User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:33 pm

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.


Your reasoning makes perfect sense but it is the same argument used when comparing the 789 vs the A359. One is more efficient, one can carry more payload.

I trust that a well run airline can figure out which frame is best for each individual route.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
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 4:40 pm

xwb565 wrote:
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.


271t - 103.7t fuel - 140t OEW = 27.3t payload for 253 passengers + bags, definitely no cargo at all.

271t is still much more than 789's 254t, right? ;)
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1411
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

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

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:49 pm

Please keep this thread on topic and do not reheat topics which have already been discussed in other threads, like for example here:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387
 
airbazar
Posts: 9706
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

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

Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:29 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
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.

:shakehead:
They might be the same time frame whatever that means but they are not of the same technological era. The A340/777 programs were about 5 years apart. The technology and efficiency gains over those few years was just enough that one is a quad and the other is a twin. That is not an insignificant advancement. The timing of the two programs has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. 4-5 years may not be too long of a span but in this case it spans over two very different technological eras. Not unlike the 777 and A350.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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

Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:44 pm

WIederling wrote:
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?)


The 767-400 was developed mostly as a domestic airplane for a couple of customers. It was a DC-10/L-1011 replacement.

IIRC, DL required that it be capable of operating into LGA. It was a bit sub-optimized.

The biggest problem the 767-400 had is that it was sold during the darkest years of the Phil Condit and Harry Stoneciper era. The then 767 Chief, John Quinlivan was kind of a moron too IMHO.

Boeing was unwilling to make any investments in the -400 to make it more competitive. It’s not a bad airplane but could have used more range and power. Plus the flight deck was a one-off. CO had difficulty having the same pool of 757/767 pilots flying the -400. DL had a separate pilot pool.

During this dark era, Boeing didn’t make product improvements to be more competitive or sell airplanes. Product improvements were only made if it had an 18 month rate of return so Harry and Phil could line their pockets with money.

Bottom line is that the 767-400 isn’t a bad airplane, but it suffered from lack of investment to make it more competitive due to the very poor Boeing leadership in place at the time.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

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

Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:11 pm

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?


I do check CX869 loading in April
One flights with cargo more 1000kg
Three flights with cargo 200-1000kg
The rest >200kg

And CX899 are similar, but three flight with cargo loading more than 2000kg
 
mcg
Posts: 975
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:41 am

fjhc wrote:
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?


It seems like some of the north Pacific diversion sites (i.e Midway and Shemaya) don't really have much in the way ground handling resources. They seem to be pretty much runways and that's about it.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12511
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:48 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
Boeing was unwilling to make any investments in the -400 to make it more competitive.

Bottom line is that the 767-400 isn’t a bad airplane, but it suffered from lack of investment to make it more competitive

How do you come to this conclusion, when Boeing both marketed and sold a significantly modified version of this variant, with everything from a modified wing to new engine...?

True that it received only a single customer, but to make the claim that they were unwilling or didn't attempt, isn't accurate at all.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:00 am

LAX772LR wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
Boeing was unwilling to make any investments in the -400 to make it more competitive.

Bottom line is that the 767-400 isn’t a bad airplane, but it suffered from lack of investment to make it more competitive

How do you come to this conclusion, when Boeing both marketed and sold a significantly modified version of this variant, with everything from a modified wing to new engine...?

True that it received only a single customer, but to make the claim that they were unwilling or didn't attempt, isn't accurate at all.


Yeah it is accurate. I’ve been with the company for longer than I’d like to admit. And I participated in sales campaigns fir the model. I had heavy involvement in the 767 program and 767 sales campaigns at the time.

Honestly, I think I know a bit more about Boeing than you do.

So yeah, what I said is accurate whether you like to believe it or not.
 
DwayneStorkman
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:35 am

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:39 am

Harry. The WORST Boeing CEO, ever. Wrecked McDD and then tried to make Boeing McBoeing.

BoeingGuy wrote:
WIederling wrote:
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?)


The 767-400 was developed mostly as a domestic airplane for a couple of customers. It was a DC-10/L-1011 replacement.

IIRC, DL required that it be capable of operating into LGA. It was a bit sub-optimized.

The biggest problem the 767-400 had is that it was sold during the darkest years of the Phil Condit and Harry Stoneciper era. The then 767 Chief, John Quinlivan was kind of a moron too IMHO.

Boeing was unwilling to make any investments in the -400 to make it more competitive. It’s not a bad airplane but could have used more range and power. Plus the flight deck was a one-off. CO had difficulty having the same pool of 757/767 pilots flying the -400. DL had a separate pilot pool.

During this dark era, Boeing didn’t make product improvements to be more competitive or sell airplanes. Product improvements were only made if it had an 18 month rate of return so Harry and Phil could line their pockets with money.

Bottom line is that the 767-400 isn’t a bad airplane, but it suffered from lack of investment to make it more competitive due to the very poor Boeing leadership in place at the time.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 4:08 am

crimsonchin wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
zeke wrote:

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.


So my sarcasm disturbs you does it, that's a shame :cry: . Did you bother to read the rest of what I said at the time, or is it easier to suit yourself and your own version of cutting wit to not include it ? I haven't criticised the 350, but DL doesn't want to use it LAX/SYD for whatever reason, that's their choice and that dear sir is something that you need to deal with for what it's worth.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:20 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
WIederling wrote:
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?)


The 767-400 was developed mostly as a domestic airplane for a couple of customers. It was a DC-10/L-1011 replacement.

IIRC, DL required that it be capable of operating into LGA. It was a bit sub-optimized.

The biggest problem the 767-400 had is that it was sold during the darkest years of the Phil Condit and Harry Stoneciper era. The then 767 Chief, John Quinlivan was kind of a moron too IMHO.

Boeing was unwilling to make any investments in the -400 to make it more competitive. It’s not a bad airplane but could have used more range and power. Plus the flight deck was a one-off. CO had difficulty having the same pool of 757/767 pilots flying the -400. DL had a separate pilot pool.

During this dark era, Boeing didn’t make product improvements to be more competitive or sell airplanes. Product improvements were only made if it had an 18 month rate of return so Harry and Phil could line their pockets with money.

Bottom line is that the 767-400 isn’t a bad airplane, but it suffered from lack of investment to make it more competitive due to the very poor Boeing leadership in place at the time.

why didn't you just explain that the 767-400's cock[it was closer to the 777 than any 767?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:38 am

Keith2004 wrote:
With actual loads of 236-248 wouldn't a plane with 288 (777) seats make more sense than 306 (359) seats?


What is the block fuel delta between 77L and A359? ( 77W and A3510 is said to be around 22..25% )
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12511
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:40 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
Boeing was unwilling to make any investments in the -400 to make it more competitive.

Bottom line is that the 767-400 isn’t a bad airplane, but it suffered from lack of investment to make it more competitive

How do you come to this conclusion, when Boeing both marketed and sold a significantly modified version of this variant, with everything from a modified wing to new engine...?

True that it received only a single customer, but to make the claim that they were unwilling or didn't attempt, isn't accurate at all.


So yeah, what I said is accurate whether you like to believe it or not.

Repeating it won't make it any less false than the last time you said it.

One need only review KQ's commitment to the 764ERX to see for themselves.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1411
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:54 am

While being an interesting topic, may I ask you to start a separate thread in case you want to continue to discuss 764 and its planned 764ERX version in greater detail?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5462
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:32 pm

PR is using the A359 for JFK-MNL, which is 7,404nm. As far as I know they are not blocking any seats. The idea that the A359 cannot fly LAX-SYD, which is 6,507nm is laughable. They simply chose to use the 77L. What part of that is so hard to understand?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:42 pm

SEPilot wrote:
PR is using the A359 for JFK-MNL, which is 7,404nm. As far as I know they are not blocking any seats. The idea that the A359 cannot fly LAX-SYD, which is 6,507nm is laughable. They simply chose to use the 77L. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Thank you, finally another reasonable post :), oh and LAX-HKG on HX who have ~330 seats in their A359, that’s a stretch over 15hrs. I’m gonna be trusting Zeke’s numbers on this yet again.
 
flyingisthebest
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:10 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:10 pm

Motorhussy wrote:
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.


I am surprised with the VA/DL joint venture that DL doesn’t cut a few frequencies (maybe 2) off the LAX-SYD route (making VA daily and Delta 5 x weekly) and move them to make Brisbane daily without the need for VA to do the day us to aus flights. With some flights from Brisbane (2 weekly) moving to MEL on VA metal to make Melbourne daily. The reason I say Brisbane should get DL metal as the market is smaller than Melbourne so smaller plane is easier to fill. As well the best consistent product trans pacific is VA so putting your best product where there is 3 players for MEL v 2 for BNE....

This would help cut some losses given the “apparent glut” on SYD-LAX if UA recently cut frequencies on a seasonal basis.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 4:49 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
WIederling wrote:

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?)


The 767-400 was developed mostly as a domestic airplane for a couple of customers. It was a DC-10/L-1011 replacement.

IIRC, DL required that it be capable of operating into LGA. It was a bit sub-optimized.

The biggest problem the 767-400 had is that it was sold during the darkest years of the Phil Condit and Harry Stoneciper era. The then 767 Chief, John Quinlivan was kind of a moron too IMHO.

Boeing was unwilling to make any investments in the -400 to make it more competitive. It’s not a bad airplane but could have used more range and power. Plus the flight deck was a one-off. CO had difficulty having the same pool of 757/767 pilots flying the -400. DL had a separate pilot pool.

During this dark era, Boeing didn’t make product improvements to be more competitive or sell airplanes. Product improvements were only made if it had an 18 month rate of return so Harry and Phil could line their pockets with money.

Bottom line is that the 767-400 isn’t a bad airplane, but it suffered from lack of investment to make it more competitive due to the very poor Boeing leadership in place at the time.

why didn't you just explain that the 767-400's cock[it was closer to the 777 than any 767?


Actually it wasn’t. The displays resembled the 777, although made by a different supplier. There were some other upgrades, like rolling some functionality done on panels into the MCDU, but it was still a 767. It had to be to maintain the same type rating.

At quick glance it might look more like a 777 flight deck, but it still was more like a 767 with pretty bigger LCD displays.

As a moderator indicated, we are getting off topic. If someone wants to start a 767-400 thread we could dig into this in more detail. I probably still have the 767-400 presentations.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1411
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 4:58 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

The 767-400 was developed mostly as a domestic airplane for a couple of customers. It was a DC-10/L-1011 replacement.

IIRC, DL required that it be capable of operating into LGA. It was a bit sub-optimized.

The biggest problem the 767-400 had is that it was sold during the darkest years of the Phil Condit and Harry Stoneciper era. The then 767 Chief, John Quinlivan was kind of a moron too IMHO.

Boeing was unwilling to make any investments in the -400 to make it more competitive. It’s not a bad airplane but could have used more range and power. Plus the flight deck was a one-off. CO had difficulty having the same pool of 757/767 pilots flying the -400. DL had a separate pilot pool.

During this dark era, Boeing didn’t make product improvements to be more competitive or sell airplanes. Product improvements were only made if it had an 18 month rate of return so Harry and Phil could line their pockets with money.

Bottom line is that the 767-400 isn’t a bad airplane, but it suffered from lack of investment to make it more competitive due to the very poor Boeing leadership in place at the time.

why didn't you just explain that the 767-400's cock[it was closer to the 777 than any 767?


Actually it wasn’t. The displays resembled the 777, although made by a different supplier. There were some other upgrades, like rolling some functionality done on panels into the MCDU, but it was still a 767. It had to be to maintain the same type rating.

At quick glance it might look more like a 777 flight deck, but it still was more like a 767 with pretty bigger LCD displays.

As a moderator indicated, we are getting off topic. If someone wants to start a 767-400 thread we could dig into this in more detail. I probably still have the 767-400 presentations.


Thanks, I am intererested to read more in a separate thread.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:00 pm

SEPilot wrote:
PR is using the A359 for JFK-MNL, which is 7,404nm. As far as I know they are not blocking any seats.


Could you provide some data for this?
 
x1234
Topic Author
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:16 pm

SEPilot, I'm curious about PAL's payload on their 277T A350 too and its a dense 295 seat config. As far as I know Filipinos like to always check 2 pieces of luggage maxed with 23kg/50lbs and balikbayan boxes.
 
xwb565
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

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

Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:46 pm

PAL have the 280t variant. The higher weight variant got certified by the time they took their first a350.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5462
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:16 am

moyangmm wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
PR is using the A359 for JFK-MNL, which is 7,404nm. As far as I know they are not blocking any seats.


Could you provide some data for this?

All I know is that they regularly fly the A359 nonstop MNL-JFK and back. They offer fares somewhat higher than other airlines’ (EVA, CX) one stop flights using 77Ws. I do not believe they could afford to do that if they had to block seats.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
triple3driver
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:24 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:36 am

I don't fly the A350 and have doubts that I ever will, given that it's fairly unlikely that we'll see them out here in the Northeast, but from what I understand, it's definitely capable of flying the route, unlike what some Boeing employees on this thread like to claim, it's just that it isn't a priority for the company to place the aircraft on that route, and frankly, I don't understand why everyone is obsessing over it. Why isn't everyone asking why they're not flying it from Atlanta to Stuttgart, for instance? The A350s were ordered as 747 replacements, not 777-200LR replacements, and it would be a poor decision to start parking the 777s given their young age.
If you can walk away from it intact, it was a good landing!
 
LurveBus
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:21 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:55 am

xwb565 wrote:
PAL have the 280t variant. The higher weight variant got certified by the time they took their first a350.


PAL’s birds are 278t. They didn’t bother going for the 280t (even though it was available, as SQ took delivery of their ULR A350s at around the same time) because they could already fly JFK-MNL without restrictions at that mtow and not have to spend a cent more.

Remember, JFK-MNL performance was the deciding factor for PR when choosing between the 787-9 and the A350. And before you say that PR is primarily an Airbus airline, they’ve also had a historic relationship with GE, which is nowadays only maintained through their 77Ws.
 
User avatar
SCFlyer
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:14 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:04 am

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.


I'm more surprised why DL/VA haven't at least dropped back on the SYD frequencies and used the spare 77L frequencies on MEL or BNE.

As was suggested by other posters, moving the spare DL 77L frequencies to BNE would probably help more (than MEL) as it would be "right-sizing" the BNE market whilst maintaining a "daily" presence, whilst freeing up 1x VA 77W for daily MEL, which has the capacity for 3 competitors (UA, QF/AA*, VA/DL).
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:26 am

SCFlyer wrote:
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.


I'm more surprised why DL/VA haven't at least dropped back on the SYD frequencies and used the spare 77L frequencies on MEL or BNE.

As was suggested by other posters, moving the spare DL 77L frequencies to BNE would probably help more (than MEL) as it would be "right-sizing" the BNE market whilst maintaining a "daily" presence, whilst freeing up 1x VA 77W for daily MEL, which has the capacity for 3 competitors (UA, QF/AA*, VA/DL).


I’m not sure DL would serve 2 markets less than daily, I always thought the 77L for MEL given it’s the lowest frequency and the longest flight. A smaller frame could allow a daily service. Do daily ex BNE with a 77W and maybe extra SYD-LAX or a HKG frequency with a 77W even though it maybe a bit big.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1145
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:30 am

Has anyone on this thread consulted the ACAPS document?

Pacific wrote:
At 7,700nm:
A359 = 30t payload
789 = 25t payload.


I've misread the A359 chart on the phone which changes the conclusion entirely. It should be:
34t payload @ 7,700nm
30t payload @ 8,200nm

789
25t payload @ 7,700nm

In the most simplistic sense, the A359 can go 500nm further than the 789 at similar pax density. It also has a lot of margin for wind, diversions and indirect routing to fly LAX-SYD which is 6,500nm Great Circle distance.

Zeke wrote:
All Airbus ACAPS are based upon WV000.

This makes the higher weight variants even more impressive. By extrapolating, the 280t variant is specced fly 8,500nm @ 30t payload.

A particular individual seems to be under the impression that the A350-900 has similar payload-range of a MD-11 non-ER. If that were the case, there would be waves of cancellations as the MD-11 missed promise by a far smaller margin than what this individual is implying.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13996
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:48 am

Pacific wrote:

Zeke wrote:
All Airbus ACAPS are based upon WV000.

This makes the higher weight variants even more impressive. By extrapolating, the 280t variant is specced fly 8,500nm @ 30t payload.

A particular individual seems to be under the impression that the A350-900 has similar payload-range of a MD-11 non-ER. If that were the case, there would be waves of cancellations as the MD-11 missed promise by a far smaller margin than what this individual is implying.


Must be the 6th post of mine that has already been deleted from this thread, the Boeing fans obviously don’t like any facts that support the A350 being able to fly LAX-SYD.

Increasing MTOW just moves the maximum range line to the right, for a given range it results in greater payload, or for a given payload it results in greater range. This is between the range where the aircraft is MZFW and fuel volume limited.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:51 pm

zeke wrote:
Pacific wrote:

Zeke wrote:
All Airbus ACAPS are based upon WV000.

This makes the higher weight variants even more impressive. By extrapolating, the 280t variant is specced fly 8,500nm @ 30t payload.

A particular individual seems to be under the impression that the A350-900 has similar payload-range of a MD-11 non-ER. If that were the case, there would be waves of cancellations as the MD-11 missed promise by a far smaller margin than what this individual is implying.


Must be the 6th post of mine that has already been deleted from this thread, the Boeing fans obviously don’t like any facts that support the A350 being able to fly LAX-SYD.

Increasing MTOW just moves the maximum range line to the right, for a given range it results in greater payload, or for a given payload it results in greater range. This is between the range where the aircraft is MZFW and fuel volume limited.


This is not reflective of all Boeing Employees or Boeing Fan Boys. Many of us have a very healthy respect for Airbus airplanes, as we should. I especially think the A350 sounds like an excellent airplane.

Sure I like the 777 and 787 better, but good Boeing employees shouldn’t be bashing the competition on social media. In fact, Boeing has a written policy that prohibits it.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:25 pm

Pacific wrote:
Has anyone on this thread consulted the ACAPS document?

I've misread the A359 chart on the phone which changes the conclusion entirely. It should be:
34t payload @ 7,700nm
30t payload @ 8,200nm

789
25t payload @ 7,700nm

A particular individual seems to be under the impression that the A350-900 has similar payload-range of a MD-11 non-ER. If that were the case, there would be waves of cancellations as the MD-11 missed promise by a far smaller margin than what this individual is implying.


ACAPS doesn't reflect actual cabin weight (ACAPS assumes a very light cabin), catering, reserve fuel, etc. In real world, for example, DL188 flight from PEK to DTW
(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396117&start=53#p20487075), the performance is 49t payload @ 5763nm. That flight took off at 275t. Also notice that PEK-DTW is downwind. The reverse flight can take less payload.

While I know you get those number from ACAPS, in real world A350's performance is not as good as you suggested (true for all aircrafts, not just A350). Some member has done a very good job analyzing the result, using real world data (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1393909&start=350#p21034697).
 
StTim
Posts: 3451
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:07 pm

zeke wrote:
Pacific wrote:

Zeke wrote:
All Airbus ACAPS are based upon WV000.

This makes the higher weight variants even more impressive. By extrapolating, the 280t variant is specced fly 8,500nm @ 30t payload.

A particular individual seems to be under the impression that the A350-900 has similar payload-range of a MD-11 non-ER. If that were the case, there would be waves of cancellations as the MD-11 missed promise by a far smaller margin than what this individual is implying.


Must be the 6th post of mine that has already been deleted from this thread, the Boeing fans obviously don’t like any facts that support the A350 being able to fly LAX-SYD.

Increasing MTOW just moves the maximum range line to the right, for a given range it results in greater payload, or for a given payload it results in greater range. This is between the range where the aircraft is MZFW and fuel volume limited.


I would love to know the basis for deleting your posts! If true it shows a new low for this community.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:43 pm

Another data point here. Don't want to feed the constant troll, but still want to provide the "real-world" data.

Image

DTW-PVG on June 2018, 297 pax and 97.3% L/F on average. This figure is really impressive, no doubt Delta is printing money.
With 2.3t cargos on average as well.

LAX-SYD should be doable.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:12 pm

ITSTours wrote:
DTW-PVG on June 2018, 297 pax and 97.3% L/F on average. This figure is really impressive, no doubt Delta is printing money.
With 2.3t cargos on average as well.


Your figures are pretty much in line with the number I cited

DTW-PVG: 6202nm GC, 297 pax + 2.3t cargo is about 32.3t payload.
DTW-PEK: 49t payload @ 5763nm GC

Now let's contrast that with the data from the ACAPS:

Pacific wrote:
34t payload @ 7,700nm
30t payload @ 8,200nm


Notice that ACAPS is for 268t WV000 and DL has 275t higher MTOW version. Doesn't this show how unrealistic the ACAPS is?
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

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

Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:46 pm

moyangmm wrote:
Pacific wrote:
Has anyone on this thread consulted the ACAPS document?

I've misread the A359 chart on the phone which changes the conclusion entirely. It should be:
34t payload @ 7,700nm
30t payload @ 8,200nm

789
25t payload @ 7,700nm

A particular individual seems to be under the impression that the A350-900 has similar payload-range of a MD-11 non-ER. If that were the case, there would be waves of cancellations as the MD-11 missed promise by a far smaller margin than what this individual is implying.


ACAPS doesn't reflect actual cabin weight (ACAPS assumes a very light cabin), catering, reserve fuel, etc. In real world, for example, DL188 flight from PEK to DTW
(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396117&start=53#p20487075), the performance is 49t payload @ 5763nm. That flight took off at 275t. Also notice that PEK-DTW is downwind. The reverse flight can take less payload.

While I know you get those number from ACAPS, in real world A350's performance is not as good as you suggested (true for all aircrafts, not just A350). Some member has done a very good job analyzing the result, using real world data (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1393909&start=350#p21034697).


Still same story. Read carefully tech/ops thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387#p20792909

Posted by thepinkmachine 787 pilot

We can do a comparison. I have 787 flight planning data from the manual, I guess you can provide A350 numbers. It would be interesting to see what comes out of it.

Below are 787 trip fuel figures @LRC:

I assumed 40T payload and ~8T reserve fuel at landing

4000Nm -44T
5000Nm - 54T corrected by later to 56.3T
6000Nm - 70T
7000Nm - 84,5T*
* Above MTOW, can’t carry 40T payload that far

Posted by Zeke A350 pilot

Okay the numbers I got from an early version of the performance program that I used during my initial training (new version is better now they have more data).

Assumed a DOW of 135 tonnes, Landing weight of 183 tonnes.

4000 nm - 45.2
5000 nm - 57.5
6000 nm - 70.3
7000 nm - 83.9

I think it would carry that payload out to around 8000 nm.

Given what I see when I plot the two series, your 5000 nm number looks to be in error, should be around 57 tonnes.



789 can lift 40t further then approx 6700nm becuse is MTOW limited while A359 can lift off that load to 7000nm at 266,9 T of TOW.

On the topic. There is no real indication A350 cannot do LAX-SYD-LAX with full pax and bags in DL configuration with some spare weight for cargo.

Cheers
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:02 am

Mrakula wrote:
On the topic. There is no real indication A350 cannot do LAX-SYD-LAX with full pax and bags in DL configuration with some spare weight for cargo.


A350 may be your favorite aircraft, but it's not reasonable to just cite data you like and ignore the ones you don't. While I do not question the authority of those two pilots, I think these simulated data is less relevant to Delta A350 than actual photo from the DL A350 cockpit and statistics of DL's own DTW-PVG kindly provided by ITSTours.

If we extrapolate from Delta's PVG-DTW and PEK-DTW data above, we can see a legitimate concern of A350 on LAX-SYD. I am not saying it is absolutely can't do it. But in some worse days in the winter, its payload can be a problem. Delta was smart enough to choose 77L on that route.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5462
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:43 am

LurveBus wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
PAL have the 280t variant. The higher weight variant got certified by the time they took their first a350.


PAL’s birds are 278t. They didn’t bother going for the 280t (even though it was available, as SQ took delivery of their ULR A350s at around the same time) because they could already fly JFK-MNL without restrictions at that mtow and not have to spend a cent more.

Remember, JFK-MNL performance was the deciding factor for PR when choosing between the 787-9 and the A350. And before you say that PR is primarily an Airbus airline, they’ve also had a historic relationship with GE, which is nowadays only maintained through their 77Ws.

Interesting. There are hordes of 77Ws flying to TPE and HKG from JFK; PR has the 77W but did not try and fly them to JFK; obviously it was just a bit too far. So the 779 apparently has the same range as the 77W, but the A350 even without the ULR option has even more. It certainly makes sense for PR, and I expect they have no trouble filling them, so the added capacity is a plus as well.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:07 am

Mrakula wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Pacific wrote:
Has anyone on this thread consulted the ACAPS document?

I've misread the A359 chart on the phone which changes the conclusion entirely. It should be:
34t payload @ 7,700nm
30t payload @ 8,200nm

789
25t payload @ 7,700nm

A particular individual seems to be under the impression that the A350-900 has similar payload-range of a MD-11 non-ER. If that were the case, there would be waves of cancellations as the MD-11 missed promise by a far smaller margin than what this individual is implying.


ACAPS doesn't reflect actual cabin weight (ACAPS assumes a very light cabin), catering, reserve fuel, etc. In real world, for example, DL188 flight from PEK to DTW
(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396117&start=53#p20487075), the performance is 49t payload @ 5763nm. That flight took off at 275t. Also notice that PEK-DTW is downwind. The reverse flight can take less payload.

While I know you get those number from ACAPS, in real world A350's performance is not as good as you suggested (true for all aircrafts, not just A350). Some member has done a very good job analyzing the result, using real world data (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1393909&start=350#p21034697).


Still same story. Read carefully tech/ops thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387#p20792909

Posted by thepinkmachine 787 pilot

We can do a comparison. I have 787 flight planning data from the manual, I guess you can provide A350 numbers. It would be interesting to see what comes out of it.

Below are 787 trip fuel figures @LRC:

I assumed 40T payload and ~8T reserve fuel at landing

4000Nm -44T
5000Nm - 54T corrected by later to 56.3T
6000Nm - 70T
7000Nm - 84,5T*
* Above MTOW, can’t carry 40T payload that far

Posted by Zeke A350 pilot

Okay the numbers I got from an early version of the performance program that I used during my initial training (new version is better now they have more data).

Assumed a DOW of 135 tonnes, Landing weight of 183 tonnes.

4000 nm - 45.2
5000 nm - 57.5
6000 nm - 70.3
7000 nm - 83.9

I think it would carry that payload out to around 8000 nm.

Given what I see when I plot the two series, your 5000 nm number looks to be in error, should be around 57 tonnes.



789 can lift 40t further then approx 6700nm becuse is MTOW limited while A359 can lift off that load to 7000nm at 266,9 T of TOW.

On the topic. There is no real indication A350 cannot do LAX-SYD-LAX with full pax and bags in DL configuration with some spare weight for cargo.

Cheers



I find it interesting that the assumption is always 40t payload which of course favors the A359. I would love to see a similar analysis with 35t of payload as this is often more realistic and I suspect would more strongly favor the 789.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4903
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:17 am

moyangmm wrote:
If we extrapolate from Delta's PVG-DTW and PEK-DTW data above, we can see a legitimate concern of A350 on LAX-SYD. I am not saying it is absolutely can't do it. But in some worse days in the winter, its payload can be a problem. Delta was smart enough to choose 77L on that route.


I'd love to see this extrapolation, especially given that the payload figures given by ITSTours appear to be erroneous (all the same to the 8th decimal for every month for both routes?...) and that the actual take off weight is not given...

From my best estimate, on a 7500nm sector with an average of 40kts headwinds throughout and about 9T of fuel at landing, a 275T 359 should still be able to haul about 30T, which would be enough for a full load of pax and bags, though no cargo would be carried.

I do not dispute your claim that it would be payload limited on some westbound flights in the winter, but I still fail to understand what you believe is the problem here, despite having asked already...
The fact that it can do that much despite not being a 77L competitor at all or even a ULH airplane is pretty admirable if you ask me and, once again, there is no performance shortfall vs. what was sold to the airlines.

As for DL making the 'right choice', I'm sure they do what's in their best interest, but given that a 359 could do probably about 95% or more of the LAX-SYD-LAX missions the 77L does while burning 15-20T less fuel on each leg, I'm not sure the extra payload capacity of the 77L is the only reason behind the choice, unless that extra capacity is required for very high yield payload...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:18 am

moyangmm wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
On the topic. There is no real indication A350 cannot do LAX-SYD-LAX with full pax and bags in DL configuration with some spare weight for cargo.


A350 may be your favorite aircraft, but it's not reasonable to just cite data you like and ignore the ones you don't. While I do not question the authority of those two pilots, I think these simulated data is less relevant to Delta A350 than actual photo from the DL A350 cockpit and statistics of DL's own DTW-PVG kindly provided by ITSTours.

If we extrapolate from Delta's PVG-DTW and PEK-DTW data above, we can see a legitimate concern of A350 on LAX-SYD. I am not saying it is absolutely can't do it. But in some worse days in the winter, its payload can be a problem. Delta was smart enough to choose 77L on that route.


You cannot compare PVG-DTW and PEK-DTW data with other routes. That is diffrent enviroment! Dat I did provided is comparison of 2 aircrafts in same enviroment so it coud indicates 789 cannot lift 49t on route those DL routes because it has not enought MTOW for that.

Planning fleet is diffrent story. DL needs to place thier s arcrafts effectively and that is not restricted only by the A/C capabilities but profitability, cabin product, utilization and other factors!
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:46 am

Francoflier wrote:

I'd love to see this extrapolation, especially given that the payload figures given by ITSTours appear to be erroneous (all the same to the 8th decimal for every month for both routes?...) and that the actual take off weight is not given...



Let's start from 49t payload @ 5763nm, and let's ignore this is the payload with tailwinds from PEK to DTW. Dropping to 30t, it can have 19t more fuel, which is 19t / (5.9t/hr) = 3.22hr more flight time. So with 30t payload it's range is 5763 + 0.85mach * 3.22hr = 7587 nm.

Francoflier wrote:

I do not dispute your claim that it would be payload limited on some westbound flights in the winter, but I still fail to understand what you believe is the problem here, despite having asked already...



The problem is, as you said, 359 is payload limited on some westbound flights in the winter. The 359 is not as good as some members in this forum claim to be. For example, the poster at #180 claimed that it can do 30t payload @ 8,200nm, which is not true.

77L can reliably fly this route in all circumstances without reducing payload. The "rumor" that DL has complained A350 can't fly LAX-SYD is not totally unfounded.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:56 am

moyangmm wrote:
Francoflier wrote:

I'd love to see this extrapolation, especially given that the payload figures given by ITSTours appear to be erroneous (all the same to the 8th decimal for every month for both routes?...) and that the actual take off weight is not given...



Let's start from 49t payload @ 5763nm, and let's ignore this is the payload with tailwinds from PEK to DTW. Dropping to 30t, it can have 19t more fuel, which is 19t / (5.9t/hr) = 3.22hr more flight time. So with 30t payload it's range is 5763 + 0.85mach * 3.22hr = 7587 nm.

Francoflier wrote:

I do not dispute your claim that it would be payload limited on some westbound flights in the winter, but I still fail to understand what you believe is the problem here, despite having asked already...



The problem is, as you said, 359 is payload limited on some westbound flights in the winter. The 359 is not as good as some members in this forum claim to be. For example, the poster at #180 claimed that it can do 30t payload @ 8,200nm, which is not true.

77L can reliably fly this route in all circumstances without reducing payload. The "rumor" that DL has complained A350 can't fly LAX-SYD is not totally unfounded.


You nonsensically try to refute people posting statements based on published documents and people that actually fly the aircraft. :shakehead: As a non pilot, it looks to me based on documents I've reviewed that a A359 WV010 could transport almost 31 metric tons 8,100 nautical miles. A lot of what you are saying is just bunk.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:10 am

moyangmm wrote:
77L can reliably fly this route in all circumstances without reducing payload. The "rumor" that DL has complained A350 can't fly LAX-SYD is not totally unfounded.


The 77L would be able to do the route without reducing payload: it's designed for longer missions.

The 'rumour' that DL has complained has no factual basis, no statements from the company, nothing. It's people like you perpetuating the myth that keep it going. Unless you can find the evidence then you're just talking bollocks.

The A350 can fly LAX-SYD, and that has been demonstrated to you by people who know a lot more about the aircraft than you, and are using more reliable sources.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:46 am

Pellegrine wrote:
You nonsensically try to refute people posting statements based on published documents and people that actually fly the aircraft. :shakehead: As a non pilot, it looks to me based on documents I've reviewed that a A359 WV010 could transport almost 31 metric tons 8,100 nautical miles. A lot of what you are saying is just bunk.


My statements is not based on "published documents", its from the flight deck of an actual flight, please read my previous posts. Why is WV010 relevant? You know its a higher MTOW one than DL's right? Also you acknowledge 8100nm is from the "documents". I am assuming your documents is ACAPS. You can't disprove actual flight data with theoretical data in ACAPS; it's a comparison of apples and oranges.

MrHMSH wrote:
The A350 can fly LAX-SYD, and that has been demonstrated to you by people who know a lot more about the aircraft than you, and are using more reliable sources.


Of course it can. But in the winter, westbound, it takes a hit on the passenger payload. So it is not good enough for LAX-SYD. Why this is so hard to understand for you?
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:09 am

moyangmm wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
You nonsensically try to refute people posting statements based on published documents and people that actually fly the aircraft. :shakehead: As a non pilot, it looks to me based on documents I've reviewed that a A359 WV010 could transport almost 31 metric tons 8,100 nautical miles. A lot of what you are saying is just bunk.


My statements is not based on "published documents", its from the flight deck of an actual flight, please read my previous posts. Why is WV010 relevant? You know its a higher MTOW one than DL's right? Also you acknowledge 8100nm is from the "documents". I am assuming your documents is ACAPS. You can't disprove actual flight data with theoretical data in ACAPS; it's a comparison of apples and oranges.

MrHMSH wrote:
The A350 can fly LAX-SYD, and that has been demonstrated to you by people who know a lot more about the aircraft than you, and are using more reliable sources.


Of course it can. But in the winter, westbound, it takes a hit on the passenger payload. So it is not good enough for LAX-SYD. Why this is so hard to understand for you?


So a slight payload hit for one way of a trip at a certain time of the year means a plane isn't good enough for a route? What nonsense. Airlines can block seats and the route will still be viable, because I'm sure (I hope!) you're aware, the A350 burns a lot less fuel than the 77L on the same trip.

A moot point though if it turns out you are wrong and the more qualified people are right, and I'd rather trust the person in the A350 cockpit than the one who's seen one picture and something on the internet for their own confirmation bias.

DL can order a higher MTOW A350 if they really need to, but for now the 77L makes more sense. That doesn't mean by default that the plane can't make it with an economically viable payload.

Can you supply any evidence whatsoever that DL are unhappy with the plane because it cannot fly a gargantuan TWO ROUTES in their entire network? If the claim is not unfounded, you should be able to source some of the fire causing the supposed smoke.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:20 am

moyangmm wrote:
I am assuming your documents is ACAPS. You can't disprove actual flight data with theoretical data in ACAPS; it's a comparison of apples and oranges.


That imho is more or less bull.
You are arguing manufacturer B ACAPS data vs (unknown) real world data from manufacturer A.
( same dysfunctional argument was brought forward in the 753 vs A321LR payload range discussions.)

ACAPS data for all manufacturers show the same/similar limitation. ( still air, 10% reserves or what ever )
Comparing ACAPS data should be at least first order relevant for relative performance comparisons.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:56 am

moyangmm wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
You nonsensically try to refute people posting statements based on published documents and people that actually fly the aircraft. :shakehead: As a non pilot, it looks to me based on documents I've reviewed that a A359 WV010 could transport almost 31 metric tons 8,100 nautical miles. A lot of what you are saying is just bunk.


My statements is not based on "published documents", its from the flight deck of an actual flight, please read my previous posts. Why is WV010 relevant? You know its a higher MTOW one than DL's right? Also you acknowledge 8100nm is from the "documents". I am assuming your documents is ACAPS. You can't disprove actual flight data with theoretical data in ACAPS; it's a comparison of apples and oranges.



Something is wrong with your critical thinking. Maybe your frontal lobes are defective. But this nonsense is ridiculous.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
AsiaTravel
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:28 am

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:11 am

moyangmm wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
You nonsensically try to refute people posting statements based on published documents and people that actually fly the aircraft. :shakehead: As a non pilot, it looks to me based on documents I've reviewed that a A359 WV010 could transport almost 31 metric tons 8,100 nautical miles. A lot of what you are saying is just bunk.


My statements is not based on "published documents", its from the flight deck of an actual flight, please read my previous posts. Why is WV010 relevant? You know its a higher MTOW one than DL's right? Also you acknowledge 8100nm is from the "documents". I am assuming your documents is ACAPS. You can't disprove actual flight data with theoretical data in ACAPS; it's a comparison of apples and oranges.


It's the other way around. You can't disprove expected performance (ACAPS) with a few single data points. It is like saying climate change is false because today's and two weeks ago's temperature was 5 degree below average.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2410
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:01 am

If DL is in fact losing $2M/month as one poster stated above, then isn't dedicating a 77L on the route a bad economic decision?

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