Originally Posted by
Veruka Salt
The 1000 at 316T does fine with ‘only’ 97K/side, just as I’m sure the -9X will do fine with only 105K/side at 351T ....
Really??? Is that why CX is seeking RNP 0.11 engine out performance procedures from HK to get more A350 payload capabilities? HK is a sea level airport and not exceptionally hot compared to ME3 airports.
It is pretty obvious that A350 could use more thrust and/or more lift from the wings. The -9X will have a lot more lift from its wing than the 77W, enabling lesser thrust on takeoff.
I’m not saying A350 is not an efficient aircraft, it is, but no one is impressed when EWR passenger baggage has to be driven up to JFK and hauled by the 777. It’s not a true 15 hour aircraft in CX’s current pax seating configuration.