Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Ultra Long Range A350

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Ultra Long Range A350

Old 24th Apr 2018, 18:42
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Broughton, UK
Posts: 71
Ultra Long Range A350

Looks like Singapore to New York is soon to be viable...


Ultra Long Range A350 XWB completes first flight
.
scifi is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2018, 18:58
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Islas Baleares
Posts: 19
The A350 sure is an impressive machine. I wonder what other airlines will order A350ULRs.
BewareOfTheSharklets is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2018, 20:54
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,909
Looks like Singapore to New York is soon to be viable...
But Singapore did this in the past with the A340-500.
Groundloop is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2018, 20:58
  #4 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 69
Posts: 1,947
Originally Posted by scifi View Post
Looks like Singapore to New York is soon to be viable...


Ultra Long Range A350 XWB completes first flight
.
It was a few years ago with A340s. TG too out of BKK. Both failed and I wonder why SQ think ULH will work this time?

From experience of both, ULH is sh1te and I cannot understand the attraction.
ZFT is online now  
Old 24th Apr 2018, 21:23
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Broughton, UK
Posts: 71
Anyone remember Sabina, even their short-haul flights involved a stop at Brussels...


.
scifi is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2018, 21:47
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 5
jwrobbo

These changes include a modified fuel system that increases fuel carrying capacity by 24,000 litres, without the need for additional fuel tanks.
That's a big jump. I'm trying to get my head around such an increase without more tankage.
jwrobbo is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2018, 23:26
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Downunder
Posts: 290
20 hours, that was illegal under my old contract. The maximum duty time was about 16 or 17 hours, and that's not flight time, that's from check-in to sign off.

A flight that length can be massively fatiguing for crew, esp. when you don't get any sleep due to turbulence, noise or whatever.
skol is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 00:45
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by jwrobbo View Post
That's a big jump. I'm trying to get my head around such an increase without more tankage.
I was thinking the same - I wonder if they're playing around with the definition of 'additional'.

Boeing has had similar capability with the 777-200LR for about 15 years.
It hasn't been a big seller - pretty much a niche aircraft.
I looked into that LAX-Singapore non-stop several years ago - the entire aircraft was an enhanced business class, 100 seats if I recall correctly. It also carried a significant price premium relative to the normal one-stop - around $2,000 more than the one-stop business class ticket.
I wasn't surprised when it was discontinued...
tdracer is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 01:14
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by BewareOfTheSharklets View Post
wonder what other airlines will order A350ULRs.
Qantas are always touting the East Coast Australia to London / New York direct as a winner. If you listen to the current and former CEO's they have bet the farm on Project Sunrise as the saviour for the international arm of the airline on the concept as an end of the line carrier. The latest advertorial A350-900ULR takes flight as Airbus looks towards Project Sunrise Australian Aviation. More background Qantas seeks Holy Grail of nonstop Sydney to London, New York flights by 2022.
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 01:48
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 387
17% is a fair bit of extra fuel, but this is how it is explained.

"the aircraft had to be equipped with adjusted fuel cut-off probes in the tanks, to reach a total fuel load of 165,000 litres (standard is 141,000l)"

Seems these adjusted probes can be readjusted back to the standard if required - to reduce operation costs based on MTOW.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 03:00
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
The G650 went thru a similar mod to become the G650ER.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 08:24
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 41
Posts: 572
20 hours in cattle class , no thanks. Even in J it would be a nightmare
Ex Cargo Clown is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 08:50
  #13 (permalink)  
ImageGear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
//rant on...

It's 2018 and everything flying commercial is well sub-sonic. 12 hours in any ally tube is at least 8 hours too long for anybody. Is this a Big Bubba/Airslush strategy to keep more tubes in the air for longer, justifying higher prices and forcing people to upscale in comfort levels in order to avoid DVT or worse. (Think how many ambulances will be required to attend after pax have been incarcerated for 20 hours) Current aircraft are just all so last century. (Concorde excepted). I predict than the first manufacturer to get an economical SST to market will kill off the rest of the competition.

"Just stating the bleeding obvious but I feel better now"

//Rant off

IG
 
Old 25th Apr 2018, 08:54
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 426
I have found that the long range aircraft, including B777-200LR work, provided they do what they were designed to do-Fly the furthest distance, 18 hours and more. They have a very low seat count (240) and weigh in the same as the B777-300ER (412) for landing fees, over flight fees. Unless it is flying a route that the the B777-300ER cannot, due range, then it doesn't pay to fly a 200LR. They didn't make many of these and neither did they produce many A340-500's.

No doubt the new ULR A350WB will use less gas than the A340-500 did SIN-JFK, but it would be wasting its heavy landing and overflight weights if it does anything else!
Jetjock330 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 09:00
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
I've endured 16 + hours SFO to HKG in economy. I sure wouldn't buy a Y class seat for a 20hr flight.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 09:10
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
rather than SST maybe these ULH planes need air-to-air refuelling, save dragging all that gas round the globe

just saying....

G
groundbum is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 09:22
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 491
Seems these adjusted probes can be readjusted back to the standard if required - to reduce operation costs based on MTOW.
And there is a negligible OEW penalty so, subject to configuration, the ULR can operate as a standard -900.
Torquelink is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 09:40
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
There was the CEO of Boeing ( was it ? ) who about 15 years ago said that even if they produced an airliner that could fly half way round the world, airlines would still want it to have even more range.
Hussar 54 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 10:15
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by groundbum View Post
rather than SST maybe these ULH planes need air-to-air refuelling, save dragging all that gas round the globe

just saying....

G
A380 tanker conversions?

They can hold a bunch of gas, even more when not pressurised and gutted.
Fill 3 or 4 ULH and head back to fill up.

These ultra long flights the airlines need to adapt for the cattle class - bunk beds by the hour and paid shower even a lounge area paid per unit time.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 10:25
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 331
They interviewed some pax after the recent first direct LHR to Australia flight. These were quit positive when they compared the direct flight with one with stops. The direct flight for them was less disruptive. So when you compare you should probably compare the different trip options and not per se the long trip in isolation.

Some technical solutions have been introduced. But the pax were not interviewed on the contribution of specific items.

Pity they did not interview the flight crew. ... Which you dont expect around the introduction of a new route... But still. Would have been very interesting. Again not only the trip but also how they perceive effects on their overall schedule and disruptive effects of either a direct or stops included.

A0283 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.