Back in 2013 there were some news about Airbus offering the A350 Regional model (=reduced MTOW to around 250t), and there're also reports that Etihad is the first airline confirmed to be picking up that variant. But why there are no further report on this lower MTOW variant of A350 in the next few years?

Died with the later released A339 offering?

By regional, do they mean Gulf-Europe length or >750 mi like we might say in the US??

"Regional" for the A350 apparently means 6,800 nmi, or a region consisting of most of the earth's non-fish population:

And 100% with single fuel stop. Seriously, why would anyone wants to order that when A330neo is almost ready for certification?

c933103 wrote:

Back in 2013 there were some news about Airbus offering the A350 Regional model (=reduced MTOW to around 250t), and there're also reports that Etihad is the first airline confirmed to be picking up that variant. But why there are no further report on this lower MTOW variant of A350 in the next few years?

Is this anything to do with it? It's called "regional" - LOL.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 50-388540/

"Singapore launches lower-weight 'regional' A350

Singapore Airlines has signed up as the launch customer for a lower operating weight "regional" version of the Airbus A350-900 long-range widebody twinjet.

Aimed at addressing the competitive threat posed by Boeing's 787-10 double stretch, the aircraft will be structurally identical to the baseline A350-900 but certificated to a reduced maximum take-off weight of 250t, compared with the standard 268t."

mariner

It's just one of the many A350 weight variants (250, 268, 273, 275 and 280 tonne MTOW).

benbeny wrote:

And 100% with single fuel stop. Seriously, why would anyone wants to order that when A330neo is almost ready for certification?

Obviously if you want the other characteristics of the A350 (size, performance) but not the payload/range. There are usually some other benefits:

• MZFW increase (hence revenue payload) - not sure if that's the case here
• Lower acquisition costs
• Flexibility to pay to restore full capability
• Maybe increase in Cycle limit?
• Lower landing fees where they're MTOW based (though that wouldn't be a benefit viz a viz the A330)

ahj2000 wrote:

By regional, do they mean Gulf-Europe length or >750 mi like we might say in the US??

In Europe "regional" - with its variants in national languages - refers to something sub-domestic. For example, a regional train is something between commuting train and long distance (domestic) train. In aviation I associate "regional" with less than 1 hour routes connecting from a (minor) hub to smaller towns or tourist resorts. Calling a shortened-range wide-body "regional" is a total misnomer.

trex8 wrote:

250 ton regional A359s are slated for delivery to EY and SQ. SQ had derated 772ERs also.
https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-airl ... nge-config

I see...

mariner wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Back in 2013 there were some news about Airbus offering the A350 Regional model (=reduced MTOW to around 250t), and there're also reports that Etihad is the first airline confirmed to be picking up that variant. But why there are no further report on this lower MTOW variant of A350 in the next few years?

Is this anything to do with it? It's called "regional" - LOL.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 50-388540/

"Singapore launches lower-weight 'regional' A350

Singapore Airlines has signed up as the launch customer for a lower operating weight "regional" version of the Airbus A350-900 long-range widebody twinjet.

Aimed at addressing the competitive threat posed by Boeing's 787-10 double stretch, the aircraft will be structurally identical to the baseline A350-900 but certificated to a reduced maximum take-off weight of 250t, compared with the standard 268t."

mariner

Yes that's it but this is also from 2013

KarelXWB wrote:

It's just one of the many A350 weight variants (250, 268, 273, 275 and 280 tonne MTOW).

If understanded correctly, this is the only version which have derated engines?

BaconButty wrote:

benbeny wrote:

And 100% with single fuel stop. Seriously, why would anyone wants to order that when A330neo is almost ready for certification?

Obviously if you want the other characteristics of the A350 (size, performance) but not the payload/range. There are usually some other benefits:

• MZFW increase (hence revenue payload) - not sure if that's the case here
• Lower acquisition costs
• Flexibility to pay to restore full capability
• Maybe increase in Cycle limit?
• Lower landing fees where they're MTOW based (though that wouldn't be a benefit viz a viz the A330)

How about fuel economy when fuel price are high and also fleet commonality for airlines that are going to retire/don't have A330ceo and not planning to take A330neo?

YIMBY wrote:

ahj2000 wrote:

By regional, do they mean Gulf-Europe length or >750 mi like we might say in the US??

In Europe "regional" - with its variants in national languages - refers to something sub-domestic. For example, a regional train is something between commuting train and long distance (domestic) train. In aviation I associate "regional" with less than 1 hour routes connecting from a (minor) hub to smaller towns or tourist resorts. Calling a shortened-range wide-body "regional" is a total misnomer.

Well, it was offered together with A330 Regional, and that makes sense with its projected 3000nmi range at the time and a projected market of Chinese Airlines - routes like PEK-DEL/SIN are probably considered as regional by Asian standard. Then they probably extended the name onto A350 despite it is hardly regional, simply because they are both lower MTOW variants with derated engine and might be they want to sell them together. And that's probably the reason why there're no further news carry that name (even the 2016 press linked above only mentioned medium haul A330), that they probably realized it is a bad idea to call something with 6800nm range a regional aircraft.

BaconButty wrote:

Obviously if you want the other characteristics of the A350 (size, performance) but not the payload/range. There are usually some other benefits:
[list]
[*]MZFW increase (hence revenue payload) - not sure if that's the case here

It is not - the MZFW is 192,000kg, which is 3700kg below the maximum offered on (select) higher Weight Variants.

Stitch wrote:

It is not - the MZFW is 192,000kg, which is 3700kg below the maximum offered on (select) higher Weight Variants.

That's me told! I didn't know that, a higher MZFW is often a feature of lower MTOW weight variants.

BaconButty wrote:

Stitch wrote:

That's me told! I didn't know that, a higher MZFW is often a feature of lower MTOW weight variants.

How does that work?

Airbus typically has opted for a dynamic mtow/mzfw on these offerings. It will have much the same range as the 233t A330-300.

thepinkmachine wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

Stitch wrote:

That's me told! I didn't know that, a higher MZFW is often a feature of lower MTOW weight variants.

How does that work?

You're probably a single the wrong person, but Ferpe says this about the -900ulr:

By lowering the MZFW, Airbus can regulate the max wing bending moment of the -900ULR to be at the same level as the standard version despite having a higher MTOW. This technique can be seen at work in the different weight variants that Airbus has available for its aircraft. There are higher MTOW variants that have lower MZFW and vice versa.

More explanation here
https://leehamnews.com/2015/10/23/bjorn ... derations/

Makes sense, thx BB!