Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
3rdGen wrote:The A350-900 already has a very high ACN. With only 4 wheels per main wheel gear I'm not sure how much higher the weight can go. I believe this is the highest weight of any aircraft with this gear configuration. This may end up being a limiting factor if they envision any higher weights. It may be prudent for them to focus on bumping up the thrust rating and weight of the -1000.
RJMAZ wrote:Airbus seems to do these increases very often. The A321NEO went from 93.5t to 97t and now to 101t. The A330NEO went from 242t to 251t. The A350-900 went from 268t to 275t to 280t and now to 283t. The A350-1000 has gone from 308t to 316t and now 319t.
RJMAZ wrote:Boeing has never done this. There have only increased weights during a major refresh after 15-20 years.
ben7x wrote:RJMAZ wrote:Airbus seems to do these increases very often. The A321NEO went from 93.5t to 97t and now to 101t. The A330NEO went from 242t to 251t. The A350-900 went from 268t to 275t to 280t and now to 283t. The A350-1000 has gone from 308t to 316t and now 319t.
There’s also a 217t version of the A359, specifically for Japan Airlines.
https://www.jal.co.jp/jp/en/aircraft/conf/359.html
RJMAZ wrote:Airbus this year has certified another MTOW bump for the A350-900 up to 283t. The value of these MTOW increases are very underated in my opinion. This recent increase effectively improves the fuel burn per kg of payload by around 1% which is similar to a decent engine PIP program.
In a long haul flight a MTOW increase like this would allow a 3-4% increase in payload weight while fuel load increases by only 1-2% to make the same trip. This is where the gain is made and it will help gain additional sales.
Airbus seems to do these increases very often. The A321NEO went from 93.5t to 97t and now to 101t. The A330NEO went from 242t to 251t. The A350-900 went from 268t to 275t to 280t and now to 283t. The A350-1000 has gone from 308t to 316t and now 319t.
Boeing has never done this. There have only increased weights during a major refresh after 15-20 years.
enzo011 wrote:Its great to have MTOW increases, but it doesn't do much for efficiency. For that you need OEW decreases and PIP's from the engines. So at the outer edge of the envelope for airlines having the extra 3T will be great, but how many will use this? Great for us to discuss it, but for an aircraft like the A359 that is already very good at the extreme ranges it will not do much for those 6-12 hour flights that are the bread and butter for most airlines that have ordered it.
PHLspecial wrote:enzo011 wrote:Its great to have MTOW increases, but it doesn't do much for efficiency. For that you need OEW decreases and PIP's from the engines. So at the outer edge of the envelope for airlines having the extra 3T will be great, but how many will use this? Great for us to discuss it, but for an aircraft like the A359 that is already very good at the extreme ranges it will not do much for those 6-12 hour flights that are the bread and butter for most airlines that have ordered it.
What about cargo? That would be good for a MTOW bump
RJMAZ wrote:Boeing has never done this. There have only increased weights during a major refresh after 15-20 years.
Ronaldo747 wrote:
In fact Boeing done it with the 77W. There was one big step (351t) to allow the ME3 to flight to California without payload penalties.
RJMAZ wrote:Airbus this year has certified another MTOW bump for the A350-900 up to 283t. The value of these MTOW increases are very underated in my opinion. This recent increase effectively improves the fuel burn per kg of payload by around 1% which is similar to a decent engine PIP program.
In a long haul flight a MTOW increase like this would allow a 3-4% increase in payload weight while fuel load increases by only 1-2% to make the same trip. This is where the gain is made and it will help gain additional sales.
Airbus seems to do these increases very often. The A321NEO went from 93.5t to 97t and now to 101t. The A330NEO went from 242t to 251t. The A350-900 went from 268t to 275t to 280t and now to 283t. The A350-1000 has gone from 308t to 316t and now 319t.
Boeing has never done this. There have only increased weights during a major refresh after 15-20 years.
In December 2009, Boeing published a revised version of the airport planning documents for the 787, showing increases in the maximum take-off weight for all three variants, some of which can be attributed to the increased curb weight. The maximum take-off weight of the 787-3 is now 170,250 kg (plus 5,000 kg), that of the 787-8 227,900 kg (plus 8,400 kg) and that of the 787-9 247,400 kg (plus 2,270 kg).
On May 11, 2011, Boeing announced a further increase in the weight of the 787-9, to 251,000 kg. This increased the maximum take-off weight by approx. 5,800 kg compared to the original plan.
LAOCA wrote:The 350 is already an extremely capable airplane at 280t. This will be helpful warding off weight restrictions on wintertime westbound flights, especially if alternates are inconvenient. And of course as an increased freight allowance. I don't think it adds many markets though.
It also further separates its mission profiles from the 787-9.
9252fly wrote:LAOCA wrote:The 350 is already an extremely capable airplane at 280t. This will be helpful warding off weight restrictions on wintertime westbound flights, especially if alternates are inconvenient. And of course as an increased freight allowance. I don't think it adds many markets though.
It also further separates its mission profiles from the 787-9.
I could see this MTOW increase to 283t being helpful to DL on the JNB - ATL route.
9252fly wrote:LAOCA wrote:The 350 is already an extremely capable airplane at 280t. This will be helpful warding off weight restrictions on wintertime westbound flights, especially if alternates are inconvenient. And of course as an increased freight allowance. I don't think it adds many markets though.
It also further separates its mission profiles from the 787-9.
I could see this MTOW increase to 283t being helpful to DL on the JNB - ATL route.
JohanTally wrote:9252fly wrote:LAOCA wrote:The 350 is already an extremely capable airplane at 280t. This will be helpful warding off weight restrictions on wintertime westbound flights, especially if alternates are inconvenient. And of course as an increased freight allowance. I don't think it adds many markets though.
It also further separates its mission profiles from the 787-9.
I could see this MTOW increase to 283t being helpful to DL on the JNB - ATL route.
Increasing the MTOW doesn't help this route because the aircraft can't takeoff at MTOW as it is. A thrust bump or maybe a tire that can handle higher speed would help but not just a higher MTOW.
9252fly wrote:JohanTally wrote:9252fly wrote:
I could see this MTOW increase to 283t being helpful to DL on the JNB - ATL route.
Increasing the MTOW doesn't help this route because the aircraft can't takeoff at MTOW as it is. A thrust bump or maybe a tire that can handle higher speed would help but not just a higher MTOW.
Interesting, what are the chances of either a thrust bump, or a less likely higher speed rated tire?
WayexTDI wrote:ben7x wrote:RJMAZ wrote:Airbus seems to do these increases very often. The A321NEO went from 93.5t to 97t and now to 101t. The A330NEO went from 242t to 251t. The A350-900 went from 268t to 275t to 280t and now to 283t. The A350-1000 has gone from 308t to 316t and now 319t.
There’s also a 217t version of the A359, specifically for Japan Airlines.
https://www.jal.co.jp/jp/en/aircraft/conf/359.html
Isn't it just a paper derate?
9252fly wrote:I could see this MTOW increase to 283t being helpful to DL on the JNB - ATL route.
smartplane wrote:WayexTDI wrote:ben7x wrote:
There’s also a 217t version of the A359, specifically for Japan Airlines.
https://www.jal.co.jp/jp/en/aircraft/conf/359.html
Isn't it just a paper derate?
With significant operating cost savings.
Presumably the A330NEO will get another 1-2t soon.
a380900 wrote:Isn't 217t a typo though? It is a marketing document.
9252fly wrote:Interesting, what are the chances of either a thrust bump, or a less likely higher speed rated tire?
MIflyer12 wrote:PHLspecial wrote:enzo011 wrote:Its great to have MTOW increases, but it doesn't do much for efficiency. For that you need OEW decreases and PIP's from the engines. So at the outer edge of the envelope for airlines having the extra 3T will be great, but how many will use this? Great for us to discuss it, but for an aircraft like the A359 that is already very good at the extreme ranges it will not do much for those 6-12 hour flights that are the bread and butter for most airlines that have ordered it.
What about cargo? That would be good for a MTOW bump
It would, if A350s today go out at (their current, multiple) MTOW. Like extra seats, it only has value when you use it - unlike OEW decreases and PIPs that have value with every flight.
LAX772LR wrote:9252fly wrote:Interesting, what are the chances of either a thrust bump, or a less likely higher speed rated tire?
What makes you assume it's less likely? ...that's (specialized tire) exactly what was done for DL's 77Ls prior to JNB service, they didn't event take the (already available) thrust bump.
enzo011 wrote:Its great to have MTOW increases, but it doesn't do much for efficiency. For that you need OEW decreases and PIP's from the engines. So at the outer edge of the envelope for airlines having the extra 3T will be great, but how many will use this? Great for us to discuss it, but for an aircraft like the A359 that is already very good at the extreme ranges it will not do much for those 6-12 hour flights that are the bread and butter for most airlines that have ordered it.
LAX772LR wrote:9252fly wrote:Interesting, what are the chances of either a thrust bump, or a less likely higher speed rated tire?
What makes you assume it's less likely? ...that's (specialized tire) exactly what was done for DL's 77Ls prior to JNB service, they didn't event take the (already available) thrust bump.
frigatebird wrote:LAX772LR wrote:9252fly wrote:Interesting, what are the chances of either a thrust bump, or a less likely higher speed rated tire?
What makes you assume it's less likely? ...that's (specialized tire) exactly what was done for DL's 77Ls prior to JNB service, they didn't event take the (already available) thrust bump.
I'm not totally sure, but I think the Trent-XWB for the A359 already is at its maximum design thrust. For just a small increase in thrust for the A350-1000, RR had to make redesigned version, the TXWB-97. Which could probably be fitted on an A359 too, but not without a redesign of parts of the aircraft as well.
WayexTDI wrote:frigatebird wrote:LAX772LR wrote:What makes you assume it's less likely? ...that's (specialized tire) exactly what was done for DL's 77Ls prior to JNB service, they didn't event take the (already available) thrust bump.
I'm not totally sure, but I think the Trent-XWB for the A359 already is at its maximum design thrust. For just a small increase in thrust for the A350-1000, RR had to make redesigned version, the TXWB-97. Which could probably be fitted on an A359 too, but not without a redesign of parts of the aircraft as well.
Small increase? The Trent XWB went from 84,200 lbf on the -84 (A350-900) to 97,000 lbf on the -97 (A350-1000); that's a 15% increase, hardly a small bump.
xwb565 wrote:Airbus has increased the brochure range by 400km due to this mtow increase https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jl ... y-2022.pdf .
IIRC Jon Ostrower had reported last year that this mtow increase comes along with a weigh reduction and fuel burn improvement from RR.
xwb565 wrote:IIRC Jon Ostrower had reported last year that this mtow increase comes along with a weigh reduction and fuel burn improvement from RR.
WayexTDI wrote:smartplane wrote:WayexTDI wrote:Isn't it just a paper derate?
With significant operating cost savings.
Presumably the A330NEO will get another 1-2t soon.
I don't doubt there is a cost saving; but it's easy to artificially limit an aircraft at 217t MTOW when it has been certified at 280+t MTOW, it's just a paper exercise. Increasing the MTOW, on the other hand, must demonstrate the safety margins are still respected.
fjhc wrote:I wonder if this will also apply to the ULR?
fjhc wrote:I've no idea if Singapore Airlines struggle at all with the range on the ULR, but having the ability to add an extra 3 tonnes of MTOW might be useful at times perhaps?
ElroyJetson wrote:Remember a few years ago when some here said the A350 didn't have the legs to fly LAX-SYD for DL?
MIflyer12 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?
Are all of DL's A350s just paper uprates to 283T, or are there some older versions (including the leased frames) that have mechanical differences that prevent the bump to 283T?
ElroyJetson wrote:Remember a few years ago when some here said the A350 didn't have the legs to fly LAX-SYD for DL?
ElroyJetson wrote:Remember a few years ago when some here said the A350 didn't have the legs to fly LAX-SYD for DL?
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.
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:Some of their oldest frames lack the updated winglet and are rated significantly lower.
RJMAZ wrote:Boeing has never done this.
MIflyer12 wrote:Are all of DL's A350s just paper uprates to 283T, or are there some older versions (including the leased frames) that have mechanical differences that prevent the bump to 283T?
JohanTally 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?
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.
LAX772LR wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:Are all of DL's A350s just paper uprates to 283T, or are there some older versions (including the leased frames) that have mechanical differences that prevent the bump to 283T?
Ships N512DN and newer have the modifications allowing for 280T.
Not sure what interest or capability they have for 283T.
MIflyer12 wrote:A little help with JNB-ATL payloads, perhaps?
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..
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..