That's UFB as that route is 7,500 miles and the advertised range for the A359/10 is 8,100/8,400 vs. the 787-9 at 7,635. The UA 787-9s are rarely weight-limited so either DAL skimped on the MTOGW or Airbus once again overpromised and underdelivered. No wonder UA management wants to shed their 45 orders for the A359s with RR engines sounds like they could do it cheaply for cause.

Yup...

Singapore is doing SIN-EWR-SIN with the A350-900 ULR but that model only has 161 seats and a deactivated fwd cargo hold IAW with the ULR modification.

The "normal" A350-900 isn't fuel limited, it is weight limited. I guess the question is, how much is Airbus charging to certify the A350 for increased gross weights to allow more fuel to be loaded to increase range?

UAL has an exemption to fly to SYD with no alternate (opspec C067) provided weather is at or above landing mins and 2 hours of fuel reserve is planned. Does Delta have or utilize that?

Singapore is flying a stock 350-900 nonstop between SIN and SFO and Cathay is flying HKG-IAD nonstop in the 350-1000.

Both of those are longer then west coast - Australia in terms of miles (Etops and winds and alternates etc of course can add to the fuel requirements)

Great Circle Mapper

So to say the 350 is underperforming performance wise is debatable.

I’m just going on what UAL currently has in the 787’s. Can they change seating configuration? Sure. Look at what we are going to do to almost half the 767 fleet in the high J configuration of only 167 total seats. Or the cattle car 777.

Exactly, but you were trying to advocate for the A359 based on a 66 seat gap. What was the seat gap before UA turned the 777A into cattle cars and the 747-400s that had 374 seats? Heck they managed with that for 15 years.

And how profitable were we over those 15 years? ;)

At the end of the day UAL will order what they order. Based on what they determine best suits their needs. 787/350/777 are all solid aircraft with each having pluses and minuses. Quality Airlines (ie.Singapore, Lufthansa, British Airways) around the world have ordered both for fleet replacement. So it just depends on what the need is. So to say the 787 blows the 350 away on cost and efficiency is hyperbole.

Check this out for some discussion on the fuel burns of the 787 vs 350. Consensus seems for shorter routes the 787 wins because the 787 is a lighter/smaller airframe, but for longer routes the 350 is a better aircraft because it can carry more payload then the 787 can.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1403667

Not at all. Just look at the data.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-787-vs-the-airbus-a350/

You are trying to use the exception (SIN-LAX, SIN-NYC) to prove the rule. Sorry that dog don't hunt. As is pointed out in the debate you cite on the vast majority of the city pairs the 787-9 is about 6% more fuel efficient than the A350-900 on a pax-km/liter of fuel.

The 787 also has the added benefits of lower cabin altitudes, fresh (no engine bleed), humidified cabin air and a superior FCRF.

I'm pretty sure that Airbus would allow us to transfer our orders to another Airbus type, but RR won't. That RR commitment is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I think that we're going to be forced to take the 350s. Maybe we could sublease them to Delta??? But I think that we're not going to be allowed to not fulfill our commitment to RR.

Fun fact; RR new “ultra fan” motor is the front runner for Boeing’s new MOM (797) design. Converting our Trent motors to 797 application/order would be a grand slams by senior management.

The question is can we extend our 756 fleet another 6-7 years????

42
752s
21
753s
Are less than 20 years old
Why not ?