Airbus A350XWB ongoing evolutionary enhancements, EIS 2025-2030.

flipdewaf · Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:21 am

WalterFaber wrote:
I have a question: Why did Airbus not go for the A350-2000 or 1100 or whatever it is called much more aggressively? Wouldn't a further stretch compete very well with the 777-9x, especially if floated around the same time in the early 2010s?

It already competes with the 779X pretty well in that it has an at least equivalent fuel burn per seat and raw payload performance. It has a better payload range performance. What Boeing can give to its customers is the highest cabin area per movement and with the development costs being written off their is very little incentive not to fire sale the prices to maintain cashflow. In the world of airbus the A350-1000 and potential -2000 have to compete against the 779X and the A359 (for profitability and this may cause a limit on pricing) whereas the B779x only really competes with the A35K.

Fred

JerseyFlyer · Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:07 pm

WalterFaber wrote:
I have a question: Why did Airbus not go for the A350-2000 or 1100 or whatever it is called much more aggressively? Wouldn't a further stretch compete very well with the 777-9x, especially if floated around the same time in the early 2010s?

When this was mooted Airbus said they had done the research and it was do-able, but the market was too small for the development cost.

More recent developments of the A350 1000 suggest to me that the foundations for a stretch are being laid slowly:

MTOW now 319T
Wider interior fuselage
Longer interior fuselage etc

A similar strategy to how the A320ceo and the A330ceo evolved into neos.

My view is that a stretch is inevitable once the RR Ultrafan becomes available, as the reduced fuel consumption should allow Airbus to maintain the current -1000's capabilities in the stretched model. The question is whether Airbus launches a stretch ealier with the current engine.

WalterFaber · Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:21 pm

Thanks, makes sense.

MrHMSH · Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:28 pm

WalterFaber wrote:
I have a question: Why did Airbus not go for the A350-2000 or 1100 or whatever it is called much more aggressively? Wouldn't a further stretch compete very well with the 777-9x, especially if floated around the same time in the early 2010s?

It remains to be seen how viable the largest aircraft are within the market. The A35K hasn't sold tremendously as it is, and the 777X sales have been a little sluggish as well, whereas the smaller widebodies have been very popular. If the demand is there then Airbus could launch a stretch, maybe with a re-engine which would be the most efficient in its sector, but if airlines aren't clamouring for it (and it seems they aren't) then there's no real need.

Kikko19 · Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:57 pm

How long /how many more y-rows would have the 1100/2000? Would be still lighter and more competitive?

StTim · Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:37 pm

WalterFaber wrote:
I have a question: Why did Airbus not go for the A350-2000 or 1100 or whatever it is called much more aggressively? Wouldn't a further stretch compete very well with the 777-9x, especially if floated around the same time in the early 2010s?

So far it doesn't see the need to is I suppose the easy answer.

frmrCapCadet · Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:47 pm

Slightly off topic, but still addressing recent questions. The perfection of the 320/737 as one aisle 150- 200ish passengers, and the 350/787 as two aisle 250-350ish passengers has squeezed out everything else. This likely is related to population centers and the varying distances between those centers, as well as the very high tech high reliability of engines for Those models (engines don't exist for other bigger or smaller planes). At the bottom service to smaller population centers has been abandoned to the detriment of the economy. At the upper end of passenger numbers and ultra distances the various models of those two aisle planes can get the job done by carrying few passengers and freight, and/or by adding another flight. The biggest 350 likely will get a better engine, and maybe/maybe not get bigger, but again will destroy demand for anything bigger. I'm hometown Boeing, but Airbus has played its cards better. Ouch!

Flight18 · Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:59 pm

Does anyone have any info on how the enhanced A350 optimizers the flap and slat positions for take off performance enhancement? As per the Airbus article. https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsroom ... d-airspace

Aircellist · Mon Dec 12, 2022 7:13 am

I am curious about the new landing gear schedule.

keesje · Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:51 pm

It seems an A350-1000 prototype is now equiped for a program called Droganfly. For Automatic Landing & Crew Incapacity Assistance. I think it might well be linked to the single pilot in cockpit research project started a few years ago. And the A350F.

The new technology has been given the name DragonFly. What makes DrgonFly unique to existing pilot assistance features, such as auto-land, is that it takes in information from the surrounding area and flight path, calculates risk, and makes a decision based on the results. Some of the data it intakes is surrounding weather, airspace, and the current objectives, which may be to land at the nearest suitable airport.

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a350-1000-test-crew-assistance/

It seems to build on systems like Garmin's Autonomí™ autoland system, using more sensors and information. Autotaxi is also included in this program. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nubL1I7sxEE

Aditional visual sensors are installed on the A350s nose.

https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... -uitwijken

smi0006 · Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:00 am

Forgive me I can’t keep up with QFs sunrise project - given the timing of the order/deliveries will the QF fleet receive most of the enhancements? (New engines and flight deck excluded) seems key with this range that more are included.

JohanTally · Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:15 am

smi0006 wrote:
Forgive me I can’t keep up with QFs sunrise project - given the timing of the order/deliveries will the QF fleet receive most of the enhancements? (New engines and flight deck excluded) seems key with this range that more are included.

Which enhancements are you referring to? Last year Airbus announced a weight reduction for all newly built A350s as well as more interior width to better accommodate 10 abreast. The final specs for the QF A35KULR aren't finalized to the best of my knowledge and the MTOW could increase beyond the current 319t.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... hancements

LaunchDetected · Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:26 am

keesje wrote:
Aditional visual sensors are installed on the A350s nose.

Clever use of the holes left in the fuselage by the removal of the Side Slip Angle probes (covered by plugs on in-service MSN).

LAX772LR · Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:40 am

JohanTally wrote:
The final specs for the QF A35KULR aren't finalized

Nor is the fact of there even being such a model distinction.

For example, the Singapore A359ULRs are now a defunct distinction: as Airbus has (rather quietly) upgraded all new production A359s to the same 166,000L fuel capacity capability, as well as given them MTOWs 3 tonnes higher than SQ's -ULRs... thus allowing any new-build A359 to be used in "ULR" fashion, if the operator so chooses.

JohanTally · Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:19 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
The final specs for the QF A35KULR aren't finalized

Nor is the fact of there even being such a model distinction.

For example, the Singapore A359ULRs are now a defunct distinction: as Airbus has (rather quietly) upgraded all new production A359s to the same 166,000L fuel capacity capability, as well as given them MTOWs 3 tonnes higher than SQ's -ULRs... thus allowing any new-build A359 to be used in "ULR" fashion, if the operator so chooses.

The ULR moniker really just means ULH at this point. While Airbus may not use ULR going forward ultimately their highest available MTOW with a very low density cabin becomes an ULR. I do wonder what SQ will do with their now oddball A359ULRs with the sealed inop cargo hold. New deliveries are more capable than their ULR models while having lower OEW. Will SQ convert the ULRs to a standard spec and use new builds with enhanced capability?

JerseyFlyer · Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:28 pm

JohanTally wrote:
The final specs for the QF A35KULR aren't finalized to the best of my knowledge and the MTOW could increase beyond the current 319t.

I suggest there may be some scope for increasing MTOW at the cost of reducing cycles, for these low-cycle frames specifically.

JohanTally · Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:42 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
The final specs for the QF A35KULR aren't finalized to the best of my knowledge and the MTOW could increase beyond the current 319t.

I suggest there may be some scope for increasing MTOW at the cost of reducing cycles, for these low-cycle frames specifically.

I wonder if it's even necessary to increase the MTOW after recent weight savings and only 238 passengers planned which is roughly 100 less than most current configurations.

airbazar · Thu Jan 19, 2023 3:16 pm

JohanTally wrote:
I do wonder what SQ will do with their now oddball A359ULRs with the sealed inop cargo hold. New deliveries are more capable than their ULR models while having lower OEW. Will SQ convert the ULRs to a standard spec and use new builds with enhanced capability?

They have super low cycles so I suspect they will easily find a new home and the 779's will eventually fly the routes where the range is needed. That would be my guess. SIN-LAX, SIN-SFO, and SIN-NYC can easily support a 779.

flipdewaf · Thu Jan 19, 2023 3:24 pm

airbazar wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
I do wonder what SQ will do with their now oddball A359ULRs with the sealed inop cargo hold. New deliveries are more capable than their ULR models while having lower OEW. Will SQ convert the ULRs to a standard spec and use new builds with enhanced capability?

They have super low cycles so I suspect they will easily find a new home and the 779's will eventually fly the routes where the range is needed. That would be my guess. SIN-LAX, SIN-SFO, and SIN-NYC can easily support a 779.

With the optional snorkel attachment?

AngMoh · Thu Jan 19, 2023 3:46 pm

airbazar wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
I do wonder what SQ will do with their now oddball A359ULRs with the sealed inop cargo hold. New deliveries are more capable than their ULR models while having lower OEW. Will SQ convert the ULRs to a standard spec and use new builds with enhanced capability?

They have super low cycles so I suspect they will easily find a new home and the 779's will eventually fly the routes where the range is needed. That would be my guess. SIN-LAX, SIN-SFO, and SIN-NYC can easily support a 779.

Since when can a 779 do NYC-SIN? If that is the case, the 778 would not even be proposed.

StTim · Thu Jan 19, 2023 4:51 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
airbazar wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
I do wonder what SQ will do with their now oddball A359ULRs with the sealed inop cargo hold. New deliveries are more capable than their ULR models while having lower OEW. Will SQ convert the ULRs to a standard spec and use new builds with enhanced capability?

They have super low cycles so I suspect they will easily find a new home and the 779's will eventually fly the routes where the range is needed. That would be my guess. SIN-LAX, SIN-SFO, and SIN-NYC can easily support a 779.

With the optional snorkel attachment?

Thank you - reading that made my day.

Dldiamondboy · Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:46 pm

I think one crew member on the flight deck is a non starter. EgyptAir 990, German Wings 9525, MH 370. Plus many other unsuccessful attempts. It's a bad idea.

airbazar · Thu Jan 19, 2023 7:29 pm

AngMoh wrote:
airbazar wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
I do wonder what SQ will do with their now oddball A359ULRs with the sealed inop cargo hold. New deliveries are more capable than their ULR models while having lower OEW. Will SQ convert the ULRs to a standard spec and use new builds with enhanced capability?

They have super low cycles so I suspect they will easily find a new home and the 779's will eventually fly the routes where the range is needed. That would be my guess. SIN-LAX, SIN-SFO, and SIN-NYC can easily support a 779.

Since when can a 779 do NYC-SIN? If that is the case, the 778 would not even be proposed.

With SQ's premium heavy config, that's when.

flipdewaf · Thu Jan 19, 2023 7:42 pm

airbazar wrote:
AngMoh wrote:
airbazar wrote:
They have super low cycles so I suspect they will easily find a new home and the 779's will eventually fly the routes where the range is needed. That would be my guess. SIN-LAX, SIN-SFO, and SIN-NYC can easily support a 779.

Since when can a 779 do NYC-SIN? If that is the case, the 778 would not even be proposed.

With SQ's premium heavy config, that's when.

Aren't premium cabins heavier than standard? Even so with the same density as the 253 seat A359 the 779X still cant do it (320pax).

Fred

LAX772LR · Thu Jan 19, 2023 7:47 pm

JohanTally wrote:
I do wonder what SQ will do with their now oddball A359ULRs with the sealed inop cargo hold. New deliveries are more capable than their ULR models while having lower OEW. Will SQ convert the ULRs to a standard spec and use new builds with enhanced capability?

The kicker there though, is that the forward cargo hold is sealed for a reason: the majority of the additional fuel permitted by the altered internal system sits center and forward in the extant fuel tank.

This wouldn't change in newer builds, and I'm not sure how a lower OEW would/could negate that. Thus, if they still wish to routinely cross the 18hr+ operational threshold, it might be best to keep the seven specific -ULRs as they have them.

That said, I'm sorta surprised that they continue to "waste" them on SFO, when they could be used to launch an additional east/midwest market (ORD, YYZ, IAD...?) nonstop.

airbazar · Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:17 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
airbazar wrote:
AngMoh wrote:

Since when can a 779 do NYC-SIN? If that is the case, the 778 would not even be proposed.

With SQ's premium heavy config, that's when.

Aren't premium cabins heavier than standard? Even so with the same density as the 253 seat A359 the 779X still cant do it (320pax).

Uh? Which ULR are you looking at? They only have 161 seats in their ULR's. A 253 seat A359 can't fly SIN-NYC with any meaningful payload either. The one they operated during the pandemic wasn't carrying many passengers.

LAX772LR wrote:
That said, I'm sorta surprised that they continue to "waste" them on SFO, when they could be used to launch an additional east/midwest market (ORD, YYZ, IAD...?) nonstop.

Could it be because those markets lack sufficient premium demand? It's a lot of premium seats. We know that outside of NYC and California the demand shrinks substantially.

LAX772LR · Thu Jan 19, 2023 9:21 pm

airbazar wrote:
A 253 seat A359 can't fly SIN-NYC with any meaningful payload either. The one they operated during the pandemic wasn't carrying many passengers.

Not exactly.

When they opped that route with the standard bird, they only did so with ships 9V-SMV, -SMW, -SMY, -SMZ, and -SJA; all of which feature the same 280tonne MTOWs and aerodynamic enhancements as the -ULRs, and selling out the J and W classes, while only selling full-Y fares, but still getting quite a few pax.

The difference being that those aircraft offered forward cargo hold capacity (whereas the -ULRs, ships 9V-SG*, do not) and they were filled, at least in bulk, to that effect.

airbazar wrote:
Could it be because those markets lack sufficient premium demand? It's a lot of premium seats. We know that outside of NYC and California the demand shrinks substantially.

That'd be my best guess.

Though SQ has flown their own metal to the likes of ORD (and heck, even LAS) before, so there's gotta be at least some contingency of viable demand there, in addition to all the possible cnnx, as they at least work somewhat with UA nowadays, as opposed to barely even interlining with them, back when those two routes were still flown.

FromCDGtoSYD · Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:27 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
That said, I'm sorta surprised that they continue to "waste" them on SFO, when they could be used to launch an additional east/midwest market (ORD, YYZ, IAD...?) nonstop.

I reckon they’re keeping the ULR for NYC, since they have to cycle the birds around only few other routes can justify the config. SFO allows them to utilise the high J/Y+ count without increasing the Y seatcount and trashing yields on a route that already sees 4 daily flights.

I reckon ORD has the highest chance of coming online since it was served before as you pointed out, but can it sustain such a premium cabin daily.

moyangmm · Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:41 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
airbazar wrote:
A 253 seat A359 can't fly SIN-NYC with any meaningful payload either. The one they operated during the pandemic wasn't carrying many passengers.

Not exactly.

When they opped that route with the standard bird, they only did so with ships 9V-SMV, -SMW, -SMY, -SMZ, and -SJA; all of which feature the same 280tonne MTOWs and aerodynamic enhancements as the -ULRs, and selling out the J and W classes, while only selling full-Y fares, but still getting quite a few pax.

Selling out J and W classes is equivalent to 66 passengers. Even if they sold a couple of Y seats in addition, it is still far below 161 (ULR's seat count), let alone 253. The statement made by airbazar that "a 253 seat A359 can't fly SIN-NYC with any meaningful payload either" seems correct.

LAX772LR · Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:45 pm

moyangmm wrote:
The statement made by airbazar that "a 253 seat A359 can't fly SIN-NYC with any meaningful payload either" seems correct.

Except that you cut out the immediately following sentence, which forms the difference between what you're saying and what I actually wrote.

The whole point of them doing that was to carry amounts of cargo that the -ULRs could not, but which the newer standard aircraft allowed.
Yes, they shorted the pax, but cargo is included in "meaningful payload."

flipdewaf · Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:47 pm

moyangmm wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
airbazar wrote:
A 253 seat A359 can't fly SIN-NYC with any meaningful payload either. The one they operated during the pandemic wasn't carrying many passengers.

Not exactly.

When they opped that route with the standard bird, they only did so with ships 9V-SMV, -SMW, -SMY, -SMZ, and -SJA; all of which feature the same 280tonne MTOWs and aerodynamic enhancements as the -ULRs, and selling out the J and W classes, while only selling full-Y fares, but still getting quite a few pax.

Selling out J and W classes is equivalent to 66 passengers. Even if they sold a couple of Y seats in addition, it is still far below 161 (ULR's seat count), let alone 253. The statement made by airbazar that "a 253 seat A359 can't fly SIN-NYC with any meaningful payload either" seems correct.

Are 253 paying passengers not meaningful payload?

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

moyangmm · Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:52 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Are 253 paying passengers not meaningful payload?

They are. But the point is when non-ULR planes were used to fly SIN-NYC, they were filled no where near full 253 capacity, were they?

flipdewaf · Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:54 pm

moyangmm wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Are 253 paying passengers not meaningful payload?

They are. But the point is when non-ULR planes were used to fly SIN-NYC, they were filled no where near full 253 capacity, were they?

Don’t know, they have the raw capability to be filled with pax however suggesting that if they were not it was for operational reasons or for reasons of business sense (belly cargo value higher than fleshy self loading cargo).

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MrHMSH · Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:10 am

moyangmm wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Are 253 paying passengers not meaningful payload?

They are. But the point is when non-ULR planes were used to fly SIN-NYC, they were filled no where near full 253 capacity, were they?

I'm surprised you haven't claimed the A359 needs fuel stops in SGN, NRT, ANC and YYZ to make this route.

zeke · Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:35 am

Flight18 wrote:
Does anyone have any info on how the enhanced A350 optimizers the flap and slat positions for take off performance enhancement? As per the Airbus article. https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsroom ... d-airspace

I think they would just change the angles these droop to for the selected setting. The A330 and A340 had the same systems however the A340s drooped to different angles for the higher MTOW compared to the A330.

cv5880 · Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:40 am

Question - what happens to an airline like Delta who is taking their A350's over a long period of time. How do they harmonize their fleet with Airbus making enhancements by dribs and drabs? Does Airbus provide kits to upgrade tot he latest production standard? Can DL fly the 359 fly on the same routes as UA flies the 789 (JNB, SIN, SYD, MEL)? Is the 789 a more capable and versatile aircraft that the 359? UA seems to be able to use the 789 from LAX to SYD and SIN to SFO without weight penalties.

zeke · Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:55 am

Depends on the changes you are talking about, most changes can be incorporated during a normal planned maintenance check. A software update could happen during a weekly check.

The manufacturers make a fair bit of money from their in service upgrades,

The A359 has more range than the 769, many airlines have been flying A359 on very long routes for years. DL already operates the A359 to SYD.

MrHMSH · Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:12 am

cv5880 wrote:
Question - what happens to an airline like Delta who is taking their A350's over a long period of time. How do they harmonize their fleet with Airbus making enhancements by dribs and drabs? Does Airbus provide kits to upgrade tot he latest production standard? Can DL fly the 359 fly on the same routes as UA flies the 789 (JNB, SIN, SYD, MEL)? Is the 789 a more capable and versatile aircraft that the 359? UA seems to be able to use the 789 from LAX to SYD and SIN to SFO without weight penalties.

Can DL fly their A350s to JNB or SYD? This is a difficult question that requires a simple Google search.

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl41

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl201

Is the 789 more capable? Probably not, the A359 is generally regarded as a slightly better lifter on long haul routes, except for the odd person who claims that JNB-ATL cannot be done nonstop (it can), SYD-LAX with only passengers (wrong) or that SIN-LAX is only possible with ULR-configured ships (wrong).

moyangmm · Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:59 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Don’t know, they have the raw capability to be filled with pax however suggesting that if they were not it was for operational reasons or for reasons of business sense (belly cargo value higher than fleshy self loading cargo).

Fred
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Cannot fill all 253 seats with passengers due to MTOW restriction after loading enough fuel to fly NYC-SIN" is one of the operational reasons. I am not claiming it is the case, but it is possible, isn't it? Since you don't know the occupancy, you can't rule it out, right?

moyangmm · Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:07 am

MrHMSH wrote:
Probably not, the A359 is generally regarded as a slightly better lifter on long haul routes, except for the odd person who claims that JNB-ATL cannot be done nonstop (it can), SYD-LAX with only passengers (wrong) or that SIN-LAX is only possible with ULR-configured ships (wrong).

You seems to miss an important factor: at what payload. Obviously aircrafts like 789 or 359 can fly a very long time with no or low payload. For example, QR did the "sunrise" research flights with their 789, but nobody says 789 can do SYD-LHR with full passengers.

Yes non-ULR 359 can be, and did used for ULR routes like LAX-SIN or NYC-SIN. But were they filled to the full passenger capacity (253), ULR-level passenger count (161) or even less?

LAX772LR · Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:27 am

moyangmm wrote:
Yes non-ULR 359 can be, and did used for ULR routes like LAX-SIN or NYC-SIN. But were they filled to the full passenger capacity (253), ULR-level passenger count (161) or even less?

Non-ULR A359s have been used exclusively on the LAX-SIN route since Covid, and they can/do go out with all seats full, plus cargo, in both directions.... which is the reason they were kept there.

Rather than lose out on the lowered premium seat count, SQ instead chose to bring back the second frequency earlier than initially planned (also on a standard aircraft) as well as make the flight double-daily for a longer annual season than it'd previously been.

By their own admission, even with a 1stop 777 plus several freighters in the market, the daily cargo on SIN-LAX-SIN was too lucrative to miss out on, if they didn't have to.

MrHMSH · Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:13 am

LAX772LR wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Yes non-ULR 359 can be, and did used for ULR routes like LAX-SIN or NYC-SIN. But were they filled to the full passenger capacity (253), ULR-level passenger count (161) or even less?

Non-ULR A359s have been used exclusively on the LAX-SIN route since Covid, and they can/do go out with all seats full, plus cargo, in both directions.... which is the reason they were kept there.

Rather than lose out on the lowered premium seat count, SQ instead chose to bring back the second frequency earlier than initially planned (also on a standard aircraft) as well as make the flight double-daily for a longer annual season than it'd previously been.

By their own admission, even with a 1stop 777 plus several freighters in the market, the daily cargo on SIN-LAX-SIN was too lucrative to miss out on, if they didn't have to.

If true, this would mean that most of our man's posts over the years are demonstrably nonsense, though I guess most of us knew this already. I guess this is at least better than 'AA has a new all-Boeing fleet' and '78X is better than A359 for JNB-ATL.

JerseyFlyer · Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:15 am

I can see SQ replacing the ULR 359s with Sunrise 3510s, then converting the ULRs back to standard 359 frames

moyangmm · Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:29 am

MrHMSH wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Yes non-ULR 359 can be, and did used for ULR routes like LAX-SIN or NYC-SIN. But were they filled to the full passenger capacity (253), ULR-level passenger count (161) or even less?

Non-ULR A359s have been used exclusively on the LAX-SIN route since Covid, and they can/do go out with all seats full, plus cargo, in both directions.... which is the reason they were kept there.

Rather than lose out on the lowered premium seat count, SQ instead chose to bring back the second frequency earlier than initially planned (also on a standard aircraft) as well as make the flight double-daily for a longer annual season than it'd previously been.

By their own admission, even with a 1stop 777 plus several freighters in the market, the daily cargo on SIN-LAX-SIN was too lucrative to miss out on, if they didn't have to.

If true, this would mean that most of our man's posts over the years are demonstrably nonsense, though I guess most of us knew this already. I guess this is at least better than 'AA has a new all-Boeing fleet' and '78X is better than A359 for JNB-ATL.

If true

Highlighted for you

flipdewaf · Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:40 am

moyangmm wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Don’t know, they have the raw capability to be filled with pax however suggesting that if they were not it was for operational reasons or for reasons of business sense (belly cargo value higher than fleshy self loading cargo).

Fred
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Cannot fill all 253 seats with passengers due to MTOW restriction after loading enough fuel to fly NYC-SIN" is one of the operational reasons. I am not claiming it is the case, but it is possible, isn't it? Since you don't know the occupancy, you can't rule it out, right?

Possible? Yes, there could be 80kt head winds whilst taking a full contingent to the fat git of the year competition….. however using reasonable circumstances that wouldn’t be true. A likely operational restriction could well be that that tanks on the non ULR didn’t have the capacity to fit the SQ fuel requirements…which was the case in the first ever SQ21.

Yours is a non falsifiable claim, one also can’t rule out fairies with broken wings that weigh 400kg each occupying the seats.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LAX772LR · Fri Jan 20, 2023 8:02 am

moyangmm wrote:
If true

Highlighted for you

To no tangible purpose, one might add.

Seeing as there's no "if" about what aircraft have been used.

Review the history of the registrations and you'll find that barring approximately two substitutions over the last three years, the -ULRs have not appeared on SIN-LAX-SIN.

There's also no "if" about why that is: SQ has expressly stated that premium demand + cargo was more lucrative to them than simply serving premium demand alone, especially when other cargo capacity was lacking. They would've restarted SFO with standard A350s and their cargo capabilities too, rather than with -ULRs, if they'd had sufficient aircraft in their fleet at the time.

New York and Los Angeles flights will see the standard three-class configuration that offers business class, premium economy class, and economy class. Business Insider toured the aircraft before its inaugural run from New York to Singapore last week.

San Francisco flights will offer a premium experience as the airline will only offer business class and premium economy class on the flight, using the specially-configured Airbus A350-900ULR. The aircraft was always intended for US operations and this latest expansion saw them reinstated.

"In the case of San Francisco, we put the ULR just on account of that we don't have enough of the A350 planes," Seow said.

https://www.businessinsider.com/inside- ... 0-900ulr-1

moyangmm · Fri Jan 20, 2023 8:27 am

LAX772LR wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
If true

Highlighted for you

To no tangible purpose, one might add.

Seeing as there's no "if" about what aircraft have been used.

Review the history of the registrations and you'll find that barring approximately two substitutions over the last three years, the -ULRs have not appeared on SIN-LAX-SIN.

There's also no "if" about why that is: SQ has expressly stated that premium demand + cargo was more lucrative to them than simply serving premium demand alone, especially when other cargo capacity was lacking. They would've restarted SFO with standard A350s and their cargo capabilities too, rather than with -ULRs, if they'd had sufficient aircraft in their fleet at the time.

"New York and Los Angeles flights will see the standard three-class configuration that offers business class, premium economy class, and economy class. Business Insider toured the aircraft before its inaugural run from New York to Singapore last week.

San Francisco flights will offer a premium experience as the airline will only offer business class and premium economy class on the flight, using the specially-configured Airbus A350-900ULR. The aircraft was always intended for US operations and this latest expansion saw them reinstated.

"In the case of San Francisco, we put the ULR just on account of that we don't have enough of the A350 planes," Seow said."

https://www.businessinsider.com/inside- ... 0-900ulr-1

Thank you for providing this information. I am not disagreeing. It is entirely possible that regular non-ULR A350 on SIN-LAX or even SIN-NYC makes business sense for SQ.

There still no evidence that these 350 on LAX-SIN can operating at full pax capacity though (i.e., no seat blocked, full 253 pax plus luggages). As you said, when cargo is more lucrative, maybe they are trading pax weight for cargo weight.

Let’s also not forget the context. These non-ULR a350 have been used after the pandemic, when the demand for international travel has not been recovered. It seems plausible that due to low demand, SQ cannot sell a full cabin to begin with. Therefore, using non-ULR to have some cargo space makes a lot of sense.

Sorry. I will stop posting re:a350. Let’s not derail this thread into another a vs b.

MrHMSH · Fri Jan 20, 2023 8:42 am

moyangmm wrote:

Thank you for providing this information. I am not disagreeing. It is entirely possible that regular non-ULR A350 on SIN-LAX or even SIN-NYC makes business sense for SQ.

There still no evidence that these 350 on LAX-SIN can operating at full pax capacity though (i.e., no seat blocked, full 253 pax plus luggages). As you said, when cargo is more lucrative, maybe they are trading pax weight for cargo weight.

Let’s also not forget the context. These non-ULR a350 have been used after the pandemic, when the demand for international travel has not been recovered. It seems plausible that due to low demand, SQ cannot sell a full cabin to begin with. Therefore, using non-ULR to have some cargo space makes a lot of sense.

Sorry. I will stop posting re:a350. Let’s not derail this thread into another a vs b.

Not disagreeing, but also obfuscating the issue and continuing a trend of questionable claims and out of context facts.

True, it's plausible that SQ can't sell a full cabin... however the fact that SIN-LAX is double daily (plus SIN-NRT-LAX on a 77W daily) is some indication that load factors are not an issue on the route, otherwise an A359 could be utilised better elsewhere.

I think you're scrounging for evidence to claim that the A359 can't make the trip with full passenger load and cargo, and not very well. This isn't the first time either, even though many of your previous claims have been proven false by any reasonable standard.

scbriml · Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:09 am

moyangmm wrote:
There still no evidence that these 350 on LAX-SIN can operating at full pax capacity though (i.e., no seat blocked, full 253 pax plus luggages). As you said, when cargo is more lucrative, maybe they are trading pax weight for cargo weight.

You are of course free to provide evidence to support the theory that the A350 can't do any of those things. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think you have.

LAX772LR · Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:29 am

moyangmm wrote:
There still no evidence that these 350 on LAX-SIN can operating at full pax capacity though (i.e., no seat blocked, full 253 pax plus luggages).

WRONG.

Again, that's information that's publicly and easily discernible. SQ037 goes out with all seats sold, all the time. Anyone with access to the likes of ExpertFlyer can see the difference between sold and blocked seats, and that's not something that commonly happens on any of the LAX rotations.

SQ035 tends to be less full, but it's also the seasonal service. The airline originally operated it via TPE for the purpose of hauling dense cargo, but then decided to make it nonstop when ......(wait for it)..... the aircraft performance allowed them to carry the cargo they wanted, and the pax loads they wanted, nonstop.

https://aviationsourcenews.com/general- ... i-flights/

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net