|
|
Post by fanairbus on Oct 14, 2015 17:05:39 GMT 1
Phew! I was busy looking to enrol in an imminent maths catch-up course.
|
|
|
|
Post by foreigner on Oct 14, 2015 17:54:51 GMT 1
who do you guys think else will order the A350ULR? The Gulf airlines? What about some European carriers?
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Oct 14, 2015 18:10:44 GMT 1
who do you guys think else will order the A350ULR? The Gulf airlines? What about some European carriers? Gulf airlines are unlikely and will have the 7778X for that role. Normally, I would say that a specialised ULH frame would find very few buyers, but the idea of the -900ULR being a small reversible upgrade of the standard -900 would probably find a few more who want to experiment with long thin routes with less risk, especially if they already have the type in their fleets. Qantas would have been a good candidate but they seem to be deeply committed to the 787 now so quite unlikely. However, I think Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand might find it a good reason to tide over to the A350 as a replacement of their 777s. |
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by s543 on Oct 14, 2015 18:59:28 GMT 1
I think that EU airlines are unlikely - they do not need it. Where to use it ?
They will not start nonstop Australia service, and all the other places are not far enough or with not enough interest.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 15, 2015 1:06:13 GMT 1
Already having A350s on order, the US big three are strong candidates, albeit in small numbers.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by s543 on Oct 17, 2015 14:44:25 GMT 1
|
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Oct 21, 2015 13:29:41 GMT 1
Is anyone else a little puzzled by the ULR, or is that just me? The Airbus press release states that "The A350-900ULR has an MTOW of 280 tonnes.", which is up from 268t for the regular A350-900 I believe. It also says that "The extended range capability is achieved without installation of additional fuel tanks and the aircraft can be reconfigured easily to the standard A350-900 long haul specification." What I don't quite follow is how Airbus manage to boost MTOW by some 12t, without any major changes to the structure. The changes are so minimal I'm a little puzzled as to why it would even deserve its own denomination. If you can just reconfigure the A350-900ULR back to a standard A350-900, then what's all the fuss about? I can see how an A350-900ULR would be operated at less than maximum payload, so it makes sense to increase fuel volume (through means of a center tank I assume?), which I guess does not count as an additionally installed fuel tank, because it was there all along. |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Oct 21, 2015 13:33:12 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Oct 21, 2015 13:49:30 GMT 1
Is anyone else a little puzzled by the ULR, or is that just me? The Airbus press release states that "The A350-900ULR has an MTOW of 280 tonnes.", which is up from 268t for the regular A350-900 I believe. It also says that "The extended range capability is achieved without installation of additional fuel tanks and the aircraft can be reconfigured easily to the standard A350-900 long haul specification." What I don't quite follow is how Airbus manage to boost MTOW by some 12t, without any major changes to the structure. The changes are so minimal I'm a little puzzled as to why it would even deserve its own denomination. If you can just reconfigure the A350-900ULR back to a standard A350-900, then what's all the fuss about? I can see how an A350-900ULR would be operated at less than maximum payload, so it makes sense to increase fuel volume (through means of a center tank I assume?), which I guess does not count as an additionally installed fuel tank, because it was there all along. This is what Leeham has to say about the MTOW increase. leehamnews.com/2015/07/14/airbus-in-talks-with-singapore-for-ultra-long-range-airplane-a350-900lr-likely/Whilst no new tanks are installed, the aircraft will have a few of their existing tanks 'activated' which will require a bit more pluming over the standard -900 (At least that's my understanding). I don't see a problem with the aircraft having its own denomination, it's certainly good for marketing! |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 21, 2015 22:28:05 GMT 1
...The changes are so minimal I'm a little puzzled as to why it would even deserve its own denomination. All business names are chosen to help sales. Perhaps, as you contend, a specific name was not a technical necessity, but it was most probably a marketing requirement. In my opinion, it is like the A359 regional : it is just a derated A359, but Airbus found it useful to give this version its own name. All that flexibility in the A350 family must be a great help ta Airbus sales teams, as flexibility decreases customer risk. |
|
