Lufthansa Group has been going on an aircraft shopping spree lately, including buying new and used jets. The airline has just announced plans to pick up even more A350s, though they won’t be new ones…
In this post:
Lufthansa picks up more used A350-900s
Lufthansa Group has announced that it has entered into an agreement to acquire four additional Airbus A350-900s from Deucalion Aviation Limited. These planes should join the Lufthansa fleet this year. Lufthansa currently operates a fleet of 21 Airbus A350-900s, with 38 additional A350s on order.
In April 2021, South America’s LATAM announced that it would retire its entire fleet of 11 Airbus A350-900s. That came after the airline filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, given the impacts of the pandemic on the carrier’s business. The airline instead chose to focus on maintaining Boeing 787s and Boeing 777s.
While the 777s are significantly older, presumably it was more economical to dump the new A350s, which were an average of just three years old.
Delta has already acquired some LATAM Airbus A350s. There was a bit more to that purchase, though, given that Delta actually owns a stake in LATAM. In this case there’s not really a connection between LATAM and Lufthansa, but rather Lufthansa is just in a position to get a deal from the company that owns the planes.
This isn’t the first time that Lufthansa has added used wide body jets to its fleet. Lufthansa also recently picked up four Airbus A350-900s that previously flew for Philippine Airlines. Lufthansa has also bought five Boeing 787-9s that previously flew for Hainan Airlines.
The issue with these used jets are the interiors
In general I think there’s a lot of merit to buying used aircraft. Historically it’s something many airlines have shied away from, as it was looked down upon for whatever reason. However, it makes perfect sense. Much like with cars, airplanes lose a lot of value once they enter service, so you might as well pay less than you have to, especially when the planes are as new as these.
The catch in the case of Lufthansa is just how inconsistent the carrier’s product is getting in terms of seats. Lufthansa seems to maintain whatever cabins the planes from the previous airline had, and just put its own finishes in.
That’s not great in terms of product consistency, but then again, I’m not sure many people actually want consistency when it’s Lufthansa’s old business class being offered. Ironically, both the Hainan Airlines and Philippine Airlines jets represent a big improvement to the premium cabin passenger experience.
I’m curious what happens with these former LATAM A350s:
- LATAM had fully flat business class seats in a 2-2-2 configuration on these planes
- LATAM didn’t have premium economy on these planes, and I have to imagine that’s something Lufthansa will look to add
So will Lufthansa just remove some economy seats and put in its premium economy product? Or could we finally see Lufthansa retrofit some of these planes with its new Allegris business class product?
Bottom line
Lufthansa Group is acquiring four Airbus A350-900s that previously flew for LATAM, and they should join Lufthansa’s fleet before the end of 2023. I’m sure the airline got a great deal on these planes, so this was a sensible purchase.
The big question is what the interiors of these planes will look like, as it seems like the concept of consistency is out the window at Lufthansa.
What do you make of Lufthansa’s purchase of former LATAM A350s?
It seems that these birds go to Edelweiss (WK). They will keep the original Latam configuration - which seems ok for the leisure market (couples travelling together actually like the 2-2-2 layout).
LH also plans to aquire these used planes:
2 former Hainan/SAA A350-900
3 x 787-9 which were built for Air Europa
4 x 787-9 which were built for Norwegian
Maybe the outdated 2-2-2 configuration LATAM doggedly clings to will be a bridge too far for LH and they will retro-fit.
Hope my optimism is not misplaced!
@Ben small correction, the 787s never flew for Hainan
As much flak (sic) as we're giving Lufty for its seating inconsistency, I do wonder how many of the seats the manufacturer could actually have for it, ready to install, even if it WANTED such consistency?
Then again, wasn't this seat supposed to be ready in 2017? I get that they aren't going to make 6yrs of production for aircraft orders that didn't exist at the time, but then again, one wonders if they'd at...
As much flak (sic) as we're giving Lufty for its seating inconsistency, I do wonder how many of the seats the manufacturer could actually have for it, ready to install, even if it WANTED such consistency?
Then again, wasn't this seat supposed to be ready in 2017? I get that they aren't going to make 6yrs of production for aircraft orders that didn't exist at the time, but then again, one wonders if they'd at least have quite a few extra build/stored?
Would like to know more about how that production process works, if anyone has insight.
there are no storehouses of seats ready to be installed, esp. for the premium cabin.
Airlines are ordering widebodies left and right, and even though Scott Kirby justified the massive UA order by saying that production slots were running out, Airbus and Boeing are both still committing to at least some deliveries for some of these new orders within 3 years.
Like Delta, Lufthansa will reconfigure these aircraft.
The increased lift is too...
there are no storehouses of seats ready to be installed, esp. for the premium cabin.
Airlines are ordering widebodies left and right, and even though Scott Kirby justified the massive UA order by saying that production slots were running out, Airbus and Boeing are both still committing to at least some deliveries for some of these new orders within 3 years.
Like Delta, Lufthansa will reconfigure these aircraft.
The increased lift is too valuable while the reduced price from a less-capable version wouldn't matter.
Airbus didn't make NPS standard on all A350s with increased performance just because the extra performance wasn't necessary. They did it because increased performance matters to airlines - but in the process it makes earlier versions less valuable.
The ex-Latam aircraft are the largest group of used A350s on the market - or shall we say, WERE the largest group of used A350s on the market.
DL got most of them, LH got a few. Both are still getting new production aircraft that are more capable and DL will be joining LH in getting the most capable A350-1000
One SkyTrax star for each business class configuration.
That's a GOOD one! ;-) :-)
well done @Watson
this is so perfect!!! I commented a while back saying LH should market itself as the only airline with all the business class products out there. It's getting closer and closer!
LOL, @Tim Dunn calling the 10-abreast A350NPS highest capability versions.
The only significant capability change is the squeezability of an extra seat every row.
Maybe @Tim Dunn might know something the rest of us don't that Delta changing to 3-4-3.
But if DL is following what they did with their late 777, by remaining 9-abreast, can't really see any utilized capability being higher.
Eskimo,
you obviously know nothing about
1. the MTOWs of the aircraft involved or
2. The Airbus A350 New Production Standard
1. Most of the aircraft in the current DL A350 fleet as well as the ex-Latam aircraft for both DL and LH can only be modified to a MTOW of 278 tonnes if even that, including A350s in DL's fleet older than N512DN. Airbus implemented wing twist technologies on the A350...
Eskimo,
you obviously know nothing about
1. the MTOWs of the aircraft involved or
2. The Airbus A350 New Production Standard
1. Most of the aircraft in the current DL A350 fleet as well as the ex-Latam aircraft for both DL and LH can only be modified to a MTOW of 278 tonnes if even that, including A350s in DL's fleet older than N512DN. Airbus implemented wing twist technologies on the A350 wing which includes N512DN and newer aircraft, making them 280 tonne models. Some of the ex-Latam aircraft are 280 tonne models but none are 283 tonnes.
2. With Airbus A350 NPS, the MTOW was raised to 283 tonnes, the highest capability, along w/ moving the rear pressure bulkhead and front galley/crew rest systems which improved not just the MTOW but takeoff performance due to a changed COG.
The sidewalls are being widened by only 4 inches which is not enough to add 10 abreast w/o going to very narrow seats. There is no indication that DL or any global carrier that I know of is going w/ 10 abreast coach seating on any of their A350s.
to add, Delta has precisely TWO A350-900s - registration N518DZ and N519DN which are 283 tonne aircraft but they are not in 10 abreast even though the NPS comes standard from those two aircraft and every one off the line after that time period. IB received the first NPS aircraft and Ben covered it because of its unusual premium seating issue.
You're right Tim.
No I probably know nothing (relevant or useful or significant)
Because if the MTOW can make it range a little further, I wouldn't care. No DL routes are pushing the range to the extreme limits.
I don't know if Delta ever needs to use their A350 into a hot and high airport that they don't already fly into but can't unless they have the new "highest capability" to make it...
You're right Tim.
No I probably know nothing (relevant or useful or significant)
Because if the MTOW can make it range a little further, I wouldn't care. No DL routes are pushing the range to the extreme limits.
I don't know if Delta ever needs to use their A350 into a hot and high airport that they don't already fly into but can't unless they have the new "highest capability" to make it possible.
I don't care if my new Corvette can do 190 mph over my current 185 mph, if I'm always stuck in 30 mph city traffic.
Telling me A350NPS that "moving the rear pressure bulkhead and front galley/crew rest systems which improved not just the MTOW but takeoff performance due to a changed COG."
Is like telling me the new Corvette has "shock absorber diameter changes, new engine composite materials, or performance due to a change gear ratio"
Unless I'm racing in NASCAR, I don't care.
Lastly: "There is no indication that DL or any global carrier that I know of is going w/ 10 abreast coach seating on any of their A350s."
See you again in the 10 abreast post when it arrives. :)
NOT! but because you already know that you will claim French Bee isn't a 'global carrier'.
No point.
LOL, Tim is absolutely right, LOL.
NO NASCAR needed to finally have a decent reason to drive a Corvette, . . . just get that vehicle on the German Autobahn and "enjoy the ride" with NO speedlimit. ;-)
A 1 of a kind thing, ONLY happens on the Autobahn (parts of it at least!) speed up as you like. THEN, you care about the 195 mph on the Corvette, i bet.
@STEFFL
Probably lots of other fun cars to drive on the autobahn then a Corvette.
By the way, NASCAR isn't fun anymore. From real "stock" cars to looks like stock cars, and now today seems like every cars are the same. But they're not, the stickers are different, LOL.
Maybe @Tim Dunn was also involved in NASCAR trying to tell fans that Next Gen car have the "highest capability", but they're all the same.
...
@STEFFL
Probably lots of other fun cars to drive on the autobahn then a Corvette.
By the way, NASCAR isn't fun anymore. From real "stock" cars to looks like stock cars, and now today seems like every cars are the same. But they're not, the stickers are different, LOL.
Maybe @Tim Dunn was also involved in NASCAR trying to tell fans that Next Gen car have the "highest capability", but they're all the same.
Otherwise, @Tim Dunn, get a job at NASCAR, you'll be a good fit driving the race to bottom. Y'all understand each other but not the fans or anything practical.
Eskimo,
You specifically said
“The only significant capability change is the squeezability of an extra seat every row.”
That is not only categorically false but neither DL or LH have expressed any interest in 10 abreast seating on the A350.
French Bee is not a “global” carrier in the eyes of just about any informed industry observer but if you think they are, go for it.
There are 3 groups of weight...
Eskimo,
You specifically said
“The only significant capability change is the squeezability of an extra seat every row.”
That is not only categorically false but neither DL or LH have expressed any interest in 10 abreast seating on the A350.
French Bee is not a “global” carrier in the eyes of just about any informed industry observer but if you think they are, go for it.
There are 3 groups of weight variants of the A350-900 and it is impossible for specific aircraft to be converted above the group in which they were built for structural reasons.
- Up to 278 tonne models (there are several weight variants in that group)
- 280 tonne models which have the wing twist functionality
- 283 tonne models which have wing twist plus several other different structural differences including the location of the rear pressure bulkhead, sidewalls, and front galley monuments
Most of the ex-Latam aircraft were in the under 278 tonne group and Delta specifically upgraded some of them from their previous weight variants. DL also ordered its original A350s as 275 tonne models and upgraded them later.
Delta most certainly operates a number of routes that are beyond the capabilities of the A350-900s they use during at least part of the year. I wrote on Seeking Alpha about the research I did which shows that the A350-900 in the most capable version offered today cannot ever do all of the routes Delta is using it on w/o payload restrictions, esp. JNB-ATL. That reality is precisely why DL is considering the A350-1000 which is more capable than the A350-900 with a higher thrust to weight ratio and greater range. The only way the A350-900 could do a route like JNB-ATL with a full passenger load in DL's configuration is if Airbus put the Trent XWB 97 engines along with the MTOW that are on the -1000 on the -900 which is something Airbus considered doing. That would turn the -900 essentially into the hot rod that the B777-200LR was for DL but the A350-1000 does a lot of what the “best” -900s can do but w/ much better economics.
The 283 tonne version of the A350-900 is more capable than the A350ULRs that SQ is using on its EWR/JFK to SIN flights which can last 19+ hours. The A350 is more than capable but the ULRs have a very low density configuration and none of EWR, JFK or SIN are typically performance limited airports as JNB and other airports are. Delta just doesn’t have enough of the most capable A350-900s but has many of them on order; they are likely to order the A350-1000 because that model has better economics AND performance.
LH has multiple ultra long range aircraft types in its fleet and also has the B777X on order while the A350 is the only ULR fleet type in DL’s fleet. LH simply does not need the max capability of the A350 that DL needs.
Just admit you are wrong and that someone else knows more about a specific topic than you.
I don't know if Delta ever needs to use their A350 into a hot and high airport that they don't already fly into but can't unless they have the new "highest capability" to make it possible.
Wouldn't matter.
In hot/high places like JNB, MEX, ADD, etc you can't get to MTOW (due to tire limitation) anyway.
The new 283tonne versions won't offer much of anything that the 280 and 275tonne birds don't, on the outbound.
generally accurate other than that the 283 tonne versions do gain about 2 tonnes of improved takeoff performance due to the change in center of gravity.
The A350 NPS also included changes in flap retraction speed which help in high/hot airports.
Flight tracking sites show that Delta is using its 2 283 tonne birds routinely between SYD-LAX and CPT or JNB-ATL. Those 3 routes are the most operationally challenging which is why those...
generally accurate other than that the 283 tonne versions do gain about 2 tonnes of improved takeoff performance due to the change in center of gravity.
The A350 NPS also included changes in flap retraction speed which help in high/hot airports.
Flight tracking sites show that Delta is using its 2 283 tonne birds routinely between SYD-LAX and CPT or JNB-ATL. Those 3 routes are the most operationally challenging which is why those aircraft are being used there.
And Boeing did work w/ Delta to put higher performance tires on the 777LR (which of course required some certification work) but as much of the problem is that the A350-900's 84k pound thrust engines give it the lowest thrust to MTOW ratio of the A350, 787 (any variant), 777X - with the A350-1000 having a higher thrust to MTOW ratio.
Faster tires won't help if Airbus doesn't get a more powerful engine on the -900. Rolls-Royce doesn't have an option between the Trent XWB 84 on the standard -900 and the XWB-97 on the 350-1000. The two engines work quite differently and Rolls doesn't appear to be able or willing to "split the difference"
the problem is that the A350-900's 84k pound thrust engines give it the lowest thrust to MTOW ratio of the A350, 787 (any variant), 777X
I don't know why you're so fixated on power-to-weight, while ignoring the far more important component of takeoff performance, particularly at challenging airfields: wing loading.
The A359 then becomes among the BEST of the bunch when you look to that aspect.
It's the same reason why the larger 779 uses...
the problem is that the A350-900's 84k pound thrust engines give it the lowest thrust to MTOW ratio of the A350, 787 (any variant), 777X
I don't know why you're so fixated on power-to-weight, while ignoring the far more important component of takeoff performance, particularly at challenging airfields: wing loading.
The A359 then becomes among the BEST of the bunch when you look to that aspect.
It's the same reason why the larger 779 uses (and requires) far less thrust than the 773ER.
Faster tires won't help if Airbus doesn't get a more powerful engine on the -900.
Except that that would serve to DECREASE performance on segments like JNB-ATL, as the aircraft's V-MCG (velocity for minimum control [on] ground) will also increase, causing its runway requirement to proportionally increase as well, thus requiring even MORE tire fortification to get the same performance you would've already had on a shorter run with a lower V-MCG.
Ironic, ain't it? ;)
The A350-1000 wing is slightly smaller than the -900s due to larger control surfaces but the difference is not near as much as the increase in MTOW or the reduction in performance.
If you actually read and studied Airbus performance charts, the A350-1000 does better on the same sector as the A350-900. The engine thrust is what makes the difference whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
yes, the A350 has a...
The A350-1000 wing is slightly smaller than the -900s due to larger control surfaces but the difference is not near as much as the increase in MTOW or the reduction in performance.
If you actually read and studied Airbus performance charts, the A350-1000 does better on the same sector as the A350-900. The engine thrust is what makes the difference whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
yes, the A350 has a best-in-class wing but the -900 is underpowered relative to every other new generation widebody including the 777-9.
Airbus knows it and Delta knows it. Rolls doesn't produce a higher thrust engine and neither Delta or Airbus is willing to spend the money to develop an A350-900 with the A350-1000 engines and MTOW.
The A350-1000 can deliver most of what Delta needs in the most challenging environments AND ALSO improve economics across a number of other routes where higher capacity is worth more than the improved performance on a handful of routes.
And my statement remains that the A350-900 will not fly with anywhere close to 280 passengers (rumored to be DL's new configuration for its A359s) on JNB-ATL.
The A350-1000 very well might come pretty close to that number.
The A350-1000 is simply better all around which is why it is surprising that it took Delta this long to order it.
And, once again, LH has joined a number of GLOBAL A350 operators that have BOTH versions of the A350.
If you actually read and studied Airbus performance charts, the A350-1000 does better on the same sector as the A350-900. The engine thrust is what makes the difference whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Oh trust, I have.
There's quite a few factors that contribute to the -1000's performance advantage beyond simply "engine thrust."
We could go farther into it; though I fear you'll just ignore it, as above, and repeat...
If you actually read and studied Airbus performance charts, the A350-1000 does better on the same sector as the A350-900. The engine thrust is what makes the difference whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Oh trust, I have.
There's quite a few factors that contribute to the -1000's performance advantage beyond simply "engine thrust."
We could go farther into it; though I fear you'll just ignore it, as above, and repeat your own preconceived notion regardless-- as if repetition will somehow magically make it accurate.
you could have and should have just stopped with "the -1000s performance advantage"
The simple fact is that every airline that has access to Airbus' performance software knows that the -1000 delivers better takeoff performance than the -900 under the same conditions adjusted for the two aircraft's max capabilities.
If you'd like to tell us - WITH NUMBERS - the reason for Delta's known performance restrictions out of JNB and how they could...
you could have and should have just stopped with "the -1000s performance advantage"
The simple fact is that every airline that has access to Airbus' performance software knows that the -1000 delivers better takeoff performance than the -900 under the same conditions adjusted for the two aircraft's max capabilities.
If you'd like to tell us - WITH NUMBERS - the reason for Delta's known performance restrictions out of JNB and how they could better be fixed with the -900 than the -1000, we'd all love to hear.
The simple fact is that the -1000's higher thrust gives it better performance under hot/high conditions - which is a very small fraction of the total flights that either version of the A350 face and incur limits.
Delta operates the longest flights from both JNB and CPT and both have performance issues for different reasons.
As much as you want to believe otherwise, Delta has rotated its highest performance A350-90s through JNB and CPT along w/ SYD and the only other variants that regularly serve either airport are the 280 tonne versions.
If the increased MTOW didn't matter, then Delta, which actually operates all 3 groups of A350-900s and doesn't just quote textbooks, wouldn't bother rotating just those aircraft through there.
The reality is that the A350-900 IS being pushed to its limits on several routes for Delta, that is less so for Lufthansa, but both are very committed to both versions of the A350 and will both be similarly sized operators of total A350 fleets with both used and newly delivered models of multiple levels of capability.
I'll be waiting for your numbers and analysis...
If you'd like to tell us - WITH NUMBERS - the reason for Delta's known performance restrictions out of JNB and how they could better be fixed with the -900 than the -1000, we'd all love to hear.
BETTER REQUEST: I'd love for you to show me where I've made any such claim.
Make it more fun and hold your breath while you search.
Because I've never claimed that the A359 would be better...
If you'd like to tell us - WITH NUMBERS - the reason for Delta's known performance restrictions out of JNB and how they could better be fixed with the -900 than the -1000, we'd all love to hear.
BETTER REQUEST: I'd love for you to show me where I've made any such claim.
Make it more fun and hold your breath while you search.
Because I've never claimed that the A359 would be better for them or anyone than the A35K, I simply informed you (to no real avail, apparently) that your theory of a thrust increase being a panacea for A359 performance isn't accurate and also why.
'Course, the fact that the OEM isn't offering it, despite easily being able to (available core, right there), should've been your first clue, but I don't mind being the second.
and the only other variants that regularly serve either airport are the 280 tonne versions.
You automatically assume wayyyyy too much.
The fact that the 280t birds are primarily assigned to JNB is not a vindication of your amateurish "thrust" claims (which, for the reason given above would actually DECREASE performance)....
....it's because they have the (1) additional wing twist, and (2) modified winglets, both of which contribute to significant savings on the longest route in the system. Duhhhhhhh.
I'll say it again --since repetition is what you understand-- you'd be lucky to hit 270 to 272t on a standard (let alone hot) day in JNB with an A359. Higher MTOW is not your concern there, because you won't be able to achieve it anyway.
first, Delta has used the 278 tonne versions but is now using only the 280 tonne and 283 tonne versions.
I am going to take the evidence of what an airline operator does as worth WAY more than you.
And the fact is that the A350-1000 DOES have better takeoff performance. Arguing that the reason isn't because of higher thrust makes no sense because there are no engine options on the -900 or...
first, Delta has used the 278 tonne versions but is now using only the 280 tonne and 283 tonne versions.
I am going to take the evidence of what an airline operator does as worth WAY more than you.
And the fact is that the A350-1000 DOES have better takeoff performance. Arguing that the reason isn't because of higher thrust makes no sense because there are no engine options on the -900 or the -1000. You get the Trent XWB 84 on the -900 and the 97 on the -1000. Period.
Again, if you'd like to show us why Delta should not order the -1000 and gain its extra performance, revenue generation capability and better costs per seat AND USE IT IN JNB, please be sure and let us know.
I suspect that within a few years, we will see a DL A350-1000 in JNB and that in itself will be the greatest evidence of the A350-1000s superior performance. Even if the larger model is also performance restricted, it will carry more passengers relative to DL's configuration for that aircraft over the same route than the -900 is doing now.
<first, Delta has used the 278 tonne versions but is now using only the 280 tonne and 283 tonne versions. I am going to take the evidence of what an airline operator does as worth WAY more than you.
AGAIN, no one... as in: not anyone... has made the claim nor proposition that DL is still sending their sub 280t aircraft. Just that MTOW wouldn't matter on the route. Obviously, other (enumerated above) factors do....
<first, Delta has used the 278 tonne versions but is now using only the 280 tonne and 283 tonne versions. I am going to take the evidence of what an airline operator does as worth WAY more than you.
AGAIN, no one... as in: not anyone... has made the claim nor proposition that DL is still sending their sub 280t aircraft. Just that MTOW wouldn't matter on the route. Obviously, other (enumerated above) factors do.
Why do you make things up to refute?
As you also just did with this:
Again, if you'd like to show us why Delta should not order the -1000
Again, where is anyone saying that DL shouldn't get A35Ks?????
Are you THIS desperate for conflict? lol
so, Delta is routinely sending its better and best performing aircraft CONSISTENTLY on a route even though they don't make a difference?
For someone that accuses me of sticking to a narrative, you do an incredible job of arguing a point for which you not only provide NO SOLID EVIDENCE but for which the evidence that does exist contradicts your hypothesis.
Tell us what other routes Delta serves that are served by the...
so, Delta is routinely sending its better and best performing aircraft CONSISTENTLY on a route even though they don't make a difference?
For someone that accuses me of sticking to a narrative, you do an incredible job of arguing a point for which you not only provide NO SOLID EVIDENCE but for which the evidence that does exist contradicts your hypothesis.
Tell us what other routes Delta serves that are served by the same group of 280 or 283 t aircraft and where it doesn't matter.
The simple fact is that the A350-1000 will do better on many metrics and that is why Delta will order that model and why LH already has joined a number of other A350-900 operators that are upgrading to that model.
Since there are no engine options on either model, your incessant arguing that the logic I used doesn't work is flawed. You can't prove your statement so you just double down on repeating the same thing
Admit that you, like Eskimo, jumped into a conversation about which you don't have real world facts or accurate logic.
so, Delta is routinely sending its better and best performing aircraft CONSISTENTLY on a route even though they don't make a difference?
Are you dim, or just plain illiterate?
TWICE now I've given you the actual reason they send those aircraft there, but you literally are pretending that that's never happened, because it's not the reason you wish it was.
That's really, Really, REALLY strange dude.
the only thing that is strange is that you THINK you are answering the question when in fact you have not.
"AGAIN, no one... as in: not anyone... has made the claim nor proposition that DL is still sending their sub 280t aircraft. Just that MTOW wouldn't matter on the route. Obviously, other (enumerated above) factors do."
EXACTLY what factors do the 280 and 283 tonne versions have that the 278 tonne ships don't...
the only thing that is strange is that you THINK you are answering the question when in fact you have not.
"AGAIN, no one... as in: not anyone... has made the claim nor proposition that DL is still sending their sub 280t aircraft. Just that MTOW wouldn't matter on the route. Obviously, other (enumerated above) factors do."
EXACTLY what factors do the 280 and 283 tonne versions have that the 278 tonne ships don't have that explains why DL sends the two more capable types.
And since you can't stop arguing, it is no more possible to separate the other features that the 280 and 283 tonne aircraft offer from the 278 tonne versions AND MORE than it is possible to separate the higher performance of the A350-1000 from the A350-900.
You are arguing because you can't admit you make no sense and are wrong. Newer, higher performance versions matter, Airbus doesn't even build the less capable versions any more and Delta is moving UP NOT DOWN the performance chain.
EXACTLY what factors do the 280 and 283 tonne versions have that the 278 tonne ships don't have that explains why DL sends the two more capable types.
K, since it's apparently beyond your capability to do this simple task on your own, I'll help:
Gonna need you to pull up your browser's search function (Command+F with a Mac, or CTRL+F with a PC), then put in the phrases "additional wing twist" or "modified winglet".......
EXACTLY what factors do the 280 and 283 tonne versions have that the 278 tonne ships don't have that explains why DL sends the two more capable types.
K, since it's apparently beyond your capability to do this simple task on your own, I'll help:
Gonna need you to pull up your browser's search function (Command+F with a Mac, or CTRL+F with a PC), then put in the phrases "additional wing twist" or "modified winglet".... then tell me what you see.
I'll wait.
It's only 6 posts above this one, shouldn't be hard to find.
ah, yes.
I specifically noted the wing twist functions IN THE VERY FIRST REPLY I made to Eskimo
but YOU had to jump in and tell us that the increased MTOW wasn't of any use.
And can you get those functions on a 278 tonne A350-900?
Of course you can't.
So, Delta is using the 280 and 283 tonne units because they have greater capabilities IN ADDITION to the increased...
ah, yes.
I specifically noted the wing twist functions IN THE VERY FIRST REPLY I made to Eskimo
but YOU had to jump in and tell us that the increased MTOW wasn't of any use.
And can you get those functions on a 278 tonne A350-900?
Of course you can't.
So, Delta is using the 280 and 283 tonne units because they have greater capabilities IN ADDITION to the increased MTOW.
You could have saved yourself a whole lot of time if you had refrained from your grandstanding and simply acknowledged that I wrote was accurate.
you usually are quite enjoyable to read - but you blew it today trying to look smart.
You failed.
DO better the next time.
Thank you Dunn, for all the information and facts you give us, well presented, and in a calm and respectful way. I wish other opinionated commentators would bring the same tone and same facts based analysis. You really bring a lot of value added to Lucky’s posts.
thank you.
Given that some models such as the 767-300ER offered multiple thrust versions of the same aircraft family (ie the PW4056 and PW4060) and the higher thrust versions had far better takeoff performance. The wing loading, winglets etc and all the other fancy words that people want to throw out are the same and yet the higher thrust version, wait, wait, performs better.
It is beyond silly to argue that increased thrust...
thank you.
Given that some models such as the 767-300ER offered multiple thrust versions of the same aircraft family (ie the PW4056 and PW4060) and the higher thrust versions had far better takeoff performance. The wing loading, winglets etc and all the other fancy words that people want to throw out are the same and yet the higher thrust version, wait, wait, performs better.
It is beyond silly to argue that increased thrust couldn't fix a lot of problems on the A350-900 IF Rolls-Royce offered a higher thrust version on either version of the A350 - but engine manufacturers are moving to providing one engine model per variant of each new aircraft model.
@DCBanker
His problem isn't the facts, it's always been the analysis.
@ConcordeBoy
Exactly my point.
"Wouldn't matter."
Therefore 'highest capability' that someone seems to try differentiate isn't something to even worth differentiating.
Exactly my point.
Meh, don't congratulate yourself too much... I said it wouldn't matter for the reason you proposed, not that it doesn't matter in a general sense. If so, Airbus wouldn't have offered it, and no airline would take it.
It's quite a valuable performance aspect to have, which is why airlines are getting it, lol.
"Meh, don't congratulate yourself too much"
LOL, too late. Already pop out the champagne.
Arguing on your 'general sense' is like arguing with Tim Dunn on what's a 'global' carrier. I dare not ask what is global or not. I'm afraid I'll s..t my pants if 'Global Ghana' is because it's global, LOL.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think airlines can opt-out NPS, aka. Airbus didn't offer but forced it.
Another champagne popped, LOL.
Arguing on your 'general sense' is like arguing with Tim Dunn on what's a 'global' carrier.
Why do you speak so confidently about issues you (clearly) know so little about?
Anyway, airlines can still contract with Airbus for whatever W/V they choose for these aircraft, and some authorities (HKG being among the first and most prime example) even allow carriers to switch them on a per-operational basis to save/make money as required.
As...
Arguing on your 'general sense' is like arguing with Tim Dunn on what's a 'global' carrier.
Why do you speak so confidently about issues you (clearly) know so little about?
Anyway, airlines can still contract with Airbus for whatever W/V they choose for these aircraft, and some authorities (HKG being among the first and most prime example) even allow carriers to switch them on a per-operational basis to save/make money as required.
As such, Airbus would not have gone through the trouble of certifying for the higher performance if it "didn't matter," i.e. if their customers didn't see value in purchasing it, which they don't have to do. They can still opt for the lower W/Vs for a lower price.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think airlines can opt-out NPS, aka. Airbus didn't offer but forced it.
You do realize that purchasing any type/model/brand of aircraft is optional, do you not?
Again, the only reason Airbus made these changes, is because it's what their customers wanted. Anyone who doesn't, can void the contract on terms of a unilateral modification, and purchase elsewhere (e.g. Hawaiian).
LOL, you seem to have so much confident about the issue and what I know. You're even confident that I'm confident.
Are you trying to be the @Tim Dunn of Airbus?
Regardless, still someone (else) correct me if I'm wrong, but I (with no confidence) don't think NPS is optional.
Again, the only reason ....... made these changes, is because it's what their customers wanted. Anyone who doesn't, can void the contract on...
LOL, you seem to have so much confident about the issue and what I know. You're even confident that I'm confident.
Are you trying to be the @Tim Dunn of Airbus?
Regardless, still someone (else) correct me if I'm wrong, but I (with no confidence) don't think NPS is optional.
Again, the only reason ....... made these changes, is because it's what their customers wanted. Anyone who doesn't, can void the contract on terms of a unilateral modification, and purchase elsewhere. Sounds exactly what airlines are saying when they reduce leg room, remove personal screens, buy-on-board, no free bags, devalue miles etc.
Since you're already pulling a Tim Dunn on @Tim Dunn, I'll leave the both of you to go Tim Dunn on each other. I'm out.
POP!!! There goes another champagne.
4 of the ex-Latam DL A350s were produced before Delta's first original order A350 and 2 of LH's A350s were produced before its first original order A350.
I'm wondering what the reasons are behind why Delta hasn't purchased them given the fact that Delta has a relationship with Latam and has bought used A350s from them previously.
I guess this makes LH deserving of another skytrax star for best in "cabin configuration diversity".
Curious why Delta didnt buy them since it has a relationship with Latam and has bought used A350s from them in the past
Brian,
as noted below, these are less capable variants than what DL and LH are currently receiving in new production A350-900s which is why they are discounted.
DL doesn't need more less capable A350-900s - they already have 20 of them, the current majority of their A350 fleet. They need more of the highest capability versions and have 16 new production A350-900s due for delivery in the next 3 years and they are...
Brian,
as noted below, these are less capable variants than what DL and LH are currently receiving in new production A350-900s which is why they are discounted.
DL doesn't need more less capable A350-900s - they already have 20 of them, the current majority of their A350 fleet. They need more of the highest capability versions and have 16 new production A350-900s due for delivery in the next 3 years and they are all certain to be the most capable versions.
And that is before an expected new Airbus widebody order from Delta at the Paris Air Show next month which is certain to include A350-1000s which are more capable and more economical than even the newest production A350-900s. DL might even convert some of its remaining A350-900 orders to -1000s.
LH's A350-900s are on average younger than DL based on delivery dates and LH also has the -1000 on order. The chances are high that DL and LH will have similarly sized A350 fleets by 2030 composed of the -900 and -1000 including used aircraft which will be configured in a standard configuration for each carrier.
TAM (the former Brazilian "side" of what is currently Latam) probably got a good deal on the A350s to begin with but Latam didn't see the need for 2 new generation planes - the A350 and B787- since Latam already had a larger fleet of 787s.
The planes have been parked for several years due to the pandemic and the A350 is selling well post-pandemic so these are quick ways to add capacity.
...
TAM (the former Brazilian "side" of what is currently Latam) probably got a good deal on the A350s to begin with but Latam didn't see the need for 2 new generation planes - the A350 and B787- since Latam already had a larger fleet of 787s.
The planes have been parked for several years due to the pandemic and the A350 is selling well post-pandemic so these are quick ways to add capacity.
From a technical standpoint, these, like the ones DL acquired, are lower capability versions - less capable than the new production A350-900s that DL and LH are receiving and have recently received.
The lead time for new aircraft interiors is as long as if ordering a new plane - so LH, like DL, will operate these aircraft in their original interiors for several years. DL undoubtedly ordered new interiors as soon as it bought the ex-Latam A350s but just assigned the retrofits to Airbus Services within the past year. Delta hasn't announced a timeline for when the retrofitted aircraft will enter service but soon could start as soon as this winter. A similar 2 year timeline is likely the case for LH as well. The reduced acquisition costs easily offsets the reduced revenue for a couple years until the cabins are modded although the ex-Latam A350s have more total seats than the DL and LH standard configurations. DL is using its ex-Latam A350s for high capacity aircraft to Europe this summer while demand is very strong. LH undoubtedly sees similar demand patterns on its system.
I just flew on an LH A350 and it is a pleasant ride and they tout the economics of the aircraft in giant letters all over the sides of the plane.
I'm shocked you're not chastising LATAM for keeping their older 777s over the new A350s. I figured you'd be furious at them for actually having fuel data numbers that you don't and making an informed decision based on fuel tradeoff vs a more depreciated asset.
Or is it only UA & AA 777s that you despise above all else?
Max,
first, Latam's 777s are 777-300ERs which are fairly dense which gives them far better per seat economics than the 777-200ERs of AA and UA.
second, LA is going w/ the 787 so the 777-300ER is a significant step up in capacity.
third, LA just came out of bankruptcy so undoubtedly had the opportunity to renegotiate lease costs on the 777Ws if they believed they were above market rates.
I know what LATAM has... just noting your usual hypocrisy and nonsense around the 777, one you make about the 77W, the 772, and the 77E. Of course older generation planes have worse fuel economics.... Seat density doesn't matter for aircraft economics. passenger and seat weight aside, A 77W burns the same amount of fuel with 100 seats on it vs 400. Your seat density argument about seat economics is just a stupid argument you...
I know what LATAM has... just noting your usual hypocrisy and nonsense around the 777, one you make about the 77W, the 772, and the 77E. Of course older generation planes have worse fuel economics.... Seat density doesn't matter for aircraft economics. passenger and seat weight aside, A 77W burns the same amount of fuel with 100 seats on it vs 400. Your seat density argument about seat economics is just a stupid argument you make to try and make DL's A350s look more fuel efficient than a 787 because DL packs in the seats. God knows why... both planes are great and very fuel efficient. Your usual DL has to win everything argument gets tiresome.
Media reports in the last couple of weeks said that LH has no intention of reconfiguring these planes anytime soon and will get them flying with their current seats.
LH probably has some routes with less premium demand and could deploy them on these routes only.
The LATAM J seating isn't as good as the forthcoming LH seating, but its much better than the typical LH J seat in their existing fleet. If I were a passenger I would much rather fly on these places than say an LH A380, A340, A330, etc.