User avatar
LaunchDetected
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 pm

Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 4:03 pm

Hi everyone, while the Ultra Long Range variant of the A350-900 has been widely showed to the wide public, Airbus is less talkative regarding the 2 lower-range variants: Regional and Domestic.

If we had to sort the variants by ascending order of range, it will be : Domestic - Regional - "Vanilla" - ULR

Let's use this thread to gather informations on the two first variants.


Regional

From what we know, it has been put into service in December 2018 by Singapore Airlines on the Adelaide-Singapore and Brisbane-Singapore routes. It features a distinct cabin layout from the rest of the vanilla A350-900 with 303 seats instead of 253 and no Premium Economy seats. SIA identifies them "medium-haul".

At the end of the following SIA press release we can read:
"SIA placed orders for a total of 67 Airbus A350-900 aircraft, 30 of which are already in the fleet including seven ultra-long-range variants, 21 long-haul variants, and two medium-haul variants"
https://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/in/m ... 218-181218

The following article states that the Regional variant "will be certificated to a 250t maximum take-off weight compared to the 278t of the standard A350-900. Its Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines will be derated to 75,000lb-thrust (334kN), allowing cyclic engine maintenance intervals to be extended, but will otherwise be identical to other A350-900s."
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-447149/

If we look at the EASA A350 type certificate we can see 16 variants for the A350-900 (!), 2 of them are rated at 250t.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... -04-03.pdf

As today, I don't know if another airlines have ordered this variant.


Domestic

This variant is not yet entered into service. The EIS is scheduled with JAL for June 2019 (more details here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1413765&p=21325453#p21325453)

The public news regarding the Domestic version are scarcer. I heard that Singapore Airlines also ordered some of them, but i cannot find a public release so consider this as pure speculation.

The objective of a MTOW derate is obviously to maximize cycles. Is there a way for us to see the maximum rates for a particular variant of aircraft?
Caravelle lover
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2805
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 4:15 pm

Actually - I would throw in another question - how exactly are people able to know which MTOW variants are delivered to airlines in general?

For instance, I know PR's A359 are the 278t "A359HGW" variant (which is now the standard MTOW AFAIK?), while the earliest A359 (i.e. the one for QR) are of lower MTOW variant. Is there an easy way to tell between them in general?
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26391
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 9:13 pm

Rumor has it that Weight Variant 017 with an MTOW of 210,000kg is the one for JAL's domestic A350-900s, which are also said to introduce a new model number of A350-942 representing some change of the Trent XWB engine compared to the model currently powering all A350-900 family airframes (the "4" applies to Rolls-Royce and "1" applies to the current Trent XWB engine option). I am going to hazard a guess it's going to be a significant de-rate from the current model with perhaps some durability changes to support higher cycle rates.
 
fjhc
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:34 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 9:24 pm

Isn't the change for SIA just a paper derate? They did something similar for the 777-200ERs didn't they? Saves on the airport landing fees and ATC costs. And I presume they can switch things round to even out flight hours/cycles if needed.
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2110
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 9:30 pm

A320 MTOW is 80t and it carries 186 pax on domestic routes. 250t for 300 pax would be a very very expensive domestic operation
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26391
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 9:44 pm

fjhc wrote:
Isn't the change for SIA just a paper derate? They did something similar for the 777-200ERs didn't they? Saves on the airport landing fees and ATC costs. And I presume they can switch things round to even out flight hours/cycles if needed.


Yes, the "A350 Regional" is a paper de-rate of the Operating Weights and engine thrusts that can be adjusted later.

I also have read on this forum that Airbus offers "Flexible Operating Weights" where a frame can be certified for a higher OW for long-haul missions and then a lower OW for a regional or domestic turn.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 9:56 pm

Stitch wrote:
fjhc wrote:
Isn't the change for SIA just a paper derate? They did something similar for the 777-200ERs didn't they? Saves on the airport landing fees and ATC costs. And I presume they can switch things round to even out flight hours/cycles if needed.


Yes, the "A350 Regional" is a paper de-rate of the Operating Weights and engine thrusts that can be adjusted later.

I also have read on this forum that Airbus offers "Flexible Operating Weights" where a frame can be certified for a higher OW for long-haul missions and then a lower OW for a regional or domestic turn.
If I'm not mistaken Cathay uses the A350 with MTOW of 275T for long haul and 240T for short haul while the engine specs should remain the same. Zeke is the expert for this subject :-)
 
B1168
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 10:05 pm

I am very curious about the 20 A359s that CZ has... will they be able to fly to New York? That is indeed a problem.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 10:39 pm

B1168 wrote:
I am very curious about the 20 A359s that CZ has... will they be able to fly to New York? That is indeed a problem.


It depends on the hub they plan to use. No problem for the aircraft on PKX-JFK but I am not sure CAAC will grant it that route. There is a big problem for CAN-JFK; I am not sure how profitable the route will be after the payload hits in order to make it work.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 17576
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 10:47 pm

anshabhi wrote:
A320 MTOW is 80t and it carries 186 pax on domestic routes. 250t for 300 pax would be a very very expensive domestic operation

Would a 339 make more sense as a domestic widebody than the 359? The 359 does seem like overkill for anything under 6-8 hours.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
ITSTours
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 10:57 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
A320 MTOW is 80t and it carries 186 pax on domestic routes. 250t for 300 pax would be a very very expensive domestic operation

Would a 339 make more sense as a domestic widebody than the 359? The 359 does seem like overkill for anything under 6-8 hours.


A330ceo would be better.
“for 2-3 hour missions the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,” - Airbus Executive Vice President Strategy and Marketing Kiran Rao
https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... h-decision
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26391
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 11:05 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Would a 339 make more sense as a domestic widebody than the 359? The 359 does seem like overkill for anything under 6-8 hours.

ITSTours wrote:
A330ceo would be better - “for 2-3 hour missions the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,” - Airbus Executive Vice President Strategy and Marketing Kiran Rao | https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... h-decision


To be fair, he said that five years ago. In the interim, the A330neo has seen aerodynamic improvements which make it probably a wash with the A330ceo on shorter missions (and fairly better as stage lengths increase).

As to the A330neo v. A350 argument, yes an A330neo will have lower empty weight, but it also has lower revenue generation capability and mission flexibility. If you wish to operate only one type, this might favor the A350 for that reason.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 11:40 pm

Are all A359 now built to the same standard structurally? So that every A359 can be a 278T MTOW bird but airlines can initially choose lower weights depending on their initial need and then upgrade to higher weights for a fee if the network changes?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26391
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Thu May 02, 2019 11:42 pm

CRJ900 wrote:
Are all A359 now built to the same standard structurally? So that every A359 can be a 278T MTOW bird but airlines can initially choose lower weights depending on their initial need and then upgrade to higher weights for a fee if the network changes?


As it applies to the "standard" A350-941, yes.

There is speculation that the "A350-942" said to be what the domestic JAL birds are known as will have structural reinforcements to support higher cycle rates. They may or may not support higher Operating Weights down the road.
 
trex8
Posts: 5337
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 12:38 am

Stitch wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Would a 339 make more sense as a domestic widebody than the 359? The 359 does seem like overkill for anything under 6-8 hours.

ITSTours wrote:
A330ceo would be better - “for 2-3 hour missions the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,” - Airbus Executive Vice President Strategy and Marketing Kiran Rao | https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... h-decision


To be fair, he said that five years ago. In the interim, the A330neo has seen aerodynamic improvements which make it probably a wash with the A330ceo on shorter missions (and fairly better as stage lengths increase).

As to the A330neo v. A350 argument, yes an A330neo will have lower empty weight, but it also has lower revenue generation capability and mission flexibility. If you wish to operate only one type, this might favor the A350 for that reason.


The A339 list price is 21 million less than the A359. I suspect A will be more willing to discount the A330neo also compared to A359 so that may be another factor for an airline to consider.
 
L0VE2FLY
Posts: 984
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:54 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 12:58 am

Do the Japanese domestic widebodies have smaller fuel capacity than the standard birds? It'd be a waste of space to fly them with near empty fuel tanks since the Japanese domestic sectors are very short compared to what a standard 777 or A350 usually flies, is it possible to trade fuel capacity for cargo volume?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 1:20 am

moyangmm wrote:

It depends on the hub they plan to use. No problem for the aircraft on PKX-JFK but I am not sure CAAC will grant it that route. There is a big problem for CAN-JFK; I am not sure how profitable the route will be after the payload hits in order to make it work.


CAN-JFK-CAN would be absolutely impossible on the A350, the A350 can only do much shorter routes like HKG-EWR-HKG, HKG-IAD-HKG, MNL-JFK-MNL
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2805
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 1:55 am

zeke wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

It depends on the hub they plan to use. No problem for the aircraft on PKX-JFK but I am not sure CAAC will grant it that route. There is a big problem for CAN-JFK; I am not sure how profitable the route will be after the payload hits in order to make it work.


CAN-JFK-CAN would be absolutely impossible on the A350, the A350 can only do much shorter routes like HKG-EWR-HKG, HKG-IAD-HKG, MNL-JFK-MNL


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

L0VE2FLY wrote:
Do the Japanese domestic widebodies have smaller fuel capacity than the standard birds? It'd be a waste of space to fly them with near empty fuel tanks since the Japanese domestic sectors are very short compared to what a standard 777 or A350 usually flies, is it possible to trade fuel capacity for cargo volume?


Which "standard" 777? 777-200 or 777-300 that JL and NH had been using on domestic routes for 20 years?
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 1:57 am

zeke wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

It depends on the hub they plan to use. No problem for the aircraft on PKX-JFK but I am not sure CAAC will grant it that route. There is a big problem for CAN-JFK; I am not sure how profitable the route will be after the payload hits in order to make it work.


CAN-JFK-CAN would be absolutely impossible on the A350, the A350 can only do much shorter routes like HKG-EWR-HKG, HKG-IAD-HKG, MNL-JFK-MNL


But CZ's A359 is much denser; their config is 28J24W262Y. CAN-JFK could be a problem.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4898
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 2:18 am

moyangmm wrote:
zeke wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

It depends on the hub they plan to use. No problem for the aircraft on PKX-JFK but I am not sure CAAC will grant it that route. There is a big problem for CAN-JFK; I am not sure how profitable the route will be after the payload hits in order to make it work.


CAN-JFK-CAN would be absolutely impossible on the A350, the A350 can only do much shorter routes like HKG-EWR-HKG, HKG-IAD-HKG, MNL-JFK-MNL


But CZ's A359 is much denser; their config is 28J24W262Y. CAN-JFK could be a problem.


No, for the 100th bloody time, it will not be a problem. There is more than enough payload capacity on CAN-JFK vv for 300+ pax, their bags and some cargo.

Honestly. Who is paying you to propagate that load of horsesh#t on every A350 thread?
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 2:50 am

anshabhi wrote:
A320 MTOW is 80t and it carries 186 pax on domestic routes. 250t for 300 pax would be a very very expensive domestic operation

How so? The MTOW does not reflect fuel burn or fees. The A350 could fly more than twice as far at that 250T MTOW weight.

The A320 with 186 passengers at 100kg per passenger equals 18.6T of payload. The A320 can fly just over 2000nm according to the payload range chart.

The A350 with the same seat size and spacing can fit well over 400 passengers. With 40T of payload it would only need a takeoff weight of around 200T to fly 2000nm.

So the A350 is roughly the same weight per passenger with a lower pilot cost per passenger. With only 300 seats on an A350 there would be a section of premium seats that passengers would pay 2-4 times the price of a normal economy seat. That is a extra profit.

JAL nearly always have their 787's taking off below 200T for domestic operations. It would be silly to use the 787 MTOW to compare costs or fuel burn.
 
lutfi
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 3:16 am

L0VE2FLY wrote:
Do the Japanese domestic widebodies have smaller fuel capacity than the standard birds? It'd be a waste of space to fly them with near empty fuel tanks since the Japanese domestic sectors are very short compared to what a standard 777 or A350 usually flies, is it possible to trade fuel capacity for cargo volume?


No - widebodies don’t use belly space for fuel tanks so there is no trade off.

Also - domestic cargo volumes are pretty thin. 2018 load factor was 24%. So no need for more cargo volume!

(They are competing vs road and rail. For most cargo why put it on a truck, then airport, then truck when you can just put on truck to where it needs to go)
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2110
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 9:25 am

RJMAZ wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
A320 MTOW is 80t and it carries 186 pax on domestic routes. 250t for 300 pax would be a very very expensive domestic operation

How so? The MTOW does not reflect fuel burn or fees. The A350 could fly more than twice as far at that 250T MTOW weight.

The A320 with 186 passengers at 100kg per passenger equals 18.6T of payload. The A320 can fly just over 2000nm according to the payload range chart.

The A350 with the same seat size and spacing can fit well over 400 passengers. With 40T of payload it would only need a takeoff weight of around 200T to fly 2000nm.

So the A350 is roughly the same weight per passenger with a lower pilot cost per passenger. With only 300 seats on an A350 there would be a section of premium seats that passengers would pay 2-4 times the price of a normal economy seat. That is a extra profit.

JAL nearly always have their 787's taking off below 200T for domestic operations. It would be silly to use the 787 MTOW to compare costs or fuel burn.

2000 nm is not exactly domestic in most cases. More like regional.
A320 has empty weight of 40t for 180 pax while A359 has around 140t for max capacity of 440 pax (source:wiki, just for comparison, not including pax weight in this).
Assuming similar fuel consumption for both aircraft, 2.4 A320s (or 2 A321) with 100t empty weight could carry 440 pax.


But I don't know if such a calculation makes any sense at all :roll:

One thing for sure getting 440 pax at once is tougher than getting 220 pax each in 2 timeslots and in cost sensitive markets like India, you can just not depend on premium segment.

I don't understand why Japanese airlines operate B787 on domestic routes
 
lutfi
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 9:42 am

Because if you look at a map of Japan, most of it is mountains. So the population is mostly in large cities on the coast.

The 787/ 777 etc are on the trunk routes for those cities. But there are also lots of NB and regional aircraft for the smaller cities and towns

Plus - Shinkansen. Those things destroy aircraft. 1500 seats, every 7 minutes at peak times with no lengthy check in/ security procedures and OTP that is close to perfect. Oh - and downtown to downtown.

Flying has to be cheaper than train to compete...
 
StTim
Posts: 3446
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 9:58 am

The Shinkansen are an experience. Taken together with connection to cit centre and check in times/security - they are very competitve.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 11:23 am

Stitch wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Would a 339 make more sense as a domestic widebody than the 359? The 359 does seem like overkill for anything under 6-8 hours.

ITSTours wrote:
A330ceo would be better - “for 2-3 hour missions the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,” - Airbus Executive Vice President Strategy and Marketing Kiran Rao | https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... h-decision


To be fair, he said that five years ago. In the interim, the A330neo has seen aerodynamic improvements which make it probably a wash with the A330ceo on shorter missions (and fairly better as stage lengths increase).


5 years ago, when he was selling end of line ceos!
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10563
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 12:07 pm

Paper de-rating of aircraft is pretty common, especially among LCCs. Ryanair for instance has 3 MTOWs which it flexibly applies to its 737-800 aircraft - 75,000, 70,000 and 67,000kg.

Because many operational charges are levied according to the MTOW of the aircraft, it can make economic sense to de-rate the MTOW on paper, thus saving money. In practice, there is nothing different and each MTOW is not necessarily a unique variant.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 12:36 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
Actually - I would throw in another question - how exactly are people able to know which MTOW variants are delivered to airlines in general?

For instance, I know PR's A359 are the 278t "A359HGW" variant (which is now the standard MTOW AFAIK?), while the earliest A359 (i.e. the one for QR) are of lower MTOW variant. Is there an easy way to tell between them in general?


It’s expensive, really expensive, but there are industry fleet databases that have the weights and variants. If you have about $30k laying around you can subscribe, but they usually limit access to industry clients.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2805
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 1:16 pm

DL717 wrote:
It’s expensive, really expensive, but there are industry fleet databases that have the weights and variants. If you have about $30k laying around you can subscribe, but they usually limit access to industry clients.


I wish I got 30k just to blow at accessing a database. :rotfl:

But thanks for the answer.

anshabhi wrote:
I don't understand why Japanese airlines operate B787 on domestic routes


B/c JL/NH can fill them up?

Ok, load factor for Japanese domestic routes usually hover around 70-75%. Let's use NH's domestic 788 (335 seats), 70% of that is still 234.5 seats. You can't exactly put that many people onto, let say, a A321 (NH's domestic A321 seats 194 people).

lutfi wrote:
Because if you look at a map of Japan, most of it is mountains. So the population is mostly in large cities on the coast.

The 787/ 777 etc are on the trunk routes for those cities. But there are also lots of NB and regional aircraft for the smaller cities and towns

Plus - Shinkansen. Those things destroy aircraft. 1500 seats, every 7 minutes at peak times with no lengthy check in/ security procedures and OTP that is close to perfect. Oh - and downtown to downtown.

Flying has to be cheaper than train to compete...


Indeed. People sometimes talk as if JL/NH fly widebodies exclusively on domestic routes, even though they don't.

As for Shinkansen - from Tokyo it's only competitive for Tohoku area (Actually it pretty much kill off most aviation routes to that region), and along the coast, only west to Hiroshima (and that's b/c HIJ is so far from central Hiroshima w/ no rail access). The "rule of thumb" is anything within 4 hours by Shinkansen is a win for rail anyway. You can tell from the fact that the busiest routes out of HND after the "trunk" routes (CTS, FUK, ITM, OKA) are airports in Kyushu (other than HSG, b/c people in Saga prefecture just use FUK), HIJ (Hiroshima), along with TAK and MYJ (Both in Shikoku, and rail in general is just not competitive in Shikoku).
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 2:36 pm

lutfi wrote:
Also - domestic cargo volumes are pretty thin. 2018 load factor was 24%. So no need for more cargo volume!

(They are competing vs road and rail. For most cargo why put it on a truck, then airport, then truck when you can just put on truck to where it needs to go)

Ever heard of 2 small airlines called (previously) Federal Express and United Parcel Service? They will disagree with you, many a cargo is put on a plane (especially light packages).
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2805
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 3:02 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
lutfi wrote:
Also - domestic cargo volumes are pretty thin. 2018 load factor was 24%. So no need for more cargo volume!

(They are competing vs road and rail. For most cargo why put it on a truck, then airport, then truck when you can just put on truck to where it needs to go)

Ever heard of 2 small airlines called (previously) Federal Express and United Parcel Service? They will disagree with you, many a cargo is put on a plane (especially light packages).


I'm assuming that the OP (lutfi) is referring to domestic cargo in Japan? Of course it's different in US which is a lot larger geographically.

If anything, even rail freight/cargo transport is a tiny sector in Japan. You can tell from the amount of rail freight yards that are being redeveloped. This contrast greatly with US where rail freight is also a VERY huge sector (much larger than passenger rail).

The only place where domestic cargo comes into play (in Japan) is the Ryukyu Islands. If anything, it's THE reason why Ryukyu Air Commuter order the Q400 Combi - the small props (ATR42, or before that, Q300) doesn't have the required capacity, but those remote islands just doesn't have enough people to fill up a 70-seaters (or larger).
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 3:27 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
lutfi wrote:
Also - domestic cargo volumes are pretty thin. 2018 load factor was 24%. So no need for more cargo volume!

(They are competing vs road and rail. For most cargo why put it on a truck, then airport, then truck when you can just put on truck to where it needs to go)

Ever heard of 2 small airlines called (previously) Federal Express and United Parcel Service? They will disagree with you, many a cargo is put on a plane (especially light packages).


I'm assuming that the OP (lutfi) is referring to domestic cargo in Japan? Of course it's different in US which is a lot larger geographically.

If anything, even rail freight/cargo transport is a tiny sector in Japan. You can tell from the amount of rail freight yards that are being redeveloped. This contrast greatly with US where rail freight is also a VERY huge sector (much larger than passenger rail).

The only place where domestic cargo comes into play (in Japan) is the Ryukyu Islands. If anything, it's THE reason why Ryukyu Air Commuter order the Q400 Combi - the small props (ATR42, or before that, Q300) doesn't have the required capacity, but those remote islands just doesn't have enough people to fill up a 70-seaters (or larger).

I was talking generally. Plenty of cargo is moved by air, especially in this day and age when people want their product (almost) before they even ordered it.
Might not always make sense, but it happens, and it happens a lot; FedEx and UPS are the living proof of that.
 
wernerga3
Posts: 212
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:26 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 4:24 pm

I recently took a Delta A359 domestically (LAX-ATL). I imagine this was the "Vanilla" variant?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1419669
 
usax777
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:45 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 4:53 pm

wernerga3 wrote:
I recently took a Delta A359 domestically (LAX-ATL). I imagine this was the "Vanilla" variant?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1419669


Yes. It was long-haul "vanilla" variant rotating between hubs.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2805
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 4:59 pm

wernerga3 wrote:
I recently took a Delta A359 domestically (LAX-ATL). I imagine this was the "Vanilla" variant?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1419669


While searching for the answer, I actually found this thread discussing similar things that this thread is discussing:
viewtopic.php?t=1411779

DL's A359 are all "vanilla", although not at the highest MTOW (It's either 268t or 275t...I've no clue which is true; current highest MTOW for A359 is 278t, with Airbus working on the 280t variant).
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 5:07 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
wernerga3 wrote:
I recently took a Delta A359 domestically (LAX-ATL). I imagine this was the "Vanilla" variant?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1419669


While searching for the answer, I actually found this thread discussing similar things that this thread is discussing:
viewtopic.php?t=1411779

DL's A359 are all "vanilla", although not at the highest MTOW (It's either 268t or 275t...I've no clue which is true; current highest MTOW for A359 is 278t, with Airbus working on the 280t variant).


The SIA ULR have a MTOW of 280T and Iberia A359 (also supposed to be 280T) were the first to have the new combination of wing twist and composite door surrounding that came from the 1000 and the new sharklet.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 7:26 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
wernerga3 wrote:
I recently took a Delta A359 domestically (LAX-ATL). I imagine this was the "Vanilla" variant?

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... &t=1419669


While searching for the answer, I actually found this thread discussing similar things that this thread is discussing:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1411779

DL's A359 are all "vanilla", although not at the highest MTOW (It's either 268t or 275t...I've no clue which is true; current highest MTOW for A359 is 278t, with Airbus working on the 280t variant).


I believe the "vanilla" 280t A359 is already operating with IB. I may be wrong though...
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
JamesCousins
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 7:40 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Would a 339 make more sense as a domestic widebody than the 359? The 359 does seem like overkill for anything under 6-8 hours.


No. It has been bought for it's seating capacity, not it's range. They've bought a 350 because they need the seats
Q400, A320-200, A321-200, 737-500, 737-800, 747-400, 757-200, 787-9 // FCA, TOM, TUI, MON, MT, BA, VS, DL, BE, X9, OLY
 
LurveBus
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:21 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 8:19 pm

moyangmm wrote:
zeke wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

It depends on the hub they plan to use. No problem for the aircraft on PKX-JFK but I am not sure CAAC will grant it that route. There is a big problem for CAN-JFK; I am not sure how profitable the route will be after the payload hits in order to make it work.


CAN-JFK-CAN would be absolutely impossible on the A350, the A350 can only do much shorter routes like HKG-EWR-HKG, HKG-IAD-HKG, MNL-JFK-MNL


But CZ's A359 is much denser; their config is 28J24W262Y. CAN-JFK could be a problem.


Dude. CAN-JFK is 500nm shorter than MNL-JFK. And PR’s birds carry what, 19 less passengers? How can that be an issue? And isn’t this thread about short-range capabilities?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26391
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 10:13 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Would a 339 make more sense as a domestic widebody than the 359? The 359 does seem like overkill for anything under 6-8 hours.

JamesCousins wrote:
No. It has been bought for it's seating capacity, not it's range. They've bought a 350 because they need the seats


The Exit Limit for both models is 440 so realistically either should work in terms of capacity.
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1345
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 11:34 pm

MoKa777 wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
wernerga3 wrote:
I recently took a Delta A359 domestically (LAX-ATL). I imagine this was the "Vanilla" variant?

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... &t=1419669


While searching for the answer, I actually found this thread discussing similar things that this thread is discussing:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1411779

DL's A359 are all "vanilla", although not at the highest MTOW (It's either 268t or 275t...I've no clue which is true; current highest MTOW for A359 is 278t, with Airbus working on the 280t variant).


I believe the "vanilla" 280t A359 is already operating with IB. I may be wrong though...


I presume these are the original Aer Lingus 'Regional' type orders that IAG absorbed and redistributed to Iberia ?
 
JamesCousins
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 03, 2019 11:34 pm

Stitch wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Would a 339 make more sense as a domestic widebody than the 359? The 359 does seem like overkill for anything under 6-8 hours.

JamesCousins wrote:
No. It has been bought for it's seating capacity, not it's range. They've bought a 350 because they need the seats


The Exit Limit for both models is 440 so realistically either should work in terms of capacity.


Apologies, allow me to correct myself. The A350 provides enough floor space for the carrier fit in enough seats while maintaining legroom, theoretically they could squeeze 9-abreast onto the A330neo and get all the necessary capacity, but any premium carrier like SQ aren't going to be doing that anytime soon...
Q400, A320-200, A321-200, 737-500, 737-800, 747-400, 757-200, 787-9 // FCA, TOM, TUI, MON, MT, BA, VS, DL, BE, X9, OLY
 
User avatar
LaunchDetected
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: Unravel the A350-900 lower-range variants: Domestic & Regional

Fri May 10, 2019 9:18 am

mfranjic posted a lot of good insight in the Airbus A350 Production/Delivery Thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411835&start=550

mfranjic wrote:
In the recent issue of the type-certificate data sheet (TCDS) of the Image.A350 aircraft: Image.TCDS.EASA.A.151 Issue 17, it is visible.(IMG.2) that the Image.A350-941 model, besides with the Image.Trent XWB-84, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans, rated at 374,54 kN / 38.192 kgf / 84.200 lbf, has been also certified with the Image.Trent XWB-75, three-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 2.997,2mm / 118,0 in; BPR: 9,6:1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC1HPT=2IPT–6LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, rated at 330,06 kN / 33.657 kgf / 74.200 lbf, but Mod number 113768 has not been connected yet with any of the Weight Variant (WV) in this document -.IMG.3.

…...Image
…...IMG.2 - Airbus A350-900 TCDS - Engines

…...Image
…...IMG.3 - Airbus A350-900 TCDS - Maximum Certified Weights

On the other side, in the last available Image.A350 aircraft’s factory document - A350. ACAaMP Issue: Nov 01/16 Rev: Jun 01/18, the Weight Variant WV016 (MTOW: 278.000 kg / 612.885 lb) for the Airbus A350-900 aircraft has not been mentioned yet, but the Weight Variant WV017 (MTOW: 210.000 kg / 462.971 lb) has - IMG.4

Image
IMG.4 - Airbus A350-900 ACaMP - Maximum Certified Weights

… and that is exactly what it could be the Weight VARIANT WV017 (Mod number 113768) missing in the above mentioned document (IMG.3). Please note I added myself the Weight VARIANT WV017 (Mod number 113768) in the IMG.5 (below).

..…Image
..…IMG.5 - Possible Mod number code (113768) related to Airbus A350-900 Maximum Certified Weight variant WV017

One of the Japanese main airlines, Japan Airlines, plans to replace their entire fleet of 40.Boeing 777s (23.Boeing 777-200 and 17.Boeing 777-300) with the Image.A350 aircraft. In 2013 the airline placed an order for 18 Airbus A350-900s and 13 Airbus A350-1000s with the options for an additional 25 aircraft. According to the several sources Japan Airlines is the first airline to operate derated Airbus A350-900 frames; WV017 (MTOW: 210.000 kg / 462.971 lb), aimed for those domestic routes, thus allowing aircraft many more flight cycles. It is possible the aircraft, since it will be powered by Image.Trent XWB-75, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 2.997,2mm / 118,0 in; BPR: 9,6:1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC1HPT=2IPT–6LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, rated at 330,06 kN / 33.657 kgf / 74.200 lbf, will be certified as the type Airbus A350-942, rather than the existing Airbus A350-941 that is powered by two Image.Trent XWB-84, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans rated at 374,54 kN / 38.192 kgf / 84.200 lbf.

Leading myself by a comparable analogy, I am thinking out loud that one day we might also see derated, Airbus A350-1042, frames: WV005 (MTOW: 270.000 kg / 595.249 lb) or/and WV007 (MTOW: 260.000 kg / 573.202 lb) (IMG.6), powered, instead of Image.Trent XWB-97, three-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines, rated at 431,48 kN / 44.000 kgf / 97.000 lbf, by two Image.Trent XWB-84, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 2.997,2mm / 118,0 in; BPR: 9,6:1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC1HPT=2IPT–6LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, rated at 374,54 kN / 38.192 kgf / 84.200 lbf.

Unlike the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-75 and the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84 engines that share the same mass of 7.277 kg / 16.043 lb, the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 engine has a mass of 7.549 kg / 16.643 lb.

Image
IMG.6 - Airbus A350-1000 ACaMP - Maximum Certified Weights

The Image.Trent XWB-97 is the highest thrust engine ever certified by the factory, the highest operating temperatures and the most advanced cooling systems Rolls-Royce has ever designed in a civil engine. For the engine operators’ point of view there is deliberately very little visible difference, or indeed operating difference, between the models XWB-84 and XWB-97. All the mechanical systems are the same for both engines, so from a basic maintenance point of view, the airlines will find that 80 % of the replacement line items and tools are identical. Physically the engines look the same; in fact you may need to look at the nameplate to tell the difference from the outside. However, inside the Trent XWB-97 engine the changes are notable. The front fan has the same number of the blades (22) with the same diameter of 2.997,2 mm / 118,0 in, but it runs around 6 % faster. The engine core has been scaled up by 5 % in size over the XWB-84 to cope with the consequential increased airflow into the compressor and, in this engine, the combustor and turbines run hotter than in the Trent XWB-84. Another difference in the Trent XWB-97 is the wider use of Ni blisks (bladed disks) across both the HP (st.1-3) and IP compressors. The blisks improve aerodynamic efficiency, whilst having a reduced weight over the conventional assemblies. The first stage IPC blisk of the Trent XWB-97 is the largest that Rolls-Royce has produced to date on a civil application. The innovations don’t stop at the compressor though, the high-pressure turbine gets additional technology too. The XWB-97 engine development programme has also featured the components produced by additive layer manufacturing (ALM) or sometimes commonly known as 3D printing. Rolls-Royce claimed a world record, at that time, for the largest aero-engine component assembly ever manufactured in this way, with a 1,5 m diameter front bearing housing for the XWB-97 engine. The ring of ALM vanes form the inlet to the engine’s core and each vane has an intricate series of heating passages inside them that can be used by an anti-icing system to protect the engine during adverse weather conditions.

Image

Video above:.(Please scroll down the linked page to see the video file) The Image.A350-1000’s engine - the Image.Trent XWB-97 was successfully flight-tested, mounted on the inner left, No. 2 engine pylon of the Image.A380-841 aircraft; MSN 001, reg. F-WWOW, dedicated A380.Flying-Test-Bed, replacing one of the aircraft’s Image.Trent 970B-84, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 2.946,4 mm / 116,0 in; BPR: (7,7-8,5):1; engine architecture: .1F–8IPC=6HPC〨1HPT=1IPT–5LPT), OPR: 39,0:1, rated at 348,31 kN / 35.518 kgf / 78.304 lbf. The flight testing of the 97 klbf thrust engine started on 05. Nov 2015, twelve months before the first flight of the new Airbus A350-1000; MSN 059, test reg. F-WMIL, on 24. Nov 2016. The flight-test program was including the evaluation in the hot weather, as well as in the icing conditions. As well as demonstrating operability and performance, the tests confirmed the engine relight envelope. Subsequent tests was concentrating on maturity tests, including further thermal-endurance and cyclic trials. The specially enhanced Trent XWB engine produces 431,48 kN / 44.000 kgf / 97.000 lbf of thrust on take-off, thus making it the most powerful engine ever developed for an Airbus aircraft. Rolls-Royce has plans to "build in" technologies developed from the Image.Trent XWB-97 testing into the Trent XWB-84.

The Trent XWB-84 EP (Enhanced Performance) goes beyond the original Trent XWB-84’s performance target levels, offering a fuel consumption improvement of 1 %. The Trent XWB-84 EP incorporates technologies from the higher thrust Trent XWB-97 engine, the Advance engine programme and the other future technology research. The first Trent XWB-84 EP delivery will be in Q4 2019 to Singapore Airlines and the upgraded engine will also be offerable to the other existing customers with deliveries after this date.

Technology improvements on the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84 EP include:

…….Improved turbine cooling and aerodynamics from the Trent XWB-97 and Advance engine programmes;
…….Improved secondary air system which manages the pressure and temperature environment around the core turbomachinery with careful design of restrictors and interstage sealing throughout the engine from the Trent XWB-97 programme;
…….Further optimisation of the Trent XWB-84 turbine tip clearance control system, based on the recent improvements on the other programmes.

The Image.Trent XWB-84 and the Trent XWB-84 EP are entirely interchangeable and intermixable - any Image.A350-900 aircraft can be powered by a combination of both engines to enable simplicity in service...

The first delivery of Image.A350 aircraft for Japan Airlines is expected to happen in June, with the airline potentially displaying their first aircraft at the Paris Air Show. The first three Airbus A350-942 frames for JL, MSN 321 (JL #1, reg. JA01XJ, test reg. F-WZHF), MSN 333 (JL #2, reg. JA02XJ, test reg. F-WZFX) and MSN 343 (JL #3, reg. JA03XJ, test reg. F-WZGE) are in the different production stages. Their cabins with 369 seats will be of F12 C94 Y263 configuration.

Despite the large growth in the air travel, Japan Airlines Co., Ltd. airline has stated firmly that there is no reason for them to select an aircraft bigger than the Airbus A350-1000, ruling out any chance of the Image.777X and Image.A380 anytime soon (or at all), unlike their competitor All Nippon Airways (ANA) which has ordered 3.Image.A380-841s, as a part of a deal when they acquired a failed Japanese low-cost carrier Skymark’s slots at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport, and 20.Image.777-9 aircraft powered by Image.GE9X-105, twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 3.403,6 mm / 134,0 in; BPR: 10,0:1; engine architecture: 1F+3LPC–11HPC2HPT–6LPT), OPR: 61,0:1, rated at 467,06 kN / 47.627 kgf / 105.000 lbf.

The All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd.’s 1st Image.A380-841 aircraft; MSN 262, reg. JA381A (test reg. F-WWSH), with the cabin configuration F8 C56 W73 Y383 and powered by four Image.Trent 970B-84, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 2.946,4 mm / 116,0 in; BPR: (7,7-8,5):1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC1HPT=1IPT–5LPT, OPR: 39,0:1, rated at 348,31 kN / 35.518 kgf / 78.304 lbf, was delivered to ANA on 20. Mar 2019.

An interesting fact: Singapore Airlines, besides having three different cabin configurations on their fleet of Image.A380-841aircraft, also has three different cabin configurations on their fleet of, for the time being 33, Image.A350-941aircraft:

……Image
……IMG.7 – Singapore AirlinesAirbus A350 aircraft by the cabin configurations

Image.Image.A350-900 (Standard) configuration (MTOW: 275.000 kg / 606.272 lb), cabin configuration: C42 W24 Y187, which operates predominantly long-haul flights from Singapore to destinations in Europe, the USA and South Africa. The aircraft is also used on selected flights to Australia, Japan, and some shorter flights to Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta and Hong Kong.

Image.Image.A350-900 Regional configuration (MTOW: 250.000 kg / 551.156 lb), cabin configuration: C40 Y263, which operates short- and medium-haul flights from Singapore across the Asia-Pacific region. The first aircraft was delivered in November 2018, and entered service on 17th December 2018.

Image.Image.A350-900 ULR configuration (MTOW: 280.000 kg / 617.295 lb), cabin configuration: C67 W94, which operates ultra long-haul non-stop flights from Singapore to the USA in a 2-class configuration.

The Image.A350-900 Regional was devised to rival Image.787-10 aircraft launched at Paris Air Show 2013 (MTOW: 560.000 lb / 254.011 kg), powered by two, either Image.Trent 1000-J3, three-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 2.844,8 mm / 112,0 in; BPR: 10,0:1; eng. architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC1HPT=1IPT–6LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, rated at 347,54 kN / 35.439 kgf / 78.129 lbf or Image.GEnx-1B74/75/P2 (-1B76/P2), twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 2.821,9 mm / 111,1 in; BPR: (7,9-9,1):1; eng. architecture: 1F+4LPC–10HPC2HPT–7LPT), OPR: 58,1:1, each rated at 341,18 (349,19) kN / 34.791 (35.607) kgf / 76.700 (78.500) lbf.

Singapore Airlines’ aircraft of the type Image.787-10, with the cabin configuration C36 Y301, are powered by two Image.Trent 1000-J3, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans.

In the Airbus SE factory they realized the market for the Image.787-10 is very noticeable and significant, so they wanted to offer the competitive aircraft that would cover that market segment. However, in the Singapore Airlines’ fleet the Image.A350-900 Regional aircraft come as the complement to their medium-haul fleet, with a somewhat smaller seating capacity (C40 Y263) and a little longer range in the comparison with their Boeing 787-10 aircraft.

Some sources say the Singapore AirlinesImage.A350-900 Regional aircraft (MTOW: 250.000 kg / 551.156 lb) are powered by two Image.Trent XWB-75, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans, rated at 330,06 kN / 33.657 kgf / 74.200 lbf. However, from the recent issue of the CAAS Singapore Aircraft Register, as well as from the airline’s website, it is visible that all the versions of SQ’s Image.A350-900 aircraft are powered by two Image.Trent XWB-84, three-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 2.997,2mm / 118,0 in; BPR: 9,6:1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC1HPT=2IPT–6LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, rated at 374,54 kN / 38.192 kgf / 84.200 lbf. Also, the recent (above linked) issue of the type-certificate data sheet (TCDS) of the Image.A350 aircraft does not connect Image.Trent XWB-75 engine / mod 113768.(IMG.2) nor with one of the two Weight Variants (WV005 and WV012), and which include MTOW of 250.00 kg / 551.156 lb.(IMG.3). And when I thought I have nothing more to add to my little research, I have received two e-mails from the airline, and which confirm that all Singapore AirlinesAirbus A350-900 aircraft are fitted with the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84 engines …

Mario
Caravelle lover

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