|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jan 4, 2019 12:38:01 GMT 1
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jan 4, 2019 15:46:33 GMT 1
Happy New Year everyone! My first post of 2019. The last paragraph of the above article seems to be the most relevant for future engine development. More engine OEM testing and equally importantly, extensive testing using Airbus's own flying test beds. The Trent XWB appears to be the most extensively tested engine by Airbus and the in service results seem to prove that. Going forward, I think such dedicated airframer-engine tests should be an integral part of the entire development programme to catch issues that might not have been detected by the engine OEMs.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jan 4, 2019 17:58:37 GMT 1
The other thing I got from it was, I would suggest that airlines use it on there longest routes, more flying time, more fuel savings and less turnarounds ? But airlines with OEO and NEOs in there fleet don't seem too do that ?
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jan 4, 2019 18:53:10 GMT 1
The other thing I got from it was, I would suggest that airlines use it on there longest routes, more flying time, more fuel savings and less turnarounds ? But airlines with OEO and NEOs in there fleet don't seem too do that ? Of course, they do ! The most fuel-efficient type is used on the longer flights. This is what I read in the following excerpt from the above article. " At the end of September, aircraft in Lufthansa's then-13-strong -neo fleet were operating for around 20% less time per day than the carrier’s A320ceos, the airline says. On average, per day, the -neos were operating for 73% as long as same-age -ceos and 92% as long as Lufthansa's oldest -ceos". This excerpt means that the -ceo in LH's fleet are used on shorter trips (in which climb is a high percentage of total flight), and make several trips a day, whereas the -neo are used for longer but fewer trips (in which cruise is a high percentage of total flight). Of course, the -neo provides most of its fuel savings at cruise.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jan 4, 2019 20:24:01 GMT 1
The other thing I got from it was, I would suggest that airlines use it on there longest routes, more flying time, more fuel savings and less turnarounds ? But airlines with OEO and NEOs in there fleet don't seem too do that ? Of course, they do ! The most fuel-efficient type is used on the longer flights. This is what I read in the following excerpt from the above article. " At the end of September, aircraft in Lufthansa's then-13-strong -neo fleet were operating for around 20% less time per day than the carrier’s A320ceos, the airline says. On average, per day, the -neos were operating for 73% as long as same-age -ceos and 92% as long as Lufthansa's oldest -ceos". This excerpt means that the -ceo in LH's fleet are used on shorter trips (in which climb is a high percentage of total flight), and make several trips a day, whereas the -neo are used for longer but fewer trips (in which cruise is a high percentage of total flight). Of course, the -neo provides most of its fuel savings at cruise. My head works that statement the other way round ? NEOs flying less time than a CEO ? So shorter NEO legs ?
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jan 5, 2019 9:50:30 GMT 1
My head works that statement the other way round ? NEOs flying less time than a CEO ? So shorter NEO legs ? I must have been unclear : -neos fly long sectors to take advantage of fuel savings at cruise, whereas -ceos fly shorter trips, and get turned around several times a day. In total, several short -ceo sectors may result in more block hours per day, though not so many of them at cruise.
|
|
lk2000
in Body Join
my flights: flightdiary.net/lucaskrueger2000
Posts: 191
|
Post by lk2000 on Jan 5, 2019 11:39:06 GMT 1
I'd like to add that LH is unable to fly the neo on its longest routes, as the space flex cabin and galley are to small to fit the meals they serve on longer flights. There is not enough storage space; that's why the 320neo can't be used on long routes to Tel Aviv for example. (so they can't maximise fuel savings...)
Also, the neos are not fitted with FlyNet (yet), as the antenna and the radome in the back of the plane are too heavy. The A320neos need lighter devices for FlyNet in order to avoid any balance issues. I was told we'll have to wait at least another 6 months before they can start installing these.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jan 5, 2019 16:50:55 GMT 1
My head works that statement the other way round ? NEOs flying less time than a CEO ? So shorter NEO legs ? I must have been unclear : -neos fly long sectors to take advantage of fuel savings at cruise, whereas -ceos fly shorter trips, and get turned around several times a day. In total, several short -ceo sectors may result in more block hours per day, though not so many of them at cruise. Do not forget the turnaround time on the ground and in EU flights for Lufthansa it is a LOT
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Jan 7, 2019 7:54:12 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jan 7, 2019 10:40:25 GMT 1
The above Flightglobal story was posted by Stealthmanbob in the 'A320neo' thread on January 4th, and we have been discussing it there for days. Perhaps this is a better thread (LH is widely quoted), but there is no point in my opinion in opening a second discussion
|
|