Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:46 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:


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 importance of belly cargo to passenger airline operations, bringing this figure up makes no sense.


I think SQ disagrees with you.

If you go to page 49 in SIA's financial report, you will see that the bellyhold cargo revenue was $975m, and the SQ passenger revenue was $9,816m. So the revenue of bellyhold cargo ALONE was 10% of total passenger reveune. That's significant. Bellyhold cargo revenue accounts for 44% of total cargo revenue (page 54)

I don’t know about you, but that amount is pretty significant.

SQ financial report: https://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/pdf/ ... rt1718.pdf

Now, let's talk about US3 cargo revenue figures.
The vast majority of US3 revenue comes from domestic flights on A320s/737s/MD-80s. Those frames cannot haul that much of cargo and passengers at the same time. A320 for example has a maximum payload of 18t, and if you get 157 pax onboard, that leaves only around 2t for possible cargo, unlike what widebodies can offer to SQ for example.

DL in Q4 2017:
domestic flights revenue was 72% of total passenger revenue ($6,189m).
International flight revenue was $2,312m, and cargo revenue was $200m.
So Cargo revenue was actually 9% of all of DL's international flights revenue. (similar to SQ’s figures, since SQ has no narrobody frames)

So when you make a more apple to apple comparison between DL and SQ, you will find that both of them achieve a bellyhold cargo revenue that is 9-10% of total international flights revenue.

majano wrote:

Yet somebody was trying to convince us that Delta demanded to fly 25T of cargo across its Pacific network on a daily basis...?


This is a factual claim. No one has to convince anyone of that, they either carry that amount of cargo on a daily basis, or they don't. All what we need is an evidence that proves that.

Even if it does carry that amount on a daily basis, such an amount of revenue will be diluted in the large revenue DL achieves in its domestic network. It will still be a fraction of the gigantic overall revenue they can bring in.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:07 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:


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 importance of belly cargo to passenger airline operations, bringing this figure up makes no sense.


I think SQ disagrees with you.

If you go to page 49 in SIA's financial report, you will see that the bellyhold cargo revenue was $975m, and the SQ passenger revenue was $9,816m. So the revenue of bellyhold cargo ALONE was 10% of total passenger reveune. That's significant. Bellyhold cargo revenue accounts for 44% of total cargo revenue (page 54)

I don’t know about you, but that amount is pretty significant.

SQ financial report: https://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/pdf/ ... rt1718.pdf

Now, let's talk about US3 cargo revenue figures.
The vast majority of US3 revenue comes from domestic flights on A320s/737s/MD-80s. Those frames cannot haul that much of cargo and passengers at the same time. A320 for example has a maximum payload of 18t, and if you get 157 pax onboard, that leaves only around 2t for possible cargo, unlike what widebodies can offer to SQ for example.

DL in Q4 2017:
domestic flights revenue was 72% of total passenger revenue ($6,189m).
International flight revenue was $2,312m, and cargo revenue was $200m.
So Cargo revenue was actually 9% of all of DL's international flights revenue. (similar to SQ’s figures, since SQ has no narrobody frames)

So when you make a more apple to apple comparison between DL and SQ, you will find that both of them achieve a bellyhold cargo revenue that is 9-10% of total international flights revenue.

majano wrote:

Yet somebody was trying to convince us that Delta demanded to fly 25T of cargo across its Pacific network on a daily basis...?


This is a factual claim. No one has to convince anyone of that, they either carry that amount of cargo on a daily basis, or they don't. All what we need is an evidence that proves that.

Even if it does carry that amount on a daily basis, such an amount of revenue will be diluted in the large revenue DL achieves in its domestic network. It will still be a fraction of the gigantic overall revenue they can bring in.



I think your analysis is very fair. However, the fact remains cargo for overall operations is a tiny fraction of overall revenue. The 4-5% figure I mentioned is for all of AA operations.

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.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:11 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:


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 revenue. I am just trying to say that cargo revenues on commercial passenger flights aren't negligible either. My whole contribution to this subject has nothing to do with 78X. I do believe it would be the a better option than A359 for many airlines (such as EK). The plane has simply a lower CASM with a pretty decent range.

BTW, we've been talking about revenue so far, not profit. Airlines don't have to feed or serve anything to cargo, and so cost/ton is less than what cost/ton of pax would be, but pax pay much more for tickets, and hence they bring in more profit overall. The perfect way is to do what most airlines do, if the flight isn't full, bring in as much cargo as the plane can carry.

Once, DL generated $254,000 from shipping BMW parts to South Africa on a 777 commercial flight, and that accounted for 40% of that flight's revenue. That was a record for DL. link for story: https://thepointsguy.com/news/how-airli ... rom-cargo/
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1664
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:10 pm

Bricktop wrote:
I will answer for me. Trusting a poster is providing information in good faith is the essence of their reputation. Once that goes, I skim their posts at best. If you want to be a troll fine, but it’ll only work one time.

ETA; This is a board I read for pleasure. Not everything has to be a doctoral thesis with pages of links and footnotes. That would be beyond tedious in this context for me.



Sure, but when someone just posts what cargo revenue is for most airlines you have to wonder where the information is from. If he had posted as he did later it was only for AA then I would have less questions. I mean I don't count one airline as most airlines.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:40 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
I will answer for me. Trusting a poster is providing information in good faith is the essence of their reputation. Once that goes, I skim their posts at best. If you want to be a troll fine, but it’ll only work one time.

ETA; This is a board I read for pleasure. Not everything has to be a doctoral thesis with pages of links and footnotes. That would be beyond tedious in this context for me.



Sure, but when someone just posts what cargo revenue is for most airlines you have to wonder where the information is from. If he had posted as he did later it was only for AA then I would have less questions. I mean I don't count one airline as most airlines.


Sorry, I am on my phone and it is difficult to post links. If the IATA says cargo is 9% of revenue for pax airlines worldwide that sounds about right. I saw a financial statement for AA about 3 months ago and cargo was around 4-5% of gross revenue for them. I recognize some carriers like LH or SQ have a larger presence in the cargo market.

My sole point is very few airlines will buy the 78J because it is a great hauler of cargo. The focus on MTOW and a full cargo load in an attempt to diminish the capability of the 78J is a little silly. Cargo is a nice add on....but it does not keep pax airliners flying.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
travelhound
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:50 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:

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.


You could also argue with most airline profit margins being less than 10% (typically 5%), the 9% revenues from cargo is a very important aspect of an airlines operations.

...and I think is why airlines are still choosing to buy the 777-300ER. On a CASM basis it may not be most efficient aircraft, but from cargo hauling perspective it can generate substantial revenues that competing aircraft can't.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Jan 25, 2019 11:36 pm

Zkpilot wrote:
The only NA routes the 78X can possibly operate in NZ configuration is LAX or SFO. YVR/IAH/ORD and eventually EWR are all too far for it (and even LAX and SFO would be payload restricted).

YVR/IAH/ORD would be 787-9 routes.

What the 787-10 does is replace the 777 on most of the current routes. The three longest routes would need a different aircraft. What happens here is it becomes difficult to justify a whole new aircraft type such as the A350 for only three routes. As NZ already has 787-9's they can simply use that.

Their widebody fleet becomes streamlined with only the 787-9 and 787-10.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:21 am

travelhound wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

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.


You could also argue with most airline profit margins being less than 10% (typically 5%), the 9% revenues from cargo is a very important aspect of an airlines operations.


...and I think is why airlines are still choosing to buy the 777-300ER. On a CASM basis it may not be most efficient aircraft, but from cargo hauling perspective it can generate substantial revenues that competing aircraft can't.


I am not sure I quite follow your logic here, are you assuming that 9% of revenue from cargo is "free"? I. E hauling cargo for airlines doesn't come with its own set of costs?
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:32 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
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.

It cannot be denied that these days, even an additional 5% revenue is worthwhile having as margins are thin. It could mean the difference between a route being made viable or not.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:45 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
travelhound wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

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.


You could also argue with most airline profit margins being less than 10% (typically 5%), the 9% revenues from cargo is a very important aspect of an airlines operations.


...and I think is why airlines are still choosing to buy the 777-300ER. On a CASM basis it may not be most efficient aircraft, but from cargo hauling perspective it can generate substantial revenues that competing aircraft can't.


I am not sure I quite follow your logic here, are you assuming that 9% of revenue from cargo is "free"? I. E hauling cargo for airlines doesn't come with its own set of costs?


In part I agree with what you are suggesting, but do not believe you can apply your argument in totality to come to a conclusion on the value of freight revenues.

If we consider 9% of an airlines revenues equates to a fair amount of money (for a major airline $1b plus), I am not too sure an airline (or any business for that matter) could drop 9% of their revenues and expect to reduce their costs by an equal amount.

The equation for freight comes down to ground handling and the extra fuel to carry the weight.

In contrast many airlines would see freight as revenue opportunity. If we consider the freight in the belly of a passenger aircraft is typically cheaper to fly than the freight in dedicated freighter aircraft, the market rate for freight could be quite lucrative for many airlines.

......and this is why I suspect there are still quite a few airlines willing to purchase / lease new 777-300ER aircraft even though these aircraft are less efficient than their younger cousins. The freight revenue opportunity is greater than the additional cost of flying the passengers.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20956
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:21 am

So many charts in this thread, let me inject one more:

Image

787-9 so light and with such great (pax * kilometer / liter) efficiency, and 787-10 with even more since it doesn't increase MTOW.

Guess we can leave that cargo for the 777s or the container ships to carry, although the 777s don't look too bad either...
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:48 am

Eyad89 wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:


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 importance of belly cargo to passenger airline operations, bringing this figure up makes no sense.


I think SQ disagrees with you.

If you go to page 49 in SIA's financial report, you will see that the bellyhold cargo revenue was $975m, and the SQ passenger revenue was $9,816m. So the revenue of bellyhold cargo ALONE was 10% of total passenger reveune. That's significant. Bellyhold cargo revenue accounts for 44% of total cargo revenue (page 54)

I don’t know about you, but that amount is pretty significant.

SQ financial report: https://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/pdf/ ... rt1718.pdf

Now, let's talk about US3 cargo revenue figures.
The vast majority of US3 revenue comes from domestic flights on A320s/737s/MD-80s. Those frames cannot haul that much of cargo and passengers at the same time. A320 for example has a maximum payload of 18t, and if you get 157 pax onboard, that leaves only around 2t for possible cargo, unlike what widebodies can offer to SQ for example.

DL in Q4 2017:
domestic flights revenue was 72% of total passenger revenue ($6,189m).
International flight revenue was $2,312m, and cargo revenue was $200m.
So Cargo revenue was actually 9% of all of DL's international flights revenue. (similar to SQ’s figures, since SQ has no narrobody frames)

So when you make a more apple to apple comparison between DL and SQ, you will find that both of them achieve a bellyhold cargo revenue that is 9-10% of total international flights revenue.

majano wrote:

Yet somebody was trying to convince us that Delta demanded to fly 25T of cargo across its Pacific network on a daily basis...?


This is a factual claim. No one has to convince anyone of that, they either carry that amount of cargo on a daily basis, or they don't. All what we need is an evidence that proves that.

Even if it does carry that amount on a daily basis, such an amount of revenue will be diluted in the large revenue DL achieves in its domestic network. It will still be a fraction of the gigantic overall revenue they can bring in.


Well since we are talking the value of cargo for a widebody, 9% it is. But that's just revenue. It is an incremental profit free of flight attendants, catering, magazines, etc. So it might have higher incremental profit. All of which means cargo helps ROI for a frame.
 
User avatar
Pudelhund
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:52 am

Revelation wrote:
So many charts in this thread, let me inject one more:

Image

787-9 so light and with such great (pax * kilometer / liter) efficiency, and 787-10 with even more since it doesn't increase MTOW.

Guess we can leave that cargo for the 777s or the container ships to carry, although the 777s don't look too bad either...


What is the source study of this chart and what is a 777-300LR?
 
tealnz
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:57 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
The only NA routes the 78X can possibly operate in NZ configuration is LAX or SFO. YVR/IAH/ORD and eventually EWR are all too far for it (and even LAX and SFO would be payload restricted).

YVR/IAH/ORD would be 787-9 routes.

What the 787-10 does is replace the 777 on most of the current routes. The three longest routes would need a different aircraft. What happens here is it becomes difficult to justify a whole new aircraft type such as the A350 for only three routes. As NZ already has 787-9's they can simply use that.

Their widebody fleet becomes streamlined with only the 787-9 and 787-10.


I guess you still feel you understand the capabilities of the 787 better than the airline. Even if the -10 could do LAX-AKL reliably with a full pax load at the sort of density NZ uses it wouldn't have significant cargo capacity. What makes you think NZ would be ready to gut their North American freight business?

If they go with the A350 I expect they'll be using it on all their North American routes plus GRU and possibly some high-premium Asian routes. They won't have a problem finding enough routes for 15+ airframes.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:48 am

tealnz wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
The only NA routes the 78X can possibly operate in NZ configuration is LAX or SFO. YVR/IAH/ORD and eventually EWR are all too far for it (and even LAX and SFO would be payload restricted).

YVR/IAH/ORD would be 787-9 routes.

What the 787-10 does is replace the 777 on most of the current routes. The three longest routes would need a different aircraft. What happens here is it becomes difficult to justify a whole new aircraft type such as the A350 for only three routes. As NZ already has 787-9's they can simply use that.

Their widebody fleet becomes streamlined with only the 787-9 and 787-10.


I guess you still feel you understand the capabilities of the 787 better than the airline. Even if the -10 could do LAX-AKL reliably with a full pax load at the sort of density NZ uses it wouldn't have significant cargo capacity. What makes you think NZ would be ready to gut their North American freight business?

If they go with the A350 I expect they'll be using it on all their North American routes plus GRU and possibly some high-premium Asian routes. They won't have a problem finding enough routes for 15+ airframes.


What makes you think that North American Freight Business is some gigantic cash cow for NZ as a whole?

For FY2018, Cargo made $370M NZD of revenues compared to $4,679M NZD pax revenue and $5,485M NZD total revenue. Within that mix of cargo revenues, the vast majority of them will be trans-tasman, pacific islands and/or Asia, where on the majority of routes both a 78J and A359 can load up to close to MZFW anyways so it doesn't matter. An A359 will have a marked advantage in payload from ~5000nm onwards, but the key factor would be how much of the available payload is actually used on a day to day basis. There's not much point to flying an aircraft that can carry lots of available payload if its not frequently and profitably used on a daily basis.

Unless you have some segment data that shows North American frieght is a ludicrously high-margin business for NZ, it'd be inappropriate to assign outsized importance to it.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:38 am

Eyad89 wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:


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 importance of belly cargo to passenger airline operations, bringing this figure up makes no sense.


I think SQ disagrees with you.

If you go to page 49 in SIA's financial report, you will see that the bellyhold cargo revenue was $975m, and the SQ passenger revenue was $9,816m. So the revenue of bellyhold cargo ALONE was 10% of total passenger reveune. That's significant. Bellyhold cargo revenue accounts for 44% of total cargo revenue (page 54)

I don’t know about you, but that amount is pretty significant.

SQ financial report: https://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/pdf/ ... rt1718.pdf

Now, let's talk about US3 cargo revenue figures.
The vast majority of US3 revenue comes from domestic flights on A320s/737s/MD-80s. Those frames cannot haul that much of cargo and passengers at the same time. A320 for example has a maximum payload of 18t, and if you get 157 pax onboard, that leaves only around 2t for possible cargo, unlike what widebodies can offer to SQ for example.

DL in Q4 2017:
domestic flights revenue was 72% of total passenger revenue ($6,189m).
International flight revenue was $2,312m, and cargo revenue was $200m.
So Cargo revenue was actually 9% of all of DL's international flights revenue. (similar to SQ’s figures, since SQ has no narrobody frames)

So when you make a more apple to apple comparison between DL and SQ, you will find that both of them achieve a bellyhold cargo revenue that is 9-10% of total international flights revenue.

majano wrote:

Yet somebody was trying to convince us that Delta demanded to fly 25T of cargo across its Pacific network on a daily basis...?


This is a factual claim. No one has to convince anyone of that, they either carry that amount of cargo on a daily basis, or they don't. All what we need is an evidence that proves that.

Even if it does carry that amount on a daily basis, such an amount of revenue will be diluted in the large revenue DL achieves in its domestic network. It will still be a fraction of the gigantic overall revenue they can bring in.


But SQ ordered the -10. Anybody who has flown knows that they use wide bodies on many routes that are 2-3k miles. And so do many other airlines.

I’d venture to guess 2-2500 widebodies serve such routes. So given the size of this market segment why would you want change the -10?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:50 am

Revelation wrote:
So many charts in this thread, let me inject one more

I question the accuracy of the A350-900 data point. I dont think its efficiency per passenger is 7% worse than the 787-9.

The A330-300 and 767-300ER fuel per per passenger is too good. Unless you are using 9ab in the A330 and 8ab in the 767. That would not be an apple to apple comparison.

You must standardise seating area per passenger to get correct seat values per aircraft. For instance if you use 32" pitch on the 787 you should use 31" pitch on the A350 due to the wider seats. This gives equal seating area per passenger and allows the A350 to gain on extra row of seats. This narrowers the difference between the 787-9 and A350-900.

Likewise with the A330, you should use 9ab with a 34" pitch of 8ab with a 31" pitch. So two or even three extra rows in 8ab.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:03 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Revelation wrote:
So many charts in this thread, let me inject one more

I question the accuracy of the A350-900 data point. I dont think its efficiency per passenger is 7% worse than the 787-9.

The A330-300 and 767-300ER fuel per per passenger is too good. Unless you are using 9ab in the A330 and 8ab in the 767. That would not be an apple to apple comparison.

You must standardise seating area per passenger to get correct seat values per aircraft. For instance if you use 32" pitch on the 787 you should use 31" pitch on the A350 due to the wider seats. This gives equal seating area per passenger and allows the A350 to gain on extra row of seats. This narrowers the difference between the 787-9 and A350-900.

Likewise with the A330, you should use 9ab with a 34" pitch of 8ab with a 31" pitch. So two or even three extra rows in 8ab.


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. B767 a wee bit more efficient fuel wise than the A330-300, which has greater P/R and associated MTOW, both using similar engines. So this makes 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 sense close to the 788. 789 looks to be a real dinger of a plane per this chart, and I have no trouble believing that.
 
Strato2
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:27 am

justloveplanes wrote:
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. B767 a wee bit more efficient fuel wise than the A330-300, which has greater P/R and associated MTOW, both using similar engines. So this makes sense.



Almost nothing on that chart makes sense. First of all there is no plane called "777-300LR). The A380 is more efficient than the 747-8i according to Lufthansa who flies both and this is also evident in the sales of these models (747-8i: 47, A380: ~300). Also the A330 would not have killed the 767-300ER if those efficiency figures were correct as it's a bigger plane. That would mean worse CASM AND worse RASM. This also applies to 747-8i/A380 comparison. This chart reads like Boeing fanboys wet dream nothing else.
 
gloom
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:30 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
My sole point is very few airlines will buy the 78J because it is a great hauler of cargo. The focus on MTOW and a full cargo load in an attempt to diminish the capability of the 78J is a little silly. Cargo is a nice add on....but it does not keep pax airliners flying.


First, you're right it's not a great cargo hauler. I think we can both agree it was not meant to be, and that's why it does perform so excellent on its design mission.

However, you might be wrong on cargo. Someone pointed out only 9% of incomes comes from cargo haul. That's right, it's not enough to justify a flight or even leaving some passengers behind. Not even close to this.

On the other hand, I've read somewhere (sorry, no link as I don't quite remember where, probably local av forum?) that share of cargo taken by airliners vs dedicated cargo is raising steadily and quick. Within last few years, it doubled. So I'd expect this trend to continue, as more and more payload is available on longhaul aircrafts.

So, basically 78X is a mission built plane. Take full payload to 3-4knm, and a full board to 5knm. There's plenty of routes where it will excel. But taking out cargo from equations is not a valid point. It's not about diminishing any plane, it's a valid point that generates extra revenue. How much of it, and for whom, is a different story. But there are plenty of airlines where it does matter (Finnair I believe is hauling double digit tons of cargo on Asia routes on average; I think I've seen a number of 15t, and it definitely supports their case with 359). With 78J? Not so much, I guess.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12323
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:27 am

majano wrote:
Fine by me, however, IMO it would have been better to point that out without attempting to correct a statement that is factually correct. But to each, their own.

That's almost as ridiculous as claiming that 77Es "operated SIN-LAX" seeing as they subbed when A345s were in mtx, but hey, whatever makes you feel validated :roll:



jagraham wrote:
No one at SQ has said anything regarding cargo that I read (doesn't mean SQ is not carrying lots of cargo SIN to LAX, I haven't read anything either way)

The forward cargo hold on the A359ULR is sealed and cannot be used for transporting materials, so there's volume limitations. How those affect SQ's intended cargo payload for LAX (and even more interestingly, EWR) isn't something that I've yet seen made public.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Cerecl
Posts: 573
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:10 pm

justloveplanes wrote:
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.

Not really, the chart makes little sense even if 333 and 359 positions are swapped.. Firstly, what is the "industrial average fuel efficiency" and how is it calculated? Secondly, is A380 actually worse than 747-400 in efficiency (and 747-8 merely matching 747-400)? Why are 77E and 77L supposedly so different in efficiency (and shouldn't 77E be more efficient than 77L?) Isn't A359 a huge failure if it simply matches 77L which entered service in 2006? How can A332 outsell 767-300ER if it is so much less efficient?

This chart bears absolutely no relationship with actual sales figures. Who compiled it?
Fokker-100 SAAB 340 Q400 E190 717 737 738 763ER 787-8 772 77E 773 77W 747-400 747-400ER A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A359 A380
 
User avatar
GEUltraFan9XGTF
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:31 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:21 pm

If airlines want efficiency and serious cargo hauling ability, they're waiting for 778/9 numbers. The A359/K is a laugh by comparison. Boeing has this plane bookended by two superior products.
© 2019. All statements are my own. The use of my statements, including by journalists, YouTube vloggers like "DJ's Aviation", etc. without my written consent is strictly prohibited.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:12 pm

justloveplanes wrote:


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 sense close to the 788. 789 looks to be a real dinger of a plane per this chart, and I have no trouble believing that.


Even if you swap A333 with A359, it still doesn't make sense to have A359 with a lower efficiency/passenger than 789. If it does, someone please explain that to me how that could be possible. On a similar seating configuration, A359 would have at least 30 seats more (longer by 4 meters)
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:40 pm

gloom wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
My sole point is very few airlines will buy the 78J because it is a great hauler of cargo. The focus on MTOW and a full cargo load in an attempt to diminish the capability of the 78J is a little silly. Cargo is a nice add on....but it does not keep pax airliners flying.


On the other hand, I've read somewhere (sorry, no link as I don't quite remember where, probably local av forum?) that share of cargo taken by airliners vs dedicated cargo is raising steadily and quick. Within last few years, it doubled. So I'd expect this trend to continue, as more and more payload is available on longhaul aircrafts.

So, basically 78X is a mission built plane. Take full payload to 3-4knm, and a full board to 5knm. There's plenty of routes where it will excel. But taking out cargo from equations is not a valid point. It's not about diminishing any plane, it's a valid point that generates extra revenue. How much of it, and for whom, is a different story. But there are plenty of airlines where it does matter (Finnair I believe is hauling double digit tons of cargo on Asia routes on average; I think I've seen a number of 15t, and it definitely supports their case with 359). With 78J? Not so much, I guess.


That observation isn't particularly surprising, the abundance of long-haul capable aircraft in the recent years has meant that available belly cargo payloads in aggregate, have skyrocketed. This increased supply, however, has and will continue to put downward pressure on cargo yields, i.e, the incremental profit on hauling cargo will decrease unless there is enough extra demand to support prices.

In AY's case, they were one of the very first to order the XWB, and I believe had orders for the original pre-changed A350, which naturally means favorable launch pricing. I suspect that was the big reason for the A350s rather than the cargo argument suggested. All except one of Finnair's Asia Routes are over 4500nm (SIN @~5000nm). Which, unless they expect to load up to MZFW on every flight east, the payload advantage to the A350 isn't particularly large.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12323
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:23 am

Cerecl wrote:
and shouldn't 77E be more efficient than 77L?

No. Not on anything other than a short haul and carrying little weight.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4288
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:27 am

[*]
LAX772LR wrote:
Cerecl wrote:
and shouldn't 77E be more efficient than 77L?

No. Not on anything other than a short haul and carrying little weight.

If by shorthaul you mean 8 hours... that is roughly the mark where the 77L becomes more efficient than the 77E (that’s not factoring in the additional purchase price of course).
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12323
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:44 am

Zkpilot wrote:
If by shorthaul you mean 8 hours

Well, first... yeah. That's pretty shorthaul for these types of airframes.


Zkpilot wrote:
that is roughly the mark where the 77L becomes more efficient than the 77E

Based on whose numbers? As is often referenced here, DL found the 77L excels closer to the 4hr mark
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4288
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:22 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
If by shorthaul you mean 8 hours

Well, first... yeah. That's pretty shorthaul for these types of airframes.


Zkpilot wrote:
that is roughly the mark where the 77L becomes more efficient than the 77E

Based on whose numbers? As is often referenced here, DL found the 77L excels closer to the 4hr mark

NZ for one (and almost all 777 operators too)... they have pretty much the highest percentage of longhaul and ULH routes of any airline. They chose the 77E and 77W then 789. They could have gone for 77L at any stage but didn’t.
Now I’m not anti 77L I thought they would have been good as a subfleet for NZ for the likes of AKL-ORD/JFK/IAH a decade ago. Now? No way the 77L is dead.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12323
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:32 am

Zkpilot wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
that is roughly the mark where the 77L becomes more efficient than the 77E

Based on whose numbers? As is often referenced here, DL found the 77L excels closer to the 4hr mark

NZ for one (and almost all 777 operators too)... they have pretty much the highest percentage of longhaul and ULH routes of any airline. They chose the 77E and 77W then 789. They could have gone for 77L at any stage but didn’t.
Now I’m not anti 77L I thought they would have been good as a subfleet for NZ for the likes of AKL-ORD/JFK/IAH a decade ago. Now? No way the 77L is dead.

You're digressing into points that have nothing to do with the question posed.

That said, an airline that has (1) both aircraft (2) in the same configuration and (3) on many of the same routings with (4) more than a decade of real-world operational data, is going to have a more accurate comparative analysis of the variants, than another one who's never operated the latter and "only" has numbers based on acquisition projections.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Cerecl
Posts: 573
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:58 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
If by shorthaul you mean 8 hours

Well, first... yeah. That's pretty shorthaul for these types of airframes.
Zkpilot wrote:
that is roughly the mark where the 77L becomes more efficient than the 77E

Based on whose numbers? As is often referenced here, DL found the 77L excels closer to the 4hr mark

I guess my questions are 1. If 77L are so efficient why did 77E sell 7 times as much, and supposedly less efficient A332/A359 (or A333) sells >10 times as much? 2. If the relative efficiency depends on the mission profile, how did the chart arrive at a single number for each model? 3. Even if these numbers are accurate, what is the point of fitting a linear correlation through those data points when clearly none exists?

Ultimately I think a respected member posted this chart. However, if the data points do not reflect real-life sales record at all, then one doubts the value of inferring anything from this chart.
Fokker-100 SAAB 340 Q400 E190 717 737 738 763ER 787-8 772 77E 773 77W 747-400 747-400ER A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A359 A380
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12323
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:10 am

Cerecl wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
If by shorthaul you mean 8 hours

Well, first... yeah. That's pretty shorthaul for these types of airframes.
Zkpilot wrote:
that is roughly the mark where the 77L becomes more efficient than the 77E

Based on whose numbers? As is often referenced here, DL found the 77L excels closer to the 4hr mark

I guess my questions are 1. If 77L are so efficient why did 77E sell 7 times as much


because (1) the overwhelming majority of the 77E's sales came before the first 77L was even built, much less garnering service data, (2) there's more to sales than "efficiency," particularly seeing as that's such a nebulous term and can apply to many different aspects of an aircraft's performance; but most importantly (3) there's another aircraft option that was far more efficient than either of them, taking the bulk of sales in the 250+ seat marketplace at the time.... the 77W.
Last edited by LAX772LR on Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
travelhound
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:23 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Based on whose numbers? As is often referenced here, DL found the 77L excels closer to the 4hr mark

NZ for one (and almost all 777 operators too)... they have pretty much the highest percentage of longhaul and ULH routes of any airline. They chose the 77E and 77W then 789. They could have gone for 77L at any stage but didn’t.
Now I’m not anti 77L I thought they would have been good as a subfleet for NZ for the likes of AKL-ORD/JFK/IAH a decade ago. Now? No way the 77L is dead.

You're digressing into points that have nothing to do with the question posed.

That said, an airline that has (1) both aircraft (2) in the same configuration and (3) on many of the same routings with (4) more than a decade of real-world operational data, is going to have a more accurate comparative analysis of the variants, than another one who's never operated the latter and "only" has numbers based on acquisition projections.


In simple terms the DL model could revolve a higher component of freight. If we consider the US exports more to Australia than Australia does to the US, DL could have been in a unique position where a freight heavy business could work for them.

Just one scenario if many!
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:52 pm

Isn’t it well understood that while the L is more efficient it is so on only a narrow set of missions?

With lower and more predictable fuel prices I would expect the % of ULH flights to increase.

And I hope an sst returns to the market! Sorry for the excitement diversion.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26315
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:37 pm

Back in the day, widebodyphotog ran the numbers through various mission planning software used by major airlines and found that in general the cutover point where the 777-200LR became more efficient than the 777-200ER was around 2000nm due to better aerodynamics and propulsive efficiency of the GE90-110B over earlier generation GE90s on the 777-200ER.

But as LAX772LR noted, by the time the 777-200LR entered service, everyone who wanted a 777-200 series airframe already had one - or they had a HGW A330-300. So the 777-200LR sold on the far-end of its payload-range chart, not the short-end. Airlines like NZ who had a frame in the 777-200ER that could already perform the missions they needed it for were not going to spend $150 million on a 777-200LR just to get another 3% better efficiency.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:54 pm

Stitch wrote:
Back in the day, widebodyphotog ran the numbers through various mission planning software used by major airlines and found that in general the cutover point where the 777-200LR became more efficient than the 777-200ER was around 2000nm due to better aerodynamics and propulsive efficiency of the GE90-110B over earlier generation GE90s on the 777-200ER.

But as LAX772LR noted, by the time the 777-200LR entered service, everyone who wanted a 777-200 series airframe already had one - or they had a HGW A330-300. So the 777-200LR sold on the far-end of its payload-range chart, not the short-end. Airlines like NZ who had a frame in the 777-200ER that could already perform the missions they needed it for were not going to spend $150 million on a 777-200LR just to get another 3% better efficiency.


Thanks for detail.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:44 am

Stitch wrote:
Back in the day, widebodyphotog ran the numbers through various mission planning software used by major ....


His spreadsheets were amazing.

He could point out why the 77W was a true winner, just as the first were in service.
Another showed how the 748 wasn't hurt by the 380, but hurt bad by the 77W.
 
georgiabill
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:53 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:31 pm

Not to derail the thread has anyone heard how the 78J (78X) is performing for SQ,EY and UA? Is it performing better than expected? What is the longest routes flown with the 78J (78X) guessing UA SFO-FRA-SFO (If it has been started)?
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:40 am

Interesting data on recent UA and DL's proposals for their HND route:

UA 787-10 in the winter on LAX-HND is 5487sm = 4768nm; it can carry 49800lb = 22.6t cargo when LF is 100%
DL 359 in the winter on DTW-HND is 6427sm = 5584nm; it can carry 14879lb = 6.7t cargo when LF is 100%

If both 787-10 and 359 burn around 5.8t/hr and there is no cargo, 787-10 can fly 22.6/5.8t = 3.9 more hours and 359 can fly 6.7 can fly 1.15 more hours.
The speed is 0.85 mach = 566 nm / hours, so the range is

UA B787-10, full 318 pax + bags : 4768 + 566 * 3.9 = 6975.4 nm
DL A350-900, full 306 pax + bags : 5584 + 566 * 1.15 = 6234.9 nm

So even 787-10 has more payload/range than 359?

UA 787-10 on LAX-HND

Image

Image

DL 350-900 on DTW-HND

Image

Image

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2019-0014
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:25 am

moyangmm wrote:
UA B787-10, full 318 pax + bags : 4768 + 566 * 3.9 = 6975.4 nm
DL A350-900, full 306 pax + bags : 5584 + 566 * 1.15 = 6234.9 nm


trav777 wrote:
I had to pull teeth and get mocked on the DL thread for asserting that 6500nm


I think even 275t A359 has a range of less than 6500 nm?
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:08 am

How much cargo are PR able to carry on the JFK-MNL sector with the 278t A350, and also does anyone know what MTOW rating Hong Kong Airlines has on their A359's that do LAX-HKG with around 335pax or so?
 
gloom
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:28 am

moyangmm wrote:
Interesting data on recent UA and DL's proposals for their HND route:


There's something fundamentally wrong with these numbers.

If assumed fuel burn is similar, there's no way heavier frame (78J is definitely heavier than 359) with LOWER MTOW (depending on which variant Delta has/choose, 21t or 14t) would go further with heavier load. Someone should do a double check, probably some errors on numbers.

Cheers,
Adam
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:10 am

gloom wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Interesting data on recent UA and DL's proposals for their HND route:


There's something fundamentally wrong with these numbers.

If assumed fuel burn is similar, there's no way heavier frame (78J is definitely heavier than 359) with LOWER MTOW (depending on which variant Delta has/choose, 21t or 14t) would go further with heavier load. Someone should do a double check, probably some errors on numbers.

Cheers,
Adam


Well, from the airlines own numbers:

UA's 787-10 can carry 49800 + (71500-49800)/0.3 (30% load weight) = ~ 55.5t over 4750nm winter (assuming that cargo load is average figure both ways for LAX-HND)

DL's A359 can carry 21800 (average westbound and eastbound) + (306*235lbs/pax) = ~42.5t over 5600nm in winter.

From what I gather of these numbers, I'd say that UA's 78Js are beating spec pretty significantly, flying at very near MZFW to that range is approximately an hour further than the official charts say it can do, so they're either lighter than expected or getting better fuel burn than expected.

DL's A359s on the other hand.... Let's just say Delta would have good reason to be not happy at Airbus if those numbers reflect what they are seeing IRL.

Here's how UA's 77E compares: 42500 + (61300-42500)/0.3 = ~48t over 5800nm in winter (now before anyone attacks me, this is likely best case scenario for the 77E, it carries significantly less payload on the other routes to HND such as EWR and IAD with similar route lengths)
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:46 am

moyangmm wrote:
Interesting data on recent UA and DL's proposals for their HND route:

UA 787-10 in the winter on LAX-HND is 5487sm = 4768nm; it can carry 49800lb = 22.6t cargo when LF is 100%
DL 359 in the winter on DTW-HND is 6427sm = 5584nm; it can carry 14879lb = 6.7t cargo when LF is 100%

If both 787-10 and 359 burn around 5.8t/hr and there is no cargo, 787-10 can fly 22.6/5.8t = 3.9 more hours and 359 can fly 6.7 can fly 1.15 more hours.
The speed is 0.85 mach = 566 nm / hours, so the range is

UA B787-10, full 318 pax + bags : 4768 + 566 * 3.9 = 6975.4 nm
DL A350-900, full 306 pax + bags : 5584 + 566 * 1.15 = 6234.9 nm

So even 787-10 has more payload/range than 359?

UA 787-10 on LAX-HND

Image

Image

DL 350-900 on DTW-HND

Image

Image

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2019-0014



You have clearly misread the slides.

UA is presenting the estimated total cargo in a round trip (LAX-HND-LAX).

So, the 49,800 pounds of cargo is actually carried in LAX-HND flight + HND-LAX flight in winter with a 100% load factor.

Let’s get to DL’s slide. If you want to have a fair comparison, add the cargo carried in DTW-HND to the cargo carried in HND-DTW (14,879 + 28,710 = 43,600).

So, we get:

UA’s 787-10 cargo in LAX-HND-LAX: 49,800 pounds
DL’s A359 cargo in DTW-HND-DTW: 43,600 pounds.

Now, A359’s segment is significantly longer. Let’s look at UA’s slide for a more similar route. We get ORD-HND-ORD carrying 32,000 pounds, which is 36% less cargo than what DL’s A359 can carry in a similar route.


Note that A359 burns slightly less fuel per hour than 78X based on those slides.

As others have said, there is no way 78X can carry more payload for more range with a 254t MTOW vs A359’s 275t mtow. We are talking about 21t difference here. Nothing can justify this looking at their very similar OEW’s and fuel burn per hour.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:04 am

Eyad89 wrote:


You have clearly misread the slides.

UA is presenting the estimated total cargo in a round trip (LAX-HND-LAX).

So, the 49,800 pounds of cargo is actually carried in LAX-HND flight + HND-LAX flight in winter with a 100% load factor.


That's not true, look at the change in cargo payload between 70% load factor and 100% load factors in UA's slides if you want to believe that leaving ~10t of pax (318*0.3*100kg) behind each segment only gets 10t of extra cargo payload for both segments combined feel free to do so, but that's an unconvincing argument to make.

This figure is probably the average for LAX-HND/HND-LAX, lower westbound, higher eastbound.

Eyad89 wrote:


Now, A359’s segment is significantly longer. Let’s look at UA’s slide for a more similar route. We get ORD-HND-ORD carrying 32,000 pounds, which is 36% less cargo than what DL’s A359 can carry in a similar route.



In the source, everything other than LAX-HND was assumed to be flown on a 77E in the UA paper (GUM-HND on a HD 772)

Eyad89 wrote:

Note that A359 burns slightly less fuel per hour than 78X based on those slides.


If one equates "fuel required" and "fuel burn" as referring to the exact same thing then yes.
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1171
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:14 am

Although it there was an intrensic performance issue, surely Qatari Al would have said something about it? Although suggesting an NEO is on the way could make airlines defer orders until that is available.
 
mig17
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:46 am

Does a UA pax on US to Asia weigh the same as a DL pax? Especially on the luggage policy.

edit, yes seems so, the difference between 100% and 70% LF is 10T for each ...
Last edited by mig17 on Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
majano
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:57 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:


You have clearly misread the slides.

UA is presenting the estimated total cargo in a round trip (LAX-HND-LAX).

So, the 49,800 pounds of cargo is actually carried in LAX-HND flight + HND-LAX flight in winter with a 100% load factor.


That's not true, look at the change in cargo payload between 70% load factor and 100% load factors in UA's slides if you want to believe that leaving ~10t of pax (318*0.3*100kg) behind each segment only gets 10t of extra cargo payload for both segments combined feel free to do so, but that's an unconvincing argument to make.

This figure is probably the average for LAX-HND/HND-LAX, lower westbound, higher eastbound.
.

Are you saying the UA slide is misleading then? That it claims to show data for a round-trip LAX-HND-LAX whilst it in fact shows data for LAX-HND? Put another way, you would rather believe that the 787-10 has better payload-range capabilities over the A350-900 than believe that UA is capable of presenting accurate data to regulators? Have you really thought about what you said, or are you blinded by your loyalties?
Last edited by majano on Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:45 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:

That's not true, look at the change in cargo payload between 70% load factor and 100% load factors in UA's slides if you want to believe that leaving ~10t of pax (318*0.3*100kg) behind each segment only gets 10t of extra cargo payload for both segments combined feel free to do so, but that's an unconvincing argument to make.

This figure is probably the average for LAX-HND/HND-LAX, lower westbound, higher eastbound.


Good point. The difference between 100% LF and 70%LF is the weight of 92 passengers.

If what you are saying is true, then there is something seriously wrong with the slide, or it could be simply talking about a frame that is not 78X. Let me explain:

MZFW = 192t
OEW = 136t
full pax = 31.8t

this leaves 24.2t before it hits MZFW

HND-LAX should have more cargo than LAX-HND, and if the average cargo is 22.6t based on that slide, then LAX-HND flight will exceed MZFW (based on FR24, LAX-HND is 1-2 hours longer than HND-LAX)

So this either isn't about 78X or it isn't the average of the two flights.

JustSomeDood wrote:
If one equates "fuel required" and "fuel burn" as referring to the exact same thing then yes.


They weren't referring to block fuel either. In this context, it seems that both UA and DL slides were referring to fuel per hour. It sounds like fuel burn to me. I could be wrong.

JustSomeDood wrote:
UA's 787-10 can carry 49800 + (71500-49800)/0.3 (30% load weight) = ~ 55.5t over 4750nm winter (assuming that cargo load is average figure both ways for LAX-HND)

DL's A359 can carry 21800 (average westbound and eastbound) + (306*235lbs/pax) = ~42.5t over 5600nm in winter.


How does that make any sense at all?

So, A359 has a higher MZFW and MTOW. In terms of weight and fuel consumption, they are equal.

Don't you feel something doesn't quite add up here? that could make sense if DL had a 253 MTOW variant that we didn't know about.

One more thing, It was discussed in the technical forum how a DL's A359 performed PEK-DTW with 48t of payload, which is a longer segment that HND-DTW. So in reality, they carried more payload than they had on their slide.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:47 pm

majano wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:


You have clearly misread the slides.

UA is presenting the estimated total cargo in a round trip (LAX-HND-LAX).

So, the 49,800 pounds of cargo is actually carried in LAX-HND flight + HND-LAX flight in winter with a 100% load factor.


That's not true, look at the change in cargo payload between 70% load factor and 100% load factors in UA's slides if you want to believe that leaving ~10t of pax (318*0.3*100kg) behind each segment only gets 10t of extra cargo payload for both segments combined feel free to do so, but that's an unconvincing argument to make.

This figure is probably the average for LAX-HND/HND-LAX, lower westbound, higher eastbound.
.

Are you saying the UA slide is misleading then? That it claims to show data for a round-trip LAX-HND-LAX whilst it in fact shows data for LAX-HND? Put another way, you would rather believe that the 787-10 has better payload-range capabilities over the A350-900 than believe that UA is capable of presenting accurate data to regulators? Have you really thought about what you said, or are you blinded by your loyalties?


Alright then, let's assume you are right and that the cargo figures for UA are for both ways combined. UA would then receive a very curt call from the regulators why they believe (318*2*0.3 (load factor difference both ways) )~= 191 pax only converts to 21700lbs of cargo payload, especially when rival Delta is trading off (306*2*0.3) ~=183 pax for ~43000lbs of cargo payload. I don't think UA would get away with making assumptions that each pax+bags is less than 115lbs but you do you I guess.

Instead of throwing out dumb ad hominems at me, maybe you should ask why Delta seem to think so low of their A359's capabilities.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos