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.
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.