• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13638
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:29 pm

AECM wrote:
Hi Zeke. Just out of curiosity, and if you have some spare time, can you calculate how much payload could a Cathay A359 carry on a ATL-JNB route?


Had a look, with today’s conditions off 27R the takeoff would be limited to 274 tonnes, 09L 280 tonnes. One of our aircraft should be able to do full payload from ATL to JNB. I don’t know the fine details of DLs fuel policy, what catering they have, number of crew, empty weight etc. so I dont know what a DL A350 would lift.

fjhc wrote:
Going back a little way, and away from, erm, repetitive discussions, why was Canberra not available for use as a diversion? According to Wiki Qatar and Singapore both fly there with 777-300ERs, so the airport can clearly handle large aircraft.


Canberra despite being the capital city of Australia is a small city, it does not have full time customs and immigration presence. When we use it as an alternate we have to pay for those services to be available.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Keith2004
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:59 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:56 pm

AsiaTravel wrote:
airbazar wrote:
As I suspected, a DL A359 on this route would have had a really poor average load factor and generate less revenue due to its lower number of premium seats. This route is all about the premium passenger for DL, hence why they use the aircraft with the most amount of premium (or non-Y) seats. Better to use a 288-seat 77L with lots of premium seats than a 306-seat A359 with a large Y cabin. To me this is the real reason and answer to the OP's question.


Correct me if I'm wrong but the A359 has more premium seats than the 77L, unless you count Comfort+ as premium.
According to wiki:
A359: 32J48W226Y
B77L: 28J48W212Y

A359 has 5% more premium seats and 6.5% more economy seats.


I think the key there is that the overall total seats is also a factor. They would love to fill the additional 5% premium seats, but there would be a lot of additional empty economy seats to fill, 6.5% more, when based on load factors they are not filling the 777L as it is.

With actual loads of 236-248 wouldn't a plane with 288 (777) seats make more sense than 306 (359) seats?
Are the 4 extra premium seats worth flying with 58-70 empty seats?
Delta picked the right sized aircraft based on the data they have, that both the 777 and 359 have the range as has been established was likely not the deciding factor.
 
sabby
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored!?

Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:29 pm

zeke wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

I am not disagreeing with Zeke. CX A359 has only 280 seats whereas DL has 306 seats. I am not saying DL A359 can't fly LAX-SYD if they decides to block seats. I said it can't with full passenger.


As I mentioned above our payload capability IAD-HKG when using KHH as an alternate is around 42 tonnes, or 420 passengers. DL could take 306 passengers and 10+ tonnes of cargo.

We don’t need MTOW usually when leaving IAD.


Don't bother talking sense to that user, they have a broken record that keeps on harping in every thread and diluting contents. They don't even know that airlines list practical range not still air range in their websites.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9434
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:44 pm

AsiaTravel wrote:
airbazar wrote:
As I suspected, a DL A359 on this route would have had a really poor average load factor and generate less revenue due to its lower number of premium seats. This route is all about the premium passenger for DL, hence why they use the aircraft with the most amount of premium (or non-Y) seats. Better to use a 288-seat 77L with lots of premium seats than a 306-seat A359 with a large Y cabin. To me this is the real reason and answer to the OP's question.


Correct me if I'm wrong but the A359 has more premium seats than the 77L, unless you count Comfort+ as premium.
According to wiki:
A359: 32J48W226Y
B77L: 28J48W212Y

A359 has 5% more premium seats and 6.5% more economy seats.


Yes I'm counting Comfort+. Anything that is not a cramped Y seat is "premium" in my book.
 
fjhc
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:34 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:37 pm

zeke wrote:
fjhc wrote:
Going back a little way, and away from, erm, repetitive discussions, why was Canberra not available for use as a diversion? According to Wiki Qatar and Singapore both fly there with 777-300ERs, so the airport can clearly handle large aircraft.


Canberra despite being the capital city of Australia is a small city, it does not have full time customs and immigration presence. When we use it as an alternate we have to pay for those services to be available.


So it would have to be staffed on the off chance of a diversion? Or only if used as one?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13703
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:39 pm

zeke wrote:
AECM wrote:
Hi Zeke. Just out of curiosity, and if you have some spare time, can you calculate how much payload could a Cathay A359 carry on a ATL-JNB route?


Had a look, with today’s conditions off 27R the takeoff would be limited to 274 tonnes, 09L 280 tonnes. One of our aircraft should be able to do full payload from ATL to JNB. I don’t know the fine details of DLs fuel policy, what catering they have, number of crew, empty weight etc. so I dont know what a DL A350 would lift.


Does/would your 359s have tire speed issues getting out of JNB on JNB-ATL? That's generally the limiting issue on long routes ex-JNB.

Thanks, as always, for your insight.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
evanb
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:41 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
Does/would your 359s have tire speed issues getting out of JNB on JNB-ATL? That's generally the limiting issue on long routes ex-JNB.


The tire speed limit is not aircraft specific, but tire specific. Each tire is rated to a maximum speed. At higher air altitudes rotation speeds are higher and thus can get closer to the max speed.

The B777 has a max tire speed of 235mph while the A350 has 235mph and 245mph options. However, the A350 will likely have a lower rotation speed than a B777 at MTOW given its 'relatively' bigger wing, so it's less likely to be restricted by the tire speed limits.

Others with better knowledge might confirm or correct.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13703
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:51 am

evanb wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
Does/would your 359s have tire speed issues getting out of JNB on JNB-ATL? That's generally the limiting issue on long routes ex-JNB.


The tire speed limit is not aircraft specific, but tire specific. Each tire is rated to a maximum speed. At higher air altitudes rotation speeds are higher and thus can get closer to the max speed.

The B777 has a max tire speed of 235mph while the A350 has 235mph and 245mph options. However, the A350 will likely have a lower rotation speed than a B777 at MTOW given its 'relatively' bigger wing, so it's less likely to be restricted by the tire speed limits.

Others with better knowledge might confirm or correct.


This is helpful. Wouldn’t a 359 be closer to MTOW than a 77L on most long-ish routes, though? That somewhat cancels out the wing advantage the 359 has.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13638
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:59 am

fjhc wrote:
So it would have to be staffed on the off chance of a diversion? Or only if used as one?


From the AIP, unless they are staffed for a regular international movement, you will need to wait for staff to position to the airport, which can mean the crew that brought the aircraft in may time out.

Restricted Use International Airports
2.2.1 “Restricted Use International Airport” means an airport of entry and departure at which the formalities incident to Customs, immigration, and biosecurity and similar procedures are made available on a restricted basis, to flights with prior approval only. The airline or its agent/representatives may be responsible for covering additional expenses relating to the positioning of resources from another border agency base to a Restricted Use International Airport.

Canberra Clearances Available
Customs, immigration and biosecurity clearances services are provided to coincide with approved flights only.

2.3 Alternate Airports to International Airports
2.3.1 “Alternate Airport” means an airport specified in the flight plan to which a flight may proceed when it becomes inadvisable to land at the airport of intended landing (see also GEN 1.3 Section 5.). The Airline or its agent/representatives may be responsible for covering additional expenses relating to the positioning of resources from another border agency base to an Alternate Airport.

2.3 Alternate Airports to International Airports
2.3.1 “Alternate Airport” means an airport specified in the flight plan to which a flight may proceed when it becomes inadvisable to land at the airport of intended landing (see also GEN 1.3 Section 5.). The Airline or its agent/representatives may be responsible for covering additional expenses relating to the positioning of resources from another border agency base to an Alternate Airport.

Canberra Customs, immigration and biosecurity clearances are available if reasonable notification of diversion is given (but see GEN 1.3 para 6.4.1).

6.4 Canberra Airport
6.4.1 Biosecurity, customs and immigration. Biosecurity officers of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and ABF Officers of the Department of Home Affairs are not stationed permanently at Canberra Airport. The ACT Operational Command of the ABF will be responsible for coordinating the border agency response. It will establish ongoing communication with the airport, airline, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources biosecurity officers and Federal or State police if required.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13638
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:08 am

Cubsrule wrote:

This is helpful. Wouldn’t a 359 be closer to MTOW than a 77L on most long-ish routes, though? That somewhat cancels out the wing advantage the 359 has.


The 77L MTOW is 70,000 kg higher than the A359 MTOW. We joke at work how a fully loaded A359 is the same weight as an empty 77W.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2208
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:43 am

According to moyangmm, B747-400 wouldn't be able to make LAX-SYD either as it's manufacturer full passenger stated range was ~7,270nmi.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
moyangmm
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:53 am

Pellegrine wrote:
According to moyangmm, B747-400 wouldn't be able to make LAX-SYD either as it's manufacturer full passenger stated range was ~7,270nmi.


I do not understand what you are talking about. QF used 747-400ER, which has more range than regular 747-400. Even the regular 747-400 with 7270 nm (8366 miles) range can fly LAX-SYD.

Boeing's range is now very conservative (after they adjusted the range). You can see 787 outperforms all the time, like LAX-SIN, SFO-SIN, LHR-PER, etc.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2208
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:57 am

moyangmm wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
According to moyangmm, B747-400 wouldn't be able to make LAX-SYD either as it's manufacturer full passenger stated range was ~7,270nmi.


QF used 747-400ER, which has more range than regular 747-400.

Boeing's range is now very conservative (after they adjusted the range). You can see 787 outperforms all the time, like LAX-SIN, SFO-SIN, LHR-PER, etc.


And that was about 7,705 nautical miles for "Boeing full-pax" 747-400ER. You realize multiple airlines flew LAX-SYD with 747-400s for years. And RRs (QF) had very slightly worse range than GE/PW powered birds.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
moyangmm
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:06 am

Pellegrine wrote:

And that was about 7,705 nautical miles for "Boeing full-pax" 747-400ER. You realize multiple airlines flew LAX-SYD with 747-400s for years. And RRs (QF) had very slightly worse range than GE/PW powered birds.


Yes? 7200nm on-paper range is good enough for LAX-SYD. The problem with A350 is that its range falls short of 8000 miles (6951nm). Also, A359 can do LAX-SYD, but not with full passengers + bags in DL's configuration.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2428
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:12 am

moyangmm wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:

And that was about 7,705 nautical miles for "Boeing full-pax" 747-400ER. You realize multiple airlines flew LAX-SYD with 747-400s for years. And RRs (QF) had very slightly worse range than GE/PW powered birds.


Yes? 7200nm on-paper range is good enough for LAX-SYD. The problem with A350 is that its range falls short of 8000 miles (6951nm). Also, A359 can do LAX-SYD, but not with full passengers + bags in DL's configuration.


I wonder if DL are aware of how incompetent their negotiators are if they've ordered a plane that doesn't do what they've asked it to. Other airlines don't appear to have any problems with the A350's capabilities, and I think we'd have heard by now if the plane wasn't meeting specifications.

The A350 is a very capable aircraft, and that's demonstrated by real world operations, your assertion is very strange and has been refuted by multiple people. I think you're in the wrong on this one.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:23 am

MrHMSH wrote:
I wonder if DL are aware of how incompetent their negotiators are if they've ordered a plane that doesn't do what they've asked it to. Other airlines don't appear to have any problems with the A350's capabilities, and I think we'd have heard by now if the plane wasn't meeting specifications.

The A350 is a very capable aircraft, and that's demonstrated by real world operations, your assertion is very strange and has been refuted by multiple people. I think you're in the wrong on this one.


I am sure DL is well-aware of the capability of the planes they ordered: they list 8000 sm as the range of their A350. Who said it doesn't meet its spec? DL ordered it for shorter TPAC routes, and it does its job perfectly fine. However, ULH routes like LAX-SYD, is beyond its range.

I think A350 is a very capable aircraft for medium- to long-haul ops. It is just not a ULH plane some users here claim to be. It can't compete with something like 789.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17260
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:42 am

moyangmm wrote:

I am sure DL is well-aware of the capability of the planes they ordered: they list 8000 sm as the range of their A350. Who said it doesn't meet its spec? DL ordered it for shorter TPAC routes, and it does its job perfectly fine. However, ULH routes like LAX-SYD, is beyond its range.

I think A350 is a very capable aircraft for medium- to long-haul ops. It is just not a ULH plane some users here claim to be. It can't compete with something like 789.

That is my thoughts. DL ordered what they needed. A lower MTOW means a purchase discount, ATC savings, and small maintenance savings.

That said, it can be bought for ULH, but if that wasn't the sub-fleet purpose, deploy where best.

Lightsaber
You know nothing John Snow.
 
umichman
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:42 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:49 am

airbazar wrote:
AsiaTravel wrote:
airbazar wrote:
As I suspected, a DL A359 on this route would have had a really poor average load factor and generate less revenue due to its lower number of premium seats. This route is all about the premium passenger for DL, hence why they use the aircraft with the most amount of premium (or non-Y) seats. Better to use a 288-seat 77L with lots of premium seats than a 306-seat A359 with a large Y cabin. To me this is the real reason and answer to the OP's question.


Correct me if I'm wrong but the A359 has more premium seats than the 77L, unless you count Comfort+ as premium.
According to wiki:
A359: 32J48W226Y
B77L: 28J48W212Y

A359 has 5% more premium seats and 6.5% more economy seats.


Yes I'm counting Comfort+. Anything that is not a cramped Y seat is "premium" in my book.



DL is now flying 77L's with both PS and C+ cabins on LAX-SYD. The numbers above do not include C+ seats. The reconfigured cabins have 90 C+ seats in addition to 48 PS seats.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:54 am

zeke wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

This is helpful. Wouldn’t a 359 be closer to MTOW than a 77L on most long-ish routes, though? That somewhat cancels out the wing advantage the 359 has.


The 77L MTOW is 70,000 kg higher than the A359 MTOW. We joke at work how a fully loaded A359 is the same weight as an empty 77W.


Yet by some miracle they fly and actually make your employer money as well.

Surely the neigh sayer has been beaten down enough by the Airbus hierarchy here, despite his admirable, though futile resistance. It must be surely time to lock this thread and just accept that DL may know what they're doing, as they're the ones making truck loads of cash.
 
n7371f
Posts: 1522
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:14 am

Cargo
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13638
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:19 am

jupiter2 wrote:
Yet by some miracle they fly and actually make your employer money as well.

Surely the neigh sayer has been beaten down enough by the Airbus hierarchy here, despite his admirable, though futile resistance. It must be surely time to lock this thread and just accept that DL may know what they're doing, as they're the ones making truck loads of cash.


Sure they can make money on the correct city pairs, but it is no accident that 777s are being returned at the end of their leases by CX and others. CX does not own that many 777s.

The difference in fuel burn percentage wise between the 77L/W and A350-900/1000 is far greater than the difference between the 77L/W and the A340-500/600.

We would flying to JFK on the -600 and there was less than 10 tonnes block fuel difference to the 77W, the -900 is 20-30 tonnes less than the 77W. Often I carry more payload over the route than the 777. Recently I was flying almost the same route EWR and my friend was doing JFK departing at the same time, my flight time was 25 minutes less, burned 25 tonnes less fuel, and carried 7 tonnes more payload.

Boeing fans would say any airline that operated the A340 was in deep financial trouble, and those operating the 77W make the money. Yet we have seen a number of airlines drop the 77Ws, they are big aircraft to operate and lease, unless you have the demand for something that size you can burn cash very quickly.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
x1234
Topic Author
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:22 am

zeke, does CX carry any cargo on IAD-HKG!? Do you think the A350 can fly MIA/IAH/ATL-HKG with any meaningful payload?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13638
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:34 am

x1234 wrote:
zeke, does CX carry any cargo on IAD-HKG!? Do you think the A350 can fly MIA/IAH/ATL-HKG with any meaningful payload?


Yes we do lift cargo from IAD, in reality that route always has spare capacity.

I don’t think longer routes would happen before the new batch of A350s arrive, they are a few percent more efficient. MIA on one of those new batch aircraft would burn about the same as an EWR does today. I have no inside news to confirm any new ports are being looked at. My comment is purely based upon the technical differences.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sadiqutp
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:05 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:09 am

zeke wrote:
......... Recently I was flying almost the same route EWR and my friend was doing JFK departing at the same time, my flight time was 25 minutes less, burned 25 tonnes less fuel, and carried 7 tonnes more payload.
......

It's impressive what a couple of decades of engineering achieve when it comes to efficiency.
 
xwb565
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:54 am

From someone in the know- Dl's a359s have always been 275t mtow from the day they were delivered. The last two delivered are said to be 280t with all the improvements. From an operator currently using one of these improved birds with a somewhat similar configuration to DL- 40t(with reserves) over 16:30 minutes is what can be expected. As Zeke points out even the 275t-277t birds without improvements will have no issue with lax-mel-lax. I am no one to interrupt fantasies about the a350 having performance shortfalls but its is not based on facts.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:59 am

zeke wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Yet by some miracle they fly and actually make your employer money as well.

Surely the neigh sayer has been beaten down enough by the Airbus hierarchy here, despite his admirable, though futile resistance. It must be surely time to lock this thread and just accept that DL may know what they're doing, as they're the ones making truck loads of cash.


Sure they can make money on the correct city pairs, but it is no accident that 777s are being returned at the end of their leases by CX and others. CX does not own that many 777s.

The difference in fuel burn percentage wise between the 77L/W and A350-900/1000 is far greater than the difference between the 77L/W and the A340-500/600.

We would flying to JFK on the -600 and there was less than 10 tonnes block fuel difference to the 77W, the -900 is 20-30 tonnes less than the 77W. Often I carry more payload over the route than the 777. Recently I was flying almost the same route EWR and my friend was doing JFK departing at the same time, my flight time was 25 minutes less, burned 25 tonnes less fuel, and carried 7 tonnes more payload.

Boeing fans would say any airline that operated the A340 was in deep financial trouble, and those operating the 77W make the money. Yet we have seen a number of airlines drop the 77Ws, they are big aircraft to operate and lease, unless you have the demand for something that size you can burn cash very quickly.


All well and good, but you are also talking about a step change in technology and the inherent increases in efficiency. The 77W/77L were basically of the same time frame and technology as the 345/346, that's why the 77W in particular was the standout performer of the time.

I really don't see anybody down playing what fine machines the 350's are, I'm certainly not. But even your employer, with all the orders for the 350, are still finding a place for the 777-9 even with what most on here would believe to be excessive weight. Why are CX bothering if the 350 combo are just so good ? Doesn't make sense using your glowing testimony of the 350's credentials.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13638
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:14 am

777-9 provides more capacity than the -1000, but not the same efficiency. To turn your line of thinking around, if the 77L/77W 777-8/9 were so good, why did CX or any airline for that matter buy the A350 ?

You would never admit the CX also operated the A340 for a long time and they also made a lot of money.
Last edited by zeke on Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 8359
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored!?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:15 am

kjeld0d wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the 764 was not as successful as the 763?


763ER (1988) was successful due to the A330 (1993/1996) not being around.
764 had EIS in 2000 ( and was initially offered in 1997 as a reaction to the A330-200?)
Murphy is an optimist
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:50 am

zeke wrote:
777-9 provides more capacity than the -1000, but not the same efficiency. To turn your line of thinking around, if the 77L/77W 777-8/9 were so good, why did CX or any airline for that matter buy the A350 ?

You would never admit the CX also operated the A340 for a long time and they also made a lot of money.


I never said anything about the 777's being the exceptional, be all and end all perfect machine that you paint the 350 (well actually every Airbus product) to be, so don't put words in my mouth. I have not and will not dispute the FACT that the 350 is an exceptional aircraft, but I'm not going to paint it in such glowing terms that would make anyone believe that has to be the aircraft an airline chooses, otherwise they are throwing cash away with excess fuel burn.

The 343 was another good aircraft, never disputing it, but it had it's short comings and had tough competition with the 772. It suited CX perfectly with the common rating with the 330's and served them well.

So CX are purely going with the 777-9 because it provides more capacity than the 350-1000 but at added cost ? Surely by what you have said about the payload capabilities of the 350's CX would be better off with a slightly smaller capacity aircraft (350-1000), than having to wear the expense of a different aircraft type, engines, crews, maintenance and of course not forgetting the huge amount of fuel they would save, by just having the 350-1000 as their largest aircraft ? After all CX do have a history of "downsizing", going to the 77W from the 744 and not ordering the 380 or the 748, so there must be more to it than just having a bit more capacity.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12068
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored!?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:00 am

seabosdca wrote:
Then there is SQ, which has occasionally flown SFO-SIN with its "regular" 275 t 359 in a 253-seat configuration

Not occasionally... they've done it every day, for years.



xwb565 wrote:
From someone in the know- Dl's a359s have always been 275t mtow from the day they were delivered. The last two delivered are said to be 280t with all the improvements.

"are said to be?" ...what does that actually mean?

True that N512DN and N513DZ have the capability to be 280T, as does any ship after LN219; but that doesn't sound like that person's too confident in the knowledge of whether they actually are.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
astuteman
Posts: 6801
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:41 am

jupiter2 wrote:
I really don't see anybody down playing what fine machines the 350's are.


Standing aside the 77X vs A350 argument...
For what it's worth, I found this a curious statement on a thread which by definition is all about people playing down what fine machines the A350's are... Might just be me :)

Rgds
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5386
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:47 am

DL has the 77Ls, and they are fairly new. They have to use them somewhere. The fact that they use them on a particular route says nothing about the ability or inability of any other plane in their fleet to also do that route. There are many factors involved in selecting which planes fly which routes, and we are not privy to a lot of them. I see the fact that PR is flying MNL-JFK nonstop with the A359, which they were unable or unwilling to do with either the 77W or the A343 as a testament to the ability of the A359’s long range capability. So if DL chooses to use the 77L on LAX-SYD instead of the A359 it is not because the A359 can’t do it.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13638
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:00 am

jupiter2 wrote:
I never said anything about the 777's being the exceptional,


To quote you “that's why the 77W in particular was the standout performer of the time. “

I have never said the A350 is perfect, but I do know a damm more about it and what it can and cannot do than you ever will.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
MSJYOP28Apilot
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:09 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:45 am

zeke wrote:
AECM wrote:
Hi Zeke. Just out of curiosity, and if you have some spare time, can you calculate how much payload could a Cathay A359 carry on a ATL-JNB route?


Had a look, with today’s conditions off 27R the takeoff would be limited to 274 tonnes, 09L 280 tonnes. One of our aircraft should be able to do full payload from ATL to JNB. I don’t know the fine details of DLs fuel policy, what catering they have, number of crew, empty weight etc. so I dont know what a DL A350 would lift.

fjhc wrote:
Going back a little way, and away from, erm, repetitive discussions, why was Canberra not available for use as a diversion? According to Wiki Qatar and Singapore both fly there with 777-300ERs, so the airport can clearly handle large aircraft.


Canberra despite being the capital city of Australia is a small city, it does not have full time customs and immigration presence. When we use it as an alternate we have to pay for those services to be available.


Could it be the FAR 10% fuel reserve that Delta has to carry that causes some of these weight problems? Even with a re-dispatch flight plan, the 10% reserve can be limiting especially if you need to carry a long destination alternate. Plus to meet the re-dispatch fuel requirements, several thousand pounds of fuel are used to protect the min fuel requirements for the re-dispatch in case of weather enroute or departure delays. If bad weather at the destination, an even larger pad is often planned.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2428
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:49 am

moyangmm wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
I wonder if DL are aware of how incompetent their negotiators are if they've ordered a plane that doesn't do what they've asked it to. Other airlines don't appear to have any problems with the A350's capabilities, and I think we'd have heard by now if the plane wasn't meeting specifications.

The A350 is a very capable aircraft, and that's demonstrated by real world operations, your assertion is very strange and has been refuted by multiple people. I think you're in the wrong on this one.


I am sure DL is well-aware of the capability of the planes they ordered: they list 8000 sm as the range of their A350. Who said it doesn't meet its spec? DL ordered it for shorter TPAC routes, and it does its job perfectly fine. However, ULH routes like LAX-SYD, is beyond its range.

I think A350 is a very capable aircraft for medium- to long-haul ops. It is just not a ULH plane some users here claim to be. It can't compete with something like 789.


The way you talk about the A350, you'd think it was an A333 or 78X class plane for capability, but that's not born out by reality. The A350 is quite a regular fixture on ULH routes, including the longest flight in the world (by nearly 400nm). That you consistently compare the 275T instead of 280T variant is a flaw in your analysis.

If the 789 is more capable why is it not under consideration for QF's Project Sunrise? If it had more capability surely it'd be an absolute no-brainer to order the 787? Why did SQ not retain their 789 order for themselves?

You really underrate it's capabilities, I think. An airliner that is capable of flying 16hr flights quite easily is ULH capable. End of.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:17 am

zeke wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
I never said anything about the 777's being the exceptional,


To quote you “that's why the 77W in particular was the standout performer of the time. “

I have never said the A350 is perfect, but I do know a damm more about it and what it can and cannot do than you ever will.


So are you going to deny that that the 77W wasn't better than it's counterpart at the time ? Also standout isn't exactly calling it exceptional.

As for your last statement, I would damn well hope so, it is your bloody job after all and I also have no doubt that I will have more knowledge of the things that I need and want to know about than you ever will, so you can get off your high horse there.
 
User avatar
akoma
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:51 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored!?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:25 am

LAX772LR wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
Then there is SQ, which has occasionally flown SFO-SIN with its "regular" 275 t 359 in a 253-seat configuration

Not occasionally... they've done it every day, for years.





During the early days of the non-stop flights, for personal interest, I was tracking the SIN-SFO direct flights daily for about 6 months, comparing them to the UA 789 direct flights. There was no "winner" in terms of flight time, as much depended on the route taken and on the arrival ATC delays. SQ tended to take the more northerly oceanic tracks whereas UA took the tracks that were not so far north. This was in the early days; I have not been monitoring in recent times.

The A359 tended to cruise about 2,000 feet to 3,000 feet higher most of the time, compared to the B789. SQ used a mixture of 268T and 275T aircraft in those days. Not sure about payload penalties, if any, when using the 268T aircraft though.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:34 am

astuteman wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
I really don't see anybody down playing what fine machines the 350's are.


Standing aside the 77X vs A350 argument...
For what it's worth, I found this a curious statement on a thread which by definition is all about people playing down what fine machines the A350's are... Might just be me :)

Rgds


I have no problem with the 350, another poster has that problem, as such I don't mind praising the 350 and what it can do, but it's not the be all and end all of aircraft design.


Anyway, if DL thought it was really worth their while, the 350 would be on the route, so the bean counters at DL must be happy with how the 77L is performing.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5386
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:47 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
I really don't see anybody down playing what fine machines the 350's are.


Standing aside the 77X vs A350 argument...
For what it's worth, I found this a curious statement on a thread which by definition is all about people playing down what fine machines the A350's are... Might just be me :)

Rgds


I have no problem with the 350, another poster has that problem, as such I don't mind praising the 350 and what it can do, but it's not the be all and end all of aircraft design.


Anyway, if DL thought it was really worth their while, the 350 would be on the route, so the bean counters at DL must be happy with how the 77L is performing.

Let’s face it, the 77L is the ONLY plane still in service that was specifically designed for ULH flights. The fact that the A359 is competing for ULH missions is evidence that it is no longer necessary to have a specially designed plane to do them. But DL has the 77L and the A350; and so why should anyone be surprised when they assign their longest routes to the former? It is, after all, what it was designed for, while the A350 was designed to be an all-around performer that is also capable of ULH. It is no skin off the A350’s nose.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17041
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:08 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
Anyway, if DL thought it was really worth their while, the 350 would be on the route, so the bean counters at DL must be happy with how the 77L is performing.


They would, but, as has already been pointed out in the thread multiple times, they also have the 77L which they have to fly somewhere.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:30 pm

moyangmm wrote:
Boeing's range is now very conservative (after they adjusted the range). You can see 787 outperforms all the time, like LAX-SIN, SFO-SIN, LHR-PER, etc.



I think you have the wrong end of the stick in regards to marketing ranges from the OEMs and real world ranges. Boeing had incorrect figures for both range and capacity as they used outdated assumptions for their marketing material. The only people that were fooled were fans on websites like these who believed what they wanted without question as airlines will have people working on more than the marketing material we get to see.

Boeing Revises Obsolete Performance Assumptions

By changing the assumptions now, Boeing finally acknowledges what most airline customers, industry analysts and rivals already knew. The standard set of assumptions Boeing has used to calculate performance for generic marketing purposes has been “obsolete” for a long time, Haas says.

“The reason we kept it so long is we look at the actual seat counts [the marketing brochures] were showing they were pretty representative of the actual seats airlines were putting in airplanes,” Haas says.


So Boeing hasn't gone more conservative, they finally decided to stop kidding fans of aviation and catch up with the real world. Take an example of the 77W. They had the capacity of the 3-class aircraft at 386 seats before they changed their assumptions. Now if you read the quote you may just agree with the Marketing Director when you realize that Emirates do have 360 seats in their 3-class 77Ws. The devil is in the detail that to get to that EK had to install one extra seat per row in economy over the marketing configuration to even get close to the Boeing figures.

So be careful when you see marketing figures on websites from either Boeing or Airbus. The best thing to do is to listen to industry professionals that provide us with information on what the actual frames are doing in the real world right now and from what we can see in real world ops. Zeke pointed out a long time ago on what you should do with marketing figures is to subtract about 10% or more off the range to get a real world figure for both OEMs as both take liberty with what is possible.
 
User avatar
DLSANMan
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:30 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:41 pm

Delta loses 2M per month on SYD according to the last employee round table. Why would they invest in a market that is a money hog. I’m actually surprised it has not moved seasonal or dropped over to VX fully.
 
jagraham
Posts: 837
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:57 pm

lightsaber wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

I am sure DL is well-aware of the capability of the planes they ordered: they list 8000 sm as the range of their A350. Who said it doesn't meet its spec? DL ordered it for shorter TPAC routes, and it does its job perfectly fine. However, ULH routes like LAX-SYD, is beyond its range.

I think A350 is a very capable aircraft for medium- to long-haul ops. It is just not a ULH plane some users here claim to be. It can't compete with something like 789.

That is my thoughts. DL ordered what they needed. A lower MTOW means a purchase discount, ATC savings, and small maintenance savings.

That said, it can be bought for ULH, but if that wasn't the sub-fleet purpose, deploy where best.

Lightsaber


Lower MTOW means fuel savings also. DL isn't buying 77Ls, although they aren't getting rid of the ones they have. But for routes shorter than LAX-SYD, or with better diversions, the A359 works and saves fuel. So does the A333 for that matter.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored!?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:06 pm

akoma wrote:
During the early days of the non-stop flights, for personal interest, I was tracking the SIN-SFO direct flights daily for about 6 months, comparing them to the UA 789 direct flights. There was no "winner" in terms of flight time, as much depended on the route taken and on the arrival ATC delays. SQ tended to take the more northerly oceanic tracks whereas UA took the tracks that were not so far north. This was in the early days; I have not been monitoring in recent times.

The A359 tended to cruise about 2,000 feet to 3,000 feet higher most of the time, compared to the B789. SQ used a mixture of 268T and 275T aircraft in those days. Not sure about payload penalties, if any, when using the 268T aircraft though.


There is some data about SQ A359 performance on SFO-SIN. It took off at 274t (close to MTOW), and with full 253 passengers + bags, but without cargo. Meanwhile, UA's 789 can carry almost the same number of passengers (252) over the same distance, but a whole 20t lighter!
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3556
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:14 pm

DLSANMan wrote:
Delta loses 2M per month on SYD according to the last employee round table. Why would they invest in a market that is a money hog. I’m actually surprised it has not moved seasonal or dropped over to VX fully.


US$2-million? Year round? That’s serious. Where else could DL deploy their 77L’s that’s not already in operation?

BTW, Virgin Australia is VA.
come visit the south pacific
 
LurveBus
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:21 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored!?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:33 pm

moyangmm wrote:
akoma wrote:
During the early days of the non-stop flights, for personal interest, I was tracking the SIN-SFO direct flights daily for about 6 months, comparing them to the UA 789 direct flights. There was no "winner" in terms of flight time, as much depended on the route taken and on the arrival ATC delays. SQ tended to take the more northerly oceanic tracks whereas UA took the tracks that were not so far north. This was in the early days; I have not been monitoring in recent times.

The A359 tended to cruise about 2,000 feet to 3,000 feet higher most of the time, compared to the B789. SQ used a mixture of 268T and 275T aircraft in those days. Not sure about payload penalties, if any, when using the 268T aircraft though.


There is some data about SQ A359 performance on SFO-SIN. It took off at 274t (close to MTOW), and with full 253 passengers + bags, but without cargo. Meanwhile, UA's 789 can carry almost the same number of passengers (252) over the same distance, but a whole 20t lighter!


I admire your tenacity. That being said, I don’t think UA flyers, especially in J, appreciate that they’re being crammed in the 787 when SQ’s configuration on the same route with heavier and more luxurious seating is so much more appealing. Put SQ’s A350 config in a 787 and you’d end up with a lot less seats.
 
winginit
Posts: 2504
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:41 pm

n7371f wrote:
Cargo


:checkmark:
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4776
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored!?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:50 pm

moyangmm wrote:
There is some data about SQ A359 performance on SFO-SIN. It took off at 274t (close to MTOW), and with full 253 passengers + bags, but without cargo. Meanwhile, UA's 789 can carry almost the same number of passengers (252) over the same distance, but a whole 20t lighter!


We'd love to see that data...

I can't come up with a ULH scenario where a 275t a350 is not capable to haul at the very least 5T more payload than a 787 on the same mission.

Not that this is an indictment of the 787. It is just a smaller airplane (just like the 359 is smaller than the 77L for that matter).

Now, unless you would like to provide anything a bit more substantial for your criticism, we might, just might, start to believe that you are biased...
:sarcastic:
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
xwb565
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored!?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:51 pm

moyangmm wrote:

There is some data about SQ A359 performance on SFO-SIN. It took off at 274t (close to MTOW), and with full 253 passengers + bags, but without cargo. Meanwhile, UA's 789 can carry almost the same number of passengers (252) over the same distance, but a whole 20t lighter!


If this is the data you are talking about (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1408737), you are wrong. The aircraft took off 5 tons less than mtow and there is no mention of cargo not being carried.
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: How come the DL A350 can't fly LAX-SYD it is rumored?

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:01 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
zeke wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

This is helpful. Wouldn’t a 359 be closer to MTOW than a 77L on most long-ish routes, though? That somewhat cancels out the wing advantage the 359 has.


The 77L MTOW is 70,000 kg higher than the A359 MTOW. We joke at work how a fully loaded A359 is the same weight as an empty 77W.


Yet by some miracle they fly and actually make your employer money as well.

Surely the neigh sayer has been beaten down enough by the Airbus hierarchy here, despite his admirable, though futile resistance. It must be surely time to lock this thread and just accept that DL may know what they're doing, as they're the ones making truck loads of cash.


Your stupidly sarcastic post doesn't make any sense in this context, considering he was being "beaten down" with facts to correct his repeatedly incorrect assertions which he's made in different threads. Sorry if that disturbed you, or did that comment from Zeke sting a bit, you'll be fine.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

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