Going to Europe or most of Africa it's fuel burn per seat is actually less than the A350.
I have always believed there's a way to get the A380 across that threshold due to its excellent fuselage, but that now seems likely to remain forever a hypothetical question. As you have said, A380 has an outstanding wetted area/pax, which translates to an amazing parasitic drag/ pax. The massive w...Jump to post
Interesting news! It makes me wonder now if DL didn't delay its last batch of A350s with the expectation they'll be able to get the UltraFan on those birds. Agreed. Could it be this is how they are keeping the EY order? EY wouldn't refuse. They also get to wait 7+ years before they have to get the ...Jump to post
Most? 3 out of the 6 points is not most. You'll need to look much further than wikipedia to see the correct history of the 787-3. The 787-3 had inefficient derated engines, they were not scaled down. The 787-3 shared the 787-8 tail, it was not scaled down. The 787-3 wing was not scaled down, it had...Jump to post
It's interesting how all the ultrafan speculations were for them to be on the A380neo, but then Airbus goes ahead and ends A380 production and gets those engines on the A350 instead. Airbus is going through a huge strategy transformation. The A350 is always going to be a heavier aircraft. Just look ...Jump to post
Joe2mercs wrote:I have a question, is it cheaper to operate two 787s on the same route as one A380, taking into account the initial purchase price, depreciation, maintenance, fuel, landing fees and crews?
IMU your 783 OEW numbers are either misunderstood or from way back when the 788 would swim on milk too. I got the OEW as well as other specs from several articles that were published back then when 787-3 was still a thing. Sure, you can dismiss those figures as unreliable, 787-3 is like the A358 af...Jump to post
You might say that Boeing did a better job with the B77X (completely new wing, new engines and a small strech) compared to what Airbus did with the A330neo. It’s very hard to say how their order books will look like in the future, but as things currently stand, A330neo is looking like it’s achievin...Jump to post
No it's not. The 787-3 carried all most of the heavy bits from the 787-8. None of it was optimised for the short range mission. A clean sheet design would have had: A smaller landing gear. Fully scaled down engines instead of a derate. A smaller tail due to lower engine thrust. Proper scaled down h...Jump to post
The A330-200 is a 7000nm frame the A300 is a 4000nm frame. The cabin areas are only 10% apart but they have a massive OEW 35% difference. A300 215m2 cabin area 88T A330-200 237m2 cabin are 120T We can scale weight A300 up to the same cabin area the weight only becomes 96T. This is still 24T lighter...Jump to post
I think the benchmark for a 797 NMA is in production. It has an empty weight of 50t Just sayin, 737-10 has an OEW of 50t and costs typical for an aircraft family build 700/ year. Makes total sense. 797 production rate per equals the production rate of 737+777+787 per year. Boeing might as well try.Jump to post
That 4000nm optimised 787-8 nearly has the exact empty weight and MTOW of the 767-200 non-ER (Both 80T OEW and 1T differnce in MTOW. Yet the 4000nm optimised 787-8 has 45% more cabin area. That is truely a massive difference. For an aircraft to have that much more cabin area witg the same empty wei...Jump to post
4000nm model Empty weight: 80T Fuel: 40T Maximum takeoff: 145T Wing: 218m2 area and 47m span Thrust: 40,000lb Fuel burn: 10T per 1000nm Those numbers look exactly like the non-ER 767-300. It's almost if I am looking at 767-300 specification section in Wiki, and that model sold only 104 frames over ...Jump to post
Well I'm just doing comparison with B767-300ER's capability. Knowing that it's the most successful variant of B767. 767-300ER was the only successful 767 variant because it was able to do something that 757 wasn't able to, which is flying up to 6,000 nm. Other variants were dominated by 757. 767-20...Jump to post
That wing flex though ..Jump to post
But in the end the material is not as important as the overall design, and the A380 wing is not primarily limited by the material used but by design constraints that came from the need to lift the theoretical -900 stretch and to stay inside the 80m box. With that the needed wing area forced them to...Jump to post
I think Lightsaber is spot on. EK knew exactly what they were buying at time of the MOU and then their situation deteriorated. I find it hard to believe they signed an MOU contingent upon a dramatic improvement in hot and high performance. Thing is, there must be a lot of details/negotiations regar...Jump to post
All of these comments about 787-10 "suddenly" not being right for EK and Etihad, is the plane not meeting specs as promised or did these two airlines not understand their own requirements? It’s not sudden at all. Tim Clark had talked about the underpowered engines long before he signed th...Jump to post
airtran737 wrote:Terrible news for the carriers who will be hurt by QR’s tactics. I don’t know why the EU allowed themselves to be taken hostage by QR.
The 747-8 has a better wing aspect ratio and a better fuselage fineness ratio than the A380. The A380NEO might need more than just new engines. It doesn't make sense to compare the aspect ratio of two different planes unless those planes have the same lift coefficient (or same wing loading in cruis...Jump to post
A339NEO Span: 64 m Mean chord: 7.270 m Area: 465 m2 AR: 8.8 Thrust: 2 x 324.0 kN / 72,834 lbf B78J Span: 60.12 m Mean chord: 6.27 m Area: 377 m2 AR: 9.59 Thrust: 2 x 340 kN / 76,000 lbf Airbus and Boeing have different ways of calculating wing area. Boeing’s method gives a smaller area than Airbus’...Jump to post
Well if 81,000 pounds of TOGA thrust is not enough to get a 254,000kg 787-10 into the air out of DXB than why are they looking at the A330-900? That airframe only has 73,000 pounds of TOGA thrust for 251,000kg. The A339 has the bigger wing with a longer span and a lower span loading and wing loadin...Jump to post
196 seats in a 3-class AA A321? I underestimated this whole flex thing.
And we are talking about AA here, their seats are definitely not the worst. Their 3-class 788 offers 226 seats.
With this flex cabin layout, I can see how the proposed A322 can close the seating gap with the 788/A338.
I would rollout a flyable plane at the official launch with multiple airlines CEO's standing beside me with a huge 1000+ order book. You are assuming that airlines would happily keep their mouths shut? If Boeing launches the NMA formally or informally, then the first thing that airlines would do is...Jump to post
Could it be that EK is taking EY’ A350s?
Just a theory, if the owner of EY, the government of Abu Dhabi, asked the owner of EK, the government of Dubai, to bail them out of the order, it would not be the first time the two governments work together, of course.
Just a thought.
Leahy was a great salesman but if he had a role in Airbus plane development plans he didn’t do a great job IMHO. At least he's speaking from experience, a 797 sounds like a modern A310/A300, and Airbus knows how that went along. If you argue that the demand for that size has changed ever since, I w...Jump to post
If 5 A35Ks are not going to be taken even though they have already been built, then I guess that the 77X order won't be cancelled, it might be deferred at most. EY needs a plane that could replace 77W, as theirs are getting into the retirement age territory based on ME3 standards. 789 doesn't have t...Jump to post
The odd A350-900 placement on the chart is I guess a labeling error. Transpose the positions of the A330-300 on the chart and the A350-900 and everything make sense. On the upper end, the A350-900 would be closer to the 787-8, but again A trades MTOW for efficiency, plus a bigger craft, so makes se...Jump to post
When folks play up cargo to downgrade the 78J it ignores the fact hauling pax generates far more income than freight. These are passenger aircraft. Some side cargo kicks in a bit more revenue but that is all. absolutely, no way would I assume that cargo revenue (or profit) would even compare to pax...Jump to post
Irrelevant for the context of this discussion, as SQ (and some other airlines) run their own dedicated cargo operations with dedicated cargo birds and other equipment, which of course increases revenue but also comes with its own set of costs. Given the original question was trying to address the i...Jump to post
Many large airlines are publicly listed, it's not difficult to find this info at all, for FY2018: AA: $44,541 million total revenues, $1013 million of which is Cargo DL: $44,438 million total revenues, $865 million of which is Cargo UA: $41,303 million total revenues, $1,297 million of which is Car...Jump to post
But who said maximum structural payload? I sure didn't. The A350-900, A350-1000, 777-300ER and 787-9 all can't fly Los Angeles to Sydney at maximum structural payload if you use your definition. So clearly you knew exactly what I meant but just wanted to troll for multiple posts and just waste my t...Jump to post
ANA's 77W's are extremely low density so self comparing is unfair. Different config's from 212 to 264 total seats, I don't think any other carrier have such a low density on their 77W fleet. 294-seater 78J seems OK for regional service. Why is that ? I notice that JAL and ANA planes are low dense c...Jump to post
So hopefully you understand the 787-10 CAN fly Los Angeles to Sydney in UNITED config WITH A FULL PAYLOAD e.g every seat filled and all of the passengers bags. Filling every seat for a specific config does not mean you are flying with a full payload. Flying with a full payload is when you load the ...Jump to post
The CASM for a 275t 359 with the same amount of seats as a 789 looks horrible...it's getting wrecked. And the CASM for a 779 with the same amount of seats as A35K looks horrible ... it's getting wrecked. And the CASM for a 789 with the same amount of seats as 788 looks horrible … it's getting wreck...Jump to post
the 78X has more range @ 300pax than the 268t 359. By looking at their ACAPs, no way could 78X pull that off. Or you could simply follow common sense. They both have similar OEWs and MZFW, yet A359 still has 14T before it hits MTOW. You can figure out who will have more range. The 350 can do it but...Jump to post
Interesting. I think the 777-8 will weigh more than 355,000lb, probably just over 360,000lb. The OEW goes a very long way in determining the fuel load and then the maximum range at any given payload. I'll have a shot with the numbers. The 777-9 on wikipedia has a high OEW listed of 181T or 13T high...Jump to post
I don't believe UA will ever take the A350. The 787-10 can comfortably do SFO-TYO or ICN. A mix of 777 and 77X along with the 789 can do the rest. I just don't see any love for the A350 at UA. I don’t know what loves means in business, but the statement of the second in command at UA might qualify ...Jump to post
Trip fuel is SFC x thrust. 78J with RRs has Trent 1000-TEN. 2% less than Trent XWB on SFC. But the Trent 1000-TEN is smaller - 76klbs vs 84klbs for Trent XWB. 10% less thrust. So 8% less trip fuel consumption everything else being equal. Of course, if the 78J is to grow, so must the engines. So by ...Jump to post
Even if you calculate 142t OEW for early build A350-900 the fuel burn penalty would be around 9%!!! Sorry but its worse penalty than A340-600 against 77W! Early WV000 had an OEW of 138.5 tons. MTOW = 268t Maxumim structural payload = 53.5t So OEW = 268 - 53.5 = 138.5t Where did the 142t come from? ...Jump to post
Even if you calculate 142t OEW for early build A350-900 the fuel burn penalty would be around 9%!!! Sorry but its worse penalty than A340-600 against 77W! Early WV000 had an OEW of 138.5 tons. MTOW = 268t MZFW = 192t Maxumim structural payload = 53.5t So OEW = 192 - 53.5 = 138.5t Where did the 142t...Jump to post
They AREN'T MEANINGLESS at all! The reason for this sales advantage during that time period is obvious- the 787 had SERIOUS problems with exploding batteries and other production issues! So manufacturers RATIONALLY saw a problem or potential one with a particular jet and they cancelled the heck out...Jump to post
A 787 MTOW bump of 20-30t would do the job, but probably require significant modifications and use a newer engine.
The SA article shows the 78J with a 8%-7% seatmile fuel burn advantage across its entire range envelope, from 2000nm (8) to 6000nm (7). . Care to link the article? The advantage to the 78J won't decrease with cargo- weight is weight and the competing jet will be carrying the same additional load. ....Jump to post
There would seem to be little utility for having more range on an A350. For a handful of routes sure. But it’s already on the very high end of the market range/payload wise anyway. Or it could help by allowing it to carry more payload for the longer missions, the less needed fuel means they wouldn'...Jump to post