ThirtyWest
Topic Author
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:20 pm

A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:03 pm

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.
 
Michiganatc
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:34 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:52 pm

Delta’s “satisfaction” or “dis-satisfaction?” Depends on who you ask I suppose.
 
StTim
Posts: 3123
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:01 pm

I have heard no rumours that the planes are not meeting spec and hence guarantees.
 
Vladex
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:07 pm

Singapore just received regional 250 tonnes option.
 
Michiganatc
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:34 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:08 pm

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.
 
RB211trent
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:35 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:14 pm

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

They are meeting spec.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3544
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:19 pm

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.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:22 pm

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.
Whatever
 
StTim
Posts: 3123
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:30 pm

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?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3544
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:36 pm

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?
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:45 pm

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.
Whatever
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19349
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:07 pm

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.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25752
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:19 pm

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.
 
gloom
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:22 pm

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
 
T54A
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:08 pm

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.
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3226
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:51 am

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.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:48 pm

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?
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
T54A
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:59 pm

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.
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25752
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:12 pm

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.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:22 pm

Well, that sucks for an airline that did not take the option when they could...
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
trex8
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:43 pm

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
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25752
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:11 pm

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.
 
SQ317
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:16 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:04 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25752
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:10 pm

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.
 
majano
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:53 am

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.
 
SQ317
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:16 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:47 pm

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
 
majano
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: A350 MTOW

Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:23 am

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
 
sadiqutp
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:05 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:21 pm

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
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 16309
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: A350 MTOW

Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:04 am

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. :wink2:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Starlionblue, strfyr51, Tristarsteve and 18 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos