• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
Pacific
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:44 am

moyangmm wrote:
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).


I agree that ACAPS is optimistic, thus I also wrote this:
Pacific wrote:
It also has a lot of margin for wind, diversions and indirect routing to fly LAX-SYD which is 6,500nm Great Circle distance.


The margin is 1,600nm.

moyangmm wrote:
DL188 flight from PEK to DTW(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396117&start=53#p20487075), the performance is 49t payload @ 5763nm.

That's basically max structural payload, since ACAPS does assume a very light cabin. (ACAPS states 52t max payload, which a heavier cabin will eat into)


From the other thread which you linked:
trav777 wrote:
DL is seeing max 6500nm or so out of their 268t variant...
...Thus they needed to upgauge to 275t to do the routes they wanna do, 268t wasn't cutting it...
...7t fuel will carry you 600nm or so.

According to your data source, DL's A359 can realistically fly 7,100nm, which means LAX-SYD is flyable with full pax and bags.
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 784
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:41 pm

eta unknown wrote:
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?



If DL is loosing $2M//month on the route, the A350 won’t make it profitable.
Boiler Up!
 
moyangmm
Posts: 173
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 3:46 pm

WIederling wrote:

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.


I have never cited B ACAPS data.

Also, ACAPS from B and A are under different assumptions. B's assumptions are more conservative so are closer to the performance of real planes airlines use.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 173
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 3:48 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
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.


So you agree with me the current A350 (275t) is having troubles do LAX-SYD. Otherwise why do they need to order a higher MTOW version?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8461
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 5:11 pm

moyangmm wrote:
Also, ACAPS from B and A are under different assumptions. B's assumptions are more conservative so are closer to the performance of real planes airlines use.


Anything real world that would give substance to your conviction ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6462
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:12 pm

AsiaTravel wrote:
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.


This is right. ACAPS documents are never identical to the real world, but if you are arguing that real world performance is dramatically worse than what's in the ACAPS, you have to show why.

OP is trying to do that using unconfirmed rumor/hearsay without hard numbers, but his point is being disproven by what multiple A350 operators are actually doing with the aircraft in service. It does what it says on the tin. Sure, it can't fly 6500 nm with the same amount of cargo as a 77L, but no one ever claimed it could. Saying that it can't fly the distance at 275 t MTOW with a full passenger load, though, is just disconnected from everyday reality at multiple airlines including DL itself.

This isn't just a tendency among Airbus haters, either--I've noticed plenty of Boeing haters claiming that the 787-9 can't possibly do the things that United Airlines does with it every day.
 
sadiqutp
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:05 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:15 pm

moyangmm wrote:
So you agree with me the current A350 (275t) is having troubles do LAX-SYD. Otherwise why do they need to order a higher MTOW version?


Listen carefully!
There are two groups who read these discussions:
= Those who are in the aviation industry, and non seem to support your argument. Numerous have debunked your assumptions and "extrapolations"
= Enthusiasts (like me) who might be tricked by your argument points, however I have an Engineering degree and could differentiate between blind stubbornness and reasonable arguments. I am sure I am not the only one.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2450
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 5:46 pm

moyangmm wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
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.


So you agree with me the current A350 (275t) is having troubles do LAX-SYD. Otherwise why do they need to order a higher MTOW version?


No, I disagree wholeheartedly. They might want to lift more cargo which would require a higher MTOW variant, but there is no evidence for this besides what you say, and I would very seriously question your credentials compared to others on here.

Now can you answer these questions for me:

Where is the evidence that DL is unhappy with the A350's performance? Where does the evidence come from?

Why is an aircraft not good enough for a route if it has to take a slight payload hit?
 
oslmgm
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:29 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:03 pm

At least Delta CEO Ed Bastian is not unhappy with the A350's range:

"We have Airbus 350s, which is our ultra long haul widebody aircraft. [...] it's got all the range capability you'd ever want in an aircraft."

https://twitter.com/YahooFinance/status ... 6887710720 (at 5:26 and 6:34)
 
StTim
Posts: 3401
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:24 pm

moyangmm wrote:
WIederling wrote:

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.


I have never cited B ACAPS data.

Also, ACAPS from B and A are under different assumptions. B's assumptions are more conservative so are closer to the performance of real planes airlines use.


You keep on making that statement re the ACAPS documents. The reality is Boeing had to make theirs more realistic as the previous versions were becoming laughable (but believed by many armchair planners on here). From memory of the discussions at the time the view was they were now being produced on a similar basis.
 
User avatar
Kindanew
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 11:07 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:28 pm

oslmgm wrote:
At least Delta CEO Ed Bastian is not unhappy with the A350's range:

"We have Airbus 350s, which is our ultra long haul widebody aircraft. [...] it's got all the range capability you'd ever want in an aircraft."

https://twitter.com/YahooFinance/status ... 6887710720 (at 5:26 and 6:34)


He's lying because Airbus have bribed him. </sarcasm>
 
Bonafide
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:38 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:28 pm

Let me just clear something up that I keep hearing regarding the profitability of LAX-SYD on DL. That route goes out full everyday...EVERYDAY. you will not find open J class seats or W seats and even during the offseason you may get 40 seats max open on a random day in the back. It is known to be the hardest route for employees to travel on due to passenger loads. Now, one of you armchair genius's who dont work in the industry care to explain to me how the route isnt profitable...im all ears
 
aerohottie
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:44 pm

oslmgm wrote:
At least Delta CEO Ed Bastian is not unhappy with the A350's range:

"We have Airbus 350s, which is our ultra long haul widebody aircraft. [...] it's got all the range capability you'd ever want in an aircraft."

https://twitter.com/YahooFinance/status ... 6887710720 (at 5:26 and 6:34)

Guess Moyangmm was just being a Boeing fanboy then... shocked (not shocked)
What?
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:22 pm

aerohottie wrote:
x1234 wrote:
Also I looked up the longest flights currently on the DL A359 and they are both DTW-PVG and ATL-ICN westbound averaging 14-14.5 hours so the A359 can clearly do almost 15 hour flight with reserves:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl583
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl27

You answered your own question. DL's A359's can do LAX-SYD, with a full passenger load. But they chose to operate that aircraft elsewhere.
Some Boeing fanboys have tried to push that narrative that the A350 is lacking in performance, but this tends to get corrected by those with real knowledge, such as Zeke, pretty quickly.

To the other part of your post, I would go the DL 772LR over the AA 787-9 any day. Both operate a 9 abreast configuration, which makes a MASSIVE different on a 14 hour flight IMHO

HAS IT OCCURRED TO ANYONE? Rolls Royce had some pretty serious performance and Wear issues on their newest Trent engines which required some performance limitation issues in restricting the ETOPS performance. I have No Idea whether all those issues have been resolved but the fact that they had them might have restricted their ETOPS and EROPS limits and not ONLY on the A350 but the B787 Rolls Royce engines as well. Luckily for Boeing? the GE engine is going "Great Guns"...
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3584
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

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

Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:56 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
I have No Idea whether all those issues have been resolved but the fact that they had them might have restricted their ETOPS and EROPS limits and not ONLY on the A350 but the B787 Rolls Royce engines as well.


Haven't you got it the wrong way round? My understanding is that it's the RR engines on the 787 that are the issue rather than those on the A350.
come visit the south pacific
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 12:57 am

WIederling wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Also, ACAPS from B and A are under different assumptions. B's assumptions are more conservative so are closer to the performance of real planes airlines use.


Anything real world that would give substance to your conviction ?


Based on released data sheets from the past Boeing assumes more weight per passenger & Airbus uses 95 kg (209 lb.)/pass.

This type of issue is also why operators are saying the CS100/A220 series is getting better fuel burn. The spec sheet uses 225 lb./pass.
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:05 am

moyangmm wrote:
The "rumor" that DL has complained A350 can't fly LAX-SYD is not totally unfounded.


Haven't seen anything that DL has complained at all, only that some people here ~*think*~ their A359 can't make it on LAX-SYD.
@DadCelo
 
LDRA
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:13 am

Bonafide wrote:
Let me just clear something up that I keep hearing regarding the profitability of LAX-SYD on DL. That route goes out full everyday...EVERYDAY. you will not find open J class seats or W seats and even during the offseason you may get 40 seats max open on a random day in the back. It is known to be the hardest route for employees to travel on due to passenger loads. Now, one of you armchair genius's who dont work in the industry care to explain to me how the route isnt profitable...im all ears


Any holistic information on cargo load? Thanks in advance
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13785
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:34 am

Bonafide wrote:
Let me just clear something up that I keep hearing regarding the profitability of LAX-SYD on DL. That route goes out full everyday...EVERYDAY. you will not find open J class seats or W seats and even during the offseason you may get 40 seats max open on a random day in the back. It is known to be the hardest route for employees to travel on due to passenger loads. Now, one of you armchair genius's who dont work in the industry care to explain to me how the route isnt profitable...im all ears


DL is using the least efficient aircraft on the route compared to the competitors, (A380/77W/789), there is lots of empty seats on the city pair over the year, to fill an aircraft up as you have stated all the time would indicate to me low yields.

Do you have any official statistics that support your claims of near 100% load factors ? I had a look at DL40 from the 4-10 of May showing 40+ empty seats every day.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
RobertPhoenix
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:00 am

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:01 am

rbavfan wrote:

Based on released data sheets from the past Boeing assumes more weight per passenger & Airbus uses 95 kg (209 lb.)/pass.

This type of issue is also why operators are saying the CS100/A220 series is getting better fuel burn. The spec sheet uses 225 lb./pass.


Do you think BA and AB are influenced by the average weight of the people in the country or organization that certifies the aircraft ?
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:06 am

zeke wrote:
Bonafide wrote:
Let me just clear something up that I keep hearing regarding the profitability of LAX-SYD on DL. That route goes out full everyday...EVERYDAY. you will not find open J class seats or W seats and even during the offseason you may get 40 seats max open on a random day in the back. It is known to be the hardest route for employees to travel on due to passenger loads. Now, one of you armchair genius's who dont work in the industry care to explain to me how the route isnt profitable...im all ears


DL is using the least efficient aircraft on the route compared to the competitors, (A380/77W/789), there is lots of empty seats on the city pair over the year, to fill an aircraft up as you have stated all the time would indicate to me low yields.

Do you have any official statistics that support your claims of near 100% load factors ? I had a look at DL40 from the 4-10 of May showing 40+ empty seats every day.



I have heard yields have suffered on this route for quite a few years for all carriers. It is certainly highly competitive for an ULH route. I do not know how DL is doing financially on LAX -SYD, but as disciplined as DL is I find It hard to believe they are losing money.

****EDIT****

I just checked fares out of curiosity. AA offers a round trip LAX-SYD fare as low as $706. DL is as low as $737.

To put this in perspective, the much shorter LAX-LHR has a round trip fare at $662. Most are around $700. So yeah, it looks like there is fierce competition and price pressure at least in the back of the plane.
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: 4840
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:31 am

rbavfan wrote:
Based on released data sheets from the past Boeing assumes more weight per passenger & Airbus uses 95 kg (209 lb.)/pass.

This type of issue is also why operators are saying the CS100/A220 series is getting better fuel burn. The spec sheet uses 225 lb./pass.


Ah yes, the old 'Boeing underpromises and overdelivers and vice-versa for Airbus' dogma that has been repeated ad nauseam on A.net, so much so that it has become gospel even without substantiation...

Customers know what their own passengers weigh and they'll use their own notional weights to calculate what they can and can't do with an airplane that's offered to them using the manufacturer's data for its weight and fuel burn.

Everything points to absolutely no performance shortfall for the A350 (-900 at least), and any notion of DL is discovering just now what the airplane can do on any of their route is ludicrous and a ridiculous attempt at unfounded and biased criticism.

The A350 is a 343/77E replacement aircraft that can take more payload much farther than them while burning a lot less fuel.

As said above, it will not carry the payload of a purpose-built ULH frame that's 75T heavier at take off, but on a heavily contested ULH route on which margins are razor thin and fuel costs are very high, one can indeed question the economics of sending an airplane that burns around 20T more fuel on the mission.

I am very confident that DL knows what they're doing, but there are way more metrics involved in the selection than we could ever try to guess.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
gokmengs
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:48 am

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:43 am

I can’t believe we still didn’t get a post from a DL 350 driver with cold hard facts (as if what we got isn’t enough) to close the subject only for it to come up again a month later.
As for the discussion regarding the profitability of the route I can’t imagine it being very profitable as the amount of competition is pretty decent.

P.S. never forget some fanboys (on either side of the aisle) won’t ever give up:)
Yaşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa Yaşa, Adın Yazılacak Mücevher Taşa
 
sciing
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:54 am

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:11 am

Motorhussy wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
I have No Idea whether all those issues have been resolved but the fact that they had them might have restricted their ETOPS and EROPS limits and not ONLY on the A350 but the B787 Rolls Royce engines as well.


Haven't you got it the wrong way round? My understanding is that it's the RR engines on the 787 that are the issue rather than those on the A350.

The XWB had just reported 1 IFSD since EIS. I guess the Trent XWB is a kind of benchmark in terms of reliability.
 
AirwayBill
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:37 am

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:33 am

gokmengs wrote:
I can’t believe we still didn’t get a post from a DL 350 driver with cold hard facts (as if what we got isn’t enough) to close the subject only for it to come up again a month later.
As for the discussion regarding the profitability of the route I can’t imagine it being very profitable as the amount of competition is pretty decent.

P.S. never forget some fanboys (on either side of the aisle) won’t ever give up:)


Agreed. It is interesting how a thread based on vague and unfounded rumors can live on for such a long time without any solid evidence to support its main thesis.

I believe it is appropriate to call this fake news at this point.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8461
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:01 am

strfyr51 wrote:
I have No Idea whether all those issues have been resolved but the fact that they had them might have restricted their ETOPS and EROPS limits and not ONLY on the A350 but the B787 Rolls Royce engines as well. Luckily for Boeing? the GE engine is going "Great Guns"...


pretty inventive, you are! ( others may not be so kind in their assessment.)
could you point us to some factual information that gives substance to Trent XWB engines being "limited" as you say?

Well known is that Trent 1000(non TEN) for the 787 have rather pronounced issues.
Allegedly (mostly) fixed for the Trent 1000 TEN. Overall RR seems to have production volume shortcomings.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8461
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:07 am

rbavfan wrote:
WIederling wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Also, ACAPS from B and A are under different assumptions. B's assumptions are more conservative so are closer to the performance of real planes airlines use.


Anything real world that would give substance to your conviction ?


Based on released data sheets from the past Boeing assumes more weight per passenger & Airbus uses 95 kg (209 lb.)/pass.

This type of issue is also why operators are saying the CS100/A220 series is getting better fuel burn. The spec sheet uses 225 lb./pass.


Payload range graph says nothing about per passenger weights. Carry on.
Nominal range for nn pax is 4color brochure information. ( Boeing used to be fully over the top there. They had to fix it a couple of years ago to avoid an excess of public snickering. I'd be surprised if they over did the correction. Not in character :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
Jetty
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:49 am

rbavfan wrote:
Based on released data sheets from the past Boeing assumes more weight per passenger & Airbus uses 95 kg (209 lb.)/pass.

That makes a lot of sense if Boeing’s numbers are based on the weight of USA passengers and Airbus’ numbers on European passengers. :duck:
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:52 pm

moyangmm wrote:
I have never cited B ACAPS data.

Also, ACAPS from B and A are under different assumptions. B's assumptions are more conservative so are closer to the performance of real planes airlines use.



You will need to show that Boeing's assumptions are more conservative than Airbus though. You cannot just assert it and it is true without something to show it. What is true is that Boeing's assumptions became more conservative due to the previous ones being from some fantasy land.

So what you will need to show is that the Boeing Typical Mission Rules are more conservative than the Airbus assumptions. Just showing that they changed it doesn't mean it is true, just means they changed their assumptions to be more realistic. It could still be way off even if it is more accurate than before. You will also see on both Airbus and Boeing ACAPS payload range charts they have the following statements:

"THESE CURVES ARE GIVEN FOR INFORMATION ONLY. THE APPROVED VALUES ARE STATED
IN THE "OPERATING MANUALS" SPECIFIC TO THE AIRLINE OPERATING THE AIRCRAFT." - Airbus ACAPS

"DO NOT USE FOR DISPATCH. CONSULT USING AIRLINE FOR FOR SPECIFIC OPERATING PROCEDURE AND OEW PRIOR TO FACILITY DESIGN" - Boeing ACAPS

Basically, do not believe these numbers but check the airline manuals as they will give you the numbers for an accurate payload range. So that is why information from pilots flying both these aircraft is valuable, as they will no divulge all of the information at their disposal but they have given us enough information through the years to get an accurate picture of what either model can and cannot do.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

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

Wed May 01, 2019 7:06 am

Image
Image
Image

DL load factor figures for LAX-SYD (and vice versa) is just decent at 81%. (Look at United... they're definitely losing money.)
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12293
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

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

Wed May 01, 2019 8:17 am

ITSTours wrote:
Image
Image
Image

DL load factor figures for LAX-SYD (and vice versa) is just decent at 81%. (Look at United... they're definitely losing money.)

How old are these data though? ....it's still listing VA as Virgin Blue/V-Australia.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13785
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 01, 2019 10:30 am

ITSTours wrote:
DL load factor figures for LAX-SYD (and vice versa) is just decent at 81%. (Look at United... they're definitely losing money.)


Nice work, I take it that it BITS data ?

Not the near 100% previously claimed.


LAX772LR wrote:
How old are these data though? ....it's still listing VA as Virgin Blue/V-Australia.


I think that is the correct name for the AOC holder, Virgin Blue International Pty Ltd. The international company is separate to the domestic as it needs to be 51% Australian owned under Australian laws to operate international.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3584
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

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

Wed May 01, 2019 11:18 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
Image
Image
Image

DL load factor figures for LAX-SYD (and vice versa) is just decent at 81%. (Look at United... they're definitely losing money.)

How old are these data though? ....it's still listing VA as Virgin Blue/V-Australia.


It says Virgin Blue, trading as Virgin Australia. Which is not uncommon in this part of the world.
come visit the south pacific
 
usax777
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:45 am

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

Wed May 01, 2019 1:46 pm

WIederling wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
WIederling wrote:

Anything real world that would give substance to your conviction ?


Based on released data sheets from the past Boeing assumes more weight per passenger & Airbus uses 95 kg (209 lb.)/pass.

This type of issue is also why operators are saying the CS100/A220 series is getting better fuel burn. The spec sheet uses 225 lb./pass.


Payload range graph says nothing about per passenger weights. Carry on.
Nominal range for nn pax is 4color brochure information. ( Boeing used to be fully over the top there. They had to fix it a couple of years ago to avoid an excess of public snickering. I'd be surprised if they over did the correction. Not in character :-)


The payload-range graph depends on the empty weight. Take-off weight = empty weight + payload, so if the cabin weight is higher than the ACAPS assumes, the actual payload will be less.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8461
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed May 01, 2019 3:12 pm

usax777 wrote:
The payload-range graph depends on the empty weight. Take-off weight = empty weight + payload, so if the cabin weight is higher than the ACAPS assumes, the actual payload will be less.

did I ever deny that?
and you can easily check how sane the values are. MZFW - max structural payload : OEW
Murphy is an optimist
 
ITSTours
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

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

Wed May 01, 2019 4:31 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
Image
Image
Image

DL load factor figures for LAX-SYD (and vice versa) is just decent at 81%. (Look at United... they're definitely losing money.)

How old are these data though? ....it's still listing VA as Virgin Blue/V-Australia.


Welp why didn't I write it? 2018 01-10.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

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

Wed May 01, 2019 4:36 pm

zeke wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
DL load factor figures for LAX-SYD (and vice versa) is just decent at 81%. (Look at United... they're definitely losing money.)


Nice work, I take it that it BITS data ?

Not the near 100% previously claimed.



Yes. it is from US BTS.
 
usax777
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:45 am

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

Wed May 01, 2019 5:01 pm

enzo011 wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
I have never cited B ACAPS data.

Also, ACAPS from B and A are under different assumptions. B's assumptions are more conservative so are closer to the performance of real planes airlines use.



You will need to show that Boeing's assumptions are more conservative than Airbus though. You cannot just assert it and it is true without something to show it. What is true is that Boeing's assumptions became more conservative due to the previous ones being from some fantasy land.



B's data are indeed much more reasonable now after they change it; Airbus should do the same instead of remain on the fantasy land.

Francoflier wrote:
Ah yes, the old 'Boeing underpromises and overdelivers and vice-versa for Airbus' dogma that has been repeated ad nauseam on A.net, so much so that it has become gospel even without substantiation...


I guess the impression of 'Boeing underpromises and overdelivers and vice-versa for Airbus' is not entirely untrue. For example:

B789: brochure range: 7,635 nmi, longest actual range (LHR-PHR) 7,829 nmi
A350-900: brochure range: 8,100 nmi, longest actual range (MNL-JFK) 7,404 nmi
A350-900 ULR: brochure range: 9,700 nmi, longest actual range (EWR-SIN) 8,295 nmi
 
Olddog
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

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

Wed May 01, 2019 5:20 pm

I guess that usax777 is moyangmm new name ?
When UK was in it wanted a lot of opt-outs, now it is out it wants opt-ins
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Wed May 01, 2019 5:45 pm

usax777/moyangmm wrote:
B789: brochure range: 7,635 nmi, longest actual range (LHR-PHR) 7,829 nmi
with a pax load of ~230 compared to a spec load of 290 so a reduction of ~6t of weight and an increase of less than 1hr range at cruise speed, hardly surprising
usax777/moyangmm wrote:
A350-900: brochure range: 8,100 nmi, longest actual range (MNL-JFK) 7,404 nmi
I’m not sure anyone has any information on this flight such as loads or actual takeoff weights
usax777/moyangmm wrote:
A350-900 ULR: brochure range: 9,700 nmi, longest actual range (EWR-SIN) 8,295 nmi
on the first flight it was noted that it landed with over 10t of fuel in reserve compared to a standard 4-5t and that it took off at~272t according to evidence from a well respected pilot on this forum. Suggesting there could have been ~13-14t of fuel uplift if required and at 5.8t/hr that’s would give around 9500nm. Seems like there is about the same amount of shenanigans going on.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
usax777
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:45 am

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

Wed May 01, 2019 6:17 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
with a pax load of ~230 compared to a spec load of 290 so a reduction of ~6t of weight and an increase of less than 1hr range at cruise speed, hardly surprising


Why don't you take into account below MTOW and extra reserve for Boeing, but you do for Airbus? I think you are biased.
 
User avatar
Kindanew
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 11:07 pm

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

Wed May 01, 2019 6:36 pm

usax777 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
I have never cited B ACAPS data.

Also, ACAPS from B and A are under different assumptions. B's assumptions are more conservative so are closer to the performance of real planes airlines use.



You will need to show that Boeing's assumptions are more conservative than Airbus though. You cannot just assert it and it is true without something to show it. What is true is that Boeing's assumptions became more conservative due to the previous ones being from some fantasy land.



B's data are indeed much more reasonable now after they change it; Airbus should do the same instead of remain on the fantasy land.

Francoflier wrote:
Ah yes, the old 'Boeing underpromises and overdelivers and vice-versa for Airbus' dogma that has been repeated ad nauseam on A.net, so much so that it has become gospel even without substantiation...


I guess the impression of 'Boeing underpromises and overdelivers and vice-versa for Airbus' is not entirely untrue. For example:

B789: brochure range: 7,635 nmi, longest actual range (LHR-PHR) 7,829 nmi
A350-900: brochure range: 8,100 nmi, longest actual range (MNL-JFK) 7,404 nmi
A350-900 ULR: brochure range: 9,700 nmi, longest actual range (EWR-SIN) 8,295 nmi


But airlines don’t purchase planes based on publicly available brochure numbers.

Airbus and Boeing provide real performance data and weights and the airlines spend months crunching the numbers.

I also understand that Airbus and Boeing are contractually bound to meet the performance numbers they promise to airlines.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Wed May 01, 2019 6:42 pm

usax777 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
with a pax load of ~230 compared to a spec load of 290 so a reduction of ~6t of weight and an increase of less than 1hr range at cruise speed, hardly surprising


Why don't you take into account below MTOW and extra reserve for Boeing, but you do for Airbus? I think you are biased.

Because, moyangmm, I don’t have those numbers to hand. My belief was that it was about 2.5t reserve on arrival to LHR but that number seems low to me so I didn’t think it could be right. Would you be so kind as to post them?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
hooverman
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:20 pm

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

Wed May 01, 2019 6:58 pm

Olddog wrote:
I guess that usax777 is moyangmm new name ?


LOL. It’s to obvious.
 
usax777
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:45 am

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

Thu May 02, 2019 1:30 am

flipdewaf wrote:
usax777 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
with a pax load of ~230 compared to a spec load of 290 so a reduction of ~6t of weight and an increase of less than 1hr range at cruise speed, hardly surprising


Why don't you take into account below MTOW and extra reserve for Boeing, but you do for Airbus? I think you are biased.

Because, moyangmm, I don’t have those numbers to hand. My belief was that it was about 2.5t reserve on arrival to LHR but that number seems low to me so I didn’t think it could be right. Would you be so kind as to post them?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am not moyangmm. Do you really need to smear anyone who happens to agree with him or her? By the way, you do notice that the PR MNL-JFK flight has 295 seats, 30 seats below Airbus' "nominal" seating configuration right?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Thu May 02, 2019 5:21 am

usax777 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
usax777 wrote:

Why don't you take into account below MTOW and extra reserve for Boeing, but you do for Airbus? I think you are biased.

Because, moyangmm, I don’t have those numbers to hand. My belief was that it was about 2.5t reserve on arrival to LHR but that number seems low to me so I didn’t think it could be right. Would you be so kind as to post them?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am not moyangmm. Do you really need to smear anyone who happens to agree with him or her? By the way, you do notice that the PR MNL-JFK flight has 295 seats, 30 seats below Airbus' "nominal" seating configuration right?

Yep, I did actually, although my conclusion is that because we don’t have enough information to make a conclusion I will therefore not make a conclusion. You however, much like moyangmm, think not enough information means your are correct until proven otherwise, a poor way to determine truth.

Why don’t you read the thread on 787 vs A350 range, the information is all there. Two fine aircraft with slightly higher capabilities and so slightly higher fuel burn. If you don’t like the truth don’t just pretend it isn’t so, that’s why kids and creationists do.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13785
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 5:31 am

usax777 wrote:
I guess the impression of 'Boeing underpromises and overdelivers and vice-versa for Airbus' is not entirely untrue. For example:

B789: brochure range: 7,635 nmi, longest actual range (LHR-PHR) 7,829 nmi
A350-900: brochure range: 8,100 nmi, longest actual range (MNL-JFK) 7,404 nmi
A350-900 ULR: brochure range: 9,700 nmi, longest actual range (EWR-SIN) 8,295 nmi


Just to clarify things, we do not live in a world without winds and ATC routes.

QF10 flight time 16:20 (236 seats)
PR129 16:40 (295 seats)
SQ21 18:20

If we assume a nil wind ground speed of 480 kts (approx cruise TAS of the A350/787), these flight times are equivalent to
QF10 7824 nm
PR129 7968 nm
SQ21 8784 nm

So PR129 carries 59 seats (approximately 6 tonnes more ) over a longer flight time than QF10. This agrees with the rule of thumb of the A350-900 vs 787-9, 5 tonnes more payload with greater range.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4840
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 5:59 am

usax777 wrote:
I guess the impression of 'Boeing underpromises and overdelivers and vice-versa for Airbus' is not entirely untrue. For example:

B789: brochure range: 7,635 nmi, longest actual range (LHR-PHR) 7,829 nmi
A350-900: brochure range: 8,100 nmi, longest actual range (MNL-JFK) 7,404 nmi
A350-900 ULR: brochure range: 9,700 nmi, longest actual range (EWR-SIN) 8,295 nmi


Is this some sort of sarcastic joke I'm not getting?

Are you using the general public brochure figures as what Airbus or Boeing actually advertise to airlines?
And you are telling me that the fact no operator is sending the airplanes on routes near this vague range figure is proof that the airplane cannot do it?

I wouldn't even know where to start. A payload/range chart is not that hard to figure out, and at this stage I'm only hoping that you understand that an aircraft's range depends on so many factors, many of which are airline and/or route specific, that the figures made available to the public are merely there to give the average Joe a general idea.

In case you're wondering where the '8100' and '9700' nm range figures for the 350 come from, there are simply conversions of 15000 and 18000 km respectively, which are the round, broad figures that are printed on the public PR material that no prospective operator would even take a glance at. In the case of Airbus, they state the max range with a full tank of gas (logically), which would obviously mean a limited payload (about 25T). I'm not sure where on the payload chart Boeing takes their publicly stated range, but it doesn't matter.

It's all about much payload you can carry over a certain distance and whether a certain route is profitable depends on how many $$ you can squeeze out of every lb/kg of that payload.
The heavy payload penalty incurred on the PER-LHR route is compensated by the fact that QF can command much higher prices for the tickets.

And to come back to the topic, I realized I made an error in an earlier calculation I made upthread (unit conversion...) and it turns out that a 275T A359 can indeed easily do LAX-SYD in the winter with 35T of payload or more... There would be absolutely no need to block any seats at all, even in DL's config with 306 pax, and it could still take cargo.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 6:03 am

flipdewaf wrote:
on the first flight it was noted that it landed with over 10t of fuel in reserve compared to a standard 4-5t and that it took off at~272t according to evidence from a well respected pilot on this forum. Suggesting there could have been ~13-14t of fuel uplift if required and at 5.8t/hr that’s would give around 9500nm.


Why don’t you factor in tailwinds?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13785
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 6:26 am

moyangmm wrote:
Why don’t you factor in tailwinds?


There was actually a slight "headwind", the great circle route is 8285 nm, the flight was 17 hrs 22 minutes, at 480 kts is 8336 nm. In reality they took a much longer route to the south with tailwinds, but that was still a longer flight time than great circle.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=wsss-kewr% ... 85&SU=mach
Last edited by zeke on Thu May 02, 2019 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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