Versus B773ER Updated Analysis
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
A350-10 Versus B773 ER Economic Analysis posted Sun Jun 1 2008 19:29:12 by LAXDESI
B787-10 Versus A359 Analysis posted Fri May 20 2011 03:16:23 by LAXDESI
CS300 Versus B737-700 Updated Analysis posted Wed Apr 1 2009 14:32:09 by LAXDESI
A388 Versus B748 Economic Analysis posted Sat Jul 26 2008 20:30:16 by LAXDESI
C110 Versus E190 Economic Analysis posted Sat Jul 19 2008 01:53:00 by LAXDESI
A358 Versus B789 Economic Analysis posted Fri May 30 2008 00:07:09 by LAXDESI
A333 Versus B789 Economic Analysis posted Wed May 28 2008 14:46:13 by LAXDESI
A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis posted Tue May 27 2008 22:20:48 by LAXDESI
B789 Versus A359 Analysis posted Fri May 20 2011 02:42:09 by LAXDESI
C130ER Versus B737-700 Economic Analysis posted Fri Jul 18 2008 13:07:15 by LAXDESI

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format