scbriml wrote:

swapcv wrote:

Not entirely, when it comes to most of the missions they are planning with the A350, a 787-9 or even a 787-9 HGW would have been a better solution. However with deliveries of the 787 suspended, AI's previous horrendous experience with exorbitant lease rates for their 787's and also a flurry of maintenance issues that grounded a 787 such that it needed a major rework of the wingbox structure meant that their appetite for the type has either cooled off or simply dead. Also getting the A350-900 may simply be an act of convenience as it will smooth out things for an eventual acquisition of the A350-1000 to replace their now ageing 777-300ER fleet.

You forgot to mention Airbus "giving away their planes" as another reason. I hope you can get over your clear disappointment.

I don't know that you had to go all 'snarky' on him. He clearly outlined all of the reasons not to buy a 787... and even indicated A35k would probably replace 773.

It's okay to be disappointed. I live on the North American Continent. Boeing widebody sales support work in the USA and in Mexico (I've worked for some of those suppliers in both countries). So, I'm very disappointed in the near total failure of Boeing to resolve the quality control and build issues with the 787 that is halting deliveries and costing future sales; a net loss for the North American continent (though I'm hearing rumors that Stan Deal and company may receive clearance in July to resume deliveries of 787s... only no one has mentioned which year...). By the same token, a person on mainland Europe might be delighted each time an A350 is sold, boosting their regional economy (more engines from Derby/Dahlewitz, wings from Wales, and frames from Toulouse.)

This will be an interesting deal.... This one was Boeing's to loose (and it looks like they have). Congradulations to Airbus... They clearly sized and built the A350-900 just right!

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

scbriml wrote:

swapcv wrote:

Not entirely, when it comes to most of the missions they are planning with the A350, a 787-9 or even a 787-9 HGW would have been a better solution. However with deliveries of the 787 suspended, AI's previous horrendous experience with exorbitant lease rates for their 787's and also a flurry of maintenance issues that grounded a 787 such that it needed a major rework of the wingbox structure meant that their appetite for the type has either cooled off or simply dead. Also getting the A350-900 may simply be an act of convenience as it will smooth out things for an eventual acquisition of the A350-1000 to replace their now ageing 777-300ER fleet.

You forgot to mention Airbus "giving away their planes" as another reason. I hope you can get over your clear disappointment.

I don't know that you had to go all 'snarky' on him. He clearly outlined all of the reasons not to buy a 787... and even indicated A35k would probably replace 773.

It's okay to be disappointed. I live on the North American Continent. Boeing widebody sales support work in the USA and in Mexico (I've worked for some of those suppliers in both countries). So, I'm very disappointed in the near total failure of Boeing to resolve the quality control and build issues with the 787 that is halting deliveries and costing future sales; a net loss for the North American continent (though I'm hearing rumors that Stan Deal and company may receive clearance in July to resume deliveries of 787s... only no one has mentioned which year...). By the same token, a person on mainland Europe might be delighted each time an A350 is sold, boosting their regional economy (more engines from Derby/Dahlewitz, wings from Wales, and frames from Toulouse.)

This will be an interesting deal.... This one was Boeing's to loose (and it looks like they have). Congradulations to Airbus... They clearly sized and built the A350-900 just right!

Wasn't being snarky, its just that I often wonder as to why do people bring in silly "I hope you get over that disappointment" and "You are being a fanboy" accusations in the middle of a discussion. Often I get the impression that its just them trying to put down others valid arguments because they have none of their own.

airboss787 wrote:

I just do not see Air India Express merging with Air Asia. They have nothing in common, operate very differently, diverse fleets plus AIX is profitable and pretty good financially and AirAsia is not. AirAsia would do better just merging with Air India and disappearing. Along with Vistara. Vistara has no brand value as such, so makes little sense to keep that alive as well. Whereas Air India has a very strong name and would make sense at least for now, to use outside the country. Reputation can be repaired, but brand identity takes years and years to build and maintain.

What do you mean when you say they "have nothing in common"? Fleet wise they are pretty close in numbers. I don't think the number of aircraft is large enough to be cost prohibitive to phase out one a/c type and cross-train crew + maintenance - They can phase out the Bs. It would actually be a pretty augmented network especially if you consider that AIX international routes would be grandfathered to this entity. As long as they don't experiment with the Jet-Jet Lite-Jet Konnect model, it could work. I agree with you completely on the brand identity.

My two cents:
AI + UK = 1 for international premium and medium + long haul
AIX + Air Asia = 1 for domestic and non-premium / short haul international (e.g., AIX's ME n/w).

swapcv wrote:

Wasn't being snarky, its just that I often wonder as to why do people bring in silly "I hope you get over that disappointment" and "You are being a fanboy" accusations in the middle of a discussion. Often I get the impression that its just them trying to put down others valid arguments because they have none of their own.

I really like 99% of the contributions by the user scbriml.... but I was quoting him as being the snarky one in this instance, not you. His bias was a bit on display and his kneejerk response to you was perhaps uncalled for..

I don't think anyone acuses Airbus of under pricing A350s... if anything it is acknowledged that they are priced quite high (particularly the A35K). {sarcasm=on} 'Besides, it's Boeing that is giving away an airplane everytime it sells a MAX' {sarcasm=off}

But since you brought this up, I'm curious to know why you stated:

swapcv wrote:

..when it comes to most of the missions they are planning with the A350, a 787-9 or even a 787-9 HGW would have been a better solution.

Load factors? Do you think the A359 advantage of being able to trade range for capacity cannot be realized? Nominally it carries 35-40 more pax for a given mission over the 789. Again if you cannot fill it, you are flying around an empty plane... but this is India... with a population of 1.3billion... Can these routes be reached with a 787-10 with the same pax capacity as the A359?

portola2727 wrote:

As someone whose home base is LAX, a lot of the India-LAX traffic is tech/VFR traffic. We don't get as much tech traffic as SFO but we do have tech companies in LA that also hire Indian Americans. Not to mention, Indian students do come over to LA to study in universities like UCLA,USC,UCI... . On my DEL-SFO flight, a lot of the students onboard were students coming down to study in SoCal based universities. VFR traffic is also huge in LA with most people flying the likes of the ME3/Singapore Airlines/BA/LH. Plus, DEL-LAX has been on AI's cards for a while now considering that AI has repeatedly said that LAX was their largest city in North America without a connection to Delhi.

Thanks! I just looked up some population #s and had not realized that LA-metro was 6th largest (I counted SFO+SJC as one area) in terms of immigrant Indian population. But would you agree that lower yield (VFR+student+lieasure) traffic is more than business (based on your post above)?

yashk wrote:

Somerandom787 wrote:

killswitch13 wrote:

BOM surely due to its space constraints won't be a primary hub. Also AI along with UK are planning to shift to a new address in Gurugram

Won't Navi Mumbai airport ease congestion at BOM?

Also, CCU having no service to Europe is a disgrace. I think AI should launch a CCU-LHR or CCU-FRA Route.

Maybe if CCU had more business traffic or premium VFR, airlines would be queuing up to fly there! CCU having no service to Europe is a disgrace to CCU itself and not on any airline

CCU definitely has the demand for a Europe service. Also, some of the airports being served (like Kochi and Goa) have less business traffic than CCU

In defence of scbriml, this is a group dominated by members from the USA, many of whom seem to have a deep belief that Boeing have a god-given right to be the first choice of every airline in the world and that Airbus can only compete by offering unfeasibly low prices or bribes. Those amongst us with more than two cells to rub together appreciate that this is a gross misrepresentation and that Airbus actually build some planes that are actually as good as or better than what is available from Boeing in the competing category and sometimes feel the need to point out this possibility to those who seem too have trouble recognising it.

Somerandom787 wrote:

yashk wrote:

Somerandom787 wrote:

Won't Navi Mumbai airport ease congestion at BOM?

Also, CCU having no service to Europe is a disgrace. I think AI should launch a CCU-LHR or CCU-FRA Route.

Maybe if CCU had more business traffic or premium VFR, airlines would be queuing up to fly there! CCU having no service to Europe is a disgrace to CCU itself and not on any airline

CCU definitely has the demand for a Europe service. Also, some of the airports being served (like Kochi and Goa) have less business traffic than CCU

Yes, CCU is a perplexing case. If you do a search between CCU and the big European cities, the prices are consistently premium by quite some margin compared to DEL or BOM - even more so in the Business. So clearly the yield is there as well as demand. I suspect it is the history of many airlines closing base in CCU in the past along with no spicific big name industry nearby. Before COVID, there was rumors of KLM returning to CCU, not sure if it is still in the plan. I could also see the revived ITA trying it as there's zero European competition and the VFR traffic to Italy/Swiss is significant as well as some non-trivial movie industry traffic.

On topic, I can see AI doing some tag along service as they used to from BLR for DEL-SFO route.

Somerandom787 wrote:

yashk wrote:

Somerandom787 wrote:

Won't Navi Mumbai airport ease congestion at BOM?

Also, CCU having no service to Europe is a disgrace. I think AI should launch a CCU-LHR or CCU-FRA Route.

Maybe if CCU had more business traffic or premium VFR, airlines would be queuing up to fly there! CCU having no service to Europe is a disgrace to CCU itself and not on any airline

CCU definitely has the demand for a Europe service. Also, some of the airports being served (like Kochi and Goa) have less business traffic than CCU

If there was demand, airlines would fly there. Its as simple as that! AI used to fly CCU-LHR but once Tata took over, they stopped this route along with BLR-SFO and HYD-ORD. I am sure Tata took a more data driven decision on stopping routes that are not profitable. Do you think there is some conspiracy where all airlines have collectively agreed to ignore CCU?

sabby wrote:

Before COVID, there was rumors of KLM returning to CCU, not sure if it is still in the plan.

KLM returning to CCU? When did KLM serve CCU?

yashk wrote:

If there was demand, airlines would fly there. Its as simple as that! AI used to fly CCU-LHR but once Tata took over, they stopped this route along with BLR-SFO and HYD-ORD. I am sure Tata took a more data driven decision on stopping routes that are not profitable. Do you think there is some conspiracy where all airlines have collectively agreed to ignore CCU?

AI stopping CCU-LHR has nothing to do with Tata. It happened over ~10-15 years ago. I believe it was a weird DEL-DAC-CCU-LHR on the ex-UA 772 A-models.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

yashk wrote:

If there was demand, airlines would fly there. Its as simple as that! AI used to fly CCU-LHR but once Tata took over, they stopped this route along with BLR-SFO and HYD-ORD. I am sure Tata took a more data driven decision on stopping routes that are not profitable. Do you think there is some conspiracy where all airlines have collectively agreed to ignore CCU?

AI stopping CCU-LHR has nothing to do with Tata. It happened over ~10-15 years ago. I believe it was a weird DEL-DAC-CCU-LHR on the ex-UA 772 A-models.

There was a brief 1x weekly B788 service under the Air Bubble last year.

But yashk's point stands that CCU simply doesn't offer what EU carriers want. There's no other ground to say CCU "deserves" EU service.

AI in its previous life was strong-armed to serve routes like ATQ-BHX and AMD-LHR-EWR but that influence won't arise any more.

Air India is looking to order as many as 300 aircraft.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... VX63ATYovI

yashk wrote:

IMO if AI is planning on establishing long haul hubs at BOM and BLR, A359 or B789 is the right size. If AI were to funnel all pax through DEL then a larger aircraft like 779 would make sense.

With Vistara folding into AI in the near future (~1-2 years), Vistara's 789, AI's 788, I do not see Tata completely abandoning the Dreamliner. 788 is the perfect size to start building hubs at BLR and BOM. Additionally if AI wants to compete on the Kangaroo route, they would need double daily flights to SYD/MEL so that connection remains short on both ends. Having a small plane like the 788 would come in handy when AI has to increase frequency.

I think once all the new planes are in, this is what AI's NA route map would look like. Barring a few cities like MCO, MIA, PHL and ATL, AI would have presence at all airports that the ME3 fly to.
DEL-JFK 2x daily
DEL-EWR 1x
DEL-SFO 1x
DEL-ORD 2x
DEL-IAD 1x
DEL-YYZ 2x
DEL-YVR 1x
DEL-BOS 1x
DEL-SEA 1x
DEL-LAX 1x
DEL-IAH/DFW 1x

BOM-EWR 1x
BOM-SFO 1x
BOM-ORD 1x

BLR-SFO 1x
BLR-EWR 1x

Currently one of the reasons for flying via the middle east is convenient 1-stop flight from your home town to your destination (such as HYD-LAX or COK-DFW or CCU-BOS). Once AI starts flying to all these cities, the value proposition of the ME3 would fall significantly.

I tend to think that instead of BOM-SFO, AI would rather have BOM-LAX due to film traffic. BLR-SFO makes sense due to the tech traffic between the two cities but back when AI flew to LAX, they flew BOM-FRA-LAX. Part of me assumes that the PDEW between BOM and LAX would be slightly higher over BOM-SFO.

portola2727 wrote:

I tend to think that instead of BOM-SFO, AI would rather have BOM-LAX due to film traffic. BLR-SFO makes sense due to the tech traffic between the two cities but back when AI flew to LAX, they flew BOM-FRA-LAX. Part of me assumes that the PDEW between BOM and LAX would be slightly higher over BOM-SFO.

I could not find any PDEW data but I did find search data.

From 2016:

Mumbai San Francisco 98,000 searches
Delhi Los Angeles 98,000
Mumbai Los Angeles 85,000

https://www.skyscanner.co.in/company-ne ... top-routes

So it would be an extention of this data to say that the PDEW of DEL-LAX and BOM-SFO must be similar, and that the PDEW of BOM-SFO must be significantly higher than BOM-LAX. BOM-LAX is also longer than BLR-SFO and lower yielding due to the absence of tech traffic on the route.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

swapcv wrote:

Wasn't being snarky, its just that I often wonder as to why do people bring in silly "I hope you get over that disappointment" and "You are being a fanboy" accusations in the middle of a discussion. Often I get the impression that its just them trying to put down others valid arguments because they have none of their own.

I really like 99% of the contributions by the user scbriml.... but I was quoting him as being the snarky one in this instance, not you. His bias was a bit on display and his kneejerk response to you was perhaps uncalled for..

I don't think anyone acuses Airbus of under pricing A350s... if anything it is acknowledged that they are priced quite high (particularly the A35K). {sarcasm=on} 'Besides, it's Boeing that is giving away an airplane everytime it sells a MAX' {sarcasm=off}

But since you brought this up, I'm curious to know why you stated:

swapcv wrote:

..when it comes to most of the missions they are planning with the A350, a 787-9 or even a 787-9 HGW would have been a better solution.

Load factors? Do you think the A359 advantage of being able to trade range for capacity cannot be realized? Nominally it carries 35-40 more pax for a given mission over the 789. Again if you cannot fill it, you are flying around an empty plane... but this is India... with a population of 1.3billion... Can these routes be reached with a 787-10 with the same pax capacity as the A359?

The problem is penetration of air travel in my country even with its 1.3 Billion population is shamefully low. Even after 75 years, we're way behind China (a country with demographics and population similar to India) and miles off from US (Market leader in Air Travel despite a population 3-4 times smaller). Hence, had Boeing not had those issues it does with the 787-9, its very much possible that AI would have gone for it instead of the A350 (Does'nt not mean I'm biased against the A350, its actually a phenomenal aircraft), its just that AI has neither the Domestic traffic at the moment to feed such capacity (50 A350's is a lot more seat capacity vs say 50 787-9's and it is not Indigo with 50% of the domestic market share).

swapcv wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

swapcv wrote:

Wasn't being snarky, its just that I often wonder as to why do people bring in silly "I hope you get over that disappointment" and "You are being a fanboy" accusations in the middle of a discussion. Often I get the impression that its just them trying to put down others valid arguments because they have none of their own.

I really like 99% of the contributions by the user scbriml.... but I was quoting him as being the snarky one in this instance, not you. His bias was a bit on display and his kneejerk response to you was perhaps uncalled for..

I don't think anyone acuses Airbus of under pricing A350s... if anything it is acknowledged that they are priced quite high (particularly the A35K). {sarcasm=on} 'Besides, it's Boeing that is giving away an airplane everytime it sells a MAX' {sarcasm=off}

But since you brought this up, I'm curious to know why you stated:

swapcv wrote:

..when it comes to most of the missions they are planning with the A350, a 787-9 or even a 787-9 HGW would have been a better solution.

Load factors? Do you think the A359 advantage of being able to trade range for capacity cannot be realized? Nominally it carries 35-40 more pax for a given mission over the 789. Again if you cannot fill it, you are flying around an empty plane... but this is India... with a population of 1.3billion... Can these routes be reached with a 787-10 with the same pax capacity as the A359?

The problem is penetration of air travel in my country even with its 1.3 Billion population is shamefully low. Even after 75 years, we're way behind China (a country with demographics and population similar to India) and miles off from US (Market leader in Air Travel despite a population 3-4 times smaller). Hence, had Boeing not had those issues it does with the 787-9, its very much possible that AI would have gone for it instead of the A350 (Does'nt not mean I'm biased against the A350, its actually a phenomenal aircraft), its just that AI has neither the Domestic traffic at the moment to feed such capacity (50 A350's is a lot more seat capacity vs say 50 787-9's and it is not Indigo with 50% of the domestic market share).

The A350 is intended to be a 777 replacement, for which the 787 might be a bit small.

MrHMSH wrote:

swapcv wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I really like 99% of the contributions by the user scbriml.... but I was quoting him as being the snarky one in this instance, not you. His bias was a bit on display and his kneejerk response to you was perhaps uncalled for..

I don't think anyone acuses Airbus of under pricing A350s... if anything it is acknowledged that they are priced quite high (particularly the A35K). {sarcasm=on} 'Besides, it's Boeing that is giving away an airplane everytime it sells a MAX' {sarcasm=off}

But since you brought this up, I'm curious to know why you stated:


Load factors? Do you think the A359 advantage of being able to trade range for capacity cannot be realized? Nominally it carries 35-40 more pax for a given mission over the 789. Again if you cannot fill it, you are flying around an empty plane... but this is India... with a population of 1.3billion... Can these routes be reached with a 787-10 with the same pax capacity as the A359?

The problem is penetration of air travel in my country even with its 1.3 Billion population is shamefully low. Even after 75 years, we're way behind China (a country with demographics and population similar to India) and miles off from US (Market leader in Air Travel despite a population 3-4 times smaller). Hence, had Boeing not had those issues it does with the 787-9, its very much possible that AI would have gone for it instead of the A350 (Does'nt not mean I'm biased against the A350, its actually a phenomenal aircraft), its just that AI has neither the Domestic traffic at the moment to feed such capacity (50 A350's is a lot more seat capacity vs say 50 787-9's and it is not Indigo with 50% of the domestic market share).

The A350 is intended to be a 777 replacement, for which the 787 might be a bit small.

That assumption holds well for an operator for whom the 777 has worked out well so far, which has not happened in case of Air India.

AI plans to buy 300 narrowbodies. Could be the largest deal in commerical aviation history worth 40.5 bn USD
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 183_1.html

I can see an order for 20 A350 pax, but 50 does seem a lot, even if some of those are options / purchase rights.

Unless some are to be A350Fs. TATA Group is a big conglomerate and may fancy an in-house freight airline.

swapcv wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

swapcv wrote:

The problem is penetration of air travel in my country even with its 1.3 Billion population is shamefully low. Even after 75 years, we're way behind China (a country with demographics and population similar to India) and miles off from US (Market leader in Air Travel despite a population 3-4 times smaller). Hence, had Boeing not had those issues it does with the 787-9, its very much possible that AI would have gone for it instead of the A350 (Does'nt not mean I'm biased against the A350, its actually a phenomenal aircraft), its just that AI has neither the Domestic traffic at the moment to feed such capacity (50 A350's is a lot more seat capacity vs say 50 787-9's and it is not Indigo with 50% of the domestic market share).

The A350 is intended to be a 777 replacement, for which the 787 might be a bit small.

That assumption holds well for an operator for whom the 777 has worked out well so far, which has not happened in case of Air India.

The A350 is a much more efficient bird, if Tata does indeed want to fully tap into what is still a large aviation market I feel they need something larger than the 789. The A350 is a good choice for the longest flights, while still being competitive on the shorter routes.

My understanding is that availability favours the A350 over the 787, and even more so over the 777X, so I can see the A350 being a good fit. Though when the time comes the 789 is not a big headache to integrate for a 788 operator.

sfojvjets wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

I tend to think that instead of BOM-SFO, AI would rather have BOM-LAX due to film traffic. BLR-SFO makes sense due to the tech traffic between the two cities but back when AI flew to LAX, they flew BOM-FRA-LAX. Part of me assumes that the PDEW between BOM and LAX would be slightly higher over BOM-SFO.

I could not find any PDEW data but I did find search data.

From 2016:

Mumbai San Francisco 98,000 searches
Delhi Los Angeles 98,000
Mumbai Los Angeles 85,000

https://www.skyscanner.co.in/company-ne ... top-routes

So it would be an extention of this data to say that the PDEW of DEL-LAX and BOM-SFO must be similar, and that the PDEW of BOM-SFO must be significantly higher than BOM-LAX. BOM-LAX is also longer than BLR-SFO and lower yielding due to the absence of tech traffic on the route.

Are these unique searches? If you assume that they are, average search was for 2 tickets and ended in a booking, you are looking at a back of the envelope PDEW around 500 combined for LAX-DEL+BOM. Now consider the 1-stop options: AF, AY, BA, CX, EK, KL, LH, QR, LX, TK, UA (SFO), VS, SQ.
One could argue that SFO, JFK, ORD, EWR all have similar options. My guess is these are most likely not unique searches otherwise with those #s, someone would have had a go at the flight already. Unless it's a 100% function of aircraft / range limitation.

OTOH I came across these Nov 2019 articles which make me wonder if the airport may be considering providing some incentives to have the flight. IND did that for DL's IND-CDG pre-pandemic and there's been discussion about new incentives for TATL service at IND now that travel is opening up.

https://skift.com/2019/11/25/los-angele ... campaigns/

https://www.outlookindia.com/outlooktra ... e-in-india

DTWLAX wrote:

sabby wrote:

Before COVID, there was rumors of KLM returning to CCU, not sure if it is still in the plan.

KLM returning to CCU? When did KLM serve CCU?

Our own forum to rescue - viewtopic.php?t=160697

It was back in 2002, 20 years ago. If I am not mistaken, they were the first European Airlines to fly to India. One of the last pictures of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose (after whom the airport is named) in the CCU airport was on a KLM aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Ch ... odrome.jpg).

MrHMSH wrote:

swapcv wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

The A350 is intended to be a 777 replacement, for which the 787 might be a bit small.

That assumption holds well for an operator for whom the 777 has worked out well so far, which has not happened in case of Air India.

The A350 is a much more efficient bird, if Tata does indeed want to fully tap into what is still a large aviation market I feel they need something larger than the 789. The A350 is a good choice for the longest flights, while still being competitive on the shorter routes.

My understanding is that availability favours the A350 over the 787, and even more so over the 777X, so I can see the A350 being a good fit. Though when the time comes the 789 is not a big headache to integrate for a 788 operator.

A359's fuel burn cannot be better than the B789 for one its a much larger bird that is more closer in size to a 777-200ER. From what I have seen, its about 200-400kg/hr more than the B789 (closest Boeing equivalent to any A350-900 right now is the 787-10). However despite this disparity, both sport similar fuel burn per seat as the A359's larger size and seating capacity in general offsets that increase in block fuel burn. That is if you can fill up your plane. A cautionary tale here is LATAM Brasil, which found itself in an unenviable postion of having to return all of its A350's and instead bring in 787-9's seconded from LATAM Chile thanks to precisely this.

swapcv wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

swapcv wrote:

That assumption holds well for an operator for whom the 777 has worked out well so far, which has not happened in case of Air India.

The A350 is a much more efficient bird, if Tata does indeed want to fully tap into what is still a large aviation market I feel they need something larger than the 789. The A350 is a good choice for the longest flights, while still being competitive on the shorter routes.

My understanding is that availability favours the A350 over the 787, and even more so over the 777X, so I can see the A350 being a good fit. Though when the time comes the 789 is not a big headache to integrate for a 788 operator.

A359's fuel burn cannot be better than the B789 for one its a much larger bird that is more closer in size to a 777-200ER. From what I have seen, its about 200-400kg/hr more than the B789 (closest Boeing equivalent to any A350-900 right now is the 787-10). However despite this disparity, both sport similar fuel burn per seat as the A359's larger size and seating capacity in general offsets that increase in block fuel burn. That is if you can fill up your plane. A cautionary tale here is LATAM Brasil, which found itself in an unenviable postion of having to return all of its A350's and instead bring in 787-9's seconded from LATAM Chile thanks to precisely this.

And yet the airline wants to buy this type.

swapcv wrote:

A359's fuel burn cannot be better than the B789 for one its a much larger bird that is more closer in size to a 777-200ER. From what I have seen, its about 200-400kg/hr more than the B789 (closest Boeing equivalent to any A350-900 right now is the 787-10). However despite this disparity, both sport similar fuel burn per seat as the A359's larger size and seating capacity in general offsets that increase in block fuel burn. That is if you can fill up your plane. A cautionary tale here is LATAM Brasil, which found itself in an unenviable postion of having to return all of its A350's and instead bring in 787-9's seconded from LATAM Chile thanks to precisely this.

Super explanation of the comparison.

killswitch13 wrote:

AI plans to buy 300 narrowbodies. Could be the largest deal in commerical aviation history worth 40.5 bn USD
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 183_1.html

From CNBC News, 2017:

POINTS
Airbus has confirmed a mammoth order of 430 jets worth a total $49.5 billion.
Veteran airline investor Bill Franke of Indigo Partners inked the deal, comprising of 274 A320neos and 156 A321neos.

Perhaps the validity of the statement will depend on how many A350 are ordered, and whether the two deals are merged together?

DartHerald wrote:

killswitch13 wrote:

AI plans to buy 300 narrowbodies. Could be the largest deal in commerical aviation history worth 40.5 bn USD
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 183_1.html

From CNBC News, 2017:

POINTS
Airbus has confirmed a mammoth order of 430 jets worth a total $49.5 billion.
Veteran airline investor Bill Franke of Indigo Partners inked the deal, comprising of 274 A320neos and 156 A321neos.

Perhaps the validity of the statement will depend on how many A350 are ordered, and whether the two deals are merged together?

jbs2886 wrote:

killswitch13 wrote:

AI plans to buy 300 narrowbodies. Could be the largest deal in commerical aviation history worth 40.5 bn USD
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 183_1.html

Pretty sure there have been larger deals.

MrHMSH wrote:

The A350 is intended to be a 777 replacement, for which the 787 might be a bit small.

Do you have information that a similar size is needed? Perhaps the 777s are too large or AI will spread more flights among additional hubs. There are many reasons to downgauge.

The original linked article says one of the largest deals in aviation history, not the largest deal. Small, but important, difference.

DartHerald wrote:

killswitch13 wrote:

AI plans to buy 300 narrowbodies. Could be the largest deal in commerical aviation history worth 40.5 bn USD
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 183_1.html

From CNBC News, 2017:

POINTS
Airbus has confirmed a mammoth order of 430 jets worth a total $49.5 billion.
Veteran airline investor Bill Franke of Indigo Partners inked the deal, comprising of 274 A320neos and 156 A321neos.

Perhaps the validity of the statement will depend on how many A350 are ordered, and whether the two deals are merged together?

So, Indigo Partners placed the order NOT Air India?

edealinfo wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

killswitch13 wrote:

AI plans to buy 300 narrowbodies. Could be the largest deal in commerical aviation history worth 40.5 bn USD
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 183_1.html

From CNBC News, 2017:

POINTS
Airbus has confirmed a mammoth order of 430 jets worth a total $49.5 billion.
Veteran airline investor Bill Franke of Indigo Partners inked the deal, comprising of 274 A320neos and 156 A321neos.

Perhaps the validity of the statement will depend on how many A350 are ordered, and whether the two deals are merged together?

So, Indigo Partners placed the order NOT Air India?

DartHerald is referencing an older order over a discussion about “the largest deal in aviation history”. It has nothing to do with Air India or this RFP.

Polot wrote:

DartHerald is referencing an older order over a discussion about “the largest deal in aviation history”. It has nothing to do with Air India or this RFP.

Got it, and thanks for the clarification.

LH320MUC wrote:

And yet the airline wants to buy this type.

Because A350-900 is available right now thanks to Aeroflot, Qatar and HNA NTU Frames and do not need costly rework like the 787-9. Also, sister carrier Vistara operates 787-9's and has indicated it might get more of that type although those plans are on hold thanks to the rework that needs to be done on forthcoming deliveries that Vistara itself has deferred for some time now. These the only valid reasons. And since a Vistara-AI Merger is inevitable in the future, AI probably thinks that they can simply take over the Vistara frames as their own and press them into service in the larger combined international network as they see fit. These are the few factors which I think is guiding their decision to instead have a 1 to 1 replacement of their 777's. However the concerns regarding overcapacity, fuel prices, operating costs due to operating two different fleet types and their ability to stimulate growth remains to be seen.

swapcv wrote:

777luver wrote:

yashk wrote:

I am also looking forward to see if out of the 100 A321s, if Tata chooses a few XLRs. With a premium config of about 16-20 lie flats, the plane could do most of Europe from DEL (other than Spain, Portugal, Ireland). I could see AI fly to destinations such as BER, MUC, PRG, ARN, CPH, VIE, FCO, MXP, ZRH, AMS, ATH, IST and many more. Pre pandemic AI had 3 or 4 weekly flights to VIE, FCO, MXP, ARN , CPH. and MAD (apart from LHR, FRA, CDG) .

With a feeder network from all Indian cities, SE Asia and Australia, AI could support these flights on a narrow body.

With a full load of heavy bags? I highly doubt that they'll be able to make DEL work to western Europe, especially on a hot day woth DEL being hot and high. Empty? Sure not a problem likely

VIDP Airfield elevation is only 777ft MSL, so hot and high argument falls flat. As for high summer temps, they could do a seasonal rotation for their A321LR's or XLR's whichever they are planning to acquire, to fly in the months when temperature is not a factor or time the flight such that it departs and arrives in the night when the temps are cool enough. Unlike Dubai or Denver, Delhi does'nt experience year round temps greater than 35-40 deg Celsius.

Denver doesnt experience temps greater than 40 degree celsius even in peak summer ( Jun-Aug). Rest of the year Denver barely touches 25 deg celsius

Best, Subramanian

swapcv wrote:

LH320MUC wrote:

And yet the airline wants to buy this type.

Because A350-900 is available right now thanks to Aeroflot, Qatar and HNA NTU Frames and do not need costly rework like the 787-9. Also, sister carrier Vistara operates 787-9's and has indicated it might get more of that type although those plans are on hold thanks to the rework that needs to be done on forthcoming deliveries that Vistara itself has deferred for some time now. These the only valid reasons. And since a Vistara-AI Merger is inevitable in the future, AI probably thinks that they can simply take over the Vistara frames as their own and press them into service in the larger combined international network as they see fit. These are the few factors which I think is guiding their decision to instead have a 1 to 1 replacement of their 777's. However the concerns regarding overcapacity, fuel prices, operating costs due to operating two different fleet types and their ability to stimulate growth remains to be seen.

The only valid reasons, there's no chance that the A350 offers a good product with good economics and capability.

swapcv wrote:

A359's fuel burn cannot be better than the B789 for one its a much larger bird that is more closer in size to a 777-200ER. From what I have seen, its about 200-400kg/hr more than the B789 (closest Boeing equivalent to any A350-900 right now is the 787-10). However despite this disparity, both sport similar fuel burn per seat as the A359's larger size and seating capacity in general offsets that increase in block fuel burn. That is if you can fill up your plane. A cautionary tale here is LATAM Brasil, which found itself in an unenviable postion of having to return all of its A350's and instead bring in 787-9's seconded from LATAM Chile thanks to precisely this.

On the Tech Ops thread a few years ago some pretty comprehensive analysis showed the A350's total fuel burn edges ahead on the longest flights, the slightly newer engines and larger wing offset the weight disadvantage. Though I was comparing the A350 to the 77W as you stated the 77W doesn't work for AI.

If you won't be making money with an A350, I don't think operator a 787 is such a good idea either. The A350 is not enormous.

sfojvjets wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

I tend to think that instead of BOM-SFO, AI would rather have BOM-LAX due to film traffic. BLR-SFO makes sense due to the tech traffic between the two cities but back when AI flew to LAX, they flew BOM-FRA-LAX. Part of me assumes that the PDEW between BOM and LAX would be slightly higher over BOM-SFO.

I could not find any PDEW data but I did find search data.

From 2016:

Mumbai San Francisco 98,000 searches
Delhi Los Angeles 98,000
Mumbai Los Angeles 85,000

https://www.skyscanner.co.in/company-ne ... top-routes

So it would be an extention of this data to say that the PDEW of DEL-LAX and BOM-SFO must be similar, and that the PDEW of BOM-SFO must be significantly higher than BOM-LAX. BOM-LAX is also longer than BLR-SFO and lower yielding due to the absence of tech traffic on the route.

There is also the point that the film traffic is taking QR to LAX, not AI

subramak1 wrote:

swapcv wrote:

777luver wrote:

With a full load of heavy bags? I highly doubt that they'll be able to make DEL work to western Europe, especially on a hot day woth DEL being hot and high. Empty? Sure not a problem likely

VIDP Airfield elevation is only 777ft MSL, so hot and high argument falls flat. As for high summer temps, they could do a seasonal rotation for their A321LR's or XLR's whichever they are planning to acquire, to fly in the months when temperature is not a factor or time the flight such that it departs and arrives in the night when the temps are cool enough. Unlike Dubai or Denver, Delhi does'nt experience year round temps greater than 35-40 deg Celsius.

Denver doesnt experience temps greater than 40 degree celsius even in peak summer ( Jun-Aug). Rest of the year Denver barely touches 25 deg celsius

Best, Subramanian

Denver is at 5434ft MSL. So if temps rise to 40 deg Celsius in Summer in a place like Denver, your Density Altitude is going to be so high that it is going to affect your aircraft's takeoff and second segment climb performance adversely. Something to ponder over next time someone says Delhi's summers affect performance parameters the same way as Denver or any other legitimately hot and high airport like Denver, Addis Abeba, Johannesburg etc. You can run the numbers yourself to check that math tbh.

MrHMSH wrote:

swapcv wrote:

LH320MUC wrote:

And yet the airline wants to buy this type.

Because A350-900 is available right now thanks to Aeroflot, Qatar and HNA NTU Frames and do not need costly rework like the 787-9. Also, sister carrier Vistara operates 787-9's and has indicated it might get more of that type although those plans are on hold thanks to the rework that needs to be done on forthcoming deliveries that Vistara itself has deferred for some time now. These the only valid reasons. And since a Vistara-AI Merger is inevitable in the future, AI probably thinks that they can simply take over the Vistara frames as their own and press them into service in the larger combined international network as they see fit. These are the few factors which I think is guiding their decision to instead have a 1 to 1 replacement of their 777's. However the concerns regarding overcapacity, fuel prices, operating costs due to operating two different fleet types and their ability to stimulate growth remains to be seen.

The only valid reasons, there's no chance that the A350 offers a good product with good economics and capability.

swapcv wrote:

A359's fuel burn cannot be better than the B789 for one its a much larger bird that is more closer in size to a 777-200ER. From what I have seen, its about 200-400kg/hr more than the B789 (closest Boeing equivalent to any A350-900 right now is the 787-10). However despite this disparity, both sport similar fuel burn per seat as the A359's larger size and seating capacity in general offsets that increase in block fuel burn. That is if you can fill up your plane. A cautionary tale here is LATAM Brasil, which found itself in an unenviable postion of having to return all of its A350's and instead bring in 787-9's seconded from LATAM Chile thanks to precisely this.

On the Tech Ops thread a few years ago some pretty comprehensive analysis showed the A350's total fuel burn edges ahead on the longest flights, the slightly newer engines and larger wing offset the weight disadvantage. Though I was comparing the A350 to the 77W as you stated the 77W doesn't work for AI.

If you won't be making money with an A350, I don't think operator a 787 is such a good idea either. The A350 is not enormous.

The fallacy in this argument is that you presume the A350 is of the same size as a B789 which it is not, and the Trent XWB-84 is an engine that is one generation ahead of the GEnx-1B/Trent 1000 which it also is not. Fuel burn is most accurately measured by the TSFC of the said engine in all phases of flight, which varies depending on the power setting, altitude at which the aircraft is flying and its weight at that instant of time. Now as for the crux of the issue, Trent XWB-84 cannot magically give much better TSFC especially when the engine itself was developed concurrently with the Trent 1000. If anything the A350 is a much larger aircraft and to push an aircraft that is wider and heavier than the 787-9 its gonna have to burn much more fuel to move that much aircraft through the air at typical cruise speeds of Mach 0.83-0.85.

Seems like one 77W VT-ALS is heading to SIN for refurb. Why would AI spend money on the 777s if the A350s are coming in 2023?
https://twitter.com/aneeshp/status/1539 ... waKJ-dsDJg

JetAirways wrote:

Seems like one 77W VT-ALS is heading to SIN for refurb. Why would AI spend money on the 777s if the A350s are coming in 2023?
https://twitter.com/aneeshp/status/1539 ... waKJ-dsDJg

Could be interim cabin refits, A350's won't be replacing the 777 all at once, the drawdown will last a couple of years and the 777 fleet is in dire need of a cabin refresh anyways so why not do it now.

JetAirways wrote:

Seems like one 77W VT-ALS is heading to SIN for refurb. Why would AI spend money on the 777s if the A350s are coming in 2023?
https://twitter.com/aneeshp/status/1539 ... waKJ-dsDJg

Because of DGCA's recent whip
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 457975.ece

The A350's are not coming in anytime soon. Also AI is no longer Govt owned that it can fly in a broken conditdion without DGCA batting an eyelid

swapcv wrote:

The fallacy in this argument is that you presume the A350 is of the same size as a B789 which it is not, and the Trent XWB-84 is an engine that is one generation ahead of the GEnx-1B/Trent 1000 which it also is not. Fuel burn is most accurately measured by the TSFC of the said engine in all phases of flight, which varies depending on the power setting, altitude at which the aircraft is flying and its weight at that instant of time. Now as for the crux of the issue, Trent XWB-84 cannot magically give much better TSFC especially when the engine itself was developed concurrently with the Trent 1000. If anything the A350 is a much larger aircraft and to push an aircraft that is wider and heavier than the 787-9 its gonna have to burn much more fuel to move that much aircraft through the air at typical cruise speeds of Mach 0.83-0.85.

The A359 is slightly larger. Not much larger.

The TWXB is ever so slightly newer than the Trent 1000, even if only by a couple of years.

The A359's wing is relatively larger and so it can cruise at higher altitudes.

Here's the reading from which I opine that the A359 has a slight edge on the longer flights.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopi ... +fuel+burn

MrHMSH wrote:

swapcv wrote:

The fallacy in this argument is that you presume the A350 is of the same size as a B789 which it is not, and the Trent XWB-84 is an engine that is one generation ahead of the GEnx-1B/Trent 1000 which it also is not. Fuel burn is most accurately measured by the TSFC of the said engine in all phases of flight, which varies depending on the power setting, altitude at which the aircraft is flying and its weight at that instant of time. Now as for the crux of the issue, Trent XWB-84 cannot magically give much better TSFC especially when the engine itself was developed concurrently with the Trent 1000. If anything the A350 is a much larger aircraft and to push an aircraft that is wider and heavier than the 787-9 its gonna have to burn much more fuel to move that much aircraft through the air at typical cruise speeds of Mach 0.83-0.85.

The A359 is slightly larger. Not much larger.

The TWXB is ever so slightly newer than the Trent 1000, even if only by a couple of years.

The A359's wing is relatively larger and so it can cruise at higher altitudes.

Here's the reading from which I opine that the A359 has a slight edge on the longer flights.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387&hilit=A350+900+vs+787+9+fuel+burn

I am keenly aware of that, but that thread did'nt change my opinion on why comparing the two is an apples to oranges comparison. Regarding the A350 cruising higher than a 787-9 in cruise, I am yet to even see such a discrepancy because from all the performance data that is available or even regular monitoring of long haul flights on both types suggests neither really cruises higher than the other at typical mission weights and in any case RVSM restrictions mean that even a 500-1000ft difference in OPT/MAX ceiling will also be negated. Another reason why I disagree with that thread because the A350-900 in my opinion was never meant to compete with the 787-9 and that they were designed to serve two different markets to begin with. Thus it also does not change my opinion on why the 787-9 was a better fit for AI's needs considering how its competitors United and American can fly the exact same type without issues into India on the very same routes that AI plans to fly its A350's on. Lastly, fuel burn wise, that slim sliver of advantage that A350 holds over the 787-9 is something that remains of a very borderline case to me, something that is rarely encountered. To conclude, the selection of the A350 by AI seems more to do with the fact that it solves two problems at once for AI, one is their ageing 777 fleet and second is availability of newer widebodies, not because one type had a fuel burn advantage over the other.

swapcv wrote:

I am keenly aware of that, but that thread did'nt change my opinion on why comparing the two is an apples to oranges comparison. Regarding the A350 cruising higher than a 787-9 in cruise, I am yet to even see such a discrepancy because from all the performance data that is available or even regular monitoring of long haul flights on both types suggests neither really cruises higher than the other at typical mission weights and in any case RVSM restrictions mean that even a 500-1000ft difference in OPT/MAX ceiling will also be negated. Another reason why I disagree with that thread because the A350-900 in my opinion was never meant to compete with the 787-9 and that they were designed to serve two different markets to begin with. Thus it also does not change my opinion on why the 787-9 was a better fit for AI's needs considering how its competitors United and American can fly the exact same type without issues into India on the very same routes that AI plans to fly its A350's on. Lastly, fuel burn wise, that slim sliver of advantage that A350 holds over the 787-9 is something that remains of a very borderline case to me, something that is rarely encountered. To conclude, the selection of the A350 by AI seems more to do with the fact that it solves two problems at once for AI, one is their ageing 777 fleet and second is availability of newer widebodies, not because one type had a fuel burn advantage over the other.

Claim about the A359 higher cruise altitude is from our resident A350 pilot.

A359 might not have been intended to be a 787-9 competitor, however that is generally what reality has settled into.

UA and AA fly the 787 into India, but no one's claiming the 787 can't fly into India, merely that on the longest routes the A359 has a slight edge for payload and fuel burn. Which as per the link I sent you does have some evidence to support.

It might be rarely encountered, but that doesn't mean its not there.

You can have your opinions, but not everyone has to agree. I see the A350 as a good fit for AI if they can stomach the cost of a new type, on some routes that they may intend to fly it may well be the best choice. I don't see a problem with an airline going for a frame because of availability, for an airline to use the plane it does have to actually be delivered and fly for them, and that's been a struggle for Boeing recently.

swapcv wrote:

That assumption holds well for an operator for whom the 777 has worked out well so far, which has not happened in case of Air India.

Incorrect. The 77W has worked superbly for Air India. The right capacity for North American routes and could carry a lot of cargo in addition to passengers. So a replacement aircraft has to be something that comes close to the 77W capacity - ie 343 seats in AI's current layout. The A350-1000HGW is a perfect fit!

swapcv wrote:

The problem is penetration of air travel in my country even with its 1.3 Billion population is shamefully low. Even after 75 years, we're way behind China (a country with demographics and population similar to India) and miles off from US (Market leader in Air Travel despite a population 3-4 times smaller). Hence, had Boeing not had those issues it does with the 787-9, its very much possible that AI would have gone for it instead of the A350 (Does'nt not mean I'm biased against the A350, its actually a phenomenal aircraft), its just that AI has neither the Domestic traffic at the moment to feed such capacity (50 A350's is a lot more seat capacity vs say 50 787-9's and it is not Indigo with 50% of the domestic market share).

You are mixing up issues here. AI has very successfully built up domestic feed for its DEL hub from 2007 onwards. It had to pull capacity on other domestic P2P routes to do so but they definitely managed to feed their DEL hub very well. Credit where credit is deserved. Also, you conveniently omit to factor in the fact that Air India is acquiring 200+ narrowbodies in the same time frame for their domestic operations.

swapcv wrote:

A359's fuel burn cannot be better than the B789 for one its a much larger bird that is more closer in size to a 777-200ER. From what I have seen, its about 200-400kg/hr more than the B789 (closest Boeing equivalent to any A350-900 right now is the 787-10). However despite this disparity, both sport similar fuel burn per seat as the A359's larger size and seating capacity in general offsets that increase in block fuel burn. That is if you can fill up your plane. A cautionary tale here is LATAM Brasil, which found itself in an unenviable postion of having to return all of its A350's and instead bring in 787-9's seconded from LATAM Chile thanks to precisely this.

Now you are just grasping at straws there mate! The LATAM Brazil swap deal was not for the reasons you mentioned. The way I understood that deal- LATAM was looking to cut costs drastically and Delta need additional A350 lift. Once Delta took a 20% (exact stake percentage??), they managed to strike a deal where Delta would pick up LATAM A350s and LATAM Brazil swapped out 787s from within the group. Then COVID happened and Delta backed out of the deal. Some of these A350s also briefly served with Qatar or some ME carrier I think! Point is - the A350 swap out by LATAM was a complex decision driven by other factors.

AI can acquire the A350-900s NOW to take advantage of the Aeroflot slots. The -1000HGW variant can follow later. I am sure Airbus will crack a deal.

anubhav787 wrote:

There is one thing that has not been discussed in this thread i.e. the possibility of a merger of Air India, Vistara and Air Asia India. Air India might get the B787-9 operated by Vistara and if we combine it with the new of 20 (maybe) aircraft, Air India would be having 27 787-8, 6 787-9 and 20 A350. While this may be sufficient for long haul operations, an order of 100 A321neo might be an overkill. Air India might not be looking to rival the scale on which IndiGo operates but that will surely happen if they want to operate the aircraft effectively. Even if we consider retiring the A319, AI would be having close to 80 narrow bodies in addition of the new order.

Meanwhile, a new brand identity along with a new livery would be a nice add on.

Or just a re-arranging of brands. AI becomes a network carrier with hubs at DEL/BOM/BLR. Vistara becomes a internationally focused point to point carrier equipped with 321Ns and 321XLRs. Air Asia India merges with Air India Express and becomes a point to point domestic LCC flying Max 8s and/or 320Ns.

IceCream wrote:

I'm totally putting this out there-but would they ever launch YYC thanks to this order? Calgary/Edmonton both have a huge Indian diaspora.

Huge diaspora? What? Lol

And I say this as an Indo-Canadian. There's more desis living in Peel Region than all of the Prairies combined. While they might seem substantial for Alberta, in absolute terms, the numbers aren't substantial at all.

swapcv wrote:

I am keenly aware of that, but that thread did'nt change my opinion on why comparing the two is an apples to oranges comparison. Regarding the A350 cruising higher than a 787-9 in cruise, I am yet to even see such a discrepancy because from all the performance data that is available or even regular monitoring of long haul flights on both types suggests neither really cruises higher than the other at typical mission weights and in any case RVSM restrictions mean that even a 500-1000ft difference in OPT/MAX ceiling will also be negated. Another reason why I disagree with that thread because the A350-900 in my opinion was never meant to compete with the 787-9 and that they were designed to serve two different markets to begin with. Thus it also does not change my opinion on why the 787-9 was a better fit for AI's needs considering how its competitors United and American can fly the exact same type without issues into India on the very same routes that AI plans to fly its A350's on. Lastly, fuel burn wise, that slim sliver of advantage that A350 holds over the 787-9 is something that remains of a very borderline case to me, something that is rarely encountered. To conclude, the selection of the A350 by AI seems more to do with the fact that it solves two problems at once for AI, one is their ageing 777 fleet and second is availability of newer widebodies, not because one type had a fuel burn advantage over the other.

Having read your posts here, they come across as someone who has a personal preference for the 787 and constructs arguments that goal seek to that end. No argument, regardless of the merits, is going to overcome personal preference. THis is perfectly fine; lots of us on this forum have preferences - I prefer to fly Delta for example, but it’s helpful in discussions if you are transparent about it.

flyguy1 wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

I would prefer the 789 but since Boeing cant deliver anything right now, they are left with A350. India has 6 major metro areas with International traffic potential. Given that Air India is now a Tata group, which is a highly trusted by Indians (Dont ask me why)

DEL - Main gateway but needs more frames to support flights to other locations. To US alone, it can add new service to Boston, Dallas, Seattle, Atlanta, LAX from Delhi alone, even at 3 services a week, this will require 5-6 frames.
BOM - Can add new services to South Africa, FRA , JFK, ORD
BLR - service to EWR, SFO, LHR and FRA
MAA - service to EWR, LON may be ICN
PNQ - Service to FRA
HYD - Service to FRA, ORD

All these Indian cities have fairly strong ties to US economy( with exception of PNQ which is more to EU) plus VFR traffic. In spite of COVID Indi is better placed and even a global recession should not stop much of this happening. It will hurt likes of EK, QR etc.

Best, Subramanian

For the last twenty years or so, the various Indian carriers have been receiving all these longhaul planes, and we always speculate about all the new services that will be started, and it just never seems to happen. Will this time be any different?

Actially only 3 Indian carriers have received long haul planes

1. Air India - Helped lanuch multiple non stop services to North America from DEL/BOM. Also multitude of services to secondary European destinations like Vienna, Madrid etc.
2. Jet Airways - Never a big fleet and an oddball one with 5 of each with exception of A330s. A330s helped serve NA, UK and HKG well
3. Kingfisher - less said the better

The economy has also grown quite a bit since 2010 ( by when most of these orders were in place). Bengaluru of 2010 and now is a huge change, so are MAA and HYD to a lesser extent.

I am cautiously optimistic

Best, Subramanian

swapcv wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

swapcv wrote:

VIDP Airfield elevation is only 777ft MSL, so hot and high argument falls flat. As for high summer temps, they could do a seasonal rotation for their A321LR's or XLR's whichever they are planning to acquire, to fly in the months when temperature is not a factor or time the flight such that it departs and arrives in the night when the temps are cool enough. Unlike Dubai or Denver, Delhi does'nt experience year round temps greater than 35-40 deg Celsius.

Denver doesnt experience temps greater than 40 degree celsius even in peak summer ( Jun-Aug). Rest of the year Denver barely touches 25 deg celsius

Best, Subramanian

Denver is at 5434ft MSL. So if temps rise to 40 deg Celsius in Summer in a place like Denver, your Density Altitude is going to be so high that it is going to affect your aircraft's takeoff and second segment climb performance adversely. Something to ponder over next time someone says Delhi's summers affect performance parameters the same way as Denver or any other legitimately hot and high airport like Denver, Addis Abeba, Johannesburg etc. You can run the numbers yourself to check that math tbh.

I lived in Denver and am quite familiar with the place. Denver does not hit 104 F every day in summer unlike Delhi. Mid 80s - low 90s is the norm. They have ultra long runways to address this issue.

Best, Subramanian