• 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
 
ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:38 am

tphuang wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

Um, what planet are you on? The 778 is a drop-in replacement for both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER depending on your configuration. That commonality with the cockpit and cabins is very valuable.

The 779 DOES have direct competition from the A350-1000 384 vs. 414 is not a big PAX difference, and the A350-1000 is a much lighter airframe, much cheaper to land, which is why I think Boeing is going to regret not redoing the fuselage in composites as well, but oh well, that'll be the 777Y family then...


1. B777-300ER carry more passengers and have way less range, hence better economic. Majority are extremely young.
2. B777-200LR doesn't sell well at all.

With the same configurations of 2 class cabin and the latest business class seat. A350-1000 could carry 48 Business Class Seat and 315 economy class seat, total of 363 seats, not 384 seats.
B777-9 could carry 48 Business Class seat and 368 economy class seat. Total of 416 seats. That's 53 seats difference.

You know A350-1000ULR already win against B777-8.


Those 50 extra seat will be sold at a huge discount. And the other 315 Y seats will probably yield lower too since there are more inventory of Y seat to sell now. Think what a discounted ULH y seat is priced at and how much j seat priced at.

Let's do the following example.
Let the average yield on the 315 seat on A350-1000 be 100. And let's say J fares go 5x that, so 500. Same number of J seats to sell on 779 and 35k, so let's assume same yield. Since there are more Y seat to sell, the average yield for the first 315 seat on 779 will be a little lower, let's 95. The remaining 53 seats will be at the lowest price bucket, let's say 60.

total revenue brought in by 35K would be 55500
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 57105
about 3% more in total revenue

Let's say I'm being overly pessimistic here. Let's say the first 315 Y seat on 779 are sold at same yield as A350-1000 and the remaining 53 sold at 30% discount (so 70)
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 59210
about 6.7% more in total revenue

would be interesting to see what the total trip cost of 35K vs 779 is. If 779 trip cost is more than 7% higher than 35K, then whoever is buying 779 better be really confident they can sell those extra 53 y seat at a price that's closer to those first 315 seats. Cause a lot of time those last seats are filled by low yielding connection itineraries.


Uhmm, no. Many airlines that bought B777-9 are premium heavy airlines, ANA, BA, JAL, LH, SQ, all of them are Premium heavy airlines. They all order B777-9 because they need the space to put more first class and/or business class seat + premium economy in the cabin because they could actually fill it. Emirates which have the largest order used the aircraft because they have low profit yield and they need volume. Hence they have tons of A380.

Those size differences between A350-1000 and B777-9 are there for a big reason. You oversimplified the calculations by diminishing other important factors.
 
Eiszeit
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:50 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:45 am

ewt340 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

1. B777-300ER carry more passengers and have way less range, hence better economic. Majority are extremely young.
2. B777-200LR doesn't sell well at all.

With the same configurations of 2 class cabin and the latest business class seat. A350-1000 could carry 48 Business Class Seat and 315 economy class seat, total of 363 seats, not 384 seats.
B777-9 could carry 48 Business Class seat and 368 economy class seat. Total of 416 seats. That's 53 seats difference.

You know A350-1000ULR already win against B777-8.


Those 50 extra seat will be sold at a huge discount. And the other 315 Y seats will probably yield lower too since there are more inventory of Y seat to sell now. Think what a discounted ULH y seat is priced at and how much j seat priced at.

Let's do the following example.
Let the average yield on the 315 seat on A350-1000 be 100. And let's say J fares go 5x that, so 500. Same number of J seats to sell on 779 and 35k, so let's assume same yield. Since there are more Y seat to sell, the average yield for the first 315 seat on 779 will be a little lower, let's 95. The remaining 53 seats will be at the lowest price bucket, let's say 60.

total revenue brought in by 35K would be 55500
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 57105
about 3% more in total revenue

Let's say I'm being overly pessimistic here. Let's say the first 315 Y seat on 779 are sold at same yield as A350-1000 and the remaining 53 sold at 30% discount (so 70)
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 59210
about 6.7% more in total revenue

would be interesting to see what the total trip cost of 35K vs 779 is. If 779 trip cost is more than 7% higher than 35K, then whoever is buying 779 better be really confident they can sell those extra 53 y seat at a price that's closer to those first 315 seats. Cause a lot of time those last seats are filled by low yielding connection itineraries.


Uhmm, no. Many airlines that bought B777-9 are premium heavy airlines, ANA, BA, JAL, LH, SQ, all of them are Premium heavy airlines. They all order B777-9 because they need the space to put more first class and/or business class seat + premium economy in the cabin because they could actually fill it. Emirates which have the largest order used the aircraft because they have low profit yield and they need volume. Hence they have tons of A380.

Those size differences between A350-1000 and B777-9 are there for a big reason. You oversimplified the calculations by diminishing other important factors.


So a further stretch of the a350 would kill the 777-9 cause you could put in even more premium cabin?
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:36 pm

Eiszeit wrote:

So a further stretch of the a350 would kill the 777-9 cause you could put in even more premium cabin?


Well, you can't really stretch the A35K with the current engines. The Trent XWB 97 is supposedly the maxed out implementation of that engine architecture. That said, 3 extra rows, or 408 passengers vs. 414, with the takeoff/landing economics of the much lighter craft (777-9 empty weight is the same as the MTOW of the A35K for reference), would make the 777-9 a pretty dumb long-term option for the same missions. That said again, I don't know what the range reduction on the stretch would be with the same engines, but when the NEO version emerges with the Trent Ultrafan, that problem will be null and void.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:46 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
I'm afraid it's not background noise. Many fleet decisions have come down to quick entry into service for exactly the reasons I stated. Time not in the air, both for pilots, crew, and airframes, is money lost.


Wages "lost" in retraining time?

[The introduction of new frames usually brings with it capability growth that causes network growth which needs staff growth - so you aren't limited to a finite staff pool where 2 pilots on type training means an aircraft off the fleet. Same for cabin crew. No airline can operate so finely balanced such that they cannot have one set of cabin crew "out of action" without affecting operations.]

Can you note any fleet decisions that have come down to the reasons you've stated? [and I mean specific to crew training - ordering more 77W to add to an existing 77W fleet (instead of say A330) because current MX and flight ops are set up for the 77W does not count as crew training. The 778 will be so different from the 77W for groundside that this is not applicable]


Business money lost in retraining time. And as a counterpoint, Qantas actually shoehorned pilot retraining when they had their 747s in long-term maintenance. Was it perfect? No. However, the impacts can largely be mitigated with good timing, but that timing window is much smaller on types which are extremely similar.

British Airways and the 777X, despite having the A350K on order, because they want the 747s and less efficient 777-300s gone, but they wouldn't get enough A350 frames in the time they wanted.

And the 778 is the exact same size as the 777-300ER, so apart from the folding wingtips it is not significantly different for crew.
 
Eiszeit
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:50 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:51 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Eiszeit wrote:

So a further stretch of the a350 would kill the 777-9 cause you could put in even more premium cabin?


Well, you can't really stretch the A35K with the current engines. The Trent XWB 97 is supposedly the maxed out implementation of that engine architecture. That said, 3 extra rows, or 408 passengers vs. 414, with the takeoff/landing economics of the much lighter craft (777-9 empty weight is the same as the MTOW of the A35K for reference), would make the 777-9 a pretty dumb long-term option for the same missions. That said again, I don't know what the range reduction on the stretch would be with the same engines, but when the NEO version emerges with the Trent Ultrafan, that problem will be null and void.


Just a little brain acrobatics, stretching the 1000 to 80 meters wich is a little less than the 900-1000 strech but keeping the mtow of the 1000 how much range would it lose. Can't be much more than 2hours less or about 7500nm left. Keeping the current engines.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:55 pm

ewt340 wrote:
1. B777-300ER carry more passengers and have way less range, hence better economic. Majority are extremely young.
2. B777-200LR doesn't sell well at all.

With the same configurations of 2 class cabin and the latest business class seat. A350-1000 could carry 48 Business Class Seat and 315 economy class seat, total of 363 seats, not 384 seats.
B777-9 could carry 48 Business Class seat and 368 economy class seat. Total of 416 seats. That's 53 seats difference.

You know A350-1000ULR already win against B777-8.


The number of facepalms required for you...

I wouldn't call a majority being 9 years or older particularly young.

The 200LR is a purpose-specific craft. It sold as much as needed for the few airlines who needed it.

Latest business being 1-2-1 layout? Sorry but the industry standard is still 2-2-2. And if you're going to play that game then apply the same to the 777-9 and you get 398 seats down from 414 (which is Boeing's stated capacity), 30 seats different again.

The A350 ULR is one generation too early. If I were Joyce I'd either go with the 777-8 or wait until Airbus gets the A350 NEO flying and vie to be the launch customer. On technical merit this is currently Boeing's game to lose, as Airbus does not have the chops for it YET. Honestly the A359ULR modified with up-rated engines and an extra auxiliary tank would have been the better offering over a full-length modified A35K. Less wasted structural weight for the same passenger capacity.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:57 pm

Eiszeit wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Eiszeit wrote:

So a further stretch of the a350 would kill the 777-9 cause you could put in even more premium cabin?


Well, you can't really stretch the A35K with the current engines. The Trent XWB 97 is supposedly the maxed out implementation of that engine architecture. That said, 3 extra rows, or 408 passengers vs. 414, with the takeoff/landing economics of the much lighter craft (777-9 empty weight is the same as the MTOW of the A35K for reference), would make the 777-9 a pretty dumb long-term option for the same missions. That said again, I don't know what the range reduction on the stretch would be with the same engines, but when the NEO version emerges with the Trent Ultrafan, that problem will be null and void.


Just a little brain acrobatics, stretching the 1000 to 80 meters wich is a little less than the 900-1000 strech but keeping the mtow of the 1000 how much range would it lose. Can't be much more than 2hours less or about 7500nm left. Keeping the current engines.


I don't have the data on how much the fuselage itself weights per unit length, but 2 hours of lost range would be the end of flying either SYD or MEL to LHR. Hence why a modified A359ULR with up-rated engines is much more sensible.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21362
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:18 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
The A350 ULR is one generation too early. If I were Joyce I'd either go with the 777-8 or wait until Airbus gets the A350 NEO flying and vie to be the launch customer.

I think there is a commercial imperative and desire for a halo affect that drives QF to not wait and allow some one else take the lead.

Without such an offering QF sinks to just one amongst many others with one-stop service.

We saw SQ suffer on SIN-NYC through the A340LR period just to show they could do it without too much bloodshed.

As others point out, A350 offers the possibility to be the ULR ground breaker and as better options appear it can be repurposed for non-ULR roles easily.

It's clearly Airbus's order to lose despite any "compelling" (ugh) offer Boeing may have put on the table.

It's interesting that this topic continues to generate buzz while we know the last and final offers have been at QF headquarters for a while now.

If nothing else, QF is doing a great job of building suspense amongst the av-nerd community.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Eiszeit
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:50 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:32 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Eiszeit wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

Well, you can't really stretch the A35K with the current engines. The Trent XWB 97 is supposedly the maxed out implementation of that engine architecture. That said, 3 extra rows, or 408 passengers vs. 414, with the takeoff/landing economics of the much lighter craft (777-9 empty weight is the same as the MTOW of the A35K for reference), would make the 777-9 a pretty dumb long-term option for the same missions. That said again, I don't know what the range reduction on the stretch would be with the same engines, but when the NEO version emerges with the Trent Ultrafan, that problem will be null and void.


Just a little brain acrobatics, stretching the 1000 to 80 meters wich is a little less than the 900-1000 strech but keeping the mtow of the 1000 how much range would it lose. Can't be much more than 2hours less or about 7500nm left. Keeping the current engines.


I don't have the data on how much the fuselage itself weights per unit length, but 2 hours of lost range would be the end of flying either SYD or MEL to LHR. Hence why a modified A359ULR with up-rated engines is much more sensible.


Oh I think there was a misunderstanding I don't mean the strech as an ULR plane, more like the biggest possible a350 for high capacity routes competeing against the 777-9. I personaly think the a350-1000 ULR is a better choice than the 777-8 just because of the lower weight if the range increase is even possible on both .
 
moa999
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:35 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Latest business being 1-2-1 layout? Sorry but the industry standard is still 2-2-2.

The A350 ULR is one generation too early. If I were Joyce I'd either go with the 777-8 or wait until Airbus gets the A350 NEO flying and vie to be the launch customer.
.

A 1-2-1 stagger is definitely become the standard - and QF already has this in its 330s and 787 and converting the 380s.

But the 777-8 isn't available in the timeline QF wants.

Boeing seems to be putting forward a 777-9 (possibly with a temporary cargo tank?) Plus later 777-8 options.
In some respects I actually think this might be the best choice for Qantas. Take the 777-9 in 2022/3, but then run another competition bin 4-5 years between a 350neo and re-engined 777-8/787-10. You then remove the extra tank from the 777-9 and use it to replace the 380s in the late 2020s.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:08 pm

scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
To veer back on topic, do we see BA as a A350-1000ULR customer? If so, on what routes and in what numbers?


Unless BA wants to start non-stops to Australia & possibly New Zealand, I don't see any requirement for ULR-specific frames in their fleet, given their current route network. IIRC, their longest flights are around 13 hours from Heathrow to Buenos Aires and Santiago.


If Quantas demonstrates that SYD-LHR is profitable, it should be tempting for BA to do the same thing, specially if they have the 350 in the fleet already
 
packsonflight
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:12 pm

flee wrote:
I would imagine that any stretch of the A350-1000 will only come when the Neo is announced - that means 2025 or later EIS. Development and flight tests will take time and it is best that Airbus used this time (waiting for RR's UltraFan to be ready) wisely and developed the stretch carefully. I wonder what is the design limit of the A350-1000 landing gear? If it cannot take heavier weights, the capability of any stretch will be restricted.


Airbus has talked openly about stretching the 350-1000 of 4 meters, that is the maximum without adding extra exit pair

Could well be back on the table since they are dumping the 380
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:07 pm

packsonflight wrote:
flee wrote:
I would imagine that any stretch of the A350-1000 will only come when the Neo is announced - that means 2025 or later EIS. Development and flight tests will take time and it is best that Airbus used this time (waiting for RR's UltraFan to be ready) wisely and developed the stretch carefully. I wonder what is the design limit of the A350-1000 landing gear? If it cannot take heavier weights, the capability of any stretch will be restricted.


Airbus has talked openly about stretching the 350-1000 of 4 meters, that is the maximum without adding extra exit pair

Could well be back on the table since they are dumping the 380


It'll be there for the NEO. I just doubt it'll happen using the Trent XWB since the 97 is the maxed out thrust of that engine architecture. Ultrafan is said to be scalable up to 100,000lb of thrust, probably more.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:12 pm

Eiszeit wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Eiszeit wrote:

Just a little brain acrobatics, stretching the 1000 to 80 meters wich is a little less than the 900-1000 strech but keeping the mtow of the 1000 how much range would it lose. Can't be much more than 2hours less or about 7500nm left. Keeping the current engines.


I don't have the data on how much the fuselage itself weights per unit length, but 2 hours of lost range would be the end of flying either SYD or MEL to LHR. Hence why a modified A359ULR with up-rated engines is much more sensible.


Oh I think there was a misunderstanding I don't mean the strech as an ULR plane, more like the biggest possible a350 for high capacity routes competeing against the 777-9. I personaly think the a350-1000 ULR is a better choice than the 777-8 just because of the lower weight if the range increase is even possible on both .


On technical merit, yes, the A350ULR is the better option for being first to market, but for long-term strategy, I've gotta say I'd give it to Boeing, if for no other reason than the 787 NG and A350 NEO are actually the most suitable candidates for the mission overall, and having the 777X in the fleet lets Qantas up-gauge AU-LAX routes they have currently maxing out the 789s both morning and night. Yes Project Sunrise will be a bit Frankenstein to start, but fleet commonality and long-term planning kinda gives it to Boeing in my book, even if I personally would enjoy the comfort of the A350 ULR so much more. I wonder if Qantas would fly the 777X at 10-abreast or if they'd choose to fly at 9 both for empty seat weight savings and for passenger comfort. Spacious aisles for walking on that long flight would be a godsend.
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think there is a commercial imperative and desire for a halo affect that drives QF to not wait and allow some one else take the lead. Without such an offering QF sinks to just one amongst many others with one-stop service.

Yes. Joyce knows what he's doing.

Revelation wrote:
As others point out, A350 offers the possibility to be the ULR ground breaker and as better options appear it can be repurposed for non-ULR roles easily.

This is important. The 359ULR already provides a model for this. It allows QF to do the math for a mixed fleet of standard (tho presumably new higher weight) 35Ks and a handful of ULRs for the extreme sectors. Single pilot pool, single set of maintenance requirements across the fleet.

Revelation wrote:
It's clearly Airbus's order to lose despite any "compelling" (ugh) offer Boeing may have put on the table.

:checkmark:
 
Dave05
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:49 am

I always wonder, do the A350-900 ulr carry revenue generating cargo too? Or in the belly its all just extra fuel container?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26372
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:47 am

Dave05 wrote:
I always wonder, do the A350-900 ulr carry revenue generating cargo too? Or in the belly its all just extra fuel container?


The forward cargo bay is blocked off so cargo and luggage are carried only in the aft bay. When not operating as a ULR, the forward bay can be reactivated and used.

The ULR model does not use cargo tanks - all fuel is carried in the existing center and wing tank volumes.
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:47 am

waly777 wrote:
Airlines will order what matches the route capacity required by their network. A few airlines will have the 35K and 779 as the seat capacity is differentiated enough.

Good point. I agree.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:09 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
I just doubt it'll happen using the Trent XWB since the 97 is the maxed out thrust of that engine architecture.

Is this "hard" fact?
This would have been the case with the original proposal for the -1000.
After the first MTOW bump and resultant EIS for the -1000 things changed.
and the engine for the -1000 got a revamp.

I'd be surprised if it is hard up against 97klbs thrust now.
Murphy is an optimist
 
tphuang
Posts: 3221
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:44 pm

ewt340 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

1. B777-300ER carry more passengers and have way less range, hence better economic. Majority are extremely young.
2. B777-200LR doesn't sell well at all.

With the same configurations of 2 class cabin and the latest business class seat. A350-1000 could carry 48 Business Class Seat and 315 economy class seat, total of 363 seats, not 384 seats.
B777-9 could carry 48 Business Class seat and 368 economy class seat. Total of 416 seats. That's 53 seats difference.

You know A350-1000ULR already win against B777-8.


Those 50 extra seat will be sold at a huge discount. And the other 315 Y seats will probably yield lower too since there are more inventory of Y seat to sell now. Think what a discounted ULH y seat is priced at and how much j seat priced at.

Let's do the following example.
Let the average yield on the 315 seat on A350-1000 be 100. And let's say J fares go 5x that, so 500. Same number of J seats to sell on 779 and 35k, so let's assume same yield. Since there are more Y seat to sell, the average yield for the first 315 seat on 779 will be a little lower, let's 95. The remaining 53 seats will be at the lowest price bucket, let's say 60.

total revenue brought in by 35K would be 55500
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 57105
about 3% more in total revenue

Let's say I'm being overly pessimistic here. Let's say the first 315 Y seat on 779 are sold at same yield as A350-1000 and the remaining 53 sold at 30% discount (so 70)
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 59210
about 6.7% more in total revenue

would be interesting to see what the total trip cost of 35K vs 779 is. If 779 trip cost is more than 7% higher than 35K, then whoever is buying 779 better be really confident they can sell those extra 53 y seat at a price that's closer to those first 315 seats. Cause a lot of time those last seats are filled by low yielding connection itineraries.


Uhmm, no. Many airlines that bought B777-9 are premium heavy airlines, ANA, BA, JAL, LH, SQ, all of them are Premium heavy airlines. They all order B777-9 because they need the space to put more first class and/or business class seat + premium economy in the cabin because they could actually fill it. Emirates which have the largest order used the aircraft because they have low profit yield and they need volume. Hence they have tons of A380.

Those size differences between A350-1000 and B777-9 are there for a big reason. You oversimplified the calculations by diminishing other important factors.


lol, premium airlines make their money on front of the cabin. Have you seen where SQ is pricing those W seating on EWR-SIN? It doesn't get more premium of an airline than that and they have to sell W seats at under $2000 R/T for 18 hour flight. The fact is if you have a lot of Y seat to fill up, you have to discount heavily or fill with connection. EK has said they had to discount fares to unreasonable levels in order to fill those A380 or 777 which are simply too large for the demand of the routes. There is a reason JFK-MXP Y fares are so much lower than JFK-FCO.

If you look at A350 and 777 series, premium airlines typically put 4 seat in a row for J class and 8 seat in a row for W class. It's only the Y class that there is one extra seat. But in terms of revenues on long haul, the major revenue generators are the J and W seating. AA has been telling everyone that their premium economy seats are taking 40% more space but generating twice the fares of Y seating. Whether or not an airline can sell out their J cabin is the biggest factor on whether or not that route is profitable. So a "premium airline" can have the same J and W cabin on a A350 and 777-9. If you have 50 extra Y seat, that will bring in more revenue, but can't be compared to average yield of other seats.
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:36 am

moa999 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Latest business being 1-2-1 layout? Sorry but the industry standard is still 2-2-2.


A 1-2-1 stagger is definitely become the standard - and QF already has this in its 330s and 787 and converting the 380s.




tphuang wrote:
If you look at A350 and 777 series, premium airlines typically put 4 seat in a row for J class and 8 seat in a row for W class. It's only the Y class that there is one extra seat.


From what I read business class can be everything from 3-3 in A320/ B737 with middle seat blocked to 1-2-1 in B777.
Suppose an business heavy airline wants to offer 1-2-1: Isn't A330NEO the right plane for them?
I would also assume that 2-4-2 in W is much less charming than 2-3-2 in A330. Or is this desired to prevent W to become too attractive?
What is the difference between 2-2-2 on A330 and 1-2-1 on B777? I would appreciate answers from people who flew both 1-2-1 and 2-2-2.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
moa999
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:09 am

Let's just consider widebodies given this thread.

The main difference between 2-2-2 and 1-2-1 is all aisle access - so the pax doesn't have to step over someone to go to the bathroom, or be served across someone. 1-2-1 provides more privacy (although some designs provide couples pairings in the centre with a movable divider).

By using foot cubbies under elbow/work space the modern staggered 1-2-1 are actually more efficient (ie. More seats in a given space) than the older 2-2-2

What aircraft people buy will depend on a multitude of factors, mostly route length and demand, but we'll discussed elsewhere.
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:45 am

moa999 wrote:

By using foot cubbies under elbow/work space the modern staggered 1-2-1 are actually more efficient (ie. More seats in a given space) than the older 2-2-2



I'm off topic. Skip this post if not interested in business class seat arrangement.

I think I know why I'm confused. I recently flew Oman Air's A330. Passing their business class I was surprised. Their business class is rather like first class:
https://www.omanair.com/in/en/flying-us ... rtual-tour
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Oman_ ... 00_new.php

That however is true only for their A330s. Their B787 have 2-2-2 arrangement.
Here again inconsistent:
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Oman_ ... ng_787.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Oman_ ... 7-8_V2.php

I suppose what you refered to is like the Qantas B787 seating.
Qantas A330-200 and B787 have both 1-2-1, but A330 has 78' and B787 has 46' pitch.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qanta ... -200_C.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qanta ... ng_789.php

Is the A330 not broad enough for 1-2-1 with 46' pitch? That's hard to imagine considering Air Asia X fits 3-3-3 in economy.
Or do 78' pitch planes go to the wealthier locations?

For more infos about variations:
https://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhau ... _class.php
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:40 am

moa999 wrote:
Let's just consider widebodies given this thread.

The main difference between 2-2-2 and 1-2-1 is all aisle access - so the pax doesn't have to step over someone to go to the bathroom, or be served across someone. 1-2-1 provides more privacy (although some designs provide couples pairings in the centre with a movable divider).

By using foot cubbies under elbow/work space the modern staggered 1-2-1 are actually more efficient (ie. More seats in a given space) than the older 2-2-2

What aircraft people buy will depend on a multitude of factors, mostly route length and demand, but we'll discussed elsewhere.


I've flown 2-2-2 Transatlantic on a LH A350, can't say I was wanting for the luxury of QF's 1-2-1 on their 787. I get that First Class is going the way of the Dodo for most airlines, but when Boeing and Airbus publish 2-class config capacity, it'll be for 2-2-2 Business Class if the airframe can reasonably fit it. The A330 is a weird case where I think 1-3-1 is the highest density you could do.
 
moa999
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:13 pm

Wouldn't believe the Seatguru figures - the QF 330 and 787 are near identical (I'd suspect the 332 figures are from the old 2-2-2 SkyBed MkI, all of which have now been refurbed)

It's not just Qantas going 1-2-1
This article gives a good overview of the various designs and the large number of airlines that are using them
https://www.businesstraveller.com/featu ... eat-guide/
 
tphuang
Posts: 3221
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:05 pm

Sokes wrote:
moa999 wrote:

By using foot cubbies under elbow/work space the modern staggered 1-2-1 are actually more efficient (ie. More seats in a given space) than the older 2-2-2



I'm off topic. Skip this post if not interested in business class seat arrangement.

I think I know why I'm confused. I recently flew Oman Air's A330. Passing their business class I was surprised. Their business class is rather like first class:
https://www.omanair.com/in/en/flying-us ... rtual-tour
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Oman_ ... 00_new.php

That however is true only for their A330s. Their B787 have 2-2-2 arrangement.
Here again inconsistent:
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Oman_ ... ng_787.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Oman_ ... 7-8_V2.php

I suppose what you refered to is like the Qantas B787 seating.
Qantas A330-200 and B787 have both 1-2-1, but A330 has 78' and B787 has 46' pitch.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qanta ... -200_C.php
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qanta ... ng_789.php

Is the A330 not broad enough for 1-2-1 with 46' pitch? That's hard to imagine considering Air Asia X fits 3-3-3 in economy.
Or do 78' pitch planes go to the wealthier locations?

For more infos about variations:
https://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhau ... _class.php


It's hard to say. "premium airlines" often have extra large suites to get top dollars from clients. So for example on CX, 77W J seating is 1-2-1 and very spacious. A350 J seating is the same and slightly smaller. But from what I've experienced and other's have said, more people seem to prefer A350 more due to the better cabin pressure. A330 is 1-2-1 also, but the seating is noticeably less spacious than on 77W. So they don't use it on the flagship routes.

It's interesting when comparing widebodies from same airline. I've tried both 2-2-2 on 77W and 789 on CA and to me there were no real difference in my experience. The extra width of adding one seat in Y didn't matter that much for J cabin.
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:08 pm

tphuang wrote:
It's interesting when comparing widebodies from same airline. I've tried both 2-2-2 on 77W and 789 on CA and to me there were no real difference in my experience. The extra width of adding one seat in Y didn't matter that much for J cabin.


Some people like narrow spaces, e.g. a hut in the mountains. 45' pitch is good for them. Some people hate narrow spaces. 78' pitch is good for them.
Some people like to socialize. 2-2-2 is good. Others want to be undisturbed. 1-2-1 with 45' pitch is good.
Some people may just want to lie flat without any extra space on the side. For them even 7 abreast in A330 may be o.k., but not with reclining seat. Lets say 2-2-2 with 45' pitch for them.
People have different needs. I wonder that airlines don't mix all these possibilities in every plane.
Obviously many customers often won't get their favorite seat, specially if they switch flights. But on average it would be an improvement over today.

In an ULR flight there will be lots of business seats. Why to make it "one size fits all"?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:40 am

tphuang wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
tphuang wrote:

Those 50 extra seat will be sold at a huge discount. And the other 315 Y seats will probably yield lower too since there are more inventory of Y seat to sell now. Think what a discounted ULH y seat is priced at and how much j seat priced at.

Let's do the following example.
Let the average yield on the 315 seat on A350-1000 be 100. And let's say J fares go 5x that, so 500. Same number of J seats to sell on 779 and 35k, so let's assume same yield. Since there are more Y seat to sell, the average yield for the first 315 seat on 779 will be a little lower, let's 95. The remaining 53 seats will be at the lowest price bucket, let's say 60.

total revenue brought in by 35K would be 55500
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 57105
about 3% more in total revenue

Let's say I'm being overly pessimistic here. Let's say the first 315 Y seat on 779 are sold at same yield as A350-1000 and the remaining 53 sold at 30% discount (so 70)
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 59210
about 6.7% more in total revenue

would be interesting to see what the total trip cost of 35K vs 779 is. If 779 trip cost is more than 7% higher than 35K, then whoever is buying 779 better be really confident they can sell those extra 53 y seat at a price that's closer to those first 315 seats. Cause a lot of time those last seats are filled by low yielding connection itineraries.


Uhmm, no. Many airlines that bought B777-9 are premium heavy airlines, ANA, BA, JAL, LH, SQ, all of them are Premium heavy airlines. They all order B777-9 because they need the space to put more first class and/or business class seat + premium economy in the cabin because they could actually fill it. Emirates which have the largest order used the aircraft because they have low profit yield and they need volume. Hence they have tons of A380.

Those size differences between A350-1000 and B777-9 are there for a big reason. You oversimplified the calculations by diminishing other important factors.


lol, premium airlines make their money on front of the cabin. Have you seen where SQ is pricing those W seating on EWR-SIN? It doesn't get more premium of an airline than that and they have to sell W seats at under $2000 R/T for 18 hour flight. The fact is if you have a lot of Y seat to fill up, you have to discount heavily or fill with connection. EK has said they had to discount fares to unreasonable levels in order to fill those A380 or 777 which are simply too large for the demand of the routes. There is a reason JFK-MXP Y fares are so much lower than JFK-FCO.

If you look at A350 and 777 series, premium airlines typically put 4 seat in a row for J class and 8 seat in a row for W class. It's only the Y class that there is one extra seat. But in terms of revenues on long haul, the major revenue generators are the J and W seating. AA has been telling everyone that their premium economy seats are taking 40% more space but generating twice the fares of Y seating. Whether or not an airline can sell out their J cabin is the biggest factor on whether or not that route is profitable. So a "premium airline" can have the same J and W cabin on a A350 and 777-9. If you have 50 extra Y seat, that will bring in more revenue, but can't be compared to average yield of other seats.


Sir nobody is arguing on how premium airlines made their money. I don't understand why your replies make sense at all regarding this discussion.

Yes, the configurations for F and C seats on A350 and B777X is the same. 1-2-1 for both first and business class. But since the cabin of B777-9 are longer by couple of meters, it meant that they could add MORE ROWS of those seating into the cabin.

You still ignoring the fact that many of these premium airlines order the larger B777-9 because they need the room for these seating. LHR-JFK, JFK-FRA, LHR-SIN, LAX-NRT, HKG-LHR, etc.

Like it or not, A350-1000 and B777-9X are entirely on different class here. While they are competing for the similar order, it doesn't actually work. These airlines order B777-9 for it's capacity, not because it cost them 20 bucks per aircraft.

And Airlines who order A350-1000 do so because of its smaller capacity.
 
Dave05
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:20 pm

The 777lr didn't enjoy many sales, a 350 ulr would sell even less..My question will be how many premium seats will be configured for the A350-1000 ulr? A350-900ulr is configured for 160 premium, the 350-1000 ulr will be configured for 190 seats or 210 seats?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:19 am

Dave05 wrote:
The 777lr didn't enjoy many sales, a 350 ulr would sell even less..My question will be how many premium seats will be configured for the A350-1000 ulr? A350-900ulr is configured for 160 premium, the 350-1000 ulr will be configured for 190 seats or 210 seats?

It all depends on the route length. The A350-1000 can already carry 33t payload to 8500nm versus the A350-900ULR's 26t.

A MTOW bump to 320t would see around 36t of payload out to 8500nm. That is now a 10t advantage in theory that is an extra 100 seats in the A350-1000.

So if the A350-900ULR can only carry an average of 160 passengers on an ultra long haul route then the A350-1000ULR should be able to do it with 260 passengers.

That is more than 50% more passengers while burning less than 20% more fuel. The fuel cost per passenger will be far better on the A350-1000ULR.
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:05 pm

If QF select the 350-1000 you’d have to expect seating will be configured according to what the aircraft can carry to/from New York, Chicago etc rather than the edge case of SYD/MEL-LHR. For LHR they will just block seats in Y as required. Assuming a density similar to the 789s we’re looking at what, 300 seats in a 350ULR?
 
ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:26 pm

tealnz wrote:
If QF select the 350-1000 you’d have to expect seating will be configured according to what the aircraft can carry to/from New York, Chicago etc rather than the edge case of SYD/MEL-LHR. For LHR they will just block seats in Y as required. Assuming a density similar to the 789s we’re looking at what, 300 seats in a 350ULR?


Nah, I see seating around 250-280 at most. Presumably they would put little bit of first class seats on the cabin, and looking at their widebody configurations, it tend to be heavy on premium seating.

So I don't think 300 would be realistic. Especially since these routes would be at premium. So instead of blocking Y seats, they might just put more business class and premium economy seats at higher rate.
 
gloom
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:00 pm

ewt340 wrote:
So I don't think 300 would be realistic. Especially since these routes would be at premium. So instead of blocking Y seats, they might just put more business class and premium economy seats at higher rate.


Depends on many factors, including the F seats. However, if you look at current densities (330 seats with more-or-less 50 J and 40W), and assuming there will be some 8-12 F seats, replacing 6 rows of Y at 9, I'd say it's below 300 seats, but pretty close to. 12-50-60-160 (approximations, not exact seat count) could be possible, giving approx 280 seats.

Cheers,
Adam
 
DCA350
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:31 pm

ewt340 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
If QF select the 350-1000 you’d have to expect seating will be configured according to what the aircraft can carry to/from New York, Chicago etc rather than the edge case of SYD/MEL-LHR. For LHR they will just block seats in Y as required. Assuming a density similar to the 789s we’re looking at what, 300 seats in a 350ULR?


Nah, I see seating around 250-280 at most. Presumably they would put little bit of first class seats on the cabin, and looking at their widebody configurations, it tend to be heavy on premium seating.

So I don't think 300 would be realistic. Especially since these routes would be at premium. So instead of blocking Y seats, they might just put more business class and premium economy seats at higher rate.


I agree the focus of PS flights are premium seating. Tons of cheap Y seats available on the market that will surely depress yields, I don't think there are many Y customers that would pay 40% more to save a couple of hours. 260-280 seems more than feasible. I would expect a 4 class layout with Premium Economy being almost as large as standard Y.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3237
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:13 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
I'm afraid it's not background noise. Many fleet decisions have come down to quick entry into service for exactly the reasons I stated. Time not in the air, both for pilots, crew, and airframes, is money lost.


Wages "lost" in retraining time?

[The introduction of new frames usually brings with it capability growth that causes network growth which needs staff growth - so you aren't limited to a finite staff pool where 2 pilots on type training means an aircraft off the fleet. Same for cabin crew. No airline can operate so finely balanced such that they cannot have one set of cabin crew "out of action" without affecting operations.]

Can you note any fleet decisions that have come down to the reasons you've stated? [and I mean specific to crew training - ordering more 77W to add to an existing 77W fleet (instead of say A330) because current MX and flight ops are set up for the 77W does not count as crew training. The 778 will be so different from the 77W for groundside that this is not applicable]


Business money lost in retraining time. And as a counterpoint, Qantas actually shoehorned pilot retraining when they had their 747s in long-term maintenance. Was it perfect? No. However, the impacts can largely be mitigated with good timing, but that timing window is much smaller on types which are extremely similar.

British Airways and the 777X, despite having the A350K on order, because they want the 747s and less efficient 777-300s gone, but they wouldn't get enough A350 frames in the time they wanted.

And the 778 is the exact same size as the 777-300ER, so apart from the folding wingtips it is not significantly different for crew.


778 is not the exact same size, close, but not exact.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3237
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:26 am

moa999 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Latest business being 1-2-1 layout? Sorry but the industry standard is still 2-2-2.

The A350 ULR is one generation too early. If I were Joyce I'd either go with the 777-8 or wait until Airbus gets the A350 NEO flying and vie to be the launch customer.
.

A 1-2-1 stagger is definitely become the standard - and QF already has this in its 330s and 787 and converting the 380s.

But the 777-8 isn't available in the timeline QF wants.

Boeing seems to be putting forward a 777-9 (possibly with a temporary cargo tank?) Plus later 777-8 options.
In some respects I actually think this might be the best choice for Qantas. Take the 777-9 in 2022/3, but then run another competition bin 4-5 years between a 350neo and re-engined 777-8/787-10. You then remove the extra tank from the 777-9 and use it to replace the 380s in the late 2020s.


Lets see the 777-9 with the same 2-2-2 spec seats as the A350 and see if they have 414 seat layout.
 
sabby
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:19 am

tealnz wrote:
If QF select the 350-1000 you’d have to expect seating will be configured according to what the aircraft can carry to/from New York, Chicago etc rather than the edge case of SYD/MEL-LHR. For LHR they will just block seats in Y as required.


I think, they won't stop at blocking seats, but possibly remove a few rows of Y seats from the rear. And that would be the empty space for Yoga/Exercise/Stretching out that we keep hearing about from QF. The Y seats are very light these days and 5-6 rows can be taken out / put back quite quickly on the ground.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:05 am

Maybe we get a new designator...Y for Yoga Class! :lol:
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:28 am

DCA350 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
If QF select the 350-1000 you’d have to expect seating will be configured according to what the aircraft can carry to/from New York, Chicago etc rather than the edge case of SYD/MEL-LHR. For LHR they will just block seats in Y as required. Assuming a density similar to the 789s we’re looking at what, 300 seats in a 350ULR?


Nah, I see seating around 250-280 at most. Presumably they would put little bit of first class seats on the cabin, and looking at their widebody configurations, it tend to be heavy on premium seating.

So I don't think 300 would be realistic. Especially since these routes would be at premium. So instead of blocking Y seats, they might just put more business class and premium economy seats at higher rate.


I agree the focus of PS flights are premium seating. Tons of cheap Y seats available on the market that will surely depress yields, I don't think there are many Y customers that would pay 40% more to save a couple of hours. 260-280 seems more than feasible. I would expect a 4 class layout with Premium Economy being almost as large as standard Y.


I wouldn't pay 40% more, but 25% sure. But that really only applies for people who live in NY/NJ or will stay there. I was royally steamed that Qantas was starting their BNE-ORD service in April rather than August when I had to fly back to ORF Virginia. BNE-LAX-CLT-ORF ended up being 30 hours of Hell.
 
ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:25 pm

gloom wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
So I don't think 300 would be realistic. Especially since these routes would be at premium. So instead of blocking Y seats, they might just put more business class and premium economy seats at higher rate.


Depends on many factors, including the F seats. However, if you look at current densities (330 seats with more-or-less 50 J and 40W), and assuming there will be some 8-12 F seats, replacing 6 rows of Y at 9, I'd say it's below 300 seats, but pretty close to. 12-50-60-160 (approximations, not exact seat count) could be possible, giving approx 280 seats.

Cheers,
Adam


That's a pretty high number of seats for A350-1000. I only come up with 8F, 52C, 44P and 162Y. With Qantas configurations similar to B787 of course.
 
gloom
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:07 pm

ewt340 wrote:
That's a pretty high number of seats for A350-1000. I only come up with 8F, 52C, 44P and 162Y. With Qantas configurations similar to B787 of course.


Could be, I did a quick'n'dirty raw approximation. If your numbers are right, that's still 262 seats, and it's definitely premium heavy.

Cheers,
Adam
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:13 pm

So if the A350-1000ULR does launch, does that mean that the chances of another operator ordering the A350-900ULR drop to virtually zero? And would this mean that the A350-900ULR will be discontinued?
 
Pcoder
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:44 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:57 am

filipinoavgeek wrote:
So if the A350-1000ULR does launch, does that mean that the chances of another operator ordering the A350-900ULR drop to virtually zero? And would this mean that the A350-900ULR will be discontinued?


The a350-900ULR is a few relatively minor tweeks to the a350, which can be converted back into a regular one. So as it is not a big deviation from the standard one, Airbus will continue to probably offer the option.

It not like the 777-200LR which had a different wing to the rest of the 777-200 series.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:38 am

What is the expected market size for the A350-1000ULR? Usually the LR variant don't pick-up that much orders. It seems like it is a niche that is mainly about prestige...
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:35 am

JonesNL wrote:
What is the expected market size for the A350-1000ULR? Usually the LR variant don't pick-up that much orders. It seems like it is a niche that is mainly about prestige...


Even if the -1000ULR is a niche (maybe 50 sales?) it will lay the ground for a MTOW increase for the normal -1000. This is really attractive for Airbus and airlines, especially when the 77W replacement cycle kicks in.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:56 am

FluidFlow wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
What is the expected market size for the A350-1000ULR? Usually the LR variant don't pick-up that much orders. It seems like it is a niche that is mainly about prestige...


Even if the -1000ULR is a niche (maybe 50 sales?) it will lay the ground for a MTOW increase for the normal -1000. This is really attractive for Airbus and airlines, especially when the 77W replacement cycle kicks in.


What is the benefit of an MTOW increase? More passengers? More cargo? Ground work for a A350-2000 variant?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:05 am

JonesNL wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
What is the expected market size for the A350-1000ULR? Usually the LR variant don't pick-up that much orders. It seems like it is a niche that is mainly about prestige...


Even if the -1000ULR is a niche (maybe 50 sales?) it will lay the ground for a MTOW increase for the normal -1000. This is really attractive for Airbus and airlines, especially when the 77W replacement cycle kicks in.


What is the benefit of an MTOW increase? More passengers? More cargo? Ground work for a A350-2000 variant?


If MZFW stays the same, more range with max payload. Plenty of long haul city pairs exceed today's aircraft MZFW range by a few hours of flying.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2316
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:12 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
Business money lost in retraining time.


That is chump changed compared to running costs over 20 years.


Are you a pilot?
 
ewt340
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:16 am

JonesNL wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
What is the expected market size for the A350-1000ULR? Usually the LR variant don't pick-up that much orders. It seems like it is a niche that is mainly about prestige...


Even if the -1000ULR is a niche (maybe 50 sales?) it will lay the ground for a MTOW increase for the normal -1000. This is really attractive for Airbus and airlines, especially when the 77W replacement cycle kicks in.


What is the benefit of an MTOW increase? More passengers? More cargo? Ground work for a A350-2000 variant?


Most likely. A350-1000 can't carry as much payload as B777-300ER. It also have way lower mtow. Increasing it would bring it closer to B777-300ER capability. This mostly would goes into cargo since both aircraft have the same number of LD3 containers under their belly.

Could also be used for future stretch if the demand rises enough.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8499
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:23 am

ewt340 wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

Even if the -1000ULR is a niche (maybe 50 sales?) it will lay the ground for a MTOW increase for the normal -1000. This is really attractive for Airbus and airlines, especially when the 77W replacement cycle kicks in.


What is the benefit of an MTOW increase? More passengers? More cargo? Ground work for a A350-2000 variant?


Most likely. A350-1000 can't carry as much payload as B777-300ER. It also have way lower mtow. Increasing it would bring it closer to B777-300ER capability. This mostly would goes into cargo since both aircraft have the same number of LD3 containers under their belly.

Could also be used for future stretch if the demand rises enough.


The A350-1000 does have, with around 70 t, about the same max payload than the 777-300ER and does carry it further. The last MTOW increase to 316 t came at the same MZFW of 223 t further increasing range rather than payload.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

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