Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
xwb565
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:05 pm

The way I read that would be an actual tow of approx 285t. That explains the low fuel burn compared to the usual 6.8t at higher weights. That 6.3t per hour would be only .3t per hour more than an a359 for a similar payload. Airbus can just sit on this bird and wait for the market to come to it once the current situation improves.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:55 pm

xwb565 wrote:
The way I read that would be an actual tow of approx 285t. That explains the low fuel burn compared to the usual 6.8t at higher weights. That 6.3t per hour would be only .3t per hour more than an a359 for a similar payload. Airbus can just sit on this bird and wait for the market to come to it once the current situation improves.

Yeah it makes much more sense now. I think we can assume the fuel burn range at 319t would be roughly 6.8 to 7 depending on temperature and everything. And I am still interested on the DOW for the K. I know most 359‘s are coming in at roughly 135 now. I am wondering if the K is close to 149 to 151 now.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:50 am

MoKa777 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
That is insane though. 77W with basically equal or less than 77E and 343 fuel burn. WOW. So basically at 319t its close to an 18hr bird with a full house of 360 something pax. Wow.

Curious about that last comparison between the 77W, 77E, and 343, are you saying they all burn around the same?


I believe he means an aircraft the size of and with the capacity of a 77W burning less fuel per unit time or distance than a 77E or A343.

Ah ok, that reading makes sense. Glad I phrased that one as a question....
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:17 am

LH707330 wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
Curious about that last comparison between the 77W, 77E, and 343, are you saying they all burn around the same?


I believe he means an aircraft the size of and with the capacity of a 77W burning less fuel per unit time or distance than a 77E or A343.

Ah ok, that reading makes sense. Glad I phrased that one as a question....

No worries, I phrased in a confusing way. From what we see now, it is basically burning the same as a 77E, while flying farther than a 77W, and taking more payload.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:05 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
The way I read that would be an actual tow of approx 285t. That explains the low fuel burn compared to the usual 6.8t at higher weights. That 6.3t per hour would be only .3t per hour more than an a359 for a similar payload. Airbus can just sit on this bird and wait for the market to come to it once the current situation improves.

Yeah it makes much more sense now. I think we can assume the fuel burn range at 319t would be roughly 6.8 to 7 depending on temperature and everything. And I am still interested on the DOW for the K. I know most 359‘s are coming in at roughly 135 now. I am wondering if the K is close to 149 to 151 now.


Doing some research in the social media i believe that Virgin Atlantic A35K are around 153800 kg and Air Caraibes sole A35K, and former Airbus test aircraft, is around 153000 Kg. Both numbers are the result of the difference between the GW and the FOB in flights with crew only (training in the case of Virgin and positioning flight to China for medical EPI in the case of Air Caraibes)
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:41 am

AECM wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
The way I read that would be an actual tow of approx 285t. That explains the low fuel burn compared to the usual 6.8t at higher weights. That 6.3t per hour would be only .3t per hour more than an a359 for a similar payload. Airbus can just sit on this bird and wait for the market to come to it once the current situation improves.

Yeah it makes much more sense now. I think we can assume the fuel burn range at 319t would be roughly 6.8 to 7 depending on temperature and everything. And I am still interested on the DOW for the K. I know most 359‘s are coming in at roughly 135 now. I am wondering if the K is close to 149 to 151 now.


Doing some research in the social media i believe that Virgin Atlantic A35K are around 153800 kg and Air Caraibes sole A35K, and former Airbus test aircraft, is around 153000 Kg. Both numbers are the result of the difference between the GW and the FOB in flights with crew only (training in the case of Virgin and positioning flight to China for medical EPI in the case of Air Caraibes)

Thats great to know, thank you. I'm guessing Air Caraibes are lighter now with the low premium cabin and that was the Airbus test plane so might've been slightly heavy? Bur correct me if I'm wrong. So I think its fair we can assume a 35K with a premium config(QR, CX, BA, VS) is 153t or possible lighter, in the 151-153 range, 2t lighter than Airbus suspected essentially.
 
xwb565
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:51 am

Basic weight is a lot less than that- closer to 148t. Add crew,catering etc for differing dows based on requirements.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:59 am

xwb565 wrote:
Basic weight is a lot less than that- closer to 148t. Add crew,catering etc for differing dows based on requirements.

Yeah, if we have a basic weight assume 3-5t of catering, so the 151-153t of DOW seems right.
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2377
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:33 am

xwb565 wrote:
The way I read that would be an actual tow of approx 285t. That explains the low fuel burn compared to the usual 6.8t at higher weights.

DylanHarvey wrote:
Yeah it makes much more sense now. I think we can assume the fuel burn range at 319t would be roughly 6.8 to 7 depending on temperature and everything.

I managed to get some figures for the 35K much closer to MTOW;

EZFW; 200.9 t
MZFW; 223.0 t
RTOW; 316.0 t (regulated (performance) TO weight limited by Max. structural TO weight)
Ramp fuel; 115.7 t
Taxi fuel; 0.7 t
T.O. fuel; 115.0 t
Trip fuel; 107.5 t
Trip time 15hr 04min

This makes for a nice comparison to the figures below at a much lighter TOW which I posted previously;

EZFW; 187.0 t
MZFW; 223.0 t
RTOW; 316.0 t (regulated (performance) TO weight limited by Max. structural TO weight)
Ramp fuel; 98.3 t
Taxi fuel; 0.4 t
T.O. fuel; 97.9 t
Trip fuel; 91.4 t
Trip time 14hr 16min

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:30 am

Where do you need 700 kg taxi fuel ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2377
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 22, 2020 7:25 am

zeke wrote:
Where do you need 700 kg taxi fuel ?

The aircraft / airline in question almost always departs from bay 9 or 10 at Sydney International Terminal. If they are taking off to the north from 34L, they have to taxi almost the full length of 16R-34L. Would 700 kg be a typical fuel consumption for this distance? Interestingly, another airline flying 359's always puts on 550 kg for taxi.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19872
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:11 am

jetmech wrote:
zeke wrote:
Where do you need 700 kg taxi fuel ?

The aircraft / airline in question almost always departs from bay 9 or 10 at Sydney International Terminal. If they are taking off to the north from 34L, they have to taxi almost the full length of 16R-34L. Would 700 kg be a typical fuel consumption for this distance? Interestingly, another airline flying 359's always puts on 550 kg for taxi.

Regards, JetMech


I can't recall an actual burn for that taxi, but the number seems pretty high. It's just a straight shot down Alpha. Unless you're going at rush hour and know you'll be doing a lot of holding on the way to the hold point.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2377
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:30 am

Starlionblue wrote:
I can't recall an actual burn for that taxi, but the number seems pretty high. It's just a straight shot down Alpha. Unless you're going at rush hour and know you'll be doing a lot of holding on the way to the hold point.

I see. The departure time is scheduled for 2155 but usually ends up being around 2230 or later. This is close to curfew time and combined with COVID 19 there's barely any traffic. The 400 kg taxi fuel was for a bay 9 / 10 pushback straight to 16R for a takeoff to the south. It might have been a good call in this case as ATC made them wait for three other pushbacks once they themselves were ready for taxi.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19872
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:39 am

jetmech wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
I can't recall an actual burn for that taxi, but the number seems pretty high. It's just a straight shot down Alpha. Unless you're going at rush hour and know you'll be doing a lot of holding on the way to the hold point.

I see. The departure time is scheduled for 2155 but usually ends up being around 2230 or later. This is close to curfew time and combined with COVID 19 there's barely any traffic. The 400 kg taxi fuel was for a bay 9 / 10 pushback straight to 16R for a takeoff to the south. It might have been a good call in this case as ATC made them wait for three other pushbacks once they themselves were ready for taxi.

Regards, JetMech


Fuel requirements for dispatch are dependent on the specific fuel policy of the operator. So I guess they just load that on.

Importantly, taxi fuel is a planning number, not a post-dispatch number. After dispatch, taxi fuel just becomes part of "normal fuel". Burning a few hundred kg more than planned in the taxi doesn't normally mean anything much for the operation. Just comes out of contingency.

Either way, for an A359 or A351 a few hundred kilos is most likely not going to have an impact unless your planned fuel is very tight.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2377
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:43 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Either way, for an A359 or A351 a few hundred kilos is most likely not going to have an impact unless your planned fuel is very tight.

Thanks for the info!

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:51 am

jetmech wrote:
[Would 700 kg be a typical fuel consumption for this distance? Interestingly, another airline flying 359's always puts on 550 kg for taxi.


Not really 700 kg is a tad high, you could do that taxi in 10 minutes at the moment with the amount of traffic around at that time of day.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2377
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 22, 2020 11:03 am

zeke wrote:
Not really 700 kg is a tad high, you could do that taxi in 10 minutes at the moment with the amount of traffic around at that time of day.

I see. Yes,10 minutes would pretty much cover it. Thanks for the info.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:10 pm

BA777FO wrote:
That sounds about right (obviously is as it has come from the crew). To YYZ and DXB the A350-1000, at similar payloads, has a very similar trip fuel burn to the 777-200ER.

So the A350-1000 is pretty much 77W size but with a 777-200 fuel burn. The 77W burns roughly a tonne more than the 772 per hour so the A350-1000 is roughly a tonne per hour better than the 77W, so over an 8 hour flight, 8 tonnes is about $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel savings. Not bad, but not the huge leap that the 787-9 has over the 772.


Cool, pretty interesting Numbers! But the 777-300ER still seats around 30 passengers more with 10 abreast in a similar configuration, which makes it a little bit better for the 777 at least.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3477
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:32 am

BA777FO wrote:
That sounds about right (obviously is as it has come from the crew). To YYZ and DXB the A350-1000, at similar payloads, has a very similar trip fuel burn to the 777-200ER.

So the A350-1000 is pretty much 77W size but with a 777-200 fuel burn. The 77W burns roughly a tonne more than the 772 per hour so the A350-1000 is roughly a tonne per hour better than the 77W, so over an 8 hour flight, 8 tonnes is about $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel savings. Not bad, but not the huge leap that the 787-9 has over the 772.

I see that the 789 also burns about 1t/he less than the 772(er) however your comparison doesn’t show what you seem to imply. When we compare the 772 to the 789 we see that the former is more capable from a payload range perspective and is overall a larger aircraft. When we compare the A350-1000 to the 77W we see that they both have similar max payload but the Airbus carries it over a significantly higher range.

The 772->789 has a similar absolute fuel burn difference and higher from a percentage perspective but also is a less capable jet. Compared to the 351 the 77w is the less capable jet.

If we are to make comparisons between aircraft we should at least attempt to factor out varying performance to avoid misleading other readers.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12749
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:08 am

DLHAM wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
That sounds about right (obviously is as it has come from the crew). To YYZ and DXB the A350-1000, at similar payloads, has a very similar trip fuel burn to the 777-200ER.

So the A350-1000 is pretty much 77W size but with a 777-200 fuel burn. The 77W burns roughly a tonne more than the 772 per hour so the A350-1000 is roughly a tonne per hour better than the 77W, so over an 8 hour flight, 8 tonnes is about $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel savings. Not bad, but not the huge leap that the 787-9 has over the 772.


Cool, pretty interesting Numbers! But the 777-300ER still seats around 30 passengers more with 10 abreast in a similar configuration, which makes it a little bit better for the 777 at least.


comparing the Qatar Airlines Qsuite 77W with the Qsuite A351 the difference seems to be more like 15 seats.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10448
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:12 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
DLHAM wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
That sounds about right (obviously is as it has come from the crew). To YYZ and DXB the A350-1000, at similar payloads, has a very similar trip fuel burn to the 777-200ER.

So the A350-1000 is pretty much 77W size but with a 777-200 fuel burn. The 77W burns roughly a tonne more than the 772 per hour so the A350-1000 is roughly a tonne per hour better than the 77W, so over an 8 hour flight, 8 tonnes is about $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel savings. Not bad, but not the huge leap that the 787-9 has over the 772.


Cool, pretty interesting Numbers! But the 777-300ER still seats around 30 passengers more with 10 abreast in a similar configuration, which makes it a little bit better for the 777 at least.


comparing the Qatar Airlines Qsuite 77W with the Qsuite A351 the difference seems to be more like 15 seats.

best regards
Thomas

The Qsuite 77Ws seat 27 more than their A351.
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:12 pm

Polot wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
DLHAM wrote:

Cool, pretty interesting Numbers! But the 777-300ER still seats around 30 passengers more with 10 abreast in a similar configuration, which makes it a little bit better for the 777 at least.


comparing the Qatar Airlines Qsuite 77W with the Qsuite A351 the difference seems to be more like 15 seats.

best regards
Thomas

The Qsuite 77Ws seat 27 more than their A351.

Yes, but just looking at total numbers doesn't provide a full picture. The A350-1000 has 46J + 281Y seats for a total of 327, and the version of the 777-300ER you are alluding to has 42J + 312Y seats for a total of 354 seats. I compared both aircraft with Q Suites. So part of the reason the A350-1000 has a lower seat count is because it was 4 more Q Suites than the 77W.

Edit: adding sources
https://www.qatarairways.com/content/dam/documents/fleet/seatpmap-a350-1000.pdf
https://www.qatarairways.com/content/dam/documents/fleet/Boeing-777-300ER-354-seater.pdf
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3477
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:11 pm

NeBaNi wrote:
Polot wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

comparing the Qatar Airlines Qsuite 77W with the Qsuite A351 the difference seems to be more like 15 seats.

best regards
Thomas

The Qsuite 77Ws seat 27 more than their A351.

Yes, but just looking at total numbers doesn't provide a full picture. The A350-1000 has 46J + 281Y seats for a total of 327, and the version of the 777-300ER you are alluding to has 42J + 312Y seats for a total of 354 seats. I compared both aircraft with Q Suites. So part of the reason the A350-1000 has a lower seat count is because it was 4 more Q Suites than the 77W.

Edit: adding sources
https://www.qatarairways.com/content/dam/documents/fleet/seatpmap-a350-1000.pdf
https://www.qatarairways.com/content/dam/documents/fleet/Boeing-777-300ER-354-seater.pdf

Cabin data for QR also would show equivalence of 4 Y for each J seat.

Also the higher Y count for the 77W comes at the expense of a narrower seat. The difference between cabins is about half a Y seat and factoring in the difference in J capacity the 77W holds about 15 less in 9abreast and 15more in 10 abreast then it’s pretty clear that they are the same size.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:37 pm

NeBaNi wrote:
Polot wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

comparing the Qatar Airlines Qsuite 77W with the Qsuite A351 the difference seems to be more like 15 seats.

best regards
Thomas

The Qsuite 77Ws seat 27 more than their A351.

Yes, but just looking at total numbers doesn't provide a full picture. The A350-1000 has 46J + 281Y seats for a total of 327, and the version of the 777-300ER you are alluding to has 42J + 312Y seats for a total of 354 seats. I compared both aircraft with Q Suites. So part of the reason the A350-1000 has a lower seat count is because it was 4 more Q Suites than the 77W.

Edit: adding sources
https://www.qatarairways.com/content/dam/documents/fleet/seatpmap-a350-1000.pdf
https://www.qatarairways.com/content/dam/documents/fleet/Boeing-777-300ER-354-seater.pdf


Even if equipped with 46 QSuites the 773ER would still have more seats. Four more QSuites means one additional row. Looking at the 773ER seatchart it looks like these four suites could be installed at the expense of 15 Economy seats. So thats loosing 15 seats and regaining four seats, makes a total of 11 seats less = still 16 seats more than the A350-1000. At an average 3 flights a day thats 48 seats daily or 1.440 seats a month assuming the aircraft flies everyday.

And I am pretty sure that you could even get more seats into the 777 using modern, state of the art cabin technology with a more intelligent use of space with galleys, toilets etc. I am sure the A350-1000 features stuff like this as its brandnew.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12749
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:47 am

DLHAM wrote:
NeBaNi wrote:
Polot wrote:
The Qsuite 77Ws seat 27 more than their A351.

Yes, but just looking at total numbers doesn't provide a full picture. The A350-1000 has 46J + 281Y seats for a total of 327, and the version of the 777-300ER you are alluding to has 42J + 312Y seats for a total of 354 seats. I compared both aircraft with Q Suites. So part of the reason the A350-1000 has a lower seat count is because it was 4 more Q Suites than the 77W.

Edit: adding sources
https://www.qatarairways.com/content/dam/documents/fleet/seatpmap-a350-1000.pdf
https://www.qatarairways.com/content/dam/documents/fleet/Boeing-777-300ER-354-seater.pdf


Even if equipped with 46 QSuites the 773ER would still have more seats. Four more QSuites means one additional row. Looking at the 773ER seatchart it looks like these four suites could be installed at the expense of 15 Economy seats. So thats loosing 15 seats and regaining four seats, makes a total of 11 seats less = still 16 seats more than the A350-1000. At an average 3 flights a day thats 48 seats daily or 1.440 seats a month assuming the aircraft flies everyday.

And I am pretty sure that you could even get more seats into the 777 using modern, state of the art cabin technology with a more intelligent use of space with galleys, toilets etc. I am sure the A350-1000 features stuff like this as its brandnew.


The 77W has an extra door pair with the extra space for cross cabin movement during evacuation you can´t place seats in, and the Cabin is only 15 m2 bigger than the A351. The extra ~15 seats are pretty much exclusively due to 10ab seating.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
gloom
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:34 am

DLHAM wrote:
Four more QSuites means one additional row.


Would you please be a little more analytic before posting, so we don't have to read claims like that?

4 QSuites means a whole row (4 abreast). Sure, that's one row. Of Qsuites, not economy. How much is the pitch difference QSuites to economy?

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:29 am

gloom wrote:
Would you please be a little more analytic before posting, so we don't have to read claims like that?

4 QSuites means a whole row (4 abreast). Sure, that's one row. Of Qsuites, not economy. How much is the pitch difference QSuites to economy?

Cheers,
Adam


Thats a rhetorical question. On average a 777 flies around 80-85 % full (and more like 0% now), and that same load can be carried in an A350 quicker with less fuel burn.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
chiki
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:32 am

zeke wrote:
gloom wrote:
Would you please be a little more analytic before posting, so we don't have to read claims like that?

4 QSuites means a whole row (4 abreast). Sure, that's one row. Of Qsuites, not economy. How much is the pitch difference QSuites to economy?

Cheers,
Adam


Thats a rhetorical question. On average a 777 flies around 80-85 % full (and more like 0% now), and that same load can be carried in an A350 quicker with less fuel burn.
Which ever aircraft you use will never be a 100% but I think it's a fact the A351 is better and that why we have the 777X. Not sure why we still have to debate.

Sent from my SM-J415F using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10448
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:14 pm

zeke wrote:
gloom wrote:
Would you please be a little more analytic before posting, so we don't have to read claims like that?

4 QSuites means a whole row (4 abreast). Sure, that's one row. Of Qsuites, not economy. How much is the pitch difference QSuites to economy?

Cheers,
Adam


Thats a rhetorical question. On average a 777 flies around 80-85 % full (and more like 0% now), and that same load can be carried in an A350 quicker with less fuel burn.

All planes fly around with an average of ~80-85% load factor (pre pandemic), not just the 777. This is partially by design from a revenue management standpoint (replacing a 777 fleet with a A350 fleet does not automatically mean your average load factors will jump to 90-100%). You constantly bring up that argument and it never changes the fact that it is a stupid argument.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:25 pm

Polot wrote:
zeke wrote:
gloom wrote:
Would you please be a little more analytic before posting, so we don't have to read claims like that?

4 QSuites means a whole row (4 abreast). Sure, that's one row. Of Qsuites, not economy. How much is the pitch difference QSuites to economy?

Cheers,
Adam


Thats a rhetorical question. On average a 777 flies around 80-85 % full (and more like 0% now), and that same load can be carried in an A350 quicker with less fuel burn.

All planes fly around with an average of ~80-85% load factor (pre pandemic), not just the 777. This is partially by design from a revenue management standpoint (replacing a 777 fleet with a A350 fleet does not automatically mean your average load factors will jump to 90-100%). You constantly bring up that argument and it never changes the fact that it is a stupid argument.



Its about as stupid as assuming that extra seats means extra revenue. Depends which side your favourite aircraft sits in the argument really.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:34 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Its about as stupid as assuming that extra seats means extra revenue. Depends which side your favourite aircraft sits in the argument really.


It depends if your selling the aircraft or operating the aircraft. If your selling the aircraft you would say the the 777 seats 420 passengers, if you were operating the aircraft you would say it seats a lot less.

If your operating the aircraft you never do your numbers based upon just one route, and never based upon 100% load factors. They are not valid business assumptions when developing a business case for a new type for your particular airline.

Back in the day when the A340-600 was in competition with the 77W, the A340-600 would carry more payload than the 77W and further. The reality is no airline would ever utilise that additional payload so the typical loads is what operators went for. We all know how all those stupid operators went with their choices.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10448
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:45 pm

zeke wrote:
Back in the day when the A340-600 was in competition with the 77W, the A340-600 would carry more payload than the 77W and further. The reality is no airline would ever utilise that additional payload so the typical loads is what operators went for. We all know how all those stupid operators went with their choices.

While the A346 could carry more payload further the 777W was cheaper to operate, while still having enough usable payload for most operators and being larger than the A346 (which just made the per seat cost comparisons worse for the A346). The A346’s payload advantage was only significant for operators on extreme ULH (where the fuel cost delta between the planes would kill you) or hot and high (relatively niche). Airlines weren’t switching because A346 load factors were too low or high, so they needed the larger 77W.


With the 777X vs the A350[-1000], the former is slightly larger but there is not a clear cut operating cost advantage, so if you don’t really need the extra seats you don’t really need the 777X (similar as to why the A380 failed against the 77W).
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:04 pm

Polot wrote:
While the A346 could carry more payload further the 777W was cheaper to operate, while still having enough usable payload for most operators and being larger than the A346 (which just made the per seat cost comparisons worse for the A346). The A346’s payload advantage was only significant for operators on extreme ULH (where the fuel cost delta between the planes would kill you) or hot and high (relatively niche).


Let me just rewrite that for you

While the 777 could carry more payload and not as far the A350, the A350 was cheaper to operate, while still having enough usable payload for most operators. The 777 payload advantage was only significant for operators on extreme routes (where the fuel cost delta between the planes would kill you).

But hey, as you said it’s stupid to use real payloads when looking at the A350, and obviously not stupid when looking at the A340-600 or 777.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10448
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:11 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
While the A346 could carry more payload further the 777W was cheaper to operate, while still having enough usable payload for most operators and being larger than the A346 (which just made the per seat cost comparisons worse for the A346). The A346’s payload advantage was only significant for operators on extreme ULH (where the fuel cost delta between the planes would kill you) or hot and high (relatively niche).


Let me just rewrite that for you

While the 777 could carry more payload and not as far the A350, the A350 was cheaper to operate, while still having enough usable payload for most operators. The 777 payload advantage was only significant for operators on extreme routes (where the fuel cost delta between the planes would kill you).

But hey, as you said it’s stupid to use real payloads when looking at the A350, and obviously not stupid when looking at the A340-600 or 777.


I never argued that the 777X is better than the A350, all I did was point out the 80% load factor argument is stupid. With airlines having typical systemwide loadfactors around ~80% (prepandemic) then you should be arguing that every fleet type should be downsizing. 77Ws should be going to A35Ks, 77E/A359s should be going to 789/A339s, A333s should be going to A338/788s etc.

If the overall economics are compelling enough airlines will happily take ~80% load factor over 90%. For the 77W vs A346 that was so. Like I said in my last post unlikely in the 779 vs A35k.

As enzo011 bringing loadfactors (that are normal, not an outlier like our 777 fleet is typically 30% full) into this is just blatant fanboyism. I suspect if the A350-1000 was equal size or larger you wouldn’t be making that argument. You certainly never do when it comes to A359 vs 789 discussions.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:51 pm

Polot wrote:
I never argued that the 777X is better than the A350, all I did was point out the 80% load factor argument is stupid.


It isn't stupid, it is reality. When selecting aircraft airlines use historic load facts they have over a route network, never 100% load factors.

Polot wrote:
With airlines having typical systemwide loadfactors around ~80% (prepandemic) then you should be arguing that every fleet type should be downsizing. 77Ws should be going to A35Ks, 77E/A359s should be going to 789/A339s, A333s should be going to A338/788s etc.


Historically that is exactly what many airlines have done with long haul widebody orders, eg many downsized from 744 to 77W, and where I have work we have downsized many routes from the 77W to A350-900, some of which would have been 744 routes years ago. Short to medium haul it is a different question, as the cost of caring around extra capability against the flexibility it provides is less important.

Polot wrote:
You certainly never do when it comes to A359 vs 789 discussions.


How can you have a discussion if people start off by saying the A350-900 is 10 tonnes heavier than it is.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:54 am

gloom wrote:
DLHAM wrote:
Four more QSuites means one additional row.


Would you please be a little more analytic before posting, so we don't have to read claims like that?

4 QSuites means a whole row (4 abreast). Sure, that's one row. Of Qsuites, not economy. How much is the pitch difference QSuites to economy?

Cheers,
Adam


If you would read a little further you could answer your own question and you would not have to ask me that in such a aggressive way. Picking one sentence is not really effective. I would recommend to read the WHOLE post again. Jesus ... :roll:

But even without reading the rest its more than obvious that I mean one row of QSuites.

I dont know the pitch difference. There are numbers of course but its hard to tell how much space these QSuites really take due to the staggered arrangement.


gloom wrote:
It was meant to be.

I know many of these are trolls. Still such vow unanswered is quite often regarded by other unaware readers as "winning one". It should not be left unanswered.


Who is a troll?
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:09 am

tommy1808 wrote:
The 77W has an extra door pair with the extra space for cross cabin movement during evacuation you can´t place seats in, and the Cabin is only 15 m2 bigger than the A351. The extra ~15 seats are pretty much exclusively due to 10ab seating.

best regards
Thomas


Thats an interesting point I never thought about. While the 777-300ER still seats more (yes definitely due to the 10ab alone) its wasted space. But the 777X will not have that problem as Door 3 is removed and the "new 5th door" is optional.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12749
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:51 am

DLHAM wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
The 77W has an extra door pair with the extra space for cross cabin movement during evacuation you can´t place seats in, and the Cabin is only 15 m2 bigger than the A351. The extra ~15 seats are pretty much exclusively due to 10ab seating.

best regards
Thomas


Thats an interesting point I never thought about. While the 777-300ER still seats more (yes definitely due to the 10ab alone) its wasted space. But the 777X will not have that problem as Door 3 is removed and the "new 5th door" is optional.


yup, that is how the 779 gets its extra capacity despite the puny stretch..

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
gloom
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:51 am

DLHAM wrote:
But even without reading the rest its more than obvious that I mean one row of QSuites.


No, not really.

Whole thread bashing is about bigger or smaller. Exact QSuites number was brought up as a reply to claims Qatar 777 would pack 30 seats more. So, if you don't bring what "row" is, default for this thread is "eco" vs "QS". Claiming "one row" without unit makes others go to default, which is "how many eco rows for QS". And since others got that message the same, it seems to be problem of your message, not mine.

Back to topic and explanations.
A350 has 46 QS, 777 has 42 QS, however 777 packs extra economy. So, the row of QS - how does it transform to economy rows? This is the right context to see.

For your (and others) information - 1 QS row is 103in pitch. 1 eco row is 31-32in (I'm taking SeatGuru numbers for 777 on this comparison). That's almost exactly 3 to 1, and 23 seats more (27 "new" eco - 4 "dropped" QS) is more or less the difference. Of course one would have to analyze the doors config, lavatories and all the other stuff, but since 3 rows of eco is actually *less* than one row of QS, I assume there's a way to get three (eco) for one (QS). A350 would be much closer if it replaced one row of QS with eco, in terms of seats avail.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:35 pm

gloom wrote:
DLHAM wrote:
But even without reading the rest its more than obvious that I mean one row of QSuites.


No, not really.

Whole thread bashing is about bigger or smaller. Exact QSuites number was brought up as a reply to claims Qatar 777 would pack 30 seats more. So, if you don't bring what "row" is, default for this thread is "eco" vs "QS". Claiming "one row" without unit makes others go to default, which is "how many eco rows for QS". And since others got that message the same, it seems to be problem of your message, not mine.

Back to topic and explanations.
A350 has 46 QS, 777 has 42 QS, however 777 packs extra economy. So, the row of QS - how does it transform to economy rows? This is the right context to see.

For your (and others) information - 1 QS row is 103in pitch. 1 eco row is 31-32in (I'm taking SeatGuru numbers for 777 on this comparison). That's almost exactly 3 to 1, and 23 seats more (27 "new" eco - 4 "dropped" QS) is more or less the difference. Of course one would have to analyze the doors config, lavatories and all the other stuff, but since 3 rows of eco is actually *less* than one row of QS, I assume there's a way to get three (eco) for one (QS). A350 would be much closer if it replaced one row of QS with eco, in terms of seats avail.

Cheers,
Adam


I repeat: read my post(s) properly. If you read more than that one sentence you would see that I wrote that it looks like this additional row of QS could be installed at the expense of 15 economy seats. (Rows 16 containing of 6 seats and row 17 containing of 9 seats leave).

Also I wrote -- written in a later post and obvisouly unread too - that you cant just divide QS pitch by economy pitch and get the number ob economy seats/rows that have to leave for QS because the QSuites are staggered. On the Qatar Airways seatmaps it looks like (if the proportions are right, but they seem to) that one row of QS takes roughly two rows of Economy.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3477
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:07 pm

DLHAM wrote:
gloom wrote:
DLHAM wrote:
But even without reading the rest its more than obvious that I mean one row of QSuites.


No, not really.

Whole thread bashing is about bigger or smaller. Exact QSuites number was brought up as a reply to claims Qatar 777 would pack 30 seats more. So, if you don't bring what "row" is, default for this thread is "eco" vs "QS". Claiming "one row" without unit makes others go to default, which is "how many eco rows for QS". And since others got that message the same, it seems to be problem of your message, not mine.

Back to topic and explanations.
A350 has 46 QS, 777 has 42 QS, however 777 packs extra economy. So, the row of QS - how does it transform to economy rows? This is the right context to see.

For your (and others) information - 1 QS row is 103in pitch. 1 eco row is 31-32in (I'm taking SeatGuru numbers for 777 on this comparison). That's almost exactly 3 to 1, and 23 seats more (27 "new" eco - 4 "dropped" QS) is more or less the difference. Of course one would have to analyze the doors config, lavatories and all the other stuff, but since 3 rows of eco is actually *less* than one row of QS, I assume there's a way to get three (eco) for one (QS). A350 would be much closer if it replaced one row of QS with eco, in terms of seats avail.

Cheers,
Adam


I repeat: read my post(s) properly. If you read more than that one sentence you would see that I wrote that it looks like this additional row of QS could be installed at the expense of 15 economy seats. (Rows 16 containing of 6 seats and row 17 containing of 9 seats leave).

Also I wrote -- written in a later post and obvisouly unread too - that you cant just divide QS pitch by economy pitch and get the number ob economy seats/rows that have to leave for QS because the QSuites are staggered. On the Qatar Airways seatmaps it looks like (if the proportions are right, but they seem to) that one row of QS takes roughly two rows of Economy.


QR QR77Ws have several layouts involving both 10 and 9 abreast Y, Old style business and Qsuite and vary numbers thereof. Helpfully there are enough of the various configurations to be able to make quantitative assessments about what is being debated here.

With the old business class seat with 42 present there is the ability to put either 319 seats at 10 abreast or 293 at 9 abreast suggesting that the equivalence in area consumption of the 9 abreast seat is 8.87% more than the 10 abreast seat. Or to put another way 1 x 9 abreast seat is 1.0887x 10 abreast seat.

When the configuration is 24 of the old business class seats the available 10 abreast economy is 388, this is an increase of 72 seats. This shows that an difference in 18 business seats is equal to 72 seats in Economy or 4 x 10abreast economy per business seat or 3.674 of the 9 abreast economy.

When moving to the Qsuite the 77W maintained the 10 abreast economy layout and installed 42 Qsuites. The number number of economy seats was now 312, a reduction of 4 from the equivalent old business product layout. This would suggest that the Qsuite is equivelent to 4.095 10 abreast economy seats or 3.762 of the 9 abreast seats.

If we were to add 4 more Qsuites to the layout as per the A351 the affective available seats would be 278 in a 9 abreast configuration and 300 in the 10 abreast configuration.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:40 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
If we were to add 4 more Qsuites to the layout as per the A351 the affective available seats would be 278 in a 9 abreast configuration and 300 in the 10 abreast configuration.

Fred


You mean 278 or 300 Economy seats in addition to these then 46 QSuites?
Because 300 seats Overall would mean the 773ER would Seat 27 less than the A350-1000 in similar configuration -- never ever.
In my calculation a 46 QSuites 773ER would seat a total of 343 or at least 340. 13-16 more than the A35K and that I think makes sense.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3477
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:43 pm

DLHAM wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
If we were to add 4 more Qsuites to the layout as per the A351 the affective available seats would be 278 in a 9 abreast configuration and 300 in the 10 abreast configuration.

Fred


You mean 278 or 300 Economy seats in addition to these then 46 QSuites?
Because 300 seats Overall would mean the 773ER would Seat 27 less than the A350-1000 in similar configuration -- never ever.
In my calculation a 46 QSuites 773ER would seat a total of 343 or at least 340. 13-16 more than the A35K and that I think makes sense.

Yes, that’s what I meant. It is of course a weird comparison as the seat in the A350 sits almost directly between the 9 and 10 abreast 777 configurations.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
BA777FO
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:33 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
That sounds about right (obviously is as it has come from the crew). To YYZ and DXB the A350-1000, at similar payloads, has a very similar trip fuel burn to the 777-200ER.

So the A350-1000 is pretty much 77W size but with a 777-200 fuel burn. The 77W burns roughly a tonne more than the 772 per hour so the A350-1000 is roughly a tonne per hour better than the 77W, so over an 8 hour flight, 8 tonnes is about $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel savings. Not bad, but not the huge leap that the 787-9 has over the 772.

I see that the 789 also burns about 1t/he less than the 772(er) however your comparison doesn’t show what you seem to imply. When we compare the 772 to the 789 we see that the former is more capable from a payload range perspective and is overall a larger aircraft. When we compare the A350-1000 to the 77W we see that they both have similar max payload but the Airbus carries it over a significantly higher range.

The 772->789 has a similar absolute fuel burn difference and higher from a percentage perspective but also is a less capable jet. Compared to the 351 the 77w is the less capable jet.

If we are to make comparisons between aircraft we should at least attempt to factor out varying performance to avoid misleading other readers.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I pointed out the 789 had ~20% better trip fuel burn at similar payloads on similar routes. The A350, at similar payloads, saved $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel on an 8 hour sector compared with a 77W. I gave my opinion that it wasn't a huge leap forward - $5,000 worth of fuel a day is $150,000 per month. I imagine the costs of financing an A350 versus a 77W are in excess of $150,000. Perhaps not? I remember Willie Walsh stating that operating an A330 for Level was about €500,000 a month cheaper to operate than Norwegian's 789s.

I made no mention of performance, I'd be happy to discuss that another time. I compared fuel burn for similar payloads over the same stage length. So please don't accuse me of misleading when I was completely clear with the comparisons I used.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12749
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:37 pm

BA777FO wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
That sounds about right (obviously is as it has come from the crew). To YYZ and DXB the A350-1000, at similar payloads, has a very similar trip fuel burn to the 777-200ER.

So the A350-1000 is pretty much 77W size but with a 777-200 fuel burn. The 77W burns roughly a tonne more than the 772 per hour so the A350-1000 is roughly a tonne per hour better than the 77W, so over an 8 hour flight, 8 tonnes is about $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel savings. Not bad, but not the huge leap that the 787-9 has over the 772.

I see that the 789 also burns about 1t/he less than the 772(er) however your comparison doesn’t show what you seem to imply. When we compare the 772 to the 789 we see that the former is more capable from a payload range perspective and is overall a larger aircraft. When we compare the A350-1000 to the 77W we see that they both have similar max payload but the Airbus carries it over a significantly higher range.

The 772->789 has a similar absolute fuel burn difference and higher from a percentage perspective but also is a less capable jet. Compared to the 351 the 77w is the less capable jet.

If we are to make comparisons between aircraft we should at least attempt to factor out varying performance to avoid misleading other readers.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I pointed out the 789 had ~20% better trip fuel burn at similar payloads on similar routes. The A350, at similar payloads, saved $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel on an 8 hour sector compared with a 77W. I gave my opinion that it wasn't a huge leap forward - $5,000 worth of fuel a day is $150,000 per month. I imagine the costs of financing an A350 versus a 77W are in excess of $150,000. Perhaps not?


That would cover maybe 15% of the lease rate. And on average you are going such a short sector almost twice per day, so more like 25%, so maybe half the difference in rates.
But you also safe on a lot of fees if your 316t aircraft can do more than the the 352t aircraft it replaces, or the same at even lower MTOW. You probably get more flight time out of a fresh bird per day on average, the fuel advantage is bigger on longer/heavier laden flights, everything expensive if broken still has warranty....

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3477
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Thu Jul 02, 2020 6:23 pm

BA777FO wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
That sounds about right (obviously is as it has come from the crew). To YYZ and DXB the A350-1000, at similar payloads, has a very similar trip fuel burn to the 777-200ER.

So the A350-1000 is pretty much 77W size but with a 777-200 fuel burn. The 77W burns roughly a tonne more than the 772 per hour so the A350-1000 is roughly a tonne per hour better than the 77W, so over an 8 hour flight, 8 tonnes is about $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel savings. Not bad, but not the huge leap that the 787-9 has over the 772.

I see that the 789 also burns about 1t/he less than the 772(er) however your comparison doesn’t show what you seem to imply. When we compare the 772 to the 789 we see that the former is more capable from a payload range perspective and is overall a larger aircraft. When we compare the A350-1000 to the 77W we see that they both have similar max payload but the Airbus carries it over a significantly higher range.

The 772->789 has a similar absolute fuel burn difference and higher from a percentage perspective but also is a less capable jet. Compared to the 351 the 77w is the less capable jet.

If we are to make comparisons between aircraft we should at least attempt to factor out varying performance to avoid misleading other readers.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I pointed out the 789 had ~20% better trip fuel burn at similar payloads on similar routes. The A350, at similar payloads, saved $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel on an 8 hour sector compared with a 77W. I gave my opinion that it wasn't a huge leap forward - $5,000 worth of fuel a day is $150,000 per month. I imagine the costs of financing an A350 versus a 77W are in excess of $150,000. Perhaps not? I remember Willie Walsh stating that operating an A330 for Level was about €500,000 a month cheaper to operate than Norwegian's 789s.

I made no mention of performance, I'd be happy to discuss that another time. I compared fuel burn for similar payloads over the same stage length. So please don't accuse me of misleading when I was completely clear with the comparisons I used.


I would ho[e we were running more than 8 hrs a day so I think we can realistically double your figure to 300k/month.

We don't have figures for the A350-1000 but we can see the difference between expected lease costs on the other models you mentioned and it can be seen that those figures are as large as that. One would expect the lease costs to somewhat follow inversely to the fuel use and allow total cost of ownership to come out similar. Market dynamics and all, the key is whether itts still profitable to build them to sell or lease at that costs. 300k/month is ~$40m over a 12 year lease and over the recently reported financial life of an aircraft (22yearS) around $80m.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:57 am

BA777FO wrote:
I pointed out the 789 had ~20% better trip fuel burn at similar payloads on similar routes.


That simply is not true, we have been through that in a lot of detail on another thread using real performance data with the same payload over various stage lengths.

BA777FO wrote:
The A350, at similar payloads, saved $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel on an 8 hour sector compared with a 77W.


We are seeing 20-25 tonnes less fuel than a 77W over a 12 hr sector, around 30 minutes faster, and lower landing and navigation charges.

BA777FO wrote:
I gave my opinion that it wasn't a huge leap forward - $5,000 worth of fuel a day is $150,000 per month.


What fuel price are you using ? What daily utilisation? We averaged around 15 hrs flight time a day pre covid.

BA777FO wrote:
I imagine the costs of financing an A350 versus a 77W are in excess of $150,000. Perhaps not?


The A350 is cheaper to buy, operate, or lease compared to a 777.

viewtopic.php?t=1440991

https://www.statista.com/statistics/273 ... t-by-type/

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... s-2018.pdf
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
BA777FO
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:12 pm

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
I pointed out the 789 had ~20% better trip fuel burn at similar payloads on similar routes.


That simply is not true, we have been through that in a lot of detail on another thread using real performance data with the same payload over various stage lengths.


It is true, not sure what you've been looking at but I've got our real world data right here. I've compared our 772s with 789s on our Houston, Newark and several other routes. The fuel burn advantage of the 789 is 20%.

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
The A350, at similar payloads, saved $4,000-5,000 worth of fuel on an 8 hour sector compared with a 77W.


We are seeing 20-25 tonnes less fuel than a 77W over a 12 hr sector, around 30 minutes faster, and lower landing and navigation charges.


We haven't used our A350s on particularly long routes yet, the first few sectors were to Dubai and Tel Aviv. On those sectors the A350-1000 burned almost the same fuel as the 772. So LHR-HKG what kind of trip fuel burn are you getting in an A350-1000?

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
I gave my opinion that it wasn't a huge leap forward - $5,000 worth of fuel a day is $150,000 per month.


What fuel price are you using ? What daily utilisation? We averaged around 15 hrs flight time a day pre covid.


Using the sectors I listed above. Again, we haven't used them on sectors exceeding about 9½ hours to Bangalore so utilisation has been low. At the time the fuel price was averaging $500 per metric tonne. Today it's slightly lower.

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
I imagine the costs of financing an A350 versus a 77W are in excess of $150,000. Perhaps not?


The A350 is cheaper to buy, operate, or lease compared to a 777.


List prices and actual purchase price, as I'm sure you know, are never the same. Out of curiosity, I haven't seen one of our A350 loadsheets yet, what's the max available payload up MZFW?
 
roby11
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:59 am

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:30 pm

zeke wrote:
The A350 is cheaper to buy, operate, or lease compared to a 777.


Not just cheaper, I don't know why I feel some products of Airbus are more modernized than Boeing's.
Best regards
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350-1000 fuel burn

Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:48 pm

BA777FO wrote:
is true, not sure what you've been looking at but I've got our real world data right here. I've compared our 772s with 789s on our Houston, Newark and several other routes. The fuel burn advantage of the 789 is 20%.


I thought you were saying the 789 is 20% less than the A350. We have had a lengthy discussion on the 787 vs A350 using manufactures performance data based upon the same payload over different ranges there is very little difference between them.

I would image in your 772 vs 789 comparison that the 772 carried more payload.

BA777FO wrote:
We haven't used our A350s on particularly long routes yet, the first few sectors were to Dubai and Tel Aviv. On those sectors the A350-1000 burned almost the same fuel as the 772. So LHR-HKG what kind of trip fuel burn are you getting in an A350-1000?


Around 20-25 tonnes less than a 77W, were able to compare HKG-LHR/LGW, and HKG-FRA/DUS. Of little surprise our LHR, YVR, SFO, JFK and FRA flights at the moment are being flown by the A350.

BA777FO wrote:
List prices and actual purchase price, as I'm sure you know, are never the same. Out of curiosity,


That’s why I provided both links to actual transactions and list prices.

BA777FO wrote:
I haven't seen one of our A350 loadsheets yet, what's the max available payload up MZFW?


-900 around 60 tonnes, -1000 around 75 tonnes.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hosta and 26 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