moyangmm wrote:

sabby wrote:

Don't add that s, you bring one data point and choose to ignore many others when pointed out. Keep saying that a thousand more times, maybe that'll make it true Philippines Airlines must be flying empty aircraft on MNL-JFK or QR on DOH-ATL, or SQ on SIN-SFO !!

You do realize that SQ regular A359 only has 253 seats right? That is to block 60 seats. It has even less seats than UA's 789, which is already considered as low-density. Yes I have taken the SQ datapoint into account. That flight flying SFO-SIN (7339nm) is at 276t MTOW but can only carry 253 pax + bags, no cargo. How is that not underwhelming, compared to its advertised range (315 pax, 8100nm)?

How many seats need to be blocked in order to fly MNL-JFK and DOH-ATL?

All right, let's forget that airlines rarely fly at spec range or that more business and premium economy seats mean literally less space for regular economy which is not blocking seats.

I am going to use your own calculation - A359 at 276T flying 7339nm with 253 pax + bags (assume no cargo) and they are taking off at MTOW (which is not true but let's assume it is). So to add 70 more pax, we need to unload 7T of fuel which is around 1 hour+ flight time. A359 cruise speed is 488knots so the range becomes 7339nm-488nm = 6851nm. I assume you can do the match and figure out 6851nm is vastly greater than 6000nm you claimed ? Also, when you talk SQ A359 it is "blocking 60 seats" but when talking about UA 789, it is premium heavy, you'd be a great politician mate.

I really did not want to go off topic as this a 787 thread but you spreading the same nonsense everywhere is getting ridiculous. Please think and consider all the info available before reaching your conclusion.

From tech/ops forum graf calculated by Zeke in cooperation with thepinkmachine.


789 A359

DOW 127t 135t
Res fuel 8t 8t
Payload 40t 40t
Landing weight 175t 183t

https://ibb.co/juNSiA

Please keep the thread on topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

moyangmm wrote:

sabby wrote:

Don't add that s, you bring one data point and choose to ignore many others when pointed out. Keep saying that a thousand more times, maybe that'll make it true Philippines Airlines must be flying empty aircraft on MNL-JFK or QR on DOH-ATL, or SQ on SIN-SFO !!

You do realize that SQ regular A359 only has 253 seats right? That is to block 60 seats. It has even less seats than UA's 789, which is already considered as low-density. Yes I have taken the SQ datapoint into account. That flight flying SFO-SIN (7339nm) is at 276t MTOW but can only carry 253 pax + bags, no cargo. How is that not underwhelming, compared to its advertised range (315 pax, 8100nm)?

How many seats need to be blocked in order to fly MNL-JFK and DOH-ATL?

You have everything twisted, the UA 789 has 252 seats. PR, and PR, and even Hong Kong Airlines must be flying empty planes. Oh and MH must block seats on KUL-LHR then, why hasn’t the A359 been put out of production, evidently an A330-200 at 242t can do more, this is ridiculous.

moyangmm wrote:

sabby wrote:

Don't add that s, you bring one data point and choose to ignore many others when pointed out. Keep saying that a thousand more times, maybe that'll make it true Philippines Airlines must be flying empty aircraft on MNL-JFK or QR on DOH-ATL, or SQ on SIN-SFO !!

You do realize that SQ regular A359 only has 253 seats right? That is to block 60 seats. It has even less seats than UA's 789, which is already considered as low-density. Yes I have taken the SQ datapoint into account. That flight flying SFO-SIN (7339nm) is at 276t MTOW but can only carry 253 pax + bags, no cargo. How is that not underwhelming, compared to its advertised range (315 pax, 8100nm)?

How many seats need to be blocked in order to fly MNL-JFK and DOH-ATL?

You are the fact god here stating multiple unequivocal things, you should know. Surprised you haven’t mentioned anything about the 787-10 replacing the A350-1000

LAX772LR wrote:

sabby wrote:

travelhound wrote:

"While its current 787-9 fleet is not able to make New York or Sao Paulo, Boeing is working on increasing the 787-9s maximum takeoff weight by around 10% or 2.5 tones.

Wait what ? Even the 787-10 can do that with max payload.

They're talking about AKL-NYC, AKL-GRU, neither of which the 78X can realistically do.

789 should be able to comfortably do AKL-GRU, but there may be additional operational specs/routings that make it difficult for NZ specifically.

I find it weird that they haven't tried AKL-NYC. It's shorter than PER-LHR, so the 789 could do it. Pretty sure winds are also favorable compared to it though I definitely may be wrong

78J HGW will probably not get built IMHO. A350 will be too far embedded in the old 772 space by then to make it worthwhile. Boeing's solution is the 778 for that. We will have to see how well that big CFRP wing works. I am suspecting it will work quite well.

DylanHarvey wrote:

Surprised you haven’t mentioned anything about the 787-10 replacing the A350-1000

This news doesn't mention if the MTOW increase can be applied to 787-10. I think in the future it can. I also think 2.5t is not enough to replace 35k yet, but with further increase this is possible.

moyangmm wrote:

Also people tend to ignore that A350-900 performs much worse in real world than its ACAP. There are data points of DL A359's real world performance on PEK-DTW suggesting that 275t A359's real world range is at best around 6000nm with full passenger + bags (~300) and no cargo. That is not even close to a B789 before the MTOW increase! A 2.5t MTOW increase on 789 will further widen that gap.

We just had a post in the TechOps forum noting a newly-delivered A350-900 flew an 11h30m mission with 60,000kg of payload at a 272,000kg TOW, which is comparable to the 12h15m flight time for DL188 (per a trip report I looked up).

And we have reports that Philippine Airlines is doing 17 hour missions between MNL and JFK at 278,000kg with minimal payload hits.

We already had a thread locked after a 789 vs. A359 MTOW conversation devolved. That doesn't need to be continued here IMO.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

We already had a thread locked after a 789 vs. A359 MTOW conversation devolved. That doesn't need to be continued here IMO.

If Boeing can add anything to the MTOW without doing major work, as appears to be the case here, it is silly not to do it. Even if it does not appreciably add to the range it adds to payload at extreme range. As I understand it the structural work is already done.

moyangmm wrote:

Airlines0613 wrote:

That’s because it subbed a 788 for the flight, so obviously it’s not going to take a full load when the aircraft wasn’t actually scheduled for that flight.

If I recall, someone on the IAD-PEK 78J flight forum posted that the aircraft landed with a couple of tons left in the tank and the aircraft wasn’t near MTOW. A lot of people agreed that the 78J was performing better than expected. If the 789 can do LAX/SFO-SIN and IAH-SYD, I’m pretty sure it can do HKG-EWR no problem.

What it sounds to me is that you’re an biased Airbus fanboy and ignore some of the facts that are provided on the forums.

Also people tend to ignore that A350-900 performs much worse in real world than its ACAP. There are data points of DL A359's real world performance on PEK-DTW suggesting that 275t A359's real world range is at best around 6000nm with full passenger + bags (~300) and no cargo. That is not even close to a B789 before the MTOW increase! A 2.5t MTOW increase on 789 will further widen that gap.

Where did you get that info?

Now their main problem is with the fact that they can't go through antarctica because of the ETOPS. Would Boeing also work to increase the ETOPS to make sure these routes could go through a more flexible routing then?

OA940 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

sabby wrote:

Wait what ? Even the 787-10 can do that with max payload.

They're talking about AKL-NYC, AKL-GRU, neither of which the 78X can realistically do.

789 should be able to comfortably do AKL-GRU, but there may be additional operational specs/routings that make it difficult for NZ specifically.

I find it weird that they haven't tried AKL-NYC. It's shorter than PER-LHR, so the 789 could do it. Pretty sure winds are also favorable compared to it though I definitely may be wrong

Despite NZ aircraft on routes to the USA having larger Premium classes, the airline is still very leisure and cargo focused in its business model. NZ’s business model is significantly different from QF’s, and particularly on PER-LHR which focuses on hauling fewer premiere pax and bags.

The current NZ 789 cannot make EWR/JFK-AKL with a profitable and sustainable load for NZ. This is the reason the airline is looking for a new aircraft (potentially an extended range 789) for routes to/from AKL including NYC, ORD, IAH, GRU and YVR.

Motorhussy wrote:

OA940 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

They're talking about AKL-NYC, AKL-GRU, neither of which the 78X can realistically do.

789 should be able to comfortably do AKL-GRU, but there may be additional operational specs/routings that make it difficult for NZ specifically.

I find it weird that they haven't tried AKL-NYC. It's shorter than PER-LHR, so the 789 could do it. Pretty sure winds are also favorable compared to it though I definitely may be wrong

Despite NZ aircraft on routes to the USA having larger Premium classes, the airline is still very leisure and cargo focused in its business model. NZ’s business model is significantly different from QF’s, and particularly on PER-LHR which focuses on hauling fewer premiere pax and bags.

The current NZ 789 cannot make EWR/JFK-AKL with a profitable and sustainable load for NZ. This is the reason the airline is looking for a new aircraft (potentially an extended range 789) for routes to/from AKL including NYC, ORD, IAH, GRU and YVR.

Wait, why wouldn't it be able to do YVR? I mean AC flies the quite longer YVR-BNE with the 789, and I think are starting AKL with the 788. The only reason I can see for them not being able to start YVR is because of demand (or lack thereof). I can understand why they'd like to have a higher-MTOW 789 for ORD and IAH though.

aerohottie wrote:

moyangmm wrote:

I wonder if the new MTOW can be applied to 787-10 as well. With this increased MTOW 787-10 will dominate A350 both in terms of payload-range and fuel economy.

It wont do either of those things, but nice try

It'll swamp A350 on fuel efficiency but not in payload-range.

OA940 wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

OA940 wrote:

I find it weird that they haven't tried AKL-NYC. It's shorter than PER-LHR, so the 789 could do it. Pretty sure winds are also favorable compared to it though I definitely may be wrong

Despite NZ aircraft on routes to the USA having larger Premium classes, the airline is still very leisure and cargo focused in its business model. NZ’s business model is significantly different from QF’s, and particularly on PER-LHR which focuses on hauling fewer premiere pax and bags.

The current NZ 789 cannot make EWR/JFK-AKL with a profitable and sustainable load for NZ. This is the reason the airline is looking for a new aircraft (potentially an extended range 789) for routes to/from AKL including NYC, ORD, IAH, GRU and YVR.

Wait, why wouldn't it be able to do YVR? I mean AC flies the quite longer YVR-BNE with the 789, and I think are starting AKL with the 788. The only reason I can see for them not being able to start YVR is because of demand (or lack thereof). I can understand why they'd like to have a higher-MTOW 789 for ORD and IAH though.

They can use the current N American configured 789 on the route but have always used the 77E instead. This presumably is because the load it hauls on that sector is more profitable with the more load capable Boeing.

The 77E fleet is what the airline is currently looking at replacing.

BTW, NZ currently uses the N American configured (premium heavier) 789 on AKL-ORD as the route gets established and the airline experiences lighter leadings. Should the route prove more successful, they’ll probably need a more capable aircraft.

NB, BNE is only 500km’s further than AKL from YVR.

ILS28ORD wrote:

Does this update put ORD/JFK/LHR within range of SYD for the 789? Or is it still too far?

Way too far for 789 but Boeing could try with 778. After all, that's what 778 is for.

Airlines0613 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

It wont do either of those things, but nice try

Indeed, no way in hell could 787-10 do things like HKG-EWR without major (i.e. some 20 ton instead of 2.5t) MTOW increase or forget about majority of your payload in that case. Even the UA IAD-PEK sub carries significantly lower load than what is optimised for -10. Better chance with -9 but apparently still not optimal as far as it goes currently.

Michael

That’s because it subbed a 788 for the flight, so obviously it’s not going to take a full load when the aircraft wasn’t actually scheduled for that flight.

If I recall, someone on the IAD-PEK 78J flight forum posted that the aircraft landed with a couple of tons left in the tank and the aircraft wasn’t near MTOW. A lot of people agreed that the 78J was performing better than expected. If the 789 can do LAX/SFO-SIN and IAH-SYD, I’m pretty sure it can do HKG-EWR no problem.

What it sounds to me is that you’re an biased Airbus fanboy and ignore some of the facts that are provided on the forums.

Thank you for your biased opinion regarding myself. Am I a fanboy of A more than B? Yes certainly. However I am certainly aware of more facts which made me make those comments - and I'm certainly aware of the sub and the load for the flight - this credit goes to jayunited.

First they landed with less than expected fuel amount, and second flying EWR-HKG is a longer flight than IAD-PEK will ever be. With 789 consuming 5-5.5t fuel per hour, and the extra two hours' flight time means you need to carry at least an extra 10t fuel, plus the reserve and contingency - and we're talking about 789 which supposedly has a lower fuel consumption than 78X. IIRC jayunited mentioned it took off with the ability to carry roughly an extra 15t before they reach MTOW - only if you bother doing a bit of calculation at all.

Call me whatever you like, but you can't change facts.

Michael

ewt340 wrote:

Where did you get that info?

I know I already responded myself, but please just let it lie or we'll end up seeing this thread locked, as well.

Stitch wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Where did you get that info?

I know I already responded myself, but please just let it lie or we'll end up seeing this thread locked, as well.

It indeed looks like that case.

Michael

OA940 wrote:

Motorhussy wrote:

OA940 wrote:

I find it weird that they haven't tried AKL-NYC. It's shorter than PER-LHR, so the 789 could do it. Pretty sure winds are also favorable compared to it though I definitely may be wrong

Despite NZ aircraft on routes to the USA having larger Premium classes, the airline is still very leisure and cargo focused in its business model. NZ’s business model is significantly different from QF’s, and particularly on PER-LHR which focuses on hauling fewer premiere pax and bags.

The current NZ 789 cannot make EWR/JFK-AKL with a profitable and sustainable load for NZ. This is the reason the airline is looking for a new aircraft (potentially an extended range 789) for routes to/from AKL including NYC, ORD, IAH, GRU and YVR.

Wait, why wouldn't it be able to do YVR? I mean AC flies the quite longer YVR-BNE with the 789, and I think are starting AKL with the 788. The only reason I can see for them not being able to start YVR is because of demand (or lack thereof). I can understand why they'd like to have a higher-MTOW 789 for ORD and IAH though.

Actually Brisbane is with a 788 and Melbourne is with 789

eamondzhang wrote:

Airlines0613 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Indeed, no way in hell could 787-10 do things like HKG-EWR without major (i.e. some 20 ton instead of 2.5t) MTOW increase or forget about majority of your payload in that case. Even the UA IAD-PEK sub carries significantly lower load than what is optimised for -10. Better chance with -9 but apparently still not optimal as far as it goes currently.

Michael

That’s because it subbed a 788 for the flight, so obviously it’s not going to take a full load when the aircraft wasn’t actually scheduled for that flight.

If I recall, someone on the IAD-PEK 78J flight forum posted that the aircraft landed with a couple of tons left in the tank and the aircraft wasn’t near MTOW. A lot of people agreed that the 78J was performing better than expected. If the 789 can do LAX/SFO-SIN and IAH-SYD, I’m pretty sure it can do HKG-EWR no problem.

What it sounds to me is that you’re an biased Airbus fanboy and ignore some of the facts that are provided on the forums.

Thank you for your biased opinion regarding myself. Am I a fanboy of A more than B? Yes certainly. However I am certainly aware of more facts which made me make those comments - and I'm certainly aware of the sub and the load for the flight - this credit goes to jayunited.

First they landed with less than expected fuel amount, and second flying EWR-HKG is a longer flight than IAD-PEK will ever be. With 789 consuming 5-5.5t fuel per hour, and the extra two hours' flight time means you need to carry at least an extra 10t fuel, plus the reserve and contingency - and we're talking about 789 which supposedly has a lower fuel consumption than 78X. IIRC jayunited mentioned it took off with the ability to carry roughly an extra 15t before they reach MTOW - only if you bother doing a bit of calculation at all.

Call me whatever you like, but you can't change facts.

Michael

The 78J should have fairly similar fuel burn as the 789 as both have the same MTOW. SFO-SIN will always be longer than EWR-HKG will ever be. Did you forget that all of UA’s ULH routes face the same headwinds when heading westbound? Yet, UA only has to block a few seat on the SIN-SFO flight. You’re logic is flawed, which proves how biased you are against the 787.

I can agree we are both biased, but other source say otherwise from what you’re stating. That’s fine by me though, you can think whatever you want.

Airlines0613 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Airlines0613 wrote:

That’s because it subbed a 788 for the flight, so obviously it’s not going to take a full load when the aircraft wasn’t actually scheduled for that flight.

If I recall, someone on the IAD-PEK 78J flight forum posted that the aircraft landed with a couple of tons left in the tank and the aircraft wasn’t near MTOW. A lot of people agreed that the 78J was performing better than expected. If the 789 can do LAX/SFO-SIN and IAH-SYD, I’m pretty sure it can do HKG-EWR no problem.

What it sounds to me is that you’re an biased Airbus fanboy and ignore some of the facts that are provided on the forums.

Thank you for your biased opinion regarding myself. Am I a fanboy of A more than B? Yes certainly. However I am certainly aware of more facts which made me make those comments - and I'm certainly aware of the sub and the load for the flight - this credit goes to jayunited.

First they landed with less than expected fuel amount, and second flying EWR-HKG is a longer flight than IAD-PEK will ever be. With 789 consuming 5-5.5t fuel per hour, and the extra two hours' flight time means you need to carry at least an extra 10t fuel, plus the reserve and contingency - and we're talking about 789 which supposedly has a lower fuel consumption than 78X. IIRC jayunited mentioned it took off with the ability to carry roughly an extra 15t before they reach MTOW - only if you bother doing a bit of calculation at all.

Call me whatever you like, but you can't change facts.

Michael

The 78J should have fairly similar fuel burn as the 789 as both have the same MTOW. SFO-SIN will always be longer than EWR-HKG will ever be. Did you forget that all of UA’s ULH routes face the same headwinds when heading westbound? Yet, UA only has to block a few seat on the SIN-SFO flight. You’re logic is flawed, which proves how biased you are against the 787.

I can agree we are both biased, but other source say otherwise from what you’re stating. That’s fine by me though, you can think whatever you want.

Actually, most lf the time, the westbound SFO-SIN can take full passengers, plus some cargo (up to about 7 tons).

majano wrote:

You are taking this discussion way off-topic whilst there are numerous open threads discussing the subject. Can you point out where a reliable source stated that the 789 can fly SFO-SIN in the winter without blocking seats? I have followed this discussion very closely over the years, and I can assure you that your claims are baseless.

There are multiple reports saying that 789 is doing SFO-SIN westbound with full passengers plus some cargo in this forum.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Actually, most lf the time, the westbound SFO-SIN can take full passengers, plus some cargo (up to about 7 tons).

SFO-SIN is within the range of 789. I don't understand why people refuse to accept this fact.

I wonder if 789 can do LAX-SIN with full passengers with the new MTOW.

LAX772LR wrote:

Standard A359s have subbed on the LAX-SIN route for SQ, and have even taken on more pax.

If standard 359 subbed a 161-seat ULR, it at most had 161 passenger on board, right?

moyangmm wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Standard A359s have subbed on the LAX-SIN route for SQ, and have even taken on more pax.

If standard 359 subbed a 161-seat ULR, it at most had 161 passenger on board, right?

They will sell more seats, since there are more available. The 276t can do LAX-SIN with around ~30t payload, might not even need MTOW. SFO-SIN doesn’t need MTOW often.

moyangmm wrote:

majano wrote:

You are taking this discussion way off-topic whilst there are numerous open threads discussing the subject. Can you point out where a reliable source stated that the 789 can fly SFO-SIN in the winter without blocking seats? I have followed this discussion very closely over the years, and I can assure you that your claims are baseless.

There are multiple reports saying that 789 is doing SFO-SIN westbound with full passengers plus some cargo in this forum.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Actually, most lf the time, the westbound SFO-SIN can take full passengers, plus some cargo (up to about 7 tons).

SFO-SIN is within the range of 789. I don't understand why people refuse to accept this fact.

I wonder if 789 can do LAX-SIN with full passengers with the new MTOW.

I hear ya. I believe it’s Jayunited who has provided the numbers and it has no issues flying west to Singapore, except on the worst winter days (bad winds).

Moyangmm, you are a little optimisitic regarding the 787 capabilities. This is coming from someone who often gets called a Boeing fanboy.

The A350-900 can indeed fly much further than the 787-9 with the same payload.

While the A350-900 has a weigh around 8T heavier it has a MTOW 26T higher than the 787-9. Simple math means with the same payload the A350-900 can then carry around 18T more fuel. Percentage wise that works out that the 280T A350 can carry around 20% more fuel than the 787-9.

Now i agree the A350-900 burns more fuel per hour than the 787-9 but it definitely is not more than 10% more. Even taking the highest estimate of 10% that still allows the A350-900 to fly up to 10% further with the same payload as it can carry 20% more fuel.

My accurate estimate is that the A350-900 burns very close to 8% more fuel with similar payload weight as the 787-9. This is actually a big advantage to the 787-9 on long thin flights.

Payload range wise the 254T 787-9 equals the A350-900 at a takeoff weight of around 270T. So when the A350-900 takes off at 275, 278 or 280T that is extra cargo or fuel to fly further.

The 787-9 vs A350-900 280T can be described as the following:

1) The A350-900 burns 8% more fuel flying the same payload weight the same distance.
2) The A350-900 can carry the same payload 10% further.
3) At any given range the A350 can carry 10% more payload.

Depending on the airline and the route one aircraft will be better than the other.

If an airline has a flight only 6000nm long and it has no cargo contracts then the 787-9 wins as the airline will take the fuel burn advantage.

If an airline does have cargo contracts then it can fill the A350 with extra cargo that offsets the extra fuel burn. The A350 has the advantage here.

If an airline has an ultra long haul flight with 250 seats and no bags the A350-900 can fly 10% further. If the route is long enough then it might reach a point where it is only possible with the A350-900.

RJMAZ wrote:

Moyangmm, you are a little optimisitic regarding the 787 capabilities. This is coming from someone who often gets called a Boeing fanboy.

The A350-900 can indeed fly much further than the 787-9 with the same payload.

While the A350-900 has a weigh around 8T heavier it has a MTOW 26T higher than the 787-9. Simple math means with the same payload the A350-900 can then carry around 18T more fuel. Percentage wise that works out that the 280T A350 can carry around 20% more fuel than the 787-9.

Now i agree the A350-900 burns more fuel per hour than the 787-9 but it definitely is not more than 10% more. Even taking the highest estimate of 10% that still allows the A350-900 to fly up to 10% further with the same payload as it can carry 20% more fuel.

My accurate estimate is that the A350-900 burns very close to 8% more fuel with similar payload weight as the 787-9. This is actually a big advantage to the 787-9 on long thin flights.

Payload range wise the 254T 787-9 equals the A350-900 at a takeoff weight of around 270T. So when the A350-900 takes off at 275, 278 or 280T that is extra cargo or fuel to fly further.

The 787-9 vs A350-900 280T can be described as the following:

1) The A350-900 burns 8% more fuel flying the same payload weight the same distance.
2) The A350-900 can carry the same payload 10% further.
3) At any given range the A350 can carry 10% more payload.

Depending on the airline and the route one aircraft will be better than the other.

If an airline has a flight only 6000nm long and it has no cargo contracts then the 787-9 wins as the airline will take the fuel burn advantage.

If an airline does have cargo contracts then it can fill the A350 with extra cargo that offsets the extra fuel burn. The A350 has the advantage here.

If an airline has an ultra long haul flight with 250 seats and no bags the A350-900 can fly 10% further. If the route is long enough then it might reach a point where it is only possible with the A350-900.

You have been told time and again that there is nothing like 10% difference between the 787-9 and the A350-900, in fact the A350-900 burns less block fuel than the 787-9 on longer state lenghts when the same payload mass is carried. This is simply due to the A350-900 being optimised with a larger wing for longer lengths.

This data has been presented and peer reviewed from actual performance data in the tech ops thread
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387&start=100

You were an active participant on that thread and were told multiple times your claims of 10% are baseless.

Please cease the silly claims.

eamondzhang wrote:

Airlines0613 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Indeed, no way in hell could 787-10 do things like HKG-EWR without major (i.e. some 20 ton instead of 2.5t) MTOW increase or forget about majority of your payload in that case. Even the UA IAD-PEK sub carries significantly lower load than what is optimised for -10. Better chance with -9 but apparently still not optimal as far as it goes currently.

Michael

That’s because it subbed a 788 for the flight, so obviously it’s not going to take a full load when the aircraft wasn’t actually scheduled for that flight.

If I recall, someone on the IAD-PEK 78J flight forum posted that the aircraft landed with a couple of tons left in the tank and the aircraft wasn’t near MTOW. A lot of people agreed that the 78J was performing better than expected. If the 789 can do LAX/SFO-SIN and IAH-SYD, I’m pretty sure it can do HKG-EWR no problem.

What it sounds to me is that you’re an biased Airbus fanboy and ignore some of the facts that are provided on the forums.

Thank you for your biased opinion regarding myself. Am I a fanboy of A more than B? Yes certainly. However I am certainly aware of more facts which made me make those comments - and I'm certainly aware of the sub and the load for the flight - this credit goes to jayunited.

First they landed with less than expected fuel amount, and second flying EWR-HKG is a longer flight than IAD-PEK will ever be. With 789 consuming 5-5.5t fuel per hour, and the extra two hours' flight time means you need to carry at least an extra 10t fuel, plus the reserve and contingency - and we're talking about 789 which supposedly has a lower fuel consumption than 78X. IIRC jayunited mentioned it took off with the ability to carry roughly an extra 15t before they reach MTOW - only if you bother doing a bit of calculation at all.

Call me whatever you like, but you can't change facts.

Michael

Jayunited's data from the IAD-PEK trip shows the 78J carrying ~26t on a 6000nm trip at 16t below MTOW, it's not far fetched at all to say that it can carry at least that amount of payload 2 more hours (for EWR-HKG) , and this was with the trip heading westbound in winter..

This data is from BTS, Jan-Aug 2018.
Comparison between A359 (obviously SQ) and B789 (obviously UA).

PAYLOAD is defined as "available payload", so it is not an actual payload each time.
So 47.7t for 359 seems a reasonable number.

JustSomeDood wrote:

Jayunited's data from the IAD-PEK trip shows the 78J carrying ~26t on a 6000nm trip at 16t below MTOW, it's not far fetched at all to say that it can carry at least that amount of payload 2 more hours (for EWR-HKG) , and this was with the trip heading westbound in winter..

Thought I remember a similar figure like that. Also with 789 burns about 5.5t fuel per hour so there won't be much left factoring in the diversion fuel and contingency.

Airlines0613 wrote:

The 78J should have fairly similar fuel burn as the 789 as both have the same MTOW. SFO-SIN will always be longer than EWR-HKG will ever be. Did you forget that all of UA’s ULH routes face the same headwinds when heading westbound? Yet, UA only has to block a few seat on the SIN-SFO flight. You’re logic is flawed, which proves how biased you are against the 787.

I can agree we are both biased, but other source say otherwise from what you’re stating. That’s fine by me though, you can think whatever you want.

No matter what you tried to claim, math is math. Did someone forget to tell you how to add numbers? With 16t left as per the IAD-PEK sample, two more hours' flight means at least 11t of fuel, and that's using 789 fuel burn. If you don't believe my number re fuel burn, go ask anyone who flies the plane. I do read plenty of flight plans to know how much roughly a 789 burns per hour. Heck there's been so many discussions about PER-LHR burning about 92-95t of fuel, and you choose to ignore the fact right?

And also mind you that 787-10 has a higher thrust engine, longer fuselage and so the fuel consumption can only be higher.

Michael

eamondzhang wrote:

No matter what you tried to claim, math is math. Did someone forget to tell you how to add numbers? With 16t left as per the IAD-PEK sample, two more hours' flight means at least 11t of fuel, and that's using 789 fuel burn. If you don't believe my number re fuel burn, go ask anyone who flies the plane. I do read plenty of flight plans to know how much roughly a 789 burns per hour. Heck there's been so many discussions about PER-LHR burning about 92-95t of fuel, and you choose to ignore the fact right?

And also mind you that 787-10 has a higher thrust engine, longer fuselage and so the fuel consumption can only be higher.

Michael

Well that plane is 16t below MTOW. I agree that 787-10's fuel burn is a little bit higher than 789's. But even then you are saying with 16t worth of fuel, 78J can't fly 2 hours more?

moyangmm wrote:

Also people tend to ignore that A350-900 performs much worse in real world than its ACAP. There are data points of DL A359's real world performance on PEK-DTW suggesting that 275t A359's real world range is at best around 6000nm with full passenger + bags (~300) and no cargo. That is not even close to a B789 before the MTOW increase! A 2.5t MTOW increase on 789 will further widen that gap.

So I looked at the 2018 BTS data for Delta PEK-DTW.



On July PEK-DTW, with 95% passenger load factor, carried 11 tons of cargo.
On June DTW-PEK, with 98% passenger load factor (this is incredible), carried 3 tons of cargo.



Now this is even longer, for ICN-ATL (7153mi, 6215nmi).

On April ICN-ATL, with 94% pax load factor, carried 8.65 tons of cargo.

So the real data suggests that Delta A359 carries more and flies longer than you claim.

ITSTours wrote:

Now this is even longer, for ICN-ATL (7153mi, 6215nmi).

On April ICN-ATL, with 94% pax load factor, carried 8.65 tons of cargo.

So the real data suggests that Delta A359 carries more and flies longer than you claim.

Thanks for the data! I corrected myself in this thread (may have been deleted) that 359 can fly around 6800 nm, not 6000 nm, with full pax + bags and no cargo.

Your data seems to agree with what I said: if you replace that 8.6t cargo with fuel and adding 6% passengers, you get the same conclusion as I did--6800 nm, full passenger + bags, no cargo.

Still, that is not impressive at all. This is a plane Airbus claims to be able to fly 8100nm with 325 passengers.

My conclusion doesn't seem to be wrong: when carrying full cabin of passenger without cargo 787-9 is a 7600nm plane, and 275t A359 is a 6800nm plane.

ITSTours wrote:

Thank you!

If you compare 789 and 359 on SFO-SIN:

A359: 207 passengers + 0.58t cargo
B789: 215 passengers + 3.23t cargo

Let's assume each passenger plus bags is 100kg and replace cargo with passengers:

A359: 207 + 6 = 213 passengers
B789: 215 + 32 = 248 passengers

So in order to fly SFO-SIN westbound, UA 789 needs to block 252-248 = 4 seats. SQ 359 needs to block 253-213 = 40 seats!

Doesn't this confirm what I said?

moyangmm wrote:

ITSTours wrote:

Now this is even longer, for ICN-ATL (7153mi, 6215nmi).

On April ICN-ATL, with 94% pax load factor, carried 8.65 tons of cargo.

So the real data suggests that Delta A359 carries more and flies longer than you claim.

Thanks for the data! I corrected myself in this thread (may have been deleted) that 359 can fly around 6800 nm, not 6000 nm, with full pax + bags and no cargo.

Your data seems to agree with what I said: if you replace that 8.6t cargo with fuel and adding 6% passengers, you get the same conclusion as I did--6800 nm, full passenger + bags, no cargo.

Still, that is not impressive at all. This is a plane Airbus claims to be able to fly 8100nm with 325 passengers.

My conclusion doesn't seem to be wrong: when carrying full cabin of passenger without cargo 787-9 is a 7600nm plane, and 275t A359 is a 6800nm plane.

Real world data ≠ The upper limit. Your largest confusion is here.

SQ configured its A359 with 253 seats not because A359 couldn't fly longer with higher pax, but because they chose to do so.

SQ chose to put only C and PY in A359ULR not because A359ULR can't carry more than 160 pax, but because O Lord nobody wants to fly 19 hours in economy.

DL carried 8.6t cargo not because it couldn't carry more, but because that really depends on the cargo demand, which we never know from the table above.

ITSTours wrote:

Real world data ≠ The upper limit. Your largest confusion is here.

SQ configured its A359 with 253 seats not because A359 couldn't fly longer with higher pax, but because they chose to do so.

SQ chose to put only C and PY in A359ULR not because A359ULR can't carry more than 160 pax, but because O Lord nobody wants to fly 19 hours in economy.

DL carried 8.6t cargo not because it couldn't carry more, but because that really depends on the cargo demand, which we never know from the table above.

I am not confused. If you are at the MTOW, you are certainly hitting the upper limit. The DL DTW-PEK flight report suggests that that flight is at MTOW. No you can't take more payload or fly farther if you are at MTOW.

Why SQ or DL chooses certain configuration is irrelevant.

zeke wrote:

You were an active participant on that thread and were told multiple times your claims of 10% are baseless.

Please cease the silly claims.

I also told you multiple times you are wrong.

Feel free to tell me a few more times and I will still disagree.

The A350-900 does not burn the same fuel per hour as the smaller and lighter 787-9. There are dozens of real world flights showing the payload weights and fuel loadings. The 787-9 always burns considerably less.

Once you take into account the 8T empty weight and 26T MTOW increase the A350 has 18T of extra fuel or payload. The A350's aren't flying that much further or carrying that much more payload when compared to real world 787-9 flights.

moyangmm wrote:

If you are at the MTOW, you are certainly hitting the upper limit. The DL DTW-PEK flight report suggests that that flight is at MTOW. No you can't take more payload or fly farther if you are at MTOW.

Well with a 274,000kg TOW and 86,000kg of block fuel aboard, that meant DL188 had a ZFW of 188,000kg. Subtract the DOW (say ~140,000kg to account for catering and such and I'm probably still overestimating) that means it was lifting 48,000kg of payload - 22,000kg more than UA807 was carrying IAD-PEK.

moyangmm wrote:

ITSTours wrote:

Thank you!

If you compare 789 and 359 on SFO-SIN:

A359: 207 passengers + 0.58t cargo
B789: 215 passengers + 3.23t cargo

Let's assume each passenger plus bags is 100kg and replace cargo with passengers:

A359: 207 + 6 = 213 passengers
B789: 215 + 32 = 248 passengers

So in order to fly SFO-SIN westbound, UA 789 needs to block 252-248 = 4 seats. SQ 359 needs to block 253-213 = 40 seats!

Doesn't this confirm what I said?

Your claim practically means SQ SFO-SIN pax load factor is 97.18% on average (213 seats, 207.05 pax average) in every single month.
If true, they would print money out of this route.

But in the real world, no, they're not blocking seats that many, and there are indeed some months they carry 240 pax on average.
(edit: I mixed up origin and destination. Now fixed.)



BTS data are publicly available so I would very much recommend playing with this before making such a wild claim.
https://www.transtats.bts.gov/homepage.asp

Stitch wrote:

Well with a 274,000kg TOW and 86,000kg of block fuel aboard, that meant DL188 had a ZFW of 188,000kg. Subtract the DOW (say ~140,000kg to account for catering and such and I'm probably still overestimating) that means it was lifting 48,000kg of payload - 22,000kg more than UA807 was carrying IAD-PEK.

I am not disagreeing with you. But keep in mind that UA807 is 16,000kg below its MTOW and is flying a longer route (IAD-PEK, 6,014nm) than PEK-DTW (5,763nm). Also PEK-DTW has tail wind, IAD-PEK doesn't.

So DL188's payload advantage is only 22000-16000 = 6000kg but on a 300 nm shorter route.

moyangmm wrote:

ITSTours wrote:

Real world data ≠ The upper limit. Your largest confusion is here.

SQ configured its A359 with 253 seats not because A359 couldn't fly longer with higher pax, but because they chose to do so.

SQ chose to put only C and PY in A359ULR not because A359ULR can't carry more than 160 pax, but because O Lord nobody wants to fly 19 hours in economy.

DL carried 8.6t cargo not because it couldn't carry more, but because that really depends on the cargo demand, which we never know from the table above.

I am not confused. If you are at the MTOW, you are certainly hitting the upper limit. The DL DTW-PEK flight report suggests that that flight is at MTOW. No you can't take more payload or fly farther if you are at MTOW.

Why SQ or DL chooses certain configuration is irrelevant.

1. DTW-PVG (edit) is 438nmi farther than DTW-PEK, and DL is definitely flying them. How so?

2. Because BTS data is the real-world operational data, their configuration is really relevant, because the BTS data neither shows MTOW or the upper limit of the aircraft.

moyangmm wrote:

I am not disagreeing with you. But keep in mind that UA807 is 16,000kg below its MTOW and is flying a longer route (IAD-PEK, 6,014nm) than PEK-DTW (5,763nm). Also PEK-DTW has tail wind, IAD-PEK doesn't.

So DL188's payload advantage is only 22000-16000 = 6000kg but on a 300 nm shorter route.

Well UA807 would not be able to use the entire 16,000kg for payload. So real-world, DL188 would still have a 15-20% advantage and that is nothing to sneeze at.

RJMAZ wrote:

I also told you multiple times you are wrong.

Feel free to tell me a few more times and I will still disagree.

The A350-900 does not burn the same fuel per hour as the smaller and lighter 787-9. There are dozens of real world flights showing the payload weights and fuel loadings. The 787-9 always burns considerably less.

Once you take into account the 8T empty weight and 26T MTOW increase the A350 has 18T of extra fuel or payload. The A350's aren't flying that much further or carrying that much more payload when compared to real world 787-9 flights.

The problem is you pick and choose statistics to fit your agenda, rather than letting them speak for themselves.

Yes the MTOW of the A359 is 280 tonnes, however when I fly say IAD to HKG I am around 270 tonnes with a full passenger load and some cargo.

The data on tech ops has been peer reviewed, or thepinkmachine who operates the 787, and oldaeroguy have seen the results. Those results are for the same payload over the same distance.

OEW difference means nothing for lionger stage lengths if it means an aerodynamic advantage. The 787 is something like 30 tonnes heavier than a 767 but burns less fuel over longer stage lengths.

The data shows that the difference between the 787-9 and A359 when carrying the same payload mass over the same stage length is less than 1%.

If the 787-9 was 10% better, no one would buy an A359, as you can see from the market they are very competitive.

RJMAZ wrote:

My accurate estimate is that the A350-900 burns very close to 8% more fuel with similar payload weight as the 787-9. This is actually a big advantage to the 787-9 on long thin flights.

The 8% fuel burn difference was shown in flights where 789 carried significantly less payload than A359. The number has got to be less if considering similar payloads.

And I repeat, you are comparing to the older A359s that don’t have the latest aerodynamics and engine improvements.

moyangmm wrote:

majano wrote:

You are taking this discussion way off-topic whilst there are numerous open threads discussing the subject. Can you point out where a reliable source stated that the 789 can fly SFO-SIN in the winter without blocking seats? I have followed this discussion very closely over the years, and I can assure you that your claims are baseless.

There are multiple reports saying that 789 is doing SFO-SIN westbound with full passengers plus some cargo in this forum.

You clearly cannot produce anything to back your claim up. Yet, you have succeeded in turning this discussion upside down with impunity. .

ITSTours wrote:

BTS data are publicly available so I would very much recommend playing with this before making such a wild claim.
https://www.transtats.bts.gov/homepage.asp

Are those really worth the html they are presented in?