Ultra Long Range A350

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Or they might make so much money on SIN/EWR that they keep it in ULR configuration for ever.

That certainly wasn't the case when the tried it with the A340 (or the similar SIN/LAX service). I somewhat seriously looked at the LAX/SIN non-stop option one time - it was a massive premium over the similar business class service with a one and a half hour fuel stop thrown in (as in almost 2x).
Not to many people are willing to pay that much of a premium to save a couple hours, and many of those already have access to a private jet...

[Peter47]

I've just been looking at average freight per flight on ULH routes (from US BTS T-100 data) for 2017 and not surprisingly it is not too high westbound and the forward hold will likely be empty:

UA LAX - SIN (789) 2.7 tonnes, average flight duration 17:07
AA DFW - HKG (77W) 2.3 tonnes, average flight duration 16:04

The results will obviously vary by season and indeed day depending upon the jetstream, route taken, holding, etc. However consider the eastbound route:

UA SIN - LAX 9.4 tonnes, avg flt dur 14:34
AA HKG - DFW 12.3 tonnes, avg flt dur 13:54

So you may well want to use the forward hold in one direction. Also what if the aircraft finds itself on a west coast to Tokyo rotation? You could dedicate an aircraft to ULH routes but that would reduce flexibility. I believe that Pan Am (and doubtless other operators) switched 727 QC between passenger & cargo configuration in a matter of hours but doubtless there was a weight penalty which negates one of the reasons d'etre for deactivating it.

My solution... It's already been discussed in another thread, but I believe that there is a lot of scope for utilising the forward hold with suites, toilets, galleys, etc releasing a lot of space for pax, although of course it will add weight.