Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LAOCA
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:18 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Sun May 22, 2022 4:27 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
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.


Still not really accurate. Although it could be if you had asked "what is the average, medium or common RTOW for an A350 leaving JNB. And I used the words "could be" because I don't know the actual value. But the MTOW is 275/280 depending on the aircraft, and unachievable in most real world conditions.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14723
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Sun May 22, 2022 8:15 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
Not sure why anyone would question if DL A350's can fly LAX-SYD at this point.

....especially after watching SQ take the same aircraft type, without the -ULR modifications, and launch SIN-JFK-SIN with it.

Or seeing PR take the same aircraft type, with two tons less available TOW, and fly MNL-JFK-MNL, a route some 1100mi longer than LAX-SYD.

Or, most importantly of all: watching DL fly the aircraft on LAX-SYD, as they're currently doing. :lol:
 
swapcv
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 2:34 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
....especially after watching SQ take the same aircraft type, without the -ULR modifications, and launch SIN-JFK-SIN with it.

Or seeing PR take the same aircraft type, with two tons less available TOW, and fly MNL-JFK-MNL, a route some 1100mi longer than LAX-SYD.

Or, most importantly of all: watching DL fly the aircraft on LAX-SYD, as they're currently doing. :lol:


A350-900 is set to grow only from here, its wing can sustain higher MTOW's, and I won't be surprised if it reaches 286-288tons or more in the future which would ironically match what Boeing offered initially for their 777-200ER in 1997 (286.8tons) as a follow on to the 777-200IGW.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 2:47 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
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.


Ah :wink2:

That said I remember several highly regarded industry people stating the A350-1000 was more suitable for medium range routes. Not since QF selected it for LHR flights though.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14723
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 6:38 pm

swapcv wrote:
A350-900 is set to grow only from here, its wing can sustain higher MTOW's, and I won't be surprised if it reaches 286-288tons or more in the future which would ironically match what Boeing offered initially for their 777-200ER in 1997 (286.8tons) as a follow on to the 777-200IGW.

Maybe... but at what point is it overkill though?

That's essentially what happened with the 777-200LR: contrary to AvGeek lore, Boeing did not intend for it to just be "a niche ULH product," but simply the next evolution in the 772 frame's general existence. The goal was the sell 200-300 of them, not 60. But the airlines saw it differently.

We appear to be seeing the same with the 251tonne A338, as the market for a 200-250 seater that can do 8000nm appears to be--- nonexistent.

So yeah, I worry about overkill with the A359. Thing can already do 18hr flights, even without the -ULR modifications.

And to be honest, if given the choice: I'd bet Airbus would be more keen to continue adding fortifications to the A35K instead, to position it for when the 77W replacement cycle begins in earnest, and to take advantage of its potential lower per-seat costs.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4529
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 7:26 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
swapcv wrote:
A350-900 is set to grow only from here, its wing can sustain higher MTOW's, and I won't be surprised if it reaches 286-288tons or more in the future which would ironically match what Boeing offered initially for their 777-200ER in 1997 (286.8tons) as a follow on to the 777-200IGW.

Maybe... but at what point is it overkill though?

That's essentially what happened with the 777-200LR: contrary to AvGeek lore, Boeing did not intend for it to just be "a niche ULH product," but simply the next evolution in the 772 frame's general existence. The goal was the sell 200-300 of them, not 60. But the airlines saw it differently.

We appear to be seeing the same with the 251tonne A338, as the market for a 200-250 seater that can do 8000nm appears to be--- nonexistent.

So yeah, I worry about overkill with the A359. Thing can already do 18hr flights, even without the -ULR modifications.

And to be honest, if given the choice: I'd bet Airbus would be more keen to continue adding fortifications to the A35K instead, to position it for when the 77W replacement cycle begins in earnest, and to take advantage of its potential lower per-seat costs.

Not to contradict but I don’t think aircraft really become ‘too capable’ as such, more that the inherent capability of the family grows such that the range performance of the larger model grows such that the useful remaining market of the smaller sibling is reduced. If it were 772er vs 77L then the 77L would win every time but it was the 77W that took the lions share…
The A359 is in a slightly different space in that is has no ‘simple stretch’ sibling ….yet. It could be that as it grows the higher end capability is more effectively utilised by a bigger cabin than increased range. An A35k length A359 would have similar range capability to a B781.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 7:56 pm

If airlines are less keen than in the past to "abuse" say an A35k, then a 359 stretched to 35k length makes a lot of sense.

There are a few classic 773s still around that fill that niche, though in the past most airlines preferred to"abuse" 77Ws.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13652
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 8:00 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
swapcv wrote:
A350-900 is set to grow only from here, its wing can sustain higher MTOW's, and I won't be surprised if it reaches 286-288tons or more in the future which would ironically match what Boeing offered initially for their 777-200ER in 1997 (286.8tons) as a follow on to the 777-200IGW.

Maybe... but at what point is it overkill though?

That's essentially what happened with the 777-200LR: contrary to AvGeek lore, Boeing did not intend for it to just be "a niche ULH product," but simply the next evolution in the 772 frame's general existence. The goal was the sell 200-300 of them, not 60. But the airlines saw it differently.

We appear to be seeing the same with the 251tonne A338, as the market for a 200-250 seater that can do 8000nm appears to be--- nonexistent.

So yeah, I worry about overkill with the A359. Thing can already do 18hr flights, even without the -ULR modifications.

And to be honest, if given the choice: I'd bet Airbus would be more keen to continue adding fortifications to the A35K instead, to position it for when the 77W replacement cycle begins in earnest, and to take advantage of its potential lower per-seat costs.

Not to contradict but I don’t think aircraft really become ‘too capable’ as such, more that the inherent capability of the family grows such that the range performance of the larger model grows such that the useful remaining market of the smaller sibling is reduced. If it were 772er vs 77L then the 77L would win every time but it was the 77W that took the lions share…
The A359 is in a slightly different space in that is has no ‘simple stretch’ sibling ….yet. It could be that as it grows the higher end capability is more effectively utilised by a bigger cabin than increased range. An A35k length A359 would have similar range capability to a B781.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Increasing the A359’s capability means stealing more from the A35K and effectively turning the current plane into a “simple stretch” of the more capable A359.

Airbus isn’t growing the A359’s MTOW/capability by magic. They are using margins built into the structure for the A35K and porting engineering/structure over as necessary to support the higher weights.
 
Theseus
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 8:58 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
If airlines are less keen than in the past to "abuse" say an A35k, then a 359 stretched to 35k length makes a lot of sense.

There are a few classic 773s still around that fill that niche, though in the past most airlines preferred to"abuse" 77Ws.


I am also wondering what would an A359 (same wing, wingbox, landing gear) stretched to A35K length. Given the long range capability of the A359, I suspect such a plane would be far more capable than the 773 (non ER), especially if a few percents of efficiency can be gained on the engine etc, after a few years of experience as on other planes in the past. How would such a "787-10 like" version of the A350 work ?
 
JohanTally
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 9:11 pm

Polot wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Maybe... but at what point is it overkill though?

That's essentially what happened with the 777-200LR: contrary to AvGeek lore, Boeing did not intend for it to just be "a niche ULH product," but simply the next evolution in the 772 frame's general existence. The goal was the sell 200-300 of them, not 60. But the airlines saw it differently.

We appear to be seeing the same with the 251tonne A338, as the market for a 200-250 seater that can do 8000nm appears to be--- nonexistent.

So yeah, I worry about overkill with the A359. Thing can already do 18hr flights, even without the -ULR modifications.

And to be honest, if given the choice: I'd bet Airbus would be more keen to continue adding fortifications to the A35K instead, to position it for when the 77W replacement cycle begins in earnest, and to take advantage of its potential lower per-seat costs.

Not to contradict but I don’t think aircraft really become ‘too capable’ as such, more that the inherent capability of the family grows such that the range performance of the larger model grows such that the useful remaining market of the smaller sibling is reduced. If it were 772er vs 77L then the 77L would win every time but it was the 77W that took the lions share…
The A359 is in a slightly different space in that is has no ‘simple stretch’ sibling ….yet. It could be that as it grows the higher end capability is more effectively utilised by a bigger cabin than increased range. An A35k length A359 would have similar range capability to a B781.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Increasing the A359’s capability means stealing more from the A35K and effectively turning the current plane into a “simple stretch” of the more capable A359.

Airbus isn’t growing the A359’s MTOW/capability by magic. They are using margins built into the structure for the A35K and porting engineering/structure over as necessary to support the higher weights.

The 11 frame stretch is what sets the A359 and A35K apart and most airlines except QF ordered it for interior space and CASM versus range and or payload. The A35K which is the longest range commercial aircraft in production doesn't currently operate any of the top 15 longest routes.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13652
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 9:15 pm

JohanTally wrote:
Polot wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Not to contradict but I don’t think aircraft really become ‘too capable’ as such, more that the inherent capability of the family grows such that the range performance of the larger model grows such that the useful remaining market of the smaller sibling is reduced. If it were 772er vs 77L then the 77L would win every time but it was the 77W that took the lions share…
The A359 is in a slightly different space in that is has no ‘simple stretch’ sibling ….yet. It could be that as it grows the higher end capability is more effectively utilised by a bigger cabin than increased range. An A35k length A359 would have similar range capability to a B781.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Increasing the A359’s capability means stealing more from the A35K and effectively turning the current plane into a “simple stretch” of the more capable A359.

Airbus isn’t growing the A359’s MTOW/capability by magic. They are using margins built into the structure for the A35K and porting engineering/structure over as necessary to support the higher weights.

The 11 frame stretch is what sets the A359 and A35K apart and most airlines except QF ordered it for interior space and CASM versus range and or payload. The A35K which is the longest range commercial aircraft in production doesn't currently operate any of the top 15 longest routes.

The 11 frame stretch, 13k lbf more powerful engines, and, as of right now, a 33t higher MTOW.

Because of the changes to the A35K required to support those higher weights (and the much more powerful engines) the CASM improvement between the A359 and A35K is not as dramatic as in other planes such as the 77L vs 77W or A338 vs A339.

That’s partially why the A35K sales have been a struggle. Many 77Ws too new to replace and unlike other stretches going from the A359 to A35K is not an automatic no brainer-in many cases their CASM are similar (which then favors the smaller, easier to fill aircraft).
 
JohanTally
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 9:45 pm

Polot wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
Polot wrote:
Increasing the A359’s capability means stealing more from the A35K and effectively turning the current plane into a “simple stretch” of the more capable A359.

Airbus isn’t growing the A359’s MTOW/capability by magic. They are using margins built into the structure for the A35K and porting engineering/structure over as necessary to support the higher weights.

The 11 frame stretch is what sets the A359 and A35K apart and most airlines except QF ordered it for interior space and CASM versus range and or payload. The A35K which is the longest range commercial aircraft in production doesn't currently operate any of the top 15 longest routes.

The 11 frame stretch, 13k lbf more powerful engines, and, as of right now, a 33t higher MTOW.

Because of the changes to the A35K required to support those higher weights (and the much more powerful engines) the CASM improvement between the A359 and A35K is not as dramatic as in other planes such as the 77L vs 77W or A338 vs A339.

That’s partially why the A35K sales have been a struggle. Many 77Ws too new to replace and unlike other stretches going from the A359 to A35K is not an automatic no brainer-in many cases their CASM are similar (which then favors the smaller, easier to fill aircraft).

I'm referring to the CASM vs it's direct competitor in capacity the 77W and 744 which it definitely wins but as you stated the replacement cycle hasn't started for the 77W.
 
User avatar
Heavierthanair
Posts: 1111
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 11:20 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 9:52 pm

Theseus wrote:
I am also wondering what would an A359 (same wing, wingbox, landing gear) stretched to A35K length. Given the long range capability of the A359, I suspect such a plane would be far more capable than the 773 (non ER), especially if a few percents of efficiency can be gained on the engine etc, after a few years of experience as on other planes in the past. How would such a "787-10 like" version of the A350 work ?


It appears people are forgetting that the original A35K was a simple stretch as ordered by Emirates at the time. Airbus during its development then decided to make this a more capable and likely more expensive aircraft with increased weights and more powerful engines amongst other changes. This at the time led to the cancellation of the entire 70 aircraft order by Emirates
 
Theseus
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Mon May 23, 2022 10:08 pm

Heavierthanair wrote:
It appears people are forgetting that the original A35K was a simple stretch as ordered by Emirates at the time. Airbus during its development then decided to make this a more capable and likely more expensive aircraft with increased weights and more powerful engines amongst other changes. This at the time led to the cancellation of the entire 70 aircraft order by Emirates


Indeed, you are right I did not remember this order and cancellation.
But I think that the difference is that, now the A350 as a whole has improved with efficiency gains and MTOW increases. So a simple stretch A35K would have greater ranger and payload capabilities. Certainly much lower than the current A35K but still probably quite sufficient for many airlines, and with a great CASM (better than that of the current A35K).
 
RJMAZ
Topic Author
Posts: 2753
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Tue May 24, 2022 2:21 am

Theseus wrote:
But I think that the difference is that, now the A350 as a whole has improved with efficiency gains and MTOW increases. So a simple stretch A35K would have greater ranger and payload capabilities.

A lot of the extra structure and bigger landing gear in the A35K is for the MLW (maximum landing weight). Reducing the MTOW won't reduce the MLW and allow it to move to a 4 wheel landing gear.

A simple stretch of the A350-900 would still have 10t of extra fuselage length, savings maybe 3t. Add 5t of extra payload and the MLW of the simple stretch A35K will still be around 10% higher than the A359. To keep the MLW the same the max payload would have to be significantly reduced and the simple stretch A35K would never be able to fill up the cargo hold.

I would say the current A35K is then superior even on medium haul routes. Yes it might be 1% less efficient if carrying passengers and bags only compared to a simple stretch version but the current A35K could carry 20+t of additional payload for minimal extra cost.

The 787-8 for instance has a unique smaller and lighter landing gear so it has a very low MLW and that results in it having the lowest payload if all widebody aircraft.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14723
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Tue May 24, 2022 2:29 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Not to contradict but I don’t think aircraft really become ‘too capable’ as such, more that the inherent capability of the family grows such that the range performance of the larger model grows such that the useful remaining market of the smaller sibling is reduced. If it were 772er vs 77L then the 77L would win every time

Yes, but you're omitting something that had a MAJOR effect: it wasn't just between 77E and 77L... but also the improved A333, which started killing the former two, in their last few years of production, to the point of winning almost every battle.

For the markets that it was (1) initially and (2) grown to serve, the 772 frame had gotten to be such overkill, that an improved A333 was able to swoop in and claim almost every remaining contest.

Who's to say that the same can't happen between an even heavier A359 and an improved 78X?

I'd foresee exactly that: A350-900, which today can already operate 18hr flights, gets so heavy and in its fortifications that a new 260tonne 787-10 can come in and claim the majority of the TATL and TPAC routes it originally did.



JohanTally wrote:
The A35K which is the longest range commercial aircraft in production

No it isn't. Or not yet, anyways.

A359ULR is still offered (though I doubt any other airlines will take it) for current acquisition; and though not yet in production, the 778 is still technically available to anyone who wants its range capabilities.



JohanTally wrote:
doesn't currently operate any of the top 15 longest routes.

Based on the language you chose, that's not true, as it currently does DOH-LAX.

Discounting routes that have been announced but never yet launched (MEL-DFW, AKL-JFK) and routes that have been given a resumption date but not currently resumed (PER-LHR, AKL-DXB)... DOH-LAX is currently well within the top 15.

And as we all know, that'll quickly change as soon as the variant of it that *IS* the longest ranged model, enters service. With routes like SYD/MEL/BNE - LHR/JFK/etc all having already been announced, putting the A35K frame solidly at the top o' the list.
 
swapcv
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Tue May 24, 2022 5:07 am

LAX772LR wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Not to contradict but I don’t think aircraft really become ‘too capable’ as such, more that the inherent capability of the family grows such that the range performance of the larger model grows such that the useful remaining market of the smaller sibling is reduced. If it were 772er vs 77L then the 77L would win every time

Yes, but you're omitting something that had a MAJOR effect: it wasn't just between 77E and 77L... but also the improved A333, which started killing the former two, in their last few years of production, to the point of winning almost every battle.

For the markets that it was (1) initially and (2) grown to serve, the 772 frame had gotten to be such overkill, that an improved A333 was able to swoop in and claim almost every remaining contest.

Who's to say that the same can't happen between an even heavier A359 and an improved 78X?

I'd foresee exactly that: A350-900, which today can already operate 18hr flights, gets so heavy and in its fortifications that a new 260tonne 787-10 can come in and claim the majority of the TATL and TPAC routes it originally did.



JohanTally wrote:
The A35K which is the longest range commercial aircraft in production

No it isn't. Or not yet, anyways.

A359ULR is still offered (though I doubt any other airlines will take it) for current acquisition; and though not yet in production, the 778 is still technically available to anyone who wants its range capabilities.



JohanTally wrote:
doesn't currently operate any of the top 15 longest routes.

Based on the language you chose, that's not true, as it currently does DOH-LAX.

Discounting routes that have been announced but never yet launched (MEL-DFW, AKL-JFK) and routes that have been given a resumption date but not currently resumed (PER-LHR, AKL-DXB)... DOH-LAX is currently well within the top 15.

And as we all know, that'll quickly change as soon as the variant of it that *IS* the longest ranged model, enters service. With routes like SYD/MEL/BNE - LHR/JFK/etc all having already been announced, putting the A35K frame solidly at the top o' the list.



There's a caveat you are forgetting here. The 772 and 77L were not simple modifications of each other like the current enhanced A359's are. 77L needed a beefed up landing gear, engines from the 77W and its wing and the extra fuel tank capacity to support those increases in gross weight for the increased range capability. All that drove up the Basic weight of the aircraft to the point that it did indeed negatively effect the CASM. But in case of the A350-900 and its non-ULR enhanced versions with increased gross weights, no such modifications were necessary and its possible, that Airbus has designed the airframe such that you would'nt need them anyways to open up higher gross weights for the type without needing to beef up the aircraft structure or bring in a new gear with all its necessary changes to support those weights. If anything, I believe that Airbus believes the A350-900ULR is a non-starter and instead to differentiate its product more from the 787-9 in terms of range and 787-10 in terms of capacity, they'll offer standard versions with enhanced MTOW as a one plane fits all solution for those not in the need of the A35K's extra capacity or payload. It might very well do what Boeing failed to do with their 77L, offer a ULH aircraft without all the negative CASM effects associated with such aircraft.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Tue May 24, 2022 5:54 am

Airbus is developing a new length for the F. Could that be used on -900 underpinnings for a simple stretch 359?
 
Theseus
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Tue May 24, 2022 6:26 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Theseus wrote:
But I think that the difference is that, now the A350 as a whole has improved with efficiency gains and MTOW increases. So a simple stretch A35K would have greater ranger and payload capabilities.

A lot of the extra structure and bigger landing gear in the A35K is for the MLW (maximum landing weight). Reducing the MTOW won't reduce the MLW and allow it to move to a 4 wheel landing gear.


I was not aware of the constraint on the MLW, so your post was very informative to me, many thanks!
 
RJMAZ
Topic Author
Posts: 2753
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Tue May 24, 2022 6:49 am

JerseyFlyer wrote:
Airbus is developing a new length for the F. Could that be used on -900 underpinnings for a simple stretch 359?

No it couldn't. The freighter version will have a very high payload and MLW. The MLW of the freighter will even be higher than the current A35K so it will need all of the strength of the larger landing gear and centre wingbox.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14723
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Tue May 24, 2022 9:02 am

swapcv wrote:
I believe that Airbus believes the A350-900ULR is a non-starter

Agreed, as it has no real "need" anymore: anything up to 18hrs can be efficiently done by a standard A359, and anything over would (presumably) be more efficiently done by a Sunrise A35K.



swapcv wrote:
It might very well do what Boeing failed to do with their 77L, offer a ULH aircraft without all the negative CASM effects associated with such aircraft.

They already have.

Heck, even Boeing's already done that with the 789. Lord knows they'll have done so, if that gets kicked up to ~260tonnes, as rumored.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 12520
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Tue May 24, 2022 12:57 pm

LAX772LR wrote:

Discounting routes that have been announced but never yet launched (MEL-DFW, AKL-JFK) and routes that have been given a resumption date but not currently resumed (PER-LHR, AKL-DXB)... DOH-LAX is currently well within the top 15.

And as we all know, that'll quickly change as soon as the variant of it that *IS* the longest ranged model, enters service. With routes like SYD/MEL/BNE - LHR/JFK/etc all having already been announced, putting the A35K frame solidly at the top o' the list.


Actually PER-LHR resumed yesterday
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Tue May 24, 2022 1:33 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
Airbus is developing a new length for the F. Could that be used on -900 underpinnings for a simple stretch 359?

No it couldn't. The freighter version will have a very high payload and MLW. The MLW of the freighter will even be higher than the current A35K so it will need all of the strength of the larger landing gear and centre wingbox.


These aspects of the F would not apply if -900 underpinnings were used, which was the premise of my post.
 
Lootess
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Tue May 24, 2022 2:15 pm

The great Steve Jobs said it great, "if you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will.". Hence being able to likely not need -ULR in your own A359 product. The plane is already the perfect fit for most airlines, so naturally it's improvements make the business case even better. At the end of the day you want a sale, doesn't matter which model of A350.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 801
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Wed May 25, 2022 6:15 am

Lootess wrote:
The great Steve Jobs said it great, "if you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will.". Hence being able to likely not need -ULR in your own A359 product. The plane is already the perfect fit for most airlines, so naturally it's improvements make the business case even better. At the end of the day you want a sale, doesn't matter which model of A350.

That wasnt Steve jobs it's much much older then that it's a quote by the guy who invented independent brand management actually working on soap
 
Lootess
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Wed May 25, 2022 6:23 am

dstblj52 wrote:
Lootess wrote:
The great Steve Jobs said it great, "if you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will.". Hence being able to likely not need -ULR in your own A359 product. The plane is already the perfect fit for most airlines, so naturally it's improvements make the business case even better. At the end of the day you want a sale, doesn't matter which model of A350.

That wasnt Steve jobs it's much much older then that it's a quote by the guy who invented independent brand management actually working on soap


Yes it was Steve. Some other guy said something around expense of other products, that's not one in the same quote. In fact they never said the word cannibalize once.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4529
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-900 now has a 283t MTOW

Wed May 25, 2022 9:30 am

LAX772LR wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Not to contradict but I don’t think aircraft really become ‘too capable’ as such, more that the inherent capability of the family grows such that the range performance of the larger model grows such that the useful remaining market of the smaller sibling is reduced. If it were 772er vs 77L then the 77L would win every time

Yes, but you're omitting something that had a MAJOR effect: it wasn't just between 77E and 77L... but also the improved A333, which started killing the former two, in their last few years of production, to the point of winning almost every battle.

For the markets that it was (1) initially and (2) grown to serve, the 772 frame had gotten to be such overkill, that an improved A333 was able to swoop in and claim almost every remaining contest.

Who's to say that the same can't happen between an even heavier A359 and an improved 78X?

I'd foresee exactly that: A350-900, which today can already operate 18hr flights, gets so heavy and in its fortifications that a new 260tonne 787-10 can come in and claim the majority of the TATL and TPAC routes it originally did.



I Agree, my point is that it isn't the increase in the capability of the model in question that brings about its demise (or slowing of sales) it is the increase in capability of other players in the market that does that.


Fred

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos