A350-1000 and other Fleet News
09-23-2022, 10:32 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 330 B
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by PSpuza
09-23-2022, 01:17 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,458
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Pilots are going to Love the new cockpit with the bulkhead moved forward and main jumpseat removed and 2 flip down flight attendant style jumpseats. To get the extra width they are reducing sidewall thickness but claim newer insulation will keep people warm on 16 hour flights.
09-24-2022, 10:18 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,584
Originally Posted by FL370esq
What exactly is the 350ULR? The only ULR variant I know of is being operated by Singapore Airlines (Air Lines? 😁
and I just don't see Delta operating a 309 seat airplane in a 161 seat configuration (as well as deactivating the forward cargo compartment which Singapore also did in order to fly direct to/from the US). The -1000 would be nice and gets us a bit of a range bump.
and I just don't see Delta operating a 309 seat airplane in a 161 seat configuration (as well as deactivating the forward cargo compartment which Singapore also did in order to fly direct to/from the US). The -1000 would be nice and gets us a bit of a range bump.
09-24-2022, 11:31 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by ItnStln
What is gained by deactivating the forward cargo compartment?
09-24-2022, 11:35 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Posts: 2,187
Originally Posted by sailingfun
It has to do with wing bending moments. All the extra fuel is in the center tank which increases bending moments. They had to get weight out of the fuselage to reduce that effect. They eliminate all the cargo loading structure equipment.
Can’t see much use of a ULR here. My guess would be -1000 if we’re talking new variants. Think between our hubs we could make those extra seats work, especially a higher first class variant for places like LHR, HND, and so on.
Wouldn’t mind seeing top ups for 339s as well. Boeing has basically said even development of the NMA is shelved for a few years now.
09-24-2022, 12:50 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Petting Zoo
Posts: 2,074
Originally Posted by sailingfun
It has to do with wing bending moments. All the extra fuel is in the center tank which increases bending moments. They had to get weight out of the fuselage to reduce that effect. They eliminate all the cargo loading structure equipment.
09-25-2022, 07:07 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Posts: 2,187
Originally Posted by Sputnik
As a guy who took a lot of engineering, I’m not following your statics. Got a link?
Another idea for long term planning, wonder if we’ve looked at the E2-190? Good 100 seat replacement for the 717, it’s a bit narrower and lighter than the 221 so probably lower block hour costs, and 2 FAs. Would also be a good replacement for the regionals as they shrink. It hasn’t sold tremendously, so we could perhaps get Embraer’s interest with an order. I’ve heard people say we should take over the CRJ-9/E-175 flying, but with no scope limits to content with at mainline, might as well fly a bigger jet within limits.
09-25-2022, 07:21 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 1,216
Originally Posted by PilotBases
I tried finding some info, but all were behind a paywall on various industry sites.
Another idea for long term planning, wonder if we’ve looked at the E2-190? Good 100 seat replacement for the 717, it’s a bit narrower and lighter than the 221 so probably lower block hour costs, and 2 FAs. Would also be a good replacement for the regionals as they shrink. It hasn’t sold tremendously, so we could perhaps get Embraer’s interest with an order. I’ve heard people say we should take over the CRJ-9/E-175 flying, but with no scope limits to content with at mainline, might as well fly a bigger jet within limits.
Another idea for long term planning, wonder if we’ve looked at the E2-190? Good 100 seat replacement for the 717, it’s a bit narrower and lighter than the 221 so probably lower block hour costs, and 2 FAs. Would also be a good replacement for the regionals as they shrink. It hasn’t sold tremendously, so we could perhaps get Embraer’s interest with an order. I’ve heard people say we should take over the CRJ-9/E-175 flying, but with no scope limits to content with at mainline, might as well fly a bigger jet within limits.
I don’t think they really want to replace the 717. I also don’t think they will purchase any more A220-100s. Will continue to see the airline upgage the fleet.
09-25-2022, 07:28 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Posts: 2,187
Originally Posted by Xray678
I don’t think they really want to replace the 717. I also don’t think they will purchase any more A220-100s. Will continue to see the airline upgage the fleet.
I fully understand the upgauging mindset, but there does need to be a balance with frequency. For the right price, the E2-190 could offset regional flying, and the extra 20-30 seats would help make up the cost. I don’t buy cost as much these days anyways. If regionals are paying their captains 150-200+ an hour, surely we can do something reasonable to fly a larger “RJ” here? You also eliminate the cost overhead of paying a contract carrier.
Again, just ideas here, more just Sunday morning musings over my pancakes.
