Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15936
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.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4096
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 6:28 am

moyangmm wrote:
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?


That’s a good idea!
zeke wrote:
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.


How’s that work out?

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
moyangmm
Posts: 230
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 6:29 am

Francoflier wrote:
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.


You first said the range number is for public information only and then you use ACAPS “brochure” payload-range chart whenever in Airbus’ favor. I think it’s extremely biased.

You get the “brochure” range using the payload-range chart. You draw a horizontal line at the assumed weight of passenger+bags and the intersection of the horizontal line and payload-range line is the “brochure” range.

Of course they are for general information only. But do you really think the more accurate data given to airlines regarding a plane performance is far off from the public one?

Whenever you talk about Airbus, you trust their public payload-range in their favor, even the reality suggests otherwise. When you talk about Boeing, you easily dismiss it as “heavily payload penalized”. Do you realize QF9 actual flight data reported in this forum shows the 789 on PER-LHR not only does not block seats but takes extra cargos?

Of course I understand the payload-range chart is for an ideal situation. In reality many more factors needs to be considered. But why those factors always work against Airbus but in favor of Boeing? They should affect all aircrafts in the same way right?
 
moyangmm
Posts: 230
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 6:42 am

zeke wrote:
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.


I didn’t think there is a PR129. Did you mean PR126? In the most recent 30 day, PR126 only takes about 15 hours. It can be as short as 14:53 (May 1). Where do you get 16:40 from?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15936
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 6:46 am

flipdewaf wrote:

How’s that work out?

Fred


The flight times are just the actual flight time flown yesterday. The nil wind ground speed is equal to the aircraft true airspeed, which is about 480 kts (M0.85) for the A350/787.

Simple maths, Speed=distance/time, therefore still air distance=speedxtime

16.3x480=7824nm
16.6x480=7968nm
18.3x480=8784nm
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4096
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 6:50 am

zeke wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

How’s that work out?

Fred


The flight times are just the actual flight time flown yesterday. The nil wind ground speed is equal to the aircraft true airspeed, which is about 480 kts (M0.85) for the A350/787.

Simple maths, Speed=distance/time, therefore still air distance=speedxtime

16.3x480=7824nm
16.6x480=7968nm
18.3x480=8784nm

That’s ok Zeke, I trust your numbers. I was trying to get usax777 or whoever it was asking about tailwinds when you had basically already done it.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Mrakula
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 6:51 am

zeke wrote:
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.


Good example. Flight time is much more precise than GC distance. Cause all A/C cruise at given mach number and fuel burn is calculated per hour.

diffrence between SQ37 LAX-SIN acc flightradar24 average flight time is 17:03 and SQ38 SIN-LAX average flight time 14:35 that is why UA cannot run that route effectively with B789 because they have to block too many seats and SQ using 350ULR while in good weather condition it is possible by standart A350.

Cheers
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15936
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 6:52 am

moyangmm wrote:
I didn’t think there is a PR129. Did you mean PR126? In the most recent 30 day, PR126 only takes about 15 hours. It can be as short as 14:53 (May 1). Where do you get 16:40 from?


No the return flight, your other username was quoting JFK-MNL which I should have written as PR127.

It was actually 16:43 (which is actually 8024 nm) but I rounded it down to 16:40 which I approximated as 16:40 is 16.6, where as I I cannot quickly work out in my head 16:43 as 16.71

https://www.flightstats.com/v2/flight-d ... =998318376
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4096
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 6:57 am

zeke wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

How’s that work out?

Fred


The flight times are just the actual flight time flown yesterday. The nil wind ground speed is equal to the aircraft true airspeed, which is about 480 kts (M0.85) for the A350/787.

Simple maths, Speed=distance/time, therefore still air distance=speedxtime

16.3x480=7824nm
16.6x480=7968nm
18.3x480=8784nm


Actually I do have a query, my maths tells me that M0.85 is actually closer to 487kts, is the lower velocity you use because of takeoff and landing times/reduced speeds?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15936
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 7:10 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Actually I do have a query, my maths tells me that M0.85 is actually closer to 487kts, is the lower velocity you use because of takeoff and landing times/reduced speeds?


480 is close enough, just like I didnt go to the second decimal point on the times. It will be a bit above and below 480 depending on altitude and ISA variations, but that is close enough to make a like for like comparison. When we say M0.85, in econ cruise it will actually vary slightly throughout the flight depending on wind, temperature, and flight level.

If you want to see it to the decimal point ....

16.33333333 x 487.732 = 7966.289333
16.66666667 x 487.732 = 8128.866667
18.33333333 x 487.732 = 8941.753333
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
WIederling
Posts: 10022
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 7:30 am

zeke wrote:
If you want to see it to the decimal point ....

16.33333333 x 487.732 = 7966.289333
16.66666667 x 487.732 = 8128.866667
18.33333333 x 487.732 = 8941.753333


Not really criticizing you, Zeke.

What do I cherish the times of using a slide rule when you actually had to think about what
kind of "real" precision your computation could provide :-)))))))))
Murphy is an optimist
 
StTim
Posts: 3809
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Thu May 02, 2019 7:33 am

But then you are showing spurious accuracy as flight time includes climb, descent and possible hold. I think the generalisation is fine for what is being discussed here.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19803
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 7:39 am

StTim wrote:
I think the generalisation is fine for what is being discussed debunked here.


Fixed that for you! :wink2:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 7:59 am

You guys have way more patience than I, those "2" would be in my foe list within the first page.
@DadCelo
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4096
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 8:29 am

gatibosgru wrote:
You guys have way more patience than I, those "2" would be in my foe list within the first page.
I never put people in a foe list. The arguments should stand on their own merits and not on the person voicing the arguments, if we don't like the arguments I believe we should put forward more and better arguments and evidence to support and shut down the false information. you have to make the assumption that can be wrong to make sure you know if you are wrong. I know I sound a bit preachy but bubbles and echo chambers make you feel right without making you right.

Fred
Image
 
Mrakula
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 9:11 am

flipdewaf wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
You guys have way more patience than I, those "2" would be in my foe list within the first page.
I never put people in a foe list. The arguments should stand on their own merits and not on the person voicing the arguments, if we don't like the arguments I believe we should put forward more and better arguments and evidence to support and shut down the false information. you have to make the assumption that can be wrong to make sure you know if you are wrong. I know I sound a bit preachy but bubbles and echo chambers make you feel right without making you right.

Fred


It can work when you discusses with people of common sence, but some miss it.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 10:25 am

That person just conveniently ignores things.
In an earlier post, he showed me real data from another thread that supposedly supported his arguments.

Except his source also gave 7,100nm as a realistic range for Delta's A359.

LAX-SYD = 6,500nm
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5797
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 1:39 pm

moyangmm wrote:
You first said the range number is for public information only and then you use ACAPS “brochure” payload-range chart whenever in Airbus’ favor. I think it’s extremely biased.


I haven't used ACAPS data, I don't even look at it. I get my data from real world operational figures from a long haul and ULH A359 operator.

moyangmm wrote:
Of course they are for general information only. But do you really think the more accurate data given to airlines regarding a plane performance is far off from the public one?

Whenever you talk about Airbus, you trust their public payload-range in their favor, even the reality suggests otherwise. When you talk about Boeing, you easily dismiss it as “heavily payload penalized”. Do you realize QF9 actual flight data reported in this forum shows the 789 on PER-LHR not only does not block seats but takes extra cargos?

Of course I understand the payload-range chart is for an ideal situation. In reality many more factors needs to be considered. But why those factors always work against Airbus but in favor of Boeing? They should affect all aircrafts in the same way right?


OK, let's go through this once again...

I did make a mistake in an earlier post I made suggesting that cargo might not be able to be loaded on a winter LAX-SYD sector in DL's config. It turns out I was working off the wrong distance (nautical / statute error).
In actual fact, and as said by other posters with access to similar data, the 359 is very much able to carry a full load of pax (306 for DL from what I gather from another contributor), their bags and a few metric tonnes of cargo. And that's assuming a fairly extreme 60kts headwind averaged over the whole flight, using Brisbane as an alternate and an additional 1 hour worth of gas... That pretty much amounts to a worst case scenario.
So yeah, it would comfortably operate the route, and burning way less gas than a 77L.

If I look at the ACAPS payload/range, I find that the values are pretty much the same. I can't see a shortfall here.
What I also know is that, from being involved in the operation of the aircraft, I have not heard from anyone in the higher spheres with much more data that I have access to complain about the airplane's performance versus what was sold to them, on the contrary.

Prospective operators are mostly advertised an OEW and a fuel burn/gross weight. They do their own payload/range calculations on the specific routes they intend to put the airplane on and taking into account the specifics of their operation such as heavier/lighter weight for cabin furnishing, company fuel policy, available alternates, etc. They couldn't give a rat's ass about the brochure or the ACAPS payload and range values as these use different assumptions. Boeing does exactly the same.

As to why you persist in thinking that there is some sort of problem with the aircraft, that it can't fly the range it is said to have, or that DL or anybody else was cheated or is not happy with it, or that it underperforms in any way, I don't know.
You are either just trolling or desperately trying to not burst the bubble of belief you like to be in.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Thu May 02, 2019 5:52 pm

usax777 wrote:
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.



Agreed, the reduction of 8 J seats should be reflected and is very much the same as using 1970's standards for J class seating to show capacity figures for fans.


usax777 wrote:
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?



Both OEMs are still generous with their layouts and numbers they market to you and me and the press. They are trying to get the most realistic numbers while conflating their products capabilities. We can gladly get into a pissing match about who is more realistic on their numbers but seeing as there are airlines that uses their products close to, or even with more capacity, than what both claim we can assume both are being generous with their layouts but not unrealistic.

As an example, on the A359 as you list PR has 295 seats in their A359. This is in 3 classes though with Premium Economy which the Airbus numbers do not take into account. Convert those 3 rows to 4 rows of Y and you get an extra 12 seats. Then you are up to 307 seats. You could also add in another row of Y as there is 2 bulkheads used as there is a divider between the two Economy cabins. Then you are over the 315 seats in the ACAPs.

Take the Ethiopian Airlines examples as well. Boeing lists the 788 with 242 passengers seats in two classes, while ET has 270 seats in its 788. For the A359 ET has 343 seats in two classes. You will take note that the layout ET uses in J is the same as Airbus uses to get to their numbers, 6-abreast. So you could argue that Airbus is actually a bit conservative in their assumptions.

But we are discussing the range of an aircraft that we know a lot more of than what you can find on the marketing material or the ACAPs. We have the capacity that the airline will use and we have range figures from people in the industry and from data collected. People will get tetchy with someone who keeps asserting a fact that we know is almost certainly not true and added to that his other assertions are most definitely false.
 
hooverman
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:20 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 6:30 pm

Stop feeding the troll. :banghead:
 
lhrnue
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:47 pm

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

Thu May 02, 2019 6:42 pm

x1234 wrote:
I'm planning to book AA's 789 because of the lower cabin pressure


Is the lower cabin pressure something you have to pre-book, or is it available upon request on the day?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15936
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 7:01 pm

lhrnue wrote:
x1234 wrote:
I'm planning to book AA's 789 because of the lower cabin pressure


Is the lower cabin pressure something you have to pre-book, or is it available upon request on the day?


You can do the upgrade at the gate,or onboard. For a small fee of US$75 a passenger can select to have lower cabin pressure. You get a small battery powered vacuum cleaner that lowers the cabin pressure on the inlet side.

If they are after the ultimate in lower pressure, a seat of the outside of the fuselage would be advisable. Maybe after they had a sector at the cruise outside air pressure would improve this thread.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4096
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 7:04 pm

lhrnue wrote:
x1234 wrote:
I'm planning to book AA's 789 because of the lower cabin pressure


Is the lower cabin pressure something you have to pre-book, or is it available upon request on the day?

My own different pressure that I upgraded at the gate! This is my new excuse for the wind 3hrs in.

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?

Sat May 04, 2019 10:35 am

zeke wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
I didn’t think there is a PR129. Did you mean PR126? In the most recent 30 day, PR126 only takes about 15 hours. It can be as short as 14:53 (May 1). Where do you get 16:40 from?


No the return flight, your other username was quoting JFK-MNL which I should have written as PR127.

It was actually 16:43 (which is actually 8024 nm) but I rounded it down to 16:40 which I approximated as 16:40 is 16.6, where as I I cannot quickly work out in my head 16:43 as 16.71

https://www.flightstats.com/v2/flight-d ... =998318376


A sample on May 3 from Flightradar24 shows:

QF9: 17:04
PR127: 16:11

Why do you always choose favorable numbers for Airbus?
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 12:01 pm

The QF flight has been longer by up to an hour recently.

QF9
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA9

PR127
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/PAL127

However, PR127 has 25% more seats in a 9.3% greater floor area. Sample QF9 weights are available on this site and I'd be very interested in seeing the payload numbers for PR127 to give an idea of how much payload a perfectly possible LAX-SYD flight can lift.

Floor areas: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=769733
Sample QF9 numbers: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387&start=100#p20841851 (Post 112)
 
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?

Sat May 04, 2019 12:20 pm

Pacific wrote:
The QF flight has been longer by up to an hour recently.

QF9
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA9

PR127
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/PAL127

However, PR127 has 25% more seats in a 9.3% greater floor area. Sample QF9 weights are available on this site and I'd be very interested in seeing the payload numbers for PR127 to give an idea of how much payload a perfectly possible LAX-SYD flight can lift.

Floor areas: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=769733
Sample QF9 numbers: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387&start=100#p20841851 (Post 112)


So the 789 can do 17 hour mission with 5t under MTOW; it’s a truly ULH king.
 
mig17
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

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

Sat May 04, 2019 12:40 pm

usax777 wrote:
Pacific wrote:
The QF flight has been longer by up to an hour recently.

QF9
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA9

PR127
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/PAL127

However, PR127 has 25% more seats in a 9.3% greater floor area. Sample QF9 weights are available on this site and I'd be very interested in seeing the payload numbers for PR127 to give an idea of how much payload a perfectly possible LAX-SYD flight can lift.

Floor areas: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=769733
Sample QF9 numbers: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387&start=100#p20841851 (Post 112)


So the 789 can do 17 hour mission with 5t under MTOW; it’s a truly ULH king.


So why is Qantas still looking for a project sunrise aircraft?
A30B IW/TG, A313 EK, A318/9/20/1 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A35K QR, A388 AF, AT72 A5/TX, B722 AT, B734/8 UX/SK/TO/SS, B742/3/4 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, B762 UA, B77E/W AF/QR, C-150/72, CRJ1/7/X A5, E145/70/90 A5/WF, DH8D WF, PC-6.
 
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?

Sat May 04, 2019 12:59 pm

mig17 wrote:
usax777 wrote:
Pacific wrote:
The QF flight has been longer by up to an hour recently.

QF9
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA9

PR127
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/PAL127

However, PR127 has 25% more seats in a 9.3% greater floor area. Sample QF9 weights are available on this site and I'd be very interested in seeing the payload numbers for PR127 to give an idea of how much payload a perfectly possible LAX-SYD flight can lift.

Floor areas: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=769733
Sample QF9 numbers: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387&start=100#p20841851 (Post 112)


So the 789 can do 17 hour mission with 5t under MTOW; it’s a truly ULH king.


So why is Qantas still looking for a project sunrise aircraft?


I doubt Qantas is still looking. There is only one option, B778, unless Airbus can raise MTOW of A350-1000 by 20t.
 
xwb565
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 2:06 pm

usax777 wrote:
Pacific wrote:
The QF flight has been longer by up to an hour recently.

QF9
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA9

PR127
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/PAL127

However, PR127 has 25% more seats in a 9.3% greater floor area. Sample QF9 weights are available on this site and I'd be very interested in seeing the payload numbers for PR127 to give an idea of how much payload a perfectly possible LAX-SYD flight can lift.

Floor areas: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=769733
Sample QF9 numbers: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387&start=100#p20841851 (Post 112)


So the 789 can do 17 hour mission with 5t under MTOW; it’s a truly ULH king.


Yes the true king.... Much better than an aircraft that flew 16:50 mins, carried 6t more payload on top of a heavier more premium interior, burned only 5t more fuel and was 7t bellow its mtow.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 2:11 pm

UA's 789s are clocking up to 18 hours on SFO-SIN. Would love to see numbers on that one since it's got a more "standard" seat density.
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL1

I remember reading that PAL's 359s are "only" 278t. Would love to see the numbers to see if it actually manages to lift the notorious "balikbayan" boxes, especially during Christmas period. HKG airport check-in is chaos with those boxes during this period and my 80 year old's grandma's check-in luggage got bumped on a 2 hour flight.
 
xwb565
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 2:16 pm

Pacific wrote:
UA's 789s are clocking up to 18 hours on SFO-SIN. Would love to see numbers on that one since it's got a more "standard" seat density.
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL1

I remember reading that PAL's 359s are "only" 278t. Would love to see the numbers to see if it actually manages to lift the notorious "balikbayan" boxes, especially during Christmas period. HKG airport check-in is chaos with those boxes during this period and my 80 year old's grandma's check-in luggage got bumped on a 2 hour flight.


UA does block on that route but only against really bad winds a couple of weeks in a year. The regular SQ a350 does not even need to do that.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 2:27 pm

xwb565 wrote:
UA does block on that route but only against really bad winds a couple of weeks in a year. The regular SQ a350 does not even need to do that.


*Edited* Got SFO and LAX confused.

If UA blocks seats while SQ has no need to do so, it does show that the A359 has an even higher range than the 789. That said, both aircraft have impressive performance.
Last edited by Pacific on Sat May 04, 2019 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
xwb565
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 2:31 pm

Pacific wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
UA does block on that route but only against really bad winds a couple of weeks in a year. The regular SQ a350 does not even need to do that.

SQ does not sell any economy seats on the direct flight. When the standard A359 got subbed in, did it take a full load of 250 pax?


The regular SQ a350 with the 253 passenger layout has been flying sq31/32 for more than two years now and continues to do so. The ulr a350 was only recently introduced on the route for a few additional frequencies every week.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 2:35 pm

xwb565 wrote:
The regular SQ a350 with the 253 passenger layout has been flying sq31/32 for more than two years now and continues to do so. The ulr a350 was only recently introduced on the route for a few additional frequencies every week.

Argh, you beat my edit! :white:

May I enquire the MTOW of the 253-seat birds?
 
tris06
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 12:36 am

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

Sat May 04, 2019 2:37 pm

I love reading the comments (Why do people make a big deal of the A350 over the B77L).Umm yes they may have similar cabins but one has better lighting, signicantly lower noise from the engines and a noticable improvement in humidity in the cabin.
And yet these same people would spout how great the 787 is with these improvements.

I personally have a preference of the A350 plane wise. The airline I fly does not have the B787, but I would put the 787 a close 2nd only because economy is usually a bit tigher than the A350. B777 and A330s then followed by the 747. This is ignoring if cabin is new or old, seating location and etc. Just the airframe itself.
Some people here are just so blindly love Boeing which may be more numerous than Airbus fanboys.

For me flying I rate overal comfort my top concern (airframe,cabin set up, location on the plane).
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 2:40 pm

Pacific wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
The regular SQ a350 with the 253 passenger layout has been flying sq31/32 for more than two years now and continues to do so. The ulr a350 was only recently introduced on the route for a few additional frequencies every week.

Argh, you beat my edit! :white:

May I enquire the MTOW of the 253-seat birds?

SQ has 276t A350’s, and of course the 161 seat 280t ULR.
 
mig17
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

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

Sat May 04, 2019 2:45 pm

usax777 wrote:
mig17 wrote:
usax777 wrote:

So the 789 can do 17 hour mission with 5t under MTOW; it’s a truly ULH king.


So why is Qantas still looking for a project sunrise aircraft?


I doubt Qantas is still looking. There is only one option, B778, unless Airbus can raise MTOW of A350-1000 by 20t.


Bof! Without an MTOW bump, the 778 isn't so impressive either. Neither the A35K nor the 778 (we know for now) can do the flight with 30T of payload. Both will do it with around 24T (A35K with more fuel tank to reach 137T of fuel onboard) to 28T (778 with 154T of fuel onboard) of payload and I am not taking into consideration real route and winds.

So the difference for the extrem flight isn't so big, only 4T in favor of the 778 with the A35K being 17T more fuel efficient and 36T lighter at TOW. And for any distance under 8800NM, the A35K will fly those 300pax more efficiently than the 778. Do you think Perth-London will stay flown by a 789 when the sunrise plane will be here?

So yes, if the A350 gets new engines soon enough for Qantas, they are not looking anymore ...
A30B IW/TG, A313 EK, A318/9/20/1 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A35K QR, A388 AF, AT72 A5/TX, B722 AT, B734/8 UX/SK/TO/SS, B742/3/4 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, B762 UA, B77E/W AF/QR, C-150/72, CRJ1/7/X A5, E145/70/90 A5/WF, DH8D WF, PC-6.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 3:04 pm

usax777 wrote:
mig17 wrote:
usax777 wrote:

So the 789 can do 17 hour mission with 5t under MTOW; it’s a truly ULH king.


So why is Qantas still looking for a project sunrise aircraft?


I doubt Qantas is still looking. There is only one option, B778, unless Airbus can raise MTOW of A350-1000 by 20t.


Perhaps you should inform Qantas' management of this, Airbus has offered an A350-1000 that meets their requirements. I suppose though that the A35K would have to block 300 seats in your view to make it? Not like anyone more qualified with more accurate data has completely skewered your previous arguments...
 
Planetalk
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 3:37 pm

Not sure why people have a pissing contest over this, giving planes enough range for something like 0.1% of their missions just makes them less efficient on all the rest. If si were an executive at most airlines I'd he pretty fed up with this fairly pointless arms race.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15936
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 5:12 pm

usax777 wrote:
A sample on May 3 from Flightradar24 shows:

QF9: 17:04
PR127: 16:11

Why do you always choose favorable numbers for Airbus?


Oh dear....

You do realise the reason I used that QF flight was because of what you posted earlier ?

“B789: brochure range: 7,635 nmi, longest actual range (LHR-PHR) 7,829 nmi”

I directly responded to that, you dear chose “LHR-PHR” (should be LHR-PER, PHR is in Fiji and around 1400 nm further).

The reason I used May 2nd data was because the May 3 flights were still flying. If I could predict actual flight times in advance I would have predicted the lottery numbers a long time ago and bought myself and island to retire on.

I used flightstats not FR24, and provided a link to the PR127 data.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
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?

Sat May 04, 2019 5:35 pm

zeke wrote:
usax777 wrote:
A sample on May 3 from Flightradar24 shows:

QF9: 17:04
PR127: 16:11

Why do you always choose favorable numbers for Airbus?


Oh dear....

You do realise the reason I used that QF flight was because of what you posted earlier ?

“B789: brochure range: 7,635 nmi, longest actual range (LHR-PHR) 7,829 nmi”

I directly responded to that, you dear chose “LHR-PHR” (should be LHR-PER, PHR is in Fiji and around 1400 nm further).

The reason I used May 2nd data was because the May 3 flights were still flying. If I could predict actual flight times in advance I would have predicted the lottery numbers a long time ago and bought myself and island to retire on.

I used flightstats not FR24, and provided a link to the PR127 data.


Apology for the typo. I meant LHR-PER indeed. But even if you look at May 2, the flight time is:

QF9: 17:04 (https://de.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA9)
PR127: 16:45 (https://de.flightaware.com/live/flight/PAL127)

In either case, QF9 is a longer flight. So your conclusion, "359 carries more and fly farther" is not true in this particular case.
 
EvanWSFO
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:22 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 5:45 pm

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


LOL. It’s to obvious.


Methinks it's time to start charging for membership again. Giving people the ability to have multiple logins is going to further water down the credibility of this site.
I have been on this site 15 years. A unrecoverable email account led me to starting over. Those of you who call me a rookie, you may stop ok?
 
User avatar
akoma
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:51 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 5:50 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
Pacific wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
The regular SQ a350 with the 253 passenger layout has been flying sq31/32 for more than two years now and continues to do so. The ulr a350 was only recently introduced on the route for a few additional frequencies every week.

Argh, you beat my edit! :white:

May I enquire the MTOW of the 253-seat birds?

SQ has 276t A350’s, and of course the 161 seat 280t ULR.



Minor point - they use the 275T (not 276T) A350s for flights 31/32 and occasionally the 268T ones as well.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15936
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 5:53 pm

usax777 wrote:
Apology for the typo. I meant LHR-PER indeed. But even if you look at May 2, the flight time is:


Oh dear,

Here we go again :banghead:

“I meant LHR-PER indeed”

The flight from LHR-PER is QF10.

Try your numbers again dear....
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
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?

Sat May 04, 2019 6:03 pm

zeke wrote:
usax777 wrote:
Apology for the typo. I meant LHR-PER indeed. But even if you look at May 2, the flight time is:


Oh dear,

Here we go again :banghead:

“I meant LHR-PER indeed”

The flight from LHR-PER is QF10.

Try your numbers again dear....


OK!

PER-LHR is QF9, flown by B789 and it is consistently longer than JFK-MNL PR127 by about half an hour. So your point of A359 flying for longer and lifting more is still incorrect.
Last edited by usax777 on Sat May 04, 2019 6:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
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?

Sat May 04, 2019 6:04 pm

akoma wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Pacific wrote:
Argh, you beat my edit! :white:

May I enquire the MTOW of the 253-seat birds?

SQ has 276t A350’s, and of course the 161 seat 280t ULR.



Minor point - they use the 275T (not 276T) A350s for flights 31/32 and occasionally the 268T ones as well.


Does SQ even have 268t variant, or they use variable MTOW? I thought they only has 250t (regional), 276t ("vanilla"), and 280t (ULR).
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15936
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 6:19 pm

usax777 wrote:
OK!

PER-LHR is QF9, flown by B789 and it is consistently longer than JFK-MNL PR127 by about half an hour. So your point of A359 flying for longer and lifting more is still incorrect.


Dear

Where does QF have the additional 60 passengers that are not accommodated on the main deck ?

In the cargo hold ?

Do they hitch up and tow a Q400 with the 60 additional passengers and baggage behind the 787-9 ?

Hugs and kisses
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 6:25 pm

usax777 wrote:
zeke wrote:
usax777 wrote:
Apology for the typo. I meant LHR-PER indeed. But even if you look at May 2, the flight time is:


Oh dear,

Here we go again :banghead:

“I meant LHR-PER indeed”

The flight from LHR-PER is QF10.

Try your numbers again dear....


OK!

PER-LHR is QF9, flown by B789 and it is consistently longer than JFK-MNL PR127 by about half an hour. So your point of A359 flying for longer and lifting more is still incorrect.


QF's 789 has 236 seats, PR's A359 has 295 seats, so there's no doubt the A359 on JFK-MNL is lifting more. Same density of seats as PR's A359 and I don't think the 789 is making it to LHR nonstop (albeit someone would need to run numbers to make sure).
 
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?

Sat May 04, 2019 6:43 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
QF's 789 has 236 seats, PR's A359 has 295 seats, so there's no doubt the A359 on JFK-MNL is lifting more. Same density of seats as PR's A359 and I don't think the 789 is making it to LHR nonstop (albeit someone would need to run numbers to make sure).


789 doesn't have the cabin area to accommodate additional 60 passengers in QF's current cabin density. It doesn't mean the aircraft can't lift 60 more pax. Remember that the QF9 is still 5t below MTOW?

zeke wrote:
Where does QF have the additional 60 passengers that are not accommodated on the main deck ?


Well 789 is a smaller plane. There is no space on the main deck. If those 60 people are willing to be in the cargo hold, the aircraft will have no problem getting from PER to LHR at all.

With about 30t payload, a 254t B789 has similar range as a 278t A359. The former is 24t lighter and burns less fuel. The only advantage of 359 is the cabin area is a bit larger.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

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

Sat May 04, 2019 7:21 pm

usax777 wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
QF's 789 has 236 seats, PR's A359 has 295 seats, so there's no doubt the A359 on JFK-MNL is lifting more. Same density of seats as PR's A359 and I don't think the 789 is making it to LHR nonstop (albeit someone would need to run numbers to make sure).


789 doesn't have the cabin area to accommodate additional 60 passengers in QF's current cabin density. It doesn't mean the aircraft can't lift 60 more pax. Remember that the QF9 is still 5t below MTOW?

zeke wrote:
Where does QF have the additional 60 passengers that are not accommodated on the main deck ?


Well 789 is a smaller plane. There is no space on the main deck. If those 60 people are willing to be in the cargo hold, the aircraft will have no problem getting from PER to LHR at all.

With about 30t payload, a 254t B789 has similar range as a 278t A359. The former is 24t lighter and burns less fuel. The only advantage of 359 is the cabin area is a bit larger.


You said that the A350 wasn't lifting more, but it is. That is a fact. It's carrying 60 extra people.

Could the QF 789 carry that extra 60 purely in weight terms? At a rough estimate, allowing 90kg for each passenger and their bags (a conservative estimate?) is 5.4T, and you'd need extra fuel for that as well. You're well above the MTOW in this case.

If what you were saying is true, the 789 flies further, lifts more and with more fuel efficiency, then combined with its lower production cost then there is absolutely ZERO incentive for an airline to order the A359 at all. What gives if the A350 doesn't have the capability advantage?
  • 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