A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

evanb · Fri May 20, 2022 1:09 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
A little help with JNB-ATL payloads, perhaps?

It's just one route. Maybe they don't want to pay for five uprates and then have to worry about sending those frames only. If it's an expensive uprate they might not want to do all of their eligible frames. Something for the analysts to pencil out.

I have no idea what DL revenue payloads are like elsewhere on the network, but those extra 3t are not just about fuel on ULHs. Depending on cargo density, it's conceivable that the extra 3t might be useful on routes that carry a lot of dense cargo where weight rather than volume is a limiting factor in terms of cargo lifting/carrying. In addition to the ULHs like SYD and JNB, DL use the A359 on a lot of flights 7 to 9 hour sectors, yet they also fly A333s on quite long sectors, sometimes 10 to 11 hour. They're not doing this to keep up with the Joneses, but rather tells us that that the enjoy scheduling the A359's to lift larger revenue payloads as much as they enjoy its fuel lifting potential.

This is slightly abstract to your valid point, but the higher MTOW may have more uses than just one or two routes.

MIflyer12 · Fri May 20, 2022 1:39 am

evanb wrote:
In addition to the ULHs like SYD and JNB, DL use the A359 on a lot of flights 7 to 9 hour sectors, yet they also fly A333s on quite long sectors, sometimes 10 to 11 hour. They're not doing this to keep up with the Joneses, but rather tells us that that the enjoy scheduling the A359's to lift larger revenue payloads as much as they enjoy its fuel lifting potential.

Maybe, but times are weird. They may be scheduling A350s just to give them something to do - similar to when they used 77Ls on 3500nm segments.

RJMAZ · Fri May 20, 2022 2:33 am

The last time Boeing did a MTOW bump on an existing certified design was in 2006 when they increased the 737-900 MTOW by around 6,000kg.

Since then Airbus has done around 6 or 7 MTOW increases. Hopefully Boeing has been saving up these increases.

A 737-8ER and 737-9ER using some or all of higher MTOW of the 737-10 would be an excellent start. The 737-8 should be a 4000+nm range aircraft

Likewise the 787 models need a MTOW bump. The rumoured 6t increase to 260t shouldn't just go to the 787-10. As the 9 and 10 share the structure the 787-9 will also gain a significant boost to the payload range curve. It will allow significant extra revenue payload on all Pacific flights.

I think the Boeing also needs to do something with the 787-8. Extra engine thrust is easily available, it now uses many stronger parts from the 9 and 10. How high can the MTOW go with the smaller 787-8 landing gear? A 240t MTOW 787-8 for example would really mix things up with long thin routes being increasingly popular. That would be a 12t increase and out the range similar to a 260t 787-9 with both around 8,000nm brochure range.

ElroyJetson · Fri May 20, 2022 2:37 am

[threeid][/threeid]

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Remember a few years ago when some here said the A350 didn't have the legs to fly LAX-SYD for DL?

Think it was UA.

JohanTally wrote:
I don't think anyone questions whether the 359 has the legs for 13 to 14 hour flights I think people's apprehension was whether would it carry a full pax cabin and cargo hold. Looking at the DL seat maps these planes are not the least bit full either direction but hopefully the belly is doing better.

Oh yes there was, and it made no sense as other A350s at the time were flying even longer sectors.

No it was DL. Several folks made passionate arguments the A350 did not have the capability to fly LAX-SYD with a full load for DL. Fortunately, sanity prevailed and those knowledgeable about the A350 corrected the record. With this new bump in MTOW an already highly capable plane just got more capable.

I will be interested to see if SQ or CX open up any new routes with the increase in MTOW. South America or DFW, MIA, or IAH are some possibilities. Good move by Airbus imho.

LAX772LR · Fri May 20, 2022 2:46 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
South America or DFW, MIA, or IAH are some possibilities.

Possible. SIN-GRU/DFW/MIA are all easily done outbound, but would have the return nonstop to SIN limping in on fumes, even with a -ULR.

SIN-MIA is longer than MEL-LHR.

Realistically, they'd need a Sunrise A35K for these kind of routes.

As stated earlier, I wouldn't be surprised to see them get rid of the A359ULRs and go for Sunrise A35Ks, eventually. Longer range + more revenue space in the cabin and belly, meaning likely lower CASM + higher RASM, while offering greater reach. That's a triple-win.

LAX772LR · Fri May 20, 2022 3:08 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I think the Boeing also needs to do something with the 787-8. Extra engine thrust is easily available, it now uses many stronger parts from the 9 and 10. How high can the MTOW go with the smaller 787-8 landing gear? A 240t MTOW 787-8 for example would really mix things up with long thin routes being increasingly popular. That would be a 12t increase and out the range similar to a 260t 787-9 with both around 8,000nm brochure range.

All fair and dandy, except that we can look to the 251tonne A338's current sales outlook and see that the worldwide demand for a 200-250 seater with 8,000nm range, is approximately.... nonexistent.

What good would placing a second one on the market accomplish?

LDRA · Fri May 20, 2022 4:18 am

Is there a MZFW bump too?

MrHMSH · Fri May 20, 2022 4:51 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
South America or DFW, MIA, or IAH are some possibilities.

Possible. SIN-GRU/DFW/MIA are all easily done outbound, but would have the return nonstop to SIN limping in on fumes, even with a -ULR.

SIN-MIA is longer than MEL-LHR.

Realistically, they'd need a Sunrise A35K for these kind of routes.

As stated earlier, I wouldn't be surprised to see them get rid of the A359ULRs and go for Sunrise A35Ks, eventually. Longer range + more revenue space in the cabin and belly, meaning likely lower CASM + higher RASM, while offering greater reach. That's a triple-win.

I'm a little surprised SQ hasn't gone for the A35K already, as they have 9ab 777s, for which the A35K is probably the closest approximation, plus of course all the A359s. I hope they get a 'Sunrise
A35K eventually, would enable operations to every major US city with viable payloads, economic viability permitting, of course.

tullamarine · Fri May 20, 2022 8:52 am

As stated earlier, I wouldn't be surprised to see them get rid of the A359ULRs and go for Sunrise A35Ks

Whilst a Sunrise A35K (Airbus will need to come up with a name that doesn't make it look like a QF exclusive product) makes sense for SQ, it doesn't follow that they would need to dispose of the existing 359ULRs. These could simply be reconfigured into a standard SQ 3 class configuration and be used alongside the existing SQ 359 fleet.

MIflyer12 · Fri May 20, 2022 1:04 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
[threeid][/threeid]
zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Remember a few years ago when some here said the A350 didn't have the legs to fly LAX-SYD for DL?

Think it was UA.

JohanTally wrote:
I don't think anyone questions whether the 359 has the legs for 13 to 14 hour flights I think people's apprehension was whether would it carry a full pax cabin and cargo hold. Looking at the DL seat maps these planes are not the least bit full either direction but hopefully the belly is doing better.

Oh yes there was, and it made no sense as other A350s at the time were flying even longer sectors.

No it was DL. Several folks made passionate arguments the A350 did not have the capability to fly LAX-SYD with a full load for DL.

Look at JohanTally's post #44 and LAX777LR's post #45 and puzzle out what defines a 'full load.' Should a carrier be happy doing intercon flights with passengers and bags but little cargo? It sounds like early/275T A359s may be impaired for LAX-SYD travel.

Let's see if DL makes an effort to keep 275T A359s off LAX-SYD when load factors are again averaging low 80s. That will be indicative - and easily traced by tail in FlightAware.

airbazar · Fri May 20, 2022 1:26 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
South America or DFW, MIA, or IAH are some possibilities.

Possible. SIN-GRU/DFW/MIA are all easily done outbound, but would have the return nonstop to SIN limping in on fumes, even with a -ULR.

SIN-MIA is longer than MEL-LHR.
Realistically, they'd need a Sunrise A35K for these kind of routes.

GC-wise they are identical but MEL-LHR faces headwinds while SIN-MIA is a near perfect polar route, and much like SIN-NYC it can be done with a tail wind in both direction. And because the winds dictate the route (not gc), SIN-MIA is probably only about 45min more flying time than SIN-JFK. The delta between sin-jfk and sin-mia is essentially the delta between anc-jfk and anc-mia:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SIA ... /WSSS/KJFK

MrHMSH · Fri May 20, 2022 1:31 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:

Look at JohanTally's post #44 and LAX777LR's post #45 and puzzle out what defines a 'full load.' Should a carrier be happy doing intercon flights with passengers and bags but little cargo? It sounds like early/275T A359s may be impaired for LAX-SYD travel.

Let's see if DL makes an effort to keep 275T A359s off LAX-SYD when load factors are again averaging low 80s. That will be indicative - and easily traced by tail in FlightAware.

It has been quite painstakingly rebutted with some very informed and detailed discussion that DL's A350s struggle on LAX-SYD. It's almost bordering on misinformation now. PR's A350s (278T) operated longer flights (MNL-JFK/YYZ) than LAX-SYD with very similar seat counts to DL. The flights were 16+hours at times, and 3T MTOW difference is around 1/2 hour of flying. This alone should dispel the notion, it was ridiculously skewed takes that for some reason became official lore due to the claims being repeated, no matter how many times it was dispelled.

Do you have any information on load factor?

lightsaber · Fri May 20, 2022 1:39 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
[threeid][/threeid]
zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Remember a few years ago when some here said the A350 didn't have the legs to fly LAX-SYD for DL?

Think it was UA.

JohanTally wrote:
I don't think anyone questions whether the 359 has the legs for 13 to 14 hour flights I think people's apprehension was whether would it carry a full pax cabin and cargo hold. Looking at the DL seat maps these planes are not the least bit full either direction but hopefully the belly is doing better.

Oh yes there was, and it made no sense as other A350s at the time were flying even longer sectors.

No it was DL. Several folks made passionate arguments the A350 did not have the capability to fly LAX-SYD with a full load for DL. Fortunately, sanity prevailed and those knowledgeable about the A350 corrected the record. With this new bump in MTOW an already highly capable plane just got more capable.

I will be interested to see if SQ or CX open up any new routes with the increase in MTOW. South America or DFW, MIA, or IAH are some possibilities. Good move by Airbus imho.

I'm curious if DL buys this MTOW increase. SYD and JNB are two examples where added payload would benefit the bottom line. I'm sure other routes, e.g., a hypothetical ATL to China (say CAN).

Lightsaber

Okcflyer · Fri May 20, 2022 1:41 pm

evanb wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
Slightly off topic but what makes JNB so unique in regards to tire speed? Plenty of airports are higher, MEX, BOG, ADD, to name a few.. Aircraft are payload restricted out of these airports but I never hear of tire speed as a limiting factor..

And you'll still see ET taking stops on west-bound flights from ADD to the US (e.g. ADD-DUB-IAD and ADD-ORD-IAD) that run non-stop on the return. These flights are substantially shorter than JNB-ATL and yet take stops even though ET have very capable aircraft (B77L, B789 and A359).

Tire speed is just one of the limiting factors. Even if you increase tire speed limits without additional thrust you'll likely eventually run out of runway (conceptually). There is a balancing act with multiple constraints trading off against each other, air density (altitude and temperature), runway length, climb profiles, thrust, tire speed, etc. Tire speed became an in vogue conversation here since it was a specific variable that could improve the B77L's performance out of JNB given that the aircraft had the thrust and they still had some runway length to play with. It may not be the limiting factor for another aircraft type all else held constant, or for the same aircraft type at a different field or with different flight planning parameters. With the A359, its relatively big wing means all else being held constant it'll have a lower rotation speed than the B77L, so it doesn't really need the same tire speeds.

I imagine JNB is single engine second stage climb limited at JNB.

JohanTally · Fri May 20, 2022 1:47 pm

lightsaber wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
[threeid][/threeid]
zeke wrote:

Think it was UA.

Oh yes there was, and it made no sense as other A350s at the time were flying even longer sectors.

No it was DL. Several folks made passionate arguments the A350 did not have the capability to fly LAX-SYD with a full load for DL. Fortunately, sanity prevailed and those knowledgeable about the A350 corrected the record. With this new bump in MTOW an already highly capable plane just got more capable.

I will be interested to see if SQ or CX open up any new routes with the increase in MTOW. South America or DFW, MIA, or IAH are some possibilities. Good move by Airbus imho.

I'm curious if DL buys this MTOW increase. SYD and JNB are two examples where added payload would benefit the bottom line. I'm sure other routes, e.g., a hypothetical ATL to China (say CAN).

Lightsaber

We also have to remember that DL wants to stop in CPT to run the triangle route with no hit on payload. They were finally approved a few weeks ago so all the JNB concerns will be moot once they switch over to the JNB-CPT-ATL routing.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air ... gle-route/

zeke · Fri May 20, 2022 2:02 pm

MrHMSH wrote:

It has been quite painstakingly rebutted with some very informed and detailed discussion that DL's A350s struggle on LAX-SYD. It's almost bordering on misinformation now. PR's A350s (278T) operated longer flights (MNL-JFK/YYZ) than LAX-SYD with very similar seat counts to DL. The flights were 16+hours at times, and 3T MTOW difference is around 1/2 hour of flying. This alone should dispel the notion, it was ridiculously skewed takes that for some reason became official lore due to the claims being repeated, no matter how many times it was dispelled.

Do you have any information on load factor?

I just ran a plan for the 359 from LAX to SYD with 306 pax and bags, it would not be able to carry any cargo, just the full passenger load. Did I mention I used PER for the destination alternate ?

MrHMSH · Fri May 20, 2022 2:54 pm

zeke wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

It has been quite painstakingly rebutted with some very informed and detailed discussion that DL's A350s struggle on LAX-SYD. It's almost bordering on misinformation now. PR's A350s (278T) operated longer flights (MNL-JFK/YYZ) than LAX-SYD with very similar seat counts to DL. The flights were 16+hours at times, and 3T MTOW difference is around 1/2 hour of flying. This alone should dispel the notion, it was ridiculously skewed takes that for some reason became official lore due to the claims being repeated, no matter how many times it was dispelled.

Do you have any information on load factor?

I just ran a plan for the 359 from LAX to SYD with 306 pax and bags, it would not be able to carry any cargo, just the full passenger load. Did I mention I used PER for the destination alternate ?

Which MTOW did you use?

keesje · Fri May 20, 2022 3:00 pm

zeke wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

It has been quite painstakingly rebutted with some very informed and detailed discussion that DL's A350s struggle on LAX-SYD. It's almost bordering on misinformation now. PR's A350s (278T) operated longer flights (MNL-JFK/YYZ) than LAX-SYD with very similar seat counts to DL. The flights were 16+hours at times, and 3T MTOW difference is around 1/2 hour of flying. This alone should dispel the notion, it was ridiculously skewed takes that for some reason became official lore due to the claims being repeated, no matter how many times it was dispelled.

Do you have any information on load factor?

I just ran a plan for the 359 from LAX to SYD with 306 pax and bags, it would not be able to carry any cargo, just the full passenger load. Did I mention I used PER for the destination alternate ?

Perth is a great place, doubt if it's the most feasible alternate though.. http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=LAX-SYD;+PER ... 0x360&PM=*

For the range, alternate, reserves, pax, still a few tonnes of cargo seems possible at first glance.. https://i.stack.imgur.com/hhvYL.png

JohanTally · Fri May 20, 2022 4:00 pm

keesje wrote:
zeke wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

It has been quite painstakingly rebutted with some very informed and detailed discussion that DL's A350s struggle on LAX-SYD. It's almost bordering on misinformation now. PR's A350s (278T) operated longer flights (MNL-JFK/YYZ) than LAX-SYD with very similar seat counts to DL. The flights were 16+hours at times, and 3T MTOW difference is around 1/2 hour of flying. This alone should dispel the notion, it was ridiculously skewed takes that for some reason became official lore due to the claims being repeated, no matter how many times it was dispelled.

Do you have any information on load factor?

I just ran a plan for the 359 from LAX to SYD with 306 pax and bags, it would not be able to carry any cargo, just the full passenger load. Did I mention I used PER for the destination alternate ?

Perth is a great place, doubt if it's the most feasible alternate though.. http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=LAX-SYD;+PER ... 0x360&PM=*

For the range, alternate, reserves, pax, still a few tonnes of cargo seems possible at first glance.. https://i.stack.imgur.com/hhvYL.png

Does this take into account luggage because 300 passengers would have a minimum of 8k-15k pounds of checked luggage.

ElroyJetson · Fri May 20, 2022 4:01 pm

lightsaber wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
[threeid][/threeid]
zeke wrote:

Think it was UA.

Oh yes there was, and it made no sense as other A350s at the time were flying even longer sectors.

No it was DL. Several folks made passionate arguments the A350 did not have the capability to fly LAX-SYD with a full load for DL. Fortunately, sanity prevailed and those knowledgeable about the A350 corrected the record. With this new bump in MTOW an already highly capable plane just got more capable.

I will be interested to see if SQ or CX open up any new routes with the increase in MTOW. South America or DFW, MIA, or IAH are some possibilities. Good move by Airbus imho.

I'm curious if DL buys this MTOW increase. SYD and JNB are two examples where added payload would benefit the bottom line. I'm sure other routes, e.g., a hypothetical ATL to China (say CAN).

Lightsaber

I vaguely recall a discussion saying the A359 was restricted to 278 tonnes MTOW on takeoff from JNB due to high elevation and tire speed issues. Zeke can probably speak to this because I am not sure my memory is correct.

MrHMSH · Fri May 20, 2022 4:09 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
[threeid][/threeid]

No it was DL. Several folks made passionate arguments the A350 did not have the capability to fly LAX-SYD with a full load for DL. Fortunately, sanity prevailed and those knowledgeable about the A350 corrected the record. With this new bump in MTOW an already highly capable plane just got more capable.

I will be interested to see if SQ or CX open up any new routes with the increase in MTOW. South America or DFW, MIA, or IAH are some possibilities. Good move by Airbus imho.

I'm curious if DL buys this MTOW increase. SYD and JNB are two examples where added payload would benefit the bottom line. I'm sure other routes, e.g., a hypothetical ATL to China (say CAN).

Lightsaber

I vaguely recall a discussion saying the A359 was restricted to 278 tonnes MTOW on takeoff from JNB due to high elevation and tire speed issues. Zeke can probably speak to this because I am not sure my memory is correct.

I think it may be even lower, but like you I can't recall exactly.

ZEDZAG · Fri May 20, 2022 4:12 pm

zeke wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

It has been quite painstakingly rebutted with some very informed and detailed discussion that DL's A350s struggle on LAX-SYD. It's almost bordering on misinformation now. PR's A350s (278T) operated longer flights (MNL-JFK/YYZ) than LAX-SYD with very similar seat counts to DL. The flights were 16+hours at times, and 3T MTOW difference is around 1/2 hour of flying. This alone should dispel the notion, it was ridiculously skewed takes that for some reason became official lore due to the claims being repeated, no matter how many times it was dispelled.

Do you have any information on load factor?

I just ran a plan for the 359 from LAX to SYD with 306 pax and bags, it would not be able to carry any cargo, just the full passenger load. Did I mention I used PER for the destination alternate ?

That is like 4 hours of useless flying, and translates to, like 15t of payload?

LAX772LR · Fri May 20, 2022 4:21 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
I vaguely recall a discussion saying the A359 was restricted to 278 tonnes MTOW on takeoff from JNB due to high elevation and tire speed issues. Zeke can probably speak to this because I am not sure my memory is correct.

Closer to 270-273, depending on conditions.

MrHMSH · Fri May 20, 2022 4:23 pm

ZEDZAG wrote:
zeke wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

It has been quite painstakingly rebutted with some very informed and detailed discussion that DL's A350s struggle on LAX-SYD. It's almost bordering on misinformation now. PR's A350s (278T) operated longer flights (MNL-JFK/YYZ) than LAX-SYD with very similar seat counts to DL. The flights were 16+hours at times, and 3T MTOW difference is around 1/2 hour of flying. This alone should dispel the notion, it was ridiculously skewed takes that for some reason became official lore due to the claims being repeated, no matter how many times it was dispelled.

Do you have any information on load factor?

I just ran a plan for the 359 from LAX to SYD with 306 pax and bags, it would not be able to carry any cargo, just the full passenger load. Did I mention I used PER for the destination alternate ?

That is like 4 hours of useless flying, and translates to, like 15t of payload?

The A359's fuel burn has been estimated at 5.8 tonnes (or thereabouts) per hour, which would translate to around 23 tonnes. On top of pax+bags, and accounting for a reasonable diversion alternative (CBR, MEL etc), that's probably 17T or so (I can't recall the weight of reserve fuel). Obviously the payload does depend on the MTOW, but even if zeke's route plan was with 283T, that would take 8T off the 275T variants being discussed, leaving approximately 9T left for cargo. Though obviously not maximum payload, it does seem that calling the aircraft 'impaired' is excessive and out of tune with the reality.

RJMAZ · Sat May 21, 2022 2:10 am

Zeke was obviously joking when he said he used Perth as an alternate. He knows the A350-900 can carry a huge amount of cargo on LAX-SYD even at 275t MTOW.

I would estimate the 275t A350-900 could carry nearly 10,000kg of extra revenue cargo on a good day and well over 5,000kg on a bad day. This is additional to the passengers and their bags.

Just because we have seen 777LR on this route does not mean it is very difficult. The 777LR were simply maxed out with cargo on this route. To call the A350-900 impaired in this route because it can't carry max payload is ridiculous. Qantas operates the 787-9 on this route so that would be even more "impaired"

a320fan · Sat May 21, 2022 6:49 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Qantas operates the 787-9 on this route so that would be even more "impaired"

Qantas have even been operating the A330-200 on the even longer MEL-LAX for much of the last year. Albeit carrying cargo only. LAX-SYD is no issue for any long haul specd A359.

gloom · Sat May 21, 2022 6:51 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Closer to 270-273, depending on conditions.

Something like that, but when I ran the numbers, it was at ISA +15. As said, conditions could make a difference as large as 1t per 2 degs C (4 degs F, if you prefer). On ISA (say night departure) MTOW would be available, perhaps even for 280t bird.

Cheers,
Adam

zeke · Sat May 21, 2022 7:33 am

MrHMSH wrote:
Which MTOW did you use?

275,000 kg

zeke · Sat May 21, 2022 7:51 am

JohanTally wrote:
Does this take into account luggage because 300 passengers would have a minimum of 8k-15k pounds of checked luggage.

The numbers were based upon 306 passengers @ 207.5 lb each ( a little bit higher than the FAA standard passenger and baggage weight), 28,800 kg.

zeke · Sat May 21, 2022 7:53 am

ZEDZAG wrote:
That is like 4 hours of useless flying, and translates to, like 15t of payload?

4:29 and 20.2 tonnes of trip fuel for the SYD-PER diversion.

zeke · Sat May 21, 2022 8:19 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
tire speed issues

There is no tyre speed issue with the A359 in JNB, at the highest weights on an ISA day rotation would be around 162 kts, which is a ground speed of 176 kts, well below the standard tyre speed limits (204 kts ground speed).

swapcv · Sat May 21, 2022 11:16 am

Tbh, I don't get whats so surprising. The A350-900 is the 777-200ER of today. Just like how the latter grew from the intial 263t (580,000lb) 777-200IGW to the definitive 777-200ER with 297.6t MTOW, the A350 is being improved similarly. Its wing area is sufficient to go as high as 300t (660,000lb). If there are concerns with ACN, Airbus can perhaps bring in a HGW variant with uprated Trent XWB engines and the 6 wheel A350-1000 bogie to handle higher weights. Won't be surprised if it does occur down the line.

ElroyJetson · Sat May 21, 2022 3:14 pm

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
tire speed issues

There is no tyre speed issue with the A359 in JNB, at the highest weights on an ISA day rotation would be around 162 kts, which is a ground speed of 176 kts, well below the standard tyre speed limits (204 kts ground speed).

The primary question was MTOW restrictions for the A359 at JNB. Any idea what that might be?

scbriml · Sat May 21, 2022 5:01 pm

JohanTally wrote:
zeke wrote:
I just ran a plan for the 359 from LAX to SYD with 306 pax and bags, it would not be able to carry any cargo, just the full passenger load. Did I mention I used PER for the destination alternate ?

Does this take into account luggage because 300 passengers would have a minimum of 8k-15k pounds of checked luggage.

What do you think "pax and bags" means?

MartijnNL · Sat May 21, 2022 5:07 pm

3rdGen wrote:
The A350-900 already has a very high ACN.

What does ACN stand for?

LAOCA · Sat May 21, 2022 5:20 pm

So much of the debate on LAX-SYD and the A350 v 777LR seems to have stemmed from DL initially being unable to fly the 350 to SYD. I'm pretty sure that was from a lack of approved op-procedures that were not a priority at the time because the route was planned to remain as a 777. In fact, all of LAX was void of A350 ops. At the time, the only pilot bases were DTW and ATL. It was never that the A350 was not capable.

JohanTally · Sat May 21, 2022 6:02 pm

scbriml wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
zeke wrote:
I just ran a plan for the 359 from LAX to SYD with 306 pax and bags, it would not be able to carry any cargo, just the full passenger load. Did I mention I used PER for the destination alternate ?

Does this take into account luggage because 300 passengers would have a minimum of 8k-15k pounds of checked luggage.

What do you think "pax and bags" means?

That's what I'm wondering because typically when traversing across continents you may pack heavy. Which is typically a higher figure than the 207lbs quoted up thread.

LAOCA · Sat May 21, 2022 6:34 pm

I don't think it was a guess. Ops specs and regulations vary from 200 - 220 lbs per pax. Completely accurate, or not, that's how the flight would be planned.

fcogafa · Sat May 21, 2022 8:06 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
3rdGen wrote:
The A350-900 already has a very high ACN.

What does ACN stand for?

from Google:

What does ACN mean in aviation?
Aircraft Classification Number
Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) is a number that expresses the relative effect of an aircraft at a given configuration on a pavement structure for a specified standard subgrade strength.

JohanTally · Sat May 21, 2022 11:35 pm

LAOCA wrote:
I don't think it was a guess. Ops specs and regulations vary from 200 - 220 lbs per pax. Completely accurate, or not, that's how the flight would be planned.

In the US FAA new weight and balance standards calculates passengers weights with carryon luggage at 190lbs summer and 195lbs in the winter. What I'm implying is that I would expect an average of at least 1 checked bag per passenger but likely more. The airline I work for counts standard checked luggage at 30lbs and heavy luggage(anything 50-99lbs) at 60 lbs. Oftentime you would also have the possibility of wheelchairs or other mobility aids which can be over 400lbs and contribute to a higher weight than the 207lbs refrenced. 300 adults with 250 checked bags and 50 heavy bags would be calculated as 69k pounds or 31.3 tonnes at my airline in the winter.

enzo011 · Sun May 22, 2022 8:42 am

swapcv wrote:
Tbh, I don't get whats so surprising. The A350-900 is the 777-200ER of today. Just like how the latter grew from the intial 263t (580,000lb) 777-200IGW to the definitive 777-200ER with 297.6t MTOW, the A350 is being improved similarly. Its wing area is sufficient to go as high as 300t (660,000lb). If there are concerns with ACN, Airbus can perhaps bring in a HGW variant with uprated Trent XWB engines and the 6 wheel A350-1000 bogie to handle higher weights. Won't be surprised if it does occur down the line.

While the growth in MTOW may look similar, it is not done in the same way. The A359 is still the same aircraft with the same engines as rolled out, with subsequent improvements, but the MTOW has been going up as well. The 777-200 and the 777-200ER have different engines which handles the bump in MTOW.

If anything the A359 at EIS was the 777-200ER as you have the option to derate the engines if you want to. There is no 777-200 equivalent for the A359. There is the derated A359 but that is still the same aircraft as the standard A359.

So while not surprising as other models has seen MTOW increases as well, the way the companies goes about those are not always aligned. Not that one or the other is better.

ikolkyo · Sun May 22, 2022 8:48 am

enzo011 wrote:
swapcv wrote:
Tbh, I don't get whats so surprising. The A350-900 is the 777-200ER of today. Just like how the latter grew from the intial 263t (580,000lb) 777-200IGW to the definitive 777-200ER with 297.6t MTOW, the A350 is being improved similarly. Its wing area is sufficient to go as high as 300t (660,000lb). If there are concerns with ACN, Airbus can perhaps bring in a HGW variant with uprated Trent XWB engines and the 6 wheel A350-1000 bogie to handle higher weights. Won't be surprised if it does occur down the line.

While the growth in MTOW may look similar, it is not done in the same way. The A359 is still the same aircraft with the same engines as rolled out, with subsequent improvements, but the MTOW has been going up as well. The 777-200 and the 777-200ER have different engines which handles the bump in MTOW.

If anything the A359 at EIS was the 777-200ER as you have the option to derate the engines if you want to. There is no 777-200 equivalent for the A359. There is the derated A359 but that is still the same aircraft as the standard A359.

So while not surprising as other models has seen MTOW increases as well, the way the companies goes about those are not always aligned. Not that one or the other is better.

An increase in engine thrust isn’t a crazy upgrade, the growth was built in from the get go since there had to be a engine for the original B773, the 77E MTOW increased by 50t! You gotta compensate with a bit of thrust. I think the comparison is valid.

gloom · Sun May 22, 2022 9:29 am

enzo011 wrote:
There is the derated A359 but that is still the same aircraft as the standard A359.

Not really.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... %20XWB.pdf

If the plane is going to be permanently regional, you could opt for TXWB-75, TXWB-79 or TXWB-79B. Sure, it's way less flexible, but still an option.

On the other hand, since all conditions for those variants match are a match, it could be software variant, and easily upgraded to go along with the frame.

Cheers,
Adam

LAX772LR · Sun May 22, 2022 9:44 am

swapcv wrote:
Airbus can perhaps bring in a HGW variant with uprated Trent XWB engines and the 6 wheel A350-1000 bogie to handle higher weights. Won't be surprised if it does occur down the line.

Rather doubtful, as that was the basis of the proposed "A350-900XR" which would've essentially been an A359 frame on an A35K wing/box/gear and presented as a Sunrise proposal.... one that, along with the production A359ULR, was rejected rather early on.

Considering how much such an aircraft would step into A35K territory, and how bad its comparative CASM would be thereto, I'd be shocked if Airbus came out with something like that, at this point in the game.

enzo011 wrote:
The A359 is still the same aircraft with the same engines as rolled out, with subsequent improvements, but the MTOW has been going up as well. The 777-200 and the 777-200ER have different engines which handles the bump in MTOW.

Not by choice.

I mean, you're comparing a near quarter century gap in engine tech development.... lest we not forget that Boeing initially thought that the 77E would need to have a fortified APU to act as a thrust supplement during takeoff, because the engine tech in the early '90s wasn't yet where they needed it to be.

Suffice to say, they would've LOVED to have just taken a Trent895-17, or GE90-94B with the 3D-Aero core, in 1994 and set that on all models, then derated as needed.... if they could've. But that wasn't an option in the same way a 2010s Trent derivative could do so for the A350.

swapcv · Sun May 22, 2022 10:11 am

enzo011 wrote:
While the growth in MTOW may look similar, it is not done in the same way. The A359 is still the same aircraft with the same engines as rolled out, with subsequent improvements, but the MTOW has been going up as well. The 777-200 and the 777-200ER have different engines which handles the bump in MTOW.

If anything the A359 at EIS was the 777-200ER as you have the option to derate the engines if you want to. There is no 777-200 equivalent for the A359. There is the derated A359 but that is still the same aircraft as the standard A359.

So while not surprising as other models has seen MTOW increases as well, the way the companies goes about those are not always aligned. Not that one or the other is better.

I'm not referring to the 777-200A when I talk about the 777-200IGW. They're two fundamentally different types. 777-200IGW is different by the virtue of having the extra fuel tankage, and higher gross weights/higher thrust engines over the -200A. It is also the early version of the 777-200ER before the ER designation got associated with it. As for equivalents, my original statement stands as like the A350-900 in the present day, the 777-200IGW and later 777-200ER had plenty of margins built in by design to handle both higher gross weights and accomodate engines of higher thrust levels.

zeke · Sun May 22, 2022 10:22 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
The primary question was MTOW restrictions for the A359 at JNB. Any idea what that might be?

The MTOW is a flight manual limit for that tail, it does not change from airport to airport, the question makes no sense. If the DL A350s are certified for 275 tonnes or 283 tonnes, it remains at the number if they operating from ATL, LAX, SYD or JNB.

The RTOW or regulated TOW is the highest performance limiting weight that could be lifted with the prevailing conditions from a particular runway. Prevailing conditions change all the time, so does the runway in use, so does the RTOW. If you were to ask me what the RTOW was, I would have to ask for a crystal ball to know the runway in use and prevailing conditions.

zeke · Sun May 22, 2022 10:37 am

JohanTally wrote:
LAOCA wrote:
I don't think it was a guess. Ops specs and regulations vary from 200 - 220 lbs per pax. Completely accurate, or not, that's how the flight would be planned.

In the US FAA new weight and balance standards calculates passengers weights with carryon luggage at 190lbs summer and 195lbs in the winter. What I'm implying is that I would expect an average of at least 1 checked bag per passenger but likely more. The airline I work for counts standard checked luggage at 30lbs and heavy luggage(anything 50-99lbs) at 60 lbs. Oftentime you would also have the possibility of wheelchairs or other mobility aids which can be over 400lbs and contribute to a higher weight than the 207lbs refrenced. 300 adults with 250 checked bags and 50 heavy bags would be calculated as 69k pounds or 31.3 tonnes at my airline in the winter.

So your take away from what I posted is that I should have used a 15 lb higher standard weight, and not to worry about an alternate which has a longer flight time than LAX-JFK would.

Does your airline use JFK as an alternate for LAX ? What alternate do they use for SYD ?

The A359 can easily fly LAX-SYD, and if a closer alternate was used you could probably still go with full passengers and baggage that weigh 350 lb each, and still burn circa 25% less fuel than a 77L, with quicker sector time.

JohanTally · Sun May 22, 2022 12:07 pm

zeke wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
LAOCA wrote:
I don't think it was a guess. Ops specs and regulations vary from 200 - 220 lbs per pax. Completely accurate, or not, that's how the flight would be planned.

In the US FAA new weight and balance standards calculates passengers weights with carryon luggage at 190lbs summer and 195lbs in the winter. What I'm implying is that I would expect an average of at least 1 checked bag per passenger but likely more. The airline I work for counts standard checked luggage at 30lbs and heavy luggage(anything 50-99lbs) at 60 lbs. Oftentime you would also have the possibility of wheelchairs or other mobility aids which can be over 400lbs and contribute to a higher weight than the 207lbs refrenced. 300 adults with 250 checked bags and 50 heavy bags would be calculated as 69k pounds or 31.3 tonnes at my airline in the winter.

So your take away from what I posted is that I should have used a 15 lb higher standard weight, and not to worry about an alternate which has a longer flight time than LAX-JFK would.

Does your airline use JFK as an alternate for LAX ? What alternate do they use for SYD ?

The A359 can easily fly LAX-SYD, and if a closer alternate was used you could probably still go with full passengers and baggage that weigh 350 lb each, and still burn circa 25% less fuel than a 77L, with quicker sector time.

I was just trying to conceptualize what passenger weights with luggage were expected and am not questioning this one 359 route.

ElroyJetson · Sun May 22, 2022 3:03 pm

zeke wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
LAOCA wrote:
I don't think it was a guess. Ops specs and regulations vary from 200 - 220 lbs per pax. Completely accurate, or not, that's how the flight would be planned.

In the US FAA new weight and balance standards calculates passengers weights with carryon luggage at 190lbs summer and 195lbs in the winter. What I'm implying is that I would expect an average of at least 1 checked bag per passenger but likely more. The airline I work for counts standard checked luggage at 30lbs and heavy luggage(anything 50-99lbs) at 60 lbs. Oftentime you would also have the possibility of wheelchairs or other mobility aids which can be over 400lbs and contribute to a higher weight than the 207lbs refrenced. 300 adults with 250 checked bags and 50 heavy bags would be calculated as 69k pounds or 31.3 tonnes at my airline in the winter.

Not sure why anyone would question if DL A350's can fly LAX-SYD at this point. My guess is full pax and bags and 5-10 tonnes of cargo depending on conditions.

ElroyJetson · Sun May 22, 2022 3:06 pm

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The primary question was MTOW restrictions for the A359 at JNB. Any idea what that might be?

The MTOW is a flight manual limit for that tail, it does not change from airport to airport, the question makes no sense. If the DL A350s are certified for 275 tonnes or 283 tonnes, it remains at the number if they operating from ATL, LAX, SYD or JNB.

The RTOW or regulated TOW is the highest performance limiting weight that could be lifted with the prevailing conditions from a particular runway. Prevailing conditions change all the time, so does the runway in use, so does the RTOW. If you were to ask me what the RTOW was, I would have to ask for a crystal ball to know the runway in use and prevailing conditions.

So 270-273 tonnes takeoff from JNB depending on conditions. Got it elsewhere, but thanks.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net