Reading the thread about DL's satisfaction with the A350, I was interested to learn that DL purchased the 268t MTOW variant. Several other airlines, including LH and AY, appear to have opted for the 268t weight variant, as well.

That led me to wonder: What weight variants have other A350 operators selected? And is there a sense that operators of the 268t variant are satisfied with the aircraft's capabilities? I infer that Airbus is insisting on heavy price premiums for the 278t and 280t variants.

Delta’s “satisfaction” or “dis-satisfaction?” Depends on who you ask I suppose.

I have heard no rumours that the planes are not meeting spec and hence guarantees.

Singapore just received regional 250 tonnes option.

Are you an Airbus employee? Why would a simple comment of mine about Delta’s “satisfaction” or “dis-satisfaction” get deleted? Cover up or damage control? I thought this was a forum for discussion and asked a simple question...

Just because you state that DL is satisfied with their A350’s doesn’t mean that it’s true or that it can’t be challenged.

StTim wrote:

I have heard no rumours that the planes are not meeting spec and hence guarantees.

They are meeting spec.

Finnair’s longest route is about 5,000nm. Lufthansa uses the 747-8 on longer routes and limits the A350 to 5,500nm or shorter routes. They likely don’t have the same payload challenges that DL would have on 6000nm+ routes between DTW and China.

Delta replaced 747-400s with A350s. That is a significant payload drop in exchange for a significant efficiency improvement. Simultaneously cargo revenue and demand increased by 9% in 2017 and continues to grow in 2018. The freight market changed between 2014 and 2018 which could result in airlines wanting higher MTOW versions of their long haul fleet. The decision to downgauge to the A350 and save money flying the 268t version may have made perfect sense in 2014, but markets and demand changes over time.

If you read a prior thread, word internally is that DL is NOT thrilled with the payload capabilities.

1. This may or may not be true; I’m just reporting what someone stated who appears to be ‘in the know’.

2. If it’s true, it could be related to theirs being the lower MTOW version.

This is not to say that aren’t happy overall with it and that it’s not a great plane; it clearly is. But like every plane, there are strengths and weaknesses.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

If you read a prior thread, word internally is that DL is NOT thrilled with the payload capabilities.

1. This may or may not be true; I’m just reporting what someone stated who appears to be ‘in the know’.

2. If it’s true, it could be related to theirs being the lower MTOW version.

This is not to say that aren’t happy overall with it and that it’s not a great plane; it clearly is. But like every plane, there are strengths and weaknesses.

And if you read this one it is stated they meet spec - if so why are DL unhappy? Surely they have very clever people who know what they contracted to receive?

StTim wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

If you read a prior thread, word internally is that DL is NOT thrilled with the payload capabilities.

1. This may or may not be true; I’m just reporting what someone stated who appears to be ‘in the know’.

2. If it’s true, it could be related to theirs being the lower MTOW version.

This is not to say that aren’t happy overall with it and that it’s not a great plane; it clearly is. But like every plane, there are strengths and weaknesses.

And if you read this one it is stated they meet spec - if so why are DL unhappy? Surely they have very clever people who know what they contracted to receive?

Cargo demand increased 9% in 2017. Delta may be regretting decisions from 4 years ago to buy the 268t A350 to replace 747s since the US economy is very strong and cargo demand is up. This doesn’t mean the A350 is a bad plane or isn’t meeting its contractual requirements.

Airlines also don’t have unilateral opinions. The procurement and finance team who would be the ones advocating to save money and buy the lower MTOW versions back in 2014 based on their predictions for where DL would fly the A350s aren’t the same people who are dispatching the plane and having to deal with the cargo division when high yielding cargo is being left behind. The cargo team wants to maximize revenue, yet dispatch is dealing with all the variables associated with planning long haul flights like variable passenger loads, weather, Chinese ATC, etc. The purchasing team may have made the best decision for the airline, but that doesn’t mean everyone loves the plane. It is kind of like how revenue management decides flying 737-900ERs out of 7,000ft runways at LGA on 1000 mile flights to Florida is a good idea, but dispatchers hate that decision.

Does anyone know what the dispatch reliability of the DL A350 is? How does it compare with 15 year old A330s?

StTim wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

If you read a prior thread, word internally is that DL is NOT thrilled with the payload capabilities.

1. This may or may not be true; I’m just reporting what someone stated who appears to be ‘in the know’.

2. If it’s true, it could be related to theirs being the lower MTOW version.

This is not to say that aren’t happy overall with it and that it’s not a great plane; it clearly is. But like every plane, there are strengths and weaknesses.

And if you read this one it is stated they meet spec - if so why are DL unhappy? Surely they have very clever people who know what they contracted to receive?

Just because something meets spec, doesn’t mean you are necessarily happy with it.

This isn’t to knock the A350; it’s an incredibly great plane. But my point applies to any aircraft.

There are plenty of times in my own life that whatever it is I have or planned on ‘met spec’, but in reality, it just didn’t work out as planned.

Newbiepilot wrote:

The procurement and finance team who would be the ones advocating to save money and buy the lower MTOW versions back in 2014 based on their predictions for where DL would fly the A350s aren’t the same people who are dispatching the plane and having to deal with the cargo division when high yielding cargo is being left behind. The cargo team wants to maximize revenue, yet dispatch is dealing with all the variables associated with planning long haul flights like variable passenger loads, weather, Chinese ATC, etc. The purchasing team may have made the best decision for the airline, but that doesn’t mean everyone loves the plane. It is kind of like how revenue management decides flying 737-900ERs out of 7,000ft runways at LGA on 1000 mile flights to Florida is a good idea, but dispatchers hate that decision.

Very strong point. Some times the business side pinches pennies too tight. As mentioned in the other thread, the aircraft salesmen know how valuable the MTOW increments are and quite often make the airlines pay dearly to upgrade after the initial contract is signed.. It'll be interesting to see if DL's tactic of pushing out A350s till later and bringing in more A330neos works out well for them.

ThirtyWest wrote:

What weight variants have other A350 operators selected? And is there a sense that operators of the 268t variant are satisfied with the aircraft's capabilities?

Airbus currently lists 17 Weight Variants in their ACAP for the A350-900 with MTOWs ranging from a low of 235,000kg to a high of 280,000kg.

As for customer-specific MTOWs, SQ is running their regional frames at 250,000kg and their ULR frames at 280,000kg. IB's frames are also 280,000kg, though they are not ULR models. PR's are I believe at 272,000kg.

StTim wrote:

I have heard no rumours that the planes are not meeting spec and hence guarantees.

I've been hearing they're at or above guarantees, even for the early frames.

Stitch wrote:

PR's are I believe at 272,000kg.

Stitch, PRs are ultimate before ULR upgrades - at 278T, an upgrade by 3T from maxed-then 275T. Probably PR pushed to have MNL-EWR/JFK with as much payload as possible.

Cheers,
Adam

Revelation wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The procurement and finance team who would be the ones advocating to save money and buy the lower MTOW versions back in 2014 based on their predictions for where DL would fly the A350s aren’t the same people who are dispatching the plane and having to deal with the cargo division when high yielding cargo is being left behind. The cargo team wants to maximize revenue, yet dispatch is dealing with all the variables associated with planning long haul flights like variable passenger loads, weather, Chinese ATC, etc. The purchasing team may have made the best decision for the airline, but that doesn’t mean everyone loves the plane. It is kind of like how revenue management decides flying 737-900ERs out of 7,000ft runways at LGA on 1000 mile flights to Florida is a good idea, but dispatchers hate that decision.

Very strong point. Some times the business side pinches pennies too tight. As mentioned in the other thread, the aircraft salesmen know how valuable the MTOW increments are and quite often make the airlines pay dearly to upgrade after the initial contract is signed.. It'll be interesting to see if DL's tactic of pushing out A350s till later and bringing in more A330neos works out well for them.

This is very true. There was quite a bit of debate within SA when the A333’s were been spec’d as to go with or without the center tank. The without guys won the argument. Generally this isn’t an issue but there are days when fuel is an issue on the ACC-IAD sector. The SA A333’s are the 242t version, but with no center tank, so leaving ACC at less than 242t but with full fuel (76-78t depending on SG) and a payload restriction seems a little silly when having the center tank would solve the problem.

Quick answer? DELTA is pretty damn Savvy in their route planning! They Know what they CAN do with the weight hey bought, And? They probably Got a DAMN GOOD Price the weight Variant They Bought! Besides? They also fly the B777 don't they? Delta doesn't make that many Mistakes.

T54A wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The procurement and finance team who would be the ones advocating to save money and buy the lower MTOW versions back in 2014 based on their predictions for where DL would fly the A350s aren’t the same people who are dispatching the plane and having to deal with the cargo division when high yielding cargo is being left behind. The cargo team wants to maximize revenue, yet dispatch is dealing with all the variables associated with planning long haul flights like variable passenger loads, weather, Chinese ATC, etc. The purchasing team may have made the best decision for the airline, but that doesn’t mean everyone loves the plane. It is kind of like how revenue management decides flying 737-900ERs out of 7,000ft runways at LGA on 1000 mile flights to Florida is a good idea, but dispatchers hate that decision.

Very strong point. Some times the business side pinches pennies too tight. As mentioned in the other thread, the aircraft salesmen know how valuable the MTOW increments are and quite often make the airlines pay dearly to upgrade after the initial contract is signed.. It'll be interesting to see if DL's tactic of pushing out A350s till later and bringing in more A330neos works out well for them.

This is very true. There was quite a bit of debate within SA when the A333’s were been spec’d as to go with or without the center tank. The without guys won the argument. Generally this isn’t an issue but there are days when fuel is an issue on the ACC-IAD sector. The SA A333’s are the 242t version, but with no center tank, so leaving ACC at less than 242t but with full fuel (76-78t depending on SG) and a payload restriction seems a little silly when having the center tank would solve the problem.

That is very interesting T54A.

Can the centre tank be retroactively activated/added?

MoKa777 wrote:

T54A wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Very strong point. Some times the business side pinches pennies too tight. As mentioned in the other thread, the aircraft salesmen know how valuable the MTOW increments are and quite often make the airlines pay dearly to upgrade after the initial contract is signed.. It'll be interesting to see if DL's tactic of pushing out A350s till later and bringing in more A330neos works out well for them.

This is very true. There was quite a bit of debate within SA when the A333’s were been spec’d as to go with or without the center tank. The without guys won the argument. Generally this isn’t an issue but there are days when fuel is an issue on the ACC-IAD sector. The SA A333’s are the 242t version, but with no center tank, so leaving ACC at less than 242t but with full fuel (76-78t depending on SG) and a payload restriction seems a little silly when having the center tank would solve the problem.

That is very interesting T54A.

Can the centre tank be retroactively activated/added?

I don’t know to be honest.

MoKa777 wrote:

Can the centre tank be retroactively activated/added?

When Airbus announced the A330-300's center tank would become usable they noted the sealing and fuel pump / inerting system installation would be performed on the FAL during assembly. So I am guessing it could require perhaps extensive and expensive re-work to do so on an already-completed frame.

Well, that sucks for an airline that did not take the option when they could...

T54A wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The procurement and finance team who would be the ones advocating to save money and buy the lower MTOW versions back in 2014 based on their predictions for where DL would fly the A350s aren’t the same people who are dispatching the plane and having to deal with the cargo division when high yielding cargo is being left behind. The cargo team wants to maximize revenue, yet dispatch is dealing with all the variables associated with planning long haul flights like variable passenger loads, weather, Chinese ATC, etc. The purchasing team may have made the best decision for the airline, but that doesn’t mean everyone loves the plane. It is kind of like how revenue management decides flying 737-900ERs out of 7,000ft runways at LGA on 1000 mile flights to Florida is a good idea, but dispatchers hate that decision.

Very strong point. Some times the business side pinches pennies too tight. As mentioned in the other thread, the aircraft salesmen know how valuable the MTOW increments are and quite often make the airlines pay dearly to upgrade after the initial contract is signed.. It'll be interesting to see if DL's tactic of pushing out A350s till later and bringing in more A330neos works out well for them.

This is very true. There was quite a bit of debate within SA when the A333’s were been spec’d as to go with or without the center tank. The without guys won the argument. Generally this isn’t an issue but there are days when fuel is an issue on the ACC-IAD sector. The SA A333’s are the 242t version, but with no center tank, so leaving ACC at less than 242t but with full fuel (76-78t depending on SG) and a payload restriction seems a little silly when having the center tank would solve the problem.

Is it really possible to get the 242t version without the tank? The acaps show two 242 MTOW versions WV81 and 82 with both having MZFW similar to other versions available at lower MTOW (171 and a 171-175). So what is gained having a 242 MTOW, you cant increase payload anymore. Why bother paying for a higher weight MTOW? Or am I missing something in my interpretation of the WV?
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

trex8 wrote:

Is it really possible to get the 242t version without the tank?

It does appear to be an option to have the center tank enabled on the A330-300 new-builds. Which seems to support the idea it can only (effectively / economically) be done at the FAL.

trex8 wrote:

The acaps show two 242 MTOW versions WV81 and 82 with both having MZFW similar to other versions available at lower MTOW (171 and a 171-175). So what is gained having a 242 MTOW, you cant increase payload anymore. Why bother paying for a higher weight MTOW? Or am I missing something in my interpretation of the WV?

All about loading more fuel weight to fly farther with the same payload.

Interesting thread. Obviously there are a lot of A350 operators, so I've listed the ones with 10+ A350s plus the data already in this thread. Can anyone fill in any gaps?

AY – 268T
CI -
CX – 275T
DL – 268T
ET -
IB – 280T
JJ -
LH – 268T
PR – 278T
QR -
SQ (Regional) – 250T
SQ (Standard) -
SQ (ULR) – 280T
TG -
VN -

I'd also be interested to know what MTOW JL have specced for their upcoming domestic A350s; I know the Trents will be derated to about 75k too.

SQ317 wrote:

I'd also be interested to know what MTOW JL have specced for their upcoming domestic A350s; I know the Trents will be derated to about 75k too.

The "A350-900 Regional" as originally talked about by Airbus has an MTOW of 250,000kg and 75,000 pound thrust engines so they could be doing that, though lower WVs are available (WV017 is 210,000kg, WV014 is 235,000kg and WV008 is 240,000kg).

It is also possible the -942s might come with their own Weight Variants different than the current -941s.

SQ317 wrote:

Interesting thread. Obviously there are a lot of A350 operators, so I've listed the ones with 10+ A350s plus the data already in this thread. Can anyone fill in any gaps?

AY – 268T
CI -
CX – 275T
DL – 268T
ET -
IB – 280T
JJ -
LH – 268T
PR – 278T
QR -
SQ (Regional) – 250T
SQ (Standard) -
SQ (ULR) – 280T
TG -
VN -

I'd also be interested to know what MTOW JL have specced for their upcoming domestic A350s; I know the Trents will be derated to about 75k too.

SQ (Standard) - Seems to be 268T / 276T as discussed in another TechOps thread a few weeks ago.

majano wrote:

SQ317 wrote:

Interesting thread. Obviously there are a lot of A350 operators, so I've listed the ones with 10+ A350s plus the data already in this thread. Can anyone fill in any gaps?

AY – 268T
CI -
CX – 275T
DL – 268T
ET -
IB – 280T
JJ -
LH – 268T
PR – 278T
QR -
SQ (Regional) – 250T
SQ (Standard) -
SQ (ULR) – 280T
TG -
VN -

I'd also be interested to know what MTOW JL have specced for their upcoming domestic A350s; I know the Trents will be derated to about 75k too.

SQ (Standard) - Seems to be 268T / 276T as discussed in another TechOps thread a few weeks ago.

Could you link to the thread? Thanks in advance

SQ317 wrote:

majano wrote:

SQ317 wrote:

Interesting thread. Obviously there are a lot of A350 operators, so I've listed the ones with 10+ A350s plus the data already in this thread. Can anyone fill in any gaps?

AY – 268T
CI -
CX – 275T
DL – 268T
ET -
IB – 280T
JJ -
LH – 268T
PR – 278T
QR -
SQ (Regional) – 250T
SQ (Standard) -
SQ (ULR) – 280T
TG -
VN -

I'd also be interested to know what MTOW JL have specced for their upcoming domestic A350s; I know the Trents will be derated to about 75k too.

SQ (Standard) - Seems to be 268T / 276T as discussed in another TechOps thread a few weeks ago.

Could you link to the thread? Thanks in advance

I hope it works.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1408737

The second delivered DL a350 , N502DN,doing PEK- DTW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3yUhEjzVcc
Go to 2:50- the display on the cockpit shows the TOW of 607,200 lbs equal to 275.4t.
Go to 13:58 -The flight was hauling 55,000 lbs of cargo on top of 238 pax, an undeniable impressive cargo capacity for over 12 hr flight.

Now, was the rumor of DL dissatisfaction from the actual management, or disappointed non-rev pax who were rejected boarding when DL prioritized cargo revenue? hmmmmm

sadiqutp wrote:

Now, was the rumor of DL dissatisfaction from the actual management, or disappointed non-rev pax who were rejected boarding when DL prioritized cargo revenue? hmmmmm

That and the usual, never satisfied cabin crew and grumpy pilots.