Now that the A35KULR looks like it has a strong chance of being launched, assuming Project Sunrise is given the greenlight, what are the potential for sales to other airlines? It's well documented that ULR frames have a limited appeal but the market is growing. Additionally, the A35KULR has an advantage that the 747SP, A345, 777LR and even the 778 doesn't, it's based on a stretch unlike the aforementioned that were shrinks. This means it should have very favorable economics for a ULR frame.

Structurally it should be no more than a couple of tons heavier than a standard A35K, and like the A359ULR I would imagine conversion cost to a standard configuration would be low, meaning there is minimal risk should the ULR routes fail to be profitable. I do not think the frame will ever be a huge seller but I do think it has a great shot at becoming the best selling ULR widebody.

Potential customers:

Qantas: obviously they are the reason this frame is even on the drawing board. But I believe it could become the backbone of their LH fleet.

CX: Already a big A350 customer and have mentioned wanting to fly to MIA and a few other destinations currently out of the range of the current fleet. The ULR would be a low risk option

TK: Another A350 customer who could be interested in the frame to launch Australian and potentially deep SA routes.

SQ: The only operator of the A359ULR could be interested in upgrading to the A350K version as it would offer more seats and revenue potential.

Emirates and Qatar.. Could be interested especially if the 778 is put on ice indefinitely.

NZ: The ULR could offer NS to NYC and deep European routes.

ET: was rumored to be looking at the A35K vs the 778.

As previously stated the market isn't massive but 75-100 frames for a cheap derivative isn't a bad haul.

I think the market for a potential A350-1000ULR is smaller than 75-100 frames.

For a more decent sized market it will need a MTOW bump to increase payload with range unlike the A359ULR that trades one for the other.

only if the innovation could be engineered back to all the frames (with the result of less consumption or more MTOW).

DCA350 wrote:

ET: was rumored to be looking at the A35K vs the 778.

ET need a frame that can lift substantial payload out of Addis (7,625 ft), their requirement is not primarily about range.

BA? Some of the longer South American routes like Lima and Santiago, leave freight behind regularly because of needing extra fuel. This aircraft would have the range, fuel, and cargo capacity, even with full passenger loads.

For US carriers it could a offer an efficient coverage of the populated world from both East and West Coast.

Most importantly, with decent loads and efficiency.

For Boeing a new challenge to avoid United and Delta converting A359s in their backlogs / options,

keesje wrote:

For US carriers it could a offer an efficient coverage of the populated world from both East and West Coast.

Most importantly, with decent loads and efficiency.

For Boeing a new challenge to avoid United and Delta converting A359s in their backlogs / options,

I don’t see the extra range really being attractive to most US carriers, or the size really. The A35K as is already offers efficient coverage of the populated world from both coast.

Agreed no market for a -1000ULR among US carriers, only the United flights to Singapore need the extra range but they seem to be doing OK with the 787. I only foresee a market for SQ and QF.

I would say sq and middle eastern airlines. Maybe virgin Australia if they want to compete in this market

How about Delta to replace their 77Ls? I can see that especially now that they are looking to reduce their number of fleet types.

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

For US carriers it could a offer an efficient coverage of the populated world from both East and West Coast.

Most importantly, with decent loads and efficiency.

For Boeing a new challenge to avoid United and Delta converting A359s in their backlogs / options,

I don’t see the extra range really being attractive to most US carriers, or the size really. The A35K as is already offers efficient coverage of the populated world from both coast.

I think there is. Serving the quickest growing market, Asia, where high temperatures and cargo opportunity are important, dependency on local partners decreaes.

ATL Range 8500NM : http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=8500NM%40ATL%0d%0a&MS=wls2&MC=HON&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*

keesje wrote:

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

For US carriers it could a offer an efficient coverage of the populated world from both East and West Coast.

Most importantly, with decent loads and efficiency.

For Boeing a new challenge to avoid United and Delta converting A359s in their backlogs / options,

I don’t see the extra range really being attractive to most US carriers, or the size really. The A35K as is already offers efficient coverage of the populated world from both coast.

I think there is. Serving the quickest growing market, Asia, where high temperatures and cargo opportunity are important, dependency on local partners decreaes.

ATL Range 8500NM : http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=8500NM%40ATL%0d%0a&MS=wls2&MC=HON&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*

That is why US airlines have west coast hubs. DL is not going to be flying the smaller southeast Asia markets from ATL (or smaller Mideast/African cities from the west coast). ATL doesn’t have the O&D traffic or connection flows to support them. The A35KULR (which, let us all remember, is the size of a 77W) doesn’t change that.

Just because a city is quickly growing doesn’t make nonstop connections to any large hub or city works. There has to actually be ties between the cities (business, ethnic, etc) or reliable connections to help fill the plane. 8500 nm is only 400 nm more than the A359’s published base range. How many cities do you think need both that additional 400 nm and extra capacity of the A35kULR for US airlines?

Surely Turkish....

This is a really, really, bad idea. 75-100 frames over eight carriers means none of them is likely to get any economies of scale. Small fleets of a sub-type mean substitution issues for refurbs, maintenance, and unscheduled maintenance. A small total fleet means financing risks. Lose a couple of carriers (their financial or strategy issues) and now you're talking 50-75 frames over six carriers and you've killed any chance for Airbus' ROI. Do you think TK and NZ have the route and premium configs to drive yields to make large-capacity ULR work?

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Polot wrote:

I don’t see the extra range really being attractive to most US carriers, or the size really. The A35K as is already offers efficient coverage of the populated world from both coast.

I think there is. Serving the quickest growing market, Asia, where high temperatures and cargo opportunity are important, dependency on local partners decreaes.

ATL Range 8500NM : http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=8500NM%40ATL%0d%0a&MS=wls2&MC=HON&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*

That is why US airlines have west coast hubs. DL is not going to be flying the smaller southeast Asia markets from ATL (or smaller Mideast/African cities from the west coast). ATL doesn’t have the O&D traffic or connection flows to support them. The A35KULR (which, let us all remember, is the size of a 77W) doesn’t change that.

Just because a city is quickly growing doesn’t make nonstop connections to any large hub or city works. There has to actually be ties between the cities (business, ethnic, etc) or reliable connections to help fill the plane. 8500 nm is only 400 nm more than the A359’s published base range. How many cities do you think need both that additional 400 nm and extra capacity of the A35kULR for US airlines?

I would assume any American carrier fielding this is doing so for the payload at range. Not necessarily for the range itself. Does DL have any long-haul routes where they see their cargo business growing?

TObound wrote:

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think there is. Serving the quickest growing market, Asia, where high temperatures and cargo opportunity are important, dependency on local partners decreaes.

ATL Range 8500NM : http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=8500NM%40ATL%0d%0a&MS=wls2&MC=HON&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*

That is why US airlines have west coast hubs. DL is not going to be flying the smaller southeast Asia markets from ATL (or smaller Mideast/African cities from the west coast). ATL doesn’t have the O&D traffic or connection flows to support them. The A35KULR (which, let us all remember, is the size of a 77W) doesn’t change that.

Just because a city is quickly growing doesn’t make nonstop connections to any large hub or city works. There has to actually be ties between the cities (business, ethnic, etc) or reliable connections to help fill the plane. 8500 nm is only 400 nm more than the A359’s published base range. How many cities do you think need both that additional 400 nm and extra capacity of the A35kULR for US airlines?

I would assume any American carrier fielding this is doing so for the payload at range. Not necessarily for the range itself. Does DL have any long-haul routes where they see their cargo business growing?

I’m sure they do. That doesn’t mean they need A35KULRs. Delta don’t even operate (or have on order) standard A35Ks, nor do they currently even operate something that size. The current A35K is no slouch when it comes to payload range. Airbus currently advertises it at 8700nm

The US3 are still passenger airlines first, cargo second. With multiple hubs that can fracture passengers around.

MIflyer12 wrote:

This is a really, really, bad idea. 75-100 frames over eight carriers means none of them is likely to get any economies of scale. Small fleets of a sub-type mean substitution issues for refurbs, maintenance, and unscheduled maintenance. A small total fleet means financing risks. Lose a couple of carriers (their financial or strategy issues) and now you're talking 50-75 frames over six carriers and you've killed any chance for Airbus' ROI. Do you think TK and NZ have the route and premium configs to drive yields to make large-capacity ULR work?

The A35KULR is a regular A35K except for an additional fuel tank and a higher MTOW. For airlines that already operate the A35K or have it on order the operational differences will be marginal (and much smaller say than if a 777-9 operator were to have a subfleet of 777-8s).

Is there going to be anything substantially different operationally as compared to operating a subfleet of narrowbody aircraft that are ETOPS equiped?

I’m still not clear which current A350 platform can handle Delta’s 4 longest routes ATL-JNB, ATL-PVG, JFK-Mumbai, and LAX-SYD. They’ve committed to an additional 14 frames as part of the Latam investment. 4 are currently in service with Latham and 10 new frames. Ed Bastion has confirmed all will be operated by DL.

These routes are currently being flown by 777LR.

global1 wrote:

I’m still not clear which current A350 platform can handle Delta’s 4 longest routes ATL-JNB, ATL-PVG, JFK-Mumbai, and LAX-SYD.

The routes are being flown by 777LR

All shorter than current longest CX A350 routes (IAD-HKG) except ATL-JNB.

Surely DL will not keep a fleet type to operate just one route. So, which A350 can handle ATL-JNB at full payload?

I'm sorry but is the A35KULR designation a formal one or just something someone just invented?

Talk of a ULR variant risks making this too complicated. The QF announcement implies a slightly higher MTOW and an ACT in the hold. For most practical purposes we’re just talking about another weight variant. Which may well be of interest to current or prospective A35K operators. But it doesn’t raise the sort of specialist sub-fleet issues that were raised by eg the A340-500 or the 777LR. It should just be a no-brainer option for carriers that need a bit more payload on ULH routes.

keesje wrote:

For US carriers it could a offer an efficient coverage of the populated world from both East and West Coast.

Most importantly, with decent loads and efficiency.

For Boeing a new challenge to avoid United and Delta converting A359s in their backlogs / options,

at the moment?? The 777-300ER already gives United near worldwide range. Were the Airplane available with GE Engines? It might well be considered. Without them?
Not so much.

keesje wrote:

For US carriers it could a offer an efficient coverage of the populated world from both East and West Coast.

Most importantly, with decent loads and efficiency.

For Boeing a new challenge to avoid United and Delta converting A359s in their backlogs / options,

at the moment?? The 777-300ER already gives United near worldwide range. Were the Airplane available with GE Engines? It might well be considered. Without them?
Not so much.

Polot wrote:

TObound wrote:

Polot wrote:

That is why US airlines have west coast hubs. DL is not going to be flying the smaller southeast Asia markets from ATL (or smaller Mideast/African cities from the west coast). ATL doesn’t have the O&D traffic or connection flows to support them. The A35KULR (which, let us all remember, is the size of a 77W) doesn’t change that.

Just because a city is quickly growing doesn’t make nonstop connections to any large hub or city works. There has to actually be ties between the cities (business, ethnic, etc) or reliable connections to help fill the plane. 8500 nm is only 400 nm more than the A359’s published base range. How many cities do you think need both that additional 400 nm and extra capacity of the A35kULR for US airlines?

I would assume any American carrier fielding this is doing so for the payload at range. Not necessarily for the range itself. Does DL have any long-haul routes where they see their cargo business growing?

I’m sure they do. That doesn’t mean they need A35KULRs. Delta don’t even operate (or have on order) standard A35Ks, nor do they currently even operate something that size. The current A35K is no slouch when it comes to payload range. Airbus currently advertises it at 8700nm

The US3 are still passenger airlines first, cargo second. With multiple hubs that can fracture passengers around.

The last two sentences could be very important. Most of those being compared - SQ, EK, CX, Turkish - are single hub at their home airport, partly because most are city states. So they need a plane with longer range. The US3 have large hubs on either coasts that can give them a couple thousand mile "head start" for the longest flight in a particular routing. QF is an exception due to Australia's size but there are significant historical connections to London. Presumably flights like that charge a premium to offset costs.

strfyr51 wrote:

keesje wrote:

For US carriers it could a offer an efficient coverage of the populated world from both East and West Coast.

Most importantly, with decent loads and efficiency.

For Boeing a new challenge to avoid United and Delta converting A359s in their backlogs / options,

at the moment?? The 777-300ER already gives United near worldwide range. Were the Airplane available with GE Engines? It might well be considered. Without them?
Not so much.

You can't go SFO-SIN or IAH-SYD with that thing, your argument would have been better should you say 787-9 instead of 777-300ER.

MIflyer12 wrote:

This is a really, really, bad idea. 75-100 frames over eight carriers means none of them is likely to get any economies of scale. Small fleets of a sub-type mean substitution issues for refurbs, maintenance, and unscheduled maintenance. A small total fleet means financing risks. Lose a couple of carriers (their financial or strategy issues) and now you're talking 50-75 frames over six carriers and you've killed any chance for Airbus' ROI. Do you think TK and NZ have the route and premium configs to drive yields to make large-capacity ULR work?

When it has minimal difference from the entire A350 fleet which is easily going towards thousands? Think twice.

You could also argue A345 or 772LR didn't get anywhere close to the economics of scale - but then 772LR has the 77F and 77W siblings which helped significantly. Same goes for SQ's A359ULR - apparently you can easily convert them into normal A359 should situation warrents and call it a day.

Michael

ojjunior wrote:

I'm sorry but is the A35KULR designation a formal one or just something someone just invented?

Well, Airbus seems to be saying the PS aircraft is not a ULR, according to this:

https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 88.article

eamondzhang wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

keesje wrote:

For US carriers it could a offer an efficient coverage of the populated world from both East and West Coast.

Most importantly, with decent loads and efficiency.

For Boeing a new challenge to avoid United and Delta converting A359s in their backlogs / options,

at the moment?? The 777-300ER already gives United near worldwide range. Were the Airplane available with GE Engines? It might well be considered. Without them?
Not so much.

You can't go SFO-SIN or IAH-SYD with that thing, your argument would have been better should you say 787-9 instead of 777-300ER.

MIflyer12 wrote:

This is a really, really, bad idea. 75-100 frames over eight carriers means none of them is likely to get any economies of scale. Small fleets of a sub-type mean substitution issues for refurbs, maintenance, and unscheduled maintenance. A small total fleet means financing risks. Lose a couple of carriers (their financial or strategy issues) and now you're talking 50-75 frames over six carriers and you've killed any chance for Airbus' ROI. Do you think TK and NZ have the route and premium configs to drive yields to make large-capacity ULR work?

When it has minimal difference from the entire A350 fleet which is easily going towards thousands? Think twice.

You could also argue A345 or 772LR didn't get anywhere close to the economics of scale - but then 772LR has the 77F and 77W siblings which helped significantly. Same goes for SQ's A359ULR - apparently you can easily convert them into normal A359 should situation warrents and call it a day.

Michael

United also flies the 787-9 so what is the a35KULR going to bring other than just another airplane type? you make it seem like United would NEED this airplane to compete. I do NOT think so unless Airbus were to want to give it away. And Keep in mind? that Boeing s also building the 777-8 and the 777-9 if this airplane were on the streets NOW? It might be viable.. But that they just announced it? I don't think it's that big of a deal for United to rush out to order it. It needs a little time to simmer first... Then we'll see what Boeing has in the oven to compare it to..

Air China to launch direct routes to Central and South America.

In a previous statement it was said that United couldn't go IAH-SYD with a 777 ? Has United Expressed an interest in doing so? And if not? What makes you think they can't? They already fly SFO-SYD and LAX-SYD. Why would they need to fly IAH-SYD/ ORD-SYD/ DEN-SYD/ or EWR-SYD? I don't understand the logic of it. The Asian carriers NEED to be able to reach points in the USA from their bases. Any Airline based in the USA can reach nearly the entire Globe from either the east or west coasts of the USA can they not already? So just by building an airplane that Can do it? Does NOT demonstrate an actual NEED to do it. My question is? Can the airplane do it with full passengers and a full belly load of freight? Because that would make it a "Game Changer". Right now? It's just another horse in the Race and I would wait until I see it Run First. It just ain't that Serious yet.

strfyr51 wrote:

United also flies the 787-9 so what is the a35KULR going to bring other than just another airplane type? you make it seem like United would NEED this airplane to compete. I do NOT think so unless Airbus were to want to give it away. And Keep in mind? that Boeing s also building the 777-8 and the 777-9 if this airplane were on the streets NOW? It might be viable.. But that they just announced it? I don't think it's that big of a deal for United to rush out to order it. It needs a little time to simmer first... Then we'll see what Boeing has in the oven to compare it to..

Did I say UA HAS TO order A35KULR? No. What's going on with you? Can't even allow people to post facts huh?

And what 777-9X? The one just blew the door? Try throwing that onto SFO-SIN again. And you just literally admitted that wont be available for a while.

strfyr51 wrote:

In a previous statement it was said that United couldn't go IAH-SYD with a 777 ? Has United Expressed an interest in doing so? And if not? What makes you think they can't? They already fly SFO-SYD and LAX-SYD. Why would they need to fly IAH-SYD/ ORD-SYD/ DEN-SYD/ or EWR-SYD? I don't understand the logic of it. The Asian carriers NEED to be able to reach points in the USA from their bases. Any Airline based in the USA can reach nearly the entire Globe from either the east or west coasts of the USA can they not already? So just by building an airplane that Can do it? Does NOT demonstrate an actual NEED to do it. My question is? Can the airplane do it with full passengers and a full belly load of freight? Because that would make it a "Game Changer". Right now? It's just another horse in the Race and I would wait until I see it Run First. It just ain't that Serious yet.

For Pete's sake, did you just eat a detonator or what? UA ALREADY FLIES IAH-SYD. Not on a 777 though, it's a 789 route and even 787 is pushing the limit.

And you're telling me that USA carriers can reach globally with their current fleet. Try PER or Southern part of India or East Coast to SEA.

Give it a rest, USA is not the center of the world.

Michael

Since the modifications to the aircraft seems to be minimal. What I suspect is how these airlines would ended up purchasing the higher MTOW variants instead of the ULR version.

Many of these airlines already operated A350 like you mentioned before. So the potential for the order is larger than say B777-8.

DCA350 wrote:

CX: Already a big A350 customer and have mentioned wanting to fly to MIA and a few other destinations currently out of the range of the current fleet. The ULR would be a low risk option

Such as MEX hehe. CX mentioned several years ago they were looking at MEX. Maybe in a few years' time! Fingers crossed!

Polot wrote:

TObound wrote:

Polot wrote:

That is why US airlines have west coast hubs. DL is not going to be flying the smaller southeast Asia markets from ATL (or smaller Mideast/African cities from the west coast). ATL doesn’t have the O&D traffic or connection flows to support them. The A35KULR (which, let us all remember, is the size of a 77W) doesn’t change that.

Just because a city is quickly growing doesn’t make nonstop connections to any large hub or city works. There has to actually be ties between the cities (business, ethnic, etc) or reliable connections to help fill the plane. 8500 nm is only 400 nm more than the A359’s published base range. How many cities do you think need both that additional 400 nm and extra capacity of the A35kULR for US airlines?

I would assume any American carrier fielding this is doing so for the payload at range. Not necessarily for the range itself. Does DL have any long-haul routes where they see their cargo business growing?

I’m sure they do. That doesn’t mean they need A35KULRs. Delta don’t even operate (or have on order) standard A35Ks, nor do they currently even operate something that size. The current A35K is no slouch when it comes to payload range. Airbus currently advertises it at 8700nm

The US3 are still passenger airlines first, cargo second. With multiple hubs that can fracture passengers around.

Technically they do now. 8 orders for the A35K from Latam that they acquired.

Singapore Airlines is a no-brainer. They could have direct four-class service to LAX, SFO and JFK on an A35KULR (or just A350-1000 with extra fuel and weight), and then reconfigure their A359ULRs back to a normal configuration. They also have a huge number of 777-300ERs which will need replacing and the A350-1000 is the obvious choice given their large number of A350-900s.

Cathay is theoretically possible but I'm not sure if ultra-longhauls to South America are worth it/viable. Their current fleet can get them essentially everywhere they want/need to go, and after the LATAM-DL deal we know Oneworld will no longer be as strong in South America as they used to be.

Emirates has 777-8s for ultra-longhaul, ditto Qatar. Unless the 777-8 is cancelled I don't see them wanting A350-1000ULRs. If Etihad becomes less of a basket-case, they may want A350-1000ULRs some time in the future.

The EU3 are possible candidates but the A350-1000ULR only will be required to serve Australia directly, and I doubt they have much interest in such services. So I don't think its very likely overall.

Air New Zealand? Unlikely. With their configurations, London will remain out of reach and I don't think any other city in Europe has enough traffic to justify direct flights to Auckland.

South African? Financial basketcase but it MIGHT be a possibility since they have a hot-and-high airport problem, and also A350-900s on order/to be leased.

LAX772LR wrote:

.... It may also not be (as easily) convertible to a standard A35K, if at all; compared to the A359ULR's advertised ability to go back to being standard.

I would think it would be even easier to convert back to standard A35K given there's no permanent modification like sealing the forward cargo and changing in plumbing to tank extra fuel. So far, this seems like the standard A321neo and the A321neoLR with higher MTOW and ACTs to me. But you are right, we need to wait for official statements when the aircraft type is finalised.

LAX772LR wrote:

AeroWatcher wrote:

Well, Airbus seems to be saying the PS aircraft is not a ULR

What they may mean by that, is that the aircraft won't be meant to almost solely swap payload potential for fuel tankage, relative to a standard version. That's what the language here seems to convey:
"it is not intending to produce an equivalent modified version of the -1000 in the same way that it developed the A350-900ULR for ultra-long-haul services."

As reported according to QF, in that same article:
"No further details are being disclosed about the extra fuel capacity, although Qantas has stated that the jet will have an additional tank."


As such, it may not have other features that we see on the extant A359ULRs, such as a sealed forward cargo hold with no floor provisions, as an example. It may also not be (as easily) convertible to a standard A35K, if at all; compared to the A359ULR's advertised ability to go back to being standard.

Seems more a case of semantics than anything, but then again, those semantics may hold key details.

To my knowledge, sealing the forward cargo compartment is an option, which SIA has chosen for weight saving reasons. Not neccesary connected to being an ULR Version.
The only real modification to the ULR is the plumbing of the fuel tanks (some more cut off valves, altered inerting system, all A35K stuff) which is not reversible afterwards. The weight of this non-reversible modifcations is probably in the low 100kgs.

workhorse wrote:

Air China to launch direct routes to Central and South America.

Precisely. The Chinese government is huge into large government infrastructure projects and REM mining in both Africa and South America.

The A350-1000ULR will never outperform the A350-900ULR, which can fly for "19 YEARS WITHOUT STOPPING" . https://news.theceomagazine.com/lifesty ... -imminent/

acentauri wrote:

The A350-1000ULR will never outperform the A350-900ULR, which can fly for "19 YEARS WITHOUT STOPPING" . https://news.theceomagazine.com/lifesty ... -imminent/

That sounds like a pretty good idea, except that getting on that flight would be like receiving a prison sentence.

Nearly all customers will want the extra MTOW of the 1000ULR.

The 280t MTOW of the 900ULR became standard on the A350-900 allowing extra freight on existing routes. They all skipped the extra fuel capacity of the ULR.

I expect the higher MTOW to become standard on all A350-1000 aircraft from 2023. Effectively on existing routes the higher MTOW allows roughly 5+% more payload for around 1% more fuel burn. That means the fuel burn per kg of payload is improved significantly. This is really the only reason airlines will want want.

The original question is probably thinking of which airlines might require the increased MTOW AND the increased fuel capacity. The extra fuel capacity is only needed if the route exceeds 8400nm. This would be limited to city pairs between 8400nm and 9100nm which is a very narrow window.

The main routes inside this window are central Europe to Eastern Australia.

Singapore to New York which is the current longest flight wouldn't even need the extra fuel capacity of the ULR. The increased MTOW however would allow the route to operate with a normal cabin with like 350 passengers, twice that the 900ULR is currently using.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 280t MTOW of the 900ULR became standard on the A350-900 allowing extra freight on existing routes. They all skipped the extra fuel capacity of the ULR.

Source please ......

stasisLAX wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Air China to launch direct routes to Central and South America.

Precisely. The Chinese government is huge into large government infrastructure projects and REM mining in both Africa and South America.

Also, the recent CA order of 20 A359 includes an option of converting the last five to A35K.

Vietnam Airlines may also be eyeing A35K ULR as they said that they are choosing between B778 and A35K for their VN-US routes.

zeke wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The 280t MTOW of the 900ULR became standard on the A350-900 allowing extra freight on existing routes. They all skipped the extra fuel capacity of the ULR.

Source please ......

"Airbus has changed the A350-900 website data to now show the 280t Max Take-Off Weight (MTOW) as the standard MTOW."

This was back in 2016...

https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/airbu ... ge-8100nm/

Off topic but what is your problem? I've proven you wrong dozens of times on this forum and regularly call out your bias. Is this some kind of revenge tactic trying to question my posts no matter how correct they are?

You are starting to look very childish. You are the king of posting fake data without a source.

Everyone knows the non-ULR A350-900 has only been offered as a 280t MTOW standard for the last 2-3 years.

RJMAZ wrote:

Off topic but what is your problem? I've proven you wrong dozens of times on this forum and regularly call out your bias. Is this some kind of revenge tactic trying to question my posts no matter how correct they are?

You are starting to look very childish.

Everyone knows the non-ULR A350-900 has only been offered as a 280t MTOW for the last 2-3 years.

Sorry to bust your bubble, you have not “proven you (me) wrong dozens of times on this forum”.

The 280 tonne MTOW is a option, an option that costs money. The only aircraft that have that option embodied are the ones that pay for the mods.

An example of this where you are clearly wrong is the JAL A350s, they have a lower certified MTOW and derated engines.

If you have access to @Airman you can see which MSNs have the various mods embodied.

zeke wrote:

An example of this where you are clearly wrong is the JAL A350s, they have a lower certified MTOW and derated engines.

Clearly wrong? If one airline makes a change it means their aircraft are "non-standard". The standard is currently 280t.

Paper derating to save on landing fees is common practice. They are standard MTOW underneith.

If an airline received a 268t MTOW A350 today it would be derated to that. The airline probably ordered the A350 10 years ago when 268t was standard and Airbus will derate it to match the original contract.

Here is an informative post where the member must have woken up on the correct side of the bed.

When an aircraft is registered with the regulator, it is registered with the highest certified MTOW for the airframe. The operator however can still have the same airframe certified to different certified MTOWs (different W/V) below the highest value. This may reduce the MTOW and increase the MLW/MZFW allowing more payload over shorter ranges, as well as lower navigation, and landing charges.

CAAS does permit multiple MTOWs in the same tail, we operate our A350s into SIN on a lower regional MTOWs. We paid for 3 different W/V on the A350.

You wrote that 6 months ago.

The A350-900 production line is now producing 280t aircraft as "standard" and they have been available to order for 2-3 years. At the start of the year the standard A350-900 was at 278t and 2 years before that it was 275t maximum. Paper derates will remain to any of the existing weight levels.

zeke wrote:

Sorry to bust your bubble, you have not “proven you (me) wrong dozens of times on this forum”.

This is yet another example where you have said I was wrong and I provided overwhelming evidence to support my claim.

Only a few days ago you were saying the stretched A350-1100/2000/8000 would gain range over the 1000 and I linked six articles including quotes from the Airbus CEO saying "reduced".