Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Is the A350-900ULR marketed towards other airlines?
Is the A350-900ULR only marketed towards Singapore Airlines or was meant to be marketed towards other airlines?
-
-
lightsaber
Moderator
- Posts: 24469
- Joined:
Re: Is the A350-900ULR marketed towards other airlines?
Airbus hoped for other ULH such as QR, EY, and EK. With QF needing so much more range for the demanded payload, the A359LR was out proposed. If either Boeing or Airbus makes a project sunrise aircraft, it will probably rule ULH.
Lightsaber
Lightsaber
Re: Is the A350-900ULR marketed towards other airlines?
UA857 wrote:Is the A350-900ULR only marketed towards Singapore Airlines or was meant to be marketed towards other airlines?
Of course it was marketed toward other airlines.
It has a rather weak case in the current environment, because the standard A359 now shares the same 280T MTOW as well as the wing twist, modified winglets, and other advancements... so the only routes where a -ULR would be of use, is a route that goes beyond the 280T standard bird's already massive range, while (1) staying within the -ULR's range, and (2) having an enormous J-seat demand.
Such routes are exceedingly rare.
-
- Aceskywalker
- Posts: 157
- Joined:
Re: Is the A350-900ULR marketed towards other airlines?
Simple answer - no one is biting.
Routes that the A359ULR do is a niche within a niche. The standard model can do impressive routes like SIN-SFO and MNL-JFK.
IIRC the only routes that are served by the ULR are SIN-JFK and SIN-LAX, the latter is just a little too far for a normally configured A350 or a B787.
Routes that the A359ULR do is a niche within a niche. The standard model can do impressive routes like SIN-SFO and MNL-JFK.
IIRC the only routes that are served by the ULR are SIN-JFK and SIN-LAX, the latter is just a little too far for a normally configured A350 or a B787.
Re: Is the A350-900ULR marketed towards other airlines?
Possibly some ACJ Customers will order the greater fuel capacity. In the low density ACJ config with almost no cargo expected, it could reach nearly any antipode city pair.
Airlines not so much
Airlines not so much
Re: Is the A350-900ULR marketed towards other airlines?
Agent wrote:Possibly some ACJ Customers will order the greater fuel capacity. In the low density ACJ config with almost no cargo expected, it could reach nearly any antipode city pair.
Not "nearly". I think ACJ with extra tanks in belly is marketed as 11.100nm. I'd say it's very much any antipodes, one way or the other, depending on layout and "extra heavy things on board".
Cheers,
Adam
-
- filipinoavgeek
- Posts: 664
- Joined:
Re: Is the A350-900ULR marketed towards other airlines?
lightsaber wrote:Airbus hoped for other ULH such as QR, EY, and EK. With QF needing so much more range for the demanded payload, the A359LR was out proposed. If either Boeing or Airbus makes a project sunrise aircraft, it will probably rule ULH.
Lightsaber
IIRC PR was also interested in the ULR and in fact the initial reports claimed that some of their initial order was for the ULH version, but apparently Airbus themselves told PR that the ULR was unnecessary for PR's purposes. If that were the case then it would sound odd that Airbus themselves would turn down a customer for a type whose other potential customer(s) could be counted on one hand.
Re: Is the A350-900ULR marketed towards other airlines?
The main selling point for the ULR was the higher 280t MTOW and aero tweaks. This was 5t higher than the standard A350-900 available at the time.
Today the standard A350-900 has the 280t MTOW. The only difference with the ULR is slightly more fuel capacity and the front cargo hold is disabled.
On Singapore to Los Angeles the ULR is NOT needed. It has never used the extra available fuel capacity on that flight even on the worst weather day westbound. A current 280t standard A350 could then do the route perfectly. The 268t or even the 275t A350 would not do Los Angeles to Singapore very well. On this route the ULR was purchased for the slightly higher MTOW.
Unless an airline has two cities that are more than 8000nm apart there is now no need to buy the ULR. Once range hits 8500nm the ULR also becomes useless as the payload drops too low. The vast majority of airlines have no potential routes in this narrow range window. New York to
Turkish airlines for instance can use their standard A350-900 with a 280t to do a route to Melbourne at 7900nm.
The problem now is the standard A350-1000 with the latest MTOW is significantly better than the A350-900ULR. The A350-1000 could do Singapore to New York completely standard and with a normal cabin layout.
Sydney to Chicago at just over 8000nm would be a route that requires the extra fuel capacity westbound.
Today the standard A350-900 has the 280t MTOW. The only difference with the ULR is slightly more fuel capacity and the front cargo hold is disabled.
On Singapore to Los Angeles the ULR is NOT needed. It has never used the extra available fuel capacity on that flight even on the worst weather day westbound. A current 280t standard A350 could then do the route perfectly. The 268t or even the 275t A350 would not do Los Angeles to Singapore very well. On this route the ULR was purchased for the slightly higher MTOW.
Unless an airline has two cities that are more than 8000nm apart there is now no need to buy the ULR. Once range hits 8500nm the ULR also becomes useless as the payload drops too low. The vast majority of airlines have no potential routes in this narrow range window. New York to
Turkish airlines for instance can use their standard A350-900 with a 280t to do a route to Melbourne at 7900nm.
The problem now is the standard A350-1000 with the latest MTOW is significantly better than the A350-900ULR. The A350-1000 could do Singapore to New York completely standard and with a normal cabin layout.
Sydney to Chicago at just over 8000nm would be a route that requires the extra fuel capacity westbound.
Re: Is the A350-900ULR marketed towards other airlines?
Aceskywalker wrote:IIRC the only routes that are served by the ULR are SIN-JFK and SIN-LAX
SQ's A359ULRs operate longhaul on 2xDaily SIN-LAX, Daily SIN-EWR, and 3xWk SIN-SFO.
Aceskywalker wrote:the latter is just a little too far for a normally configured A350 or a B787.
Both a 789 and 275tonne A359 have operated the route roundtrip.
A 280T standard A359 could do it with no problem.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 9MMPD, A320B737NGCapt, AFineUsername, airportugal310, BML87, boeing767322er, caedwa, capejet, ChasChandler, Continental767, Coronado990, CrewBunk, deltadudejg, DFWGlobeTrotter, emre787, ericm2031, flyboy80, gokmengs, gr8slvrflt, hl8208, jadedchameleon, jetbluefan1, johns624, kriskim, lhpdx, maddogjt8d, MKIAZ, mkorpal333, NolaMD88fan, PlaneBoo, Puissance, richard757, SANFan, seat1a, SelandiaBaru, silentobserver2, smokeybandit, tautliner, United857, usflyer msp, WLG787 and 228 guests