Future of A-350
08-14-2019, 05:33 AM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,934
Originally Posted by freightdogg
'
I don't think the issue is with the performance of the A350. it is a nice jet. It does wonderful things for different airlines. And looking at the flight deck... it looks amazing and quite comfortable.
The issue is: it was purchased for hub to hub flying. Mainly to fly from various US hubs to Shanghai. But then the Shanghai hub idea fell apart and we immediately deferred the rest of the A350s.
However, A350 is not the best airplane to overfly Narita into secondary Asian destinations. it is too much of a jet- too big. It is also not the best airplane to fly to primary or secondary destinations in Europe.
B787s in general seats around 100 seats less than the A350. And it burns less than a B767-300 ER. Which is why it is incredibly successful with airlines on ultra long haul routes. You have an airplane which is small enough to fill up on secondary markets... which sips fuel. The massive ultra long haul expansion in the global airline industry in the last 5 years was: happened due to the B787.
Delta struggled and failed into markets like Hong Kong. We won't make it into many secondary markets in Asia like MNL, BKK, TPE etc with the A350. It is too big to fill up. Especially into non-skyteam Asia destinations. Which is one reason why we haven't seen any meaningful expansion into secondary destinations in Asia with Delta metal.
This is why a lot us us wish we had 787s. Not because A350 is a poorly made jet. A350 is a 'hub to hub' jet. B787 is more versatile. It can penetrate long haul secondary markets.
I don't think the issue is with the performance of the A350. it is a nice jet. It does wonderful things for different airlines. And looking at the flight deck... it looks amazing and quite comfortable.
The issue is: it was purchased for hub to hub flying. Mainly to fly from various US hubs to Shanghai. But then the Shanghai hub idea fell apart and we immediately deferred the rest of the A350s.
However, A350 is not the best airplane to overfly Narita into secondary Asian destinations. it is too much of a jet- too big. It is also not the best airplane to fly to primary or secondary destinations in Europe.
B787s in general seats around 100 seats less than the A350. And it burns less than a B767-300 ER. Which is why it is incredibly successful with airlines on ultra long haul routes. You have an airplane which is small enough to fill up on secondary markets... which sips fuel. The massive ultra long haul expansion in the global airline industry in the last 5 years was: happened due to the B787.
Delta struggled and failed into markets like Hong Kong. We won't make it into many secondary markets in Asia like MNL, BKK, TPE etc with the A350. It is too big to fill up. Especially into non-skyteam Asia destinations. Which is one reason why we haven't seen any meaningful expansion into secondary destinations in Asia with Delta metal.
This is why a lot us us wish we had 787s. Not because A350 is a poorly made jet. A350 is a 'hub to hub' jet. B787 is more versatile. It can penetrate long haul secondary markets.
08-14-2019, 06:16 AM
#122
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Originally Posted by Cogf16
My F/O was a wealth of information. He said we have rethought our Asia strategy because China Eastern is NOT GOOD and our premium paxs will not fly them
United has been commanding a premium with their nonstops.
08-14-2019, 09:59 AM
#123
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
A350/330 combined fleet? I'd have to say no.
For no other reason then the 330 pilots doing the 350 short course seem to walk around with this expression:
When I look at a 330 cockpit I see a 321 with all the stuff it needs to fly far.
When i see the 350 i see a 330 with everything it needs to do a translunar injection efficiently and with little interaction from the pilots.
For no other reason then the 330 pilots doing the 350 short course seem to walk around with this expression:
When I look at a 330 cockpit I see a 321 with all the stuff it needs to fly far.
When i see the 350 i see a 330 with everything it needs to do a translunar injection efficiently and with little interaction from the pilots.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 08-14-2019 at 10:25 AM.
08-14-2019, 11:42 AM
#126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
A350/330 combined fleet? I'd have to say no.
For no other reason then the 330 pilots doing the 350 short course seem to walk around with this expression:
When I look at a 330 cockpit I see a 321 with all the stuff it needs to fly far.
When i see the 350 i see a 330 with everything it needs to do a translunar injection efficiently and with little interaction from the pilots.
For no other reason then the 330 pilots doing the 350 short course seem to walk around with this expression:
When I look at a 330 cockpit I see a 321 with all the stuff it needs to fly far.
When i see the 350 i see a 330 with everything it needs to do a translunar injection efficiently and with little interaction from the pilots.
08-14-2019, 11:46 AM
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by freightdogg
'
I don't think the issue is with the performance of the A350. it is a nice jet. It does wonderful things for different airlines. And looking at the flight deck... it looks amazing and quite comfortable.
The issue is: it was purchased for hub to hub flying. Mainly to fly from various US hubs to Shanghai. But then the Shanghai hub idea fell apart and we immediately deferred the rest of the A350s.
However, A350 is not the best airplane to overfly Narita into secondary Asian destinations. it is too much of a jet- too big. It is also not the best airplane to fly to primary or secondary destinations in Europe.
B787s in general seats around 100 seats less than the A350. And it burns less than a B767-300 ER. Which is why it is incredibly successful with airlines on ultra long haul routes. You have an airplane which is small enough to fill up on secondary markets... which sips fuel. The massive ultra long haul expansion in the global airline industry in the last 5 years was: happened due to the B787.
Delta struggled and failed into markets like Hong Kong. We won't make it into many secondary markets in Asia like MNL, BKK, TPE etc with the A350. It is too big to fill up. Especially into non-skyteam Asia destinations. Which is one reason why we haven't seen any meaningful expansion into secondary destinations in Asia with Delta metal.
This is why a lot us us wish we had 787s. Not because A350 is a poorly made jet. A350 is a 'hub to hub' jet. B787 is more versatile. It can penetrate long haul secondary markets.
I don't think the issue is with the performance of the A350. it is a nice jet. It does wonderful things for different airlines. And looking at the flight deck... it looks amazing and quite comfortable.
The issue is: it was purchased for hub to hub flying. Mainly to fly from various US hubs to Shanghai. But then the Shanghai hub idea fell apart and we immediately deferred the rest of the A350s.
However, A350 is not the best airplane to overfly Narita into secondary Asian destinations. it is too much of a jet- too big. It is also not the best airplane to fly to primary or secondary destinations in Europe.
B787s in general seats around 100 seats less than the A350. And it burns less than a B767-300 ER. Which is why it is incredibly successful with airlines on ultra long haul routes. You have an airplane which is small enough to fill up on secondary markets... which sips fuel. The massive ultra long haul expansion in the global airline industry in the last 5 years was: happened due to the B787.
Delta struggled and failed into markets like Hong Kong. We won't make it into many secondary markets in Asia like MNL, BKK, TPE etc with the A350. It is too big to fill up. Especially into non-skyteam Asia destinations. Which is one reason why we haven't seen any meaningful expansion into secondary destinations in Asia with Delta metal.
This is why a lot us us wish we had 787s. Not because A350 is a poorly made jet. A350 is a 'hub to hub' jet. B787 is more versatile. It can penetrate long haul secondary markets.
The other US airlines that do point to point have 787's but also happen to be on a totally different level when it comes to JV's.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you by the way. Just wondering.
08-14-2019, 12:19 PM
#128
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2018
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by cynicalaviator
Freightdogg, are you saying the only reason we do hub to hub vs. point to point is aircraft type? not JV's?
The other US airlines that do point to point have 787's but also happen to be on a totally different level when it comes to JV's.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you by the way. Just wondering.
The other US airlines that do point to point have 787's but also happen to be on a totally different level when it comes to JV's.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you by the way. Just wondering.
I think the 787s would have given us some more flexibility to hit the asian secondary markets. When we initially pulled out of TPE, HKG, CAN, SIN, BKK etc; the general consensus was that... "don't worry... we will overfly NRT to those markets". There is not a chance in hell it will happen with A350s. We can't even make HKG work with 330s/777s. We need smaller airplanes for these secondary markets.
But who knows... maybe the 330NEOs can fill some of those voids. Once they troubleshoot the issues plaguing it right now. Or maybe... we just have to get used to ICN in Asia. 350s will work just fine for that.
The reason I wish we had some 787s has very little to do with; Boeing vs Airbus, design, overhead gasper vents or lack of it, performance etc. It has everything to do with: 787s are 1/3rd smaller than the 350, burns less gas as a result, has good range... and are easier to fill on risky secondary markets. And there are some rumors what we might eventually get some 787s.
Myself... I prefer Airbus cockpits and has nothing against the A350s. Tray tables are awesome and it makes it much more comfortable on a long flight, preflight etc.
Last edited by freightdogg; 08-14-2019 at 12:42 PM.
08-14-2019, 12:21 PM
#129
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2018
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
I heard the 787 was a fine product too but I also heard it has a control yoke.
08-14-2019, 01:00 PM
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,534
Originally Posted by cynicalaviator
Why would our pilots be less capable to do this than Lufthansa, Finnair or Etihad? One answer I can think of is the training program which is something we can change. But apart from that, I don't see why SFF is a reality in other countries and not here.
Just because something has screens and is made by the same parent company doesn't mean its a truly interchangable single fleet from a human factors POV. If 330 and 350 can go back and forth (especially without dual currency requirements, but even with) then why not add the 320 family too? Maybe change a few switches and screenery widgets and hey, 220 joins the party! What could possibly go wrong?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
