Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Air Cargo Carrying Potential of The A359 & B789

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Air Cargo Carrying Potential of The A359 & B789

    https://content.sciendo.com/download...ticle-p301.xml

    A very good "geeky" read comparing the A359 & B789 on the SIN-SFO route bet SQ & UA.

  • #2
    TL; DR

    "As can be seen, the payload potential of the Singapore Airlines Airbus 350-900XWB aircraft is always slightly greater than the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 aircraft, particularly when there are no prevailing wind penalties.Specifically, the Singapore Airlines Airbus 350-900XWB on average offers 5.5 tonnes more than United Airlines Boeing 787-9. Based on the current air cargo proxy yield ($0.375/tonne/km)(Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 2016), and the distance (13,596.09 km) then there could be an additional $27,900 in revenue potential when the aircraft operates daily services. This equates to an annual revenue potential of $USD 20.3 million."

    furthermore they say

    The introduction of the Airbus A350-900XWB and the Boeing 787-9 aircraft have enabled airlines to operate ultra-long-haul (ULR) services. This study has examined the air cargo carrying potential of the Airbus A350-900XWB and the Boeing 787-9 aircraft deployed by Singapore Airlines and United Airlines, respectively. The study focused on the San Francisco (SFO) to Singapore (SIN) and Singapore (SIN) to San Francisco (SFO) air routes. Despite the very long flight stage length of 13,596.09 kilometres both aircraft types offer a meaningful air cargo payload. If the flights are not impacted by any prevailing winds, then Singapore Airlines Airbus A350-900XWB potentially offers an air cargo payload of 14.7 tonnes and United Airlines Boeing 787-9 a payload of 12.8 tonnes.

    If we consider the available air cargo capacity when there is the maximum passenger compliment on board, the difference between the A350-900XWB in Singapore Airlines cabin configuration and the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 is 5.3 tonnes (in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB), which increases slightly to 5.4 tonnes in the east bound direction and reduced slightly to 5.2 tonnes in the west bound direct.However, if we utilise the typical load factors of each airline, the difference becomes 5.6 tonnes in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB aircraft, which increases to 5.7 tonnes in the east bound direction (and remains at 5.6 tonnes in the west bound direction)."

    Comment


    • #3
      I guess it's important to remember that UA has 2 daily flights while SQ only has 1, not counting the ULR flight since the forward cargo hold is deactivated and the rear is likely used for luggage only. UA's capacity may also change following the 789 Polaris refit, where pax capacity goes from 48J/88Y+/116Y to 48J/21W/39E+/149Y for a total increase of 5.

      Although I'd be more interested in a comparison on SIN-LAX, and whether SQ is leaving money on the table by using a ULR instead of a 3-class A359 with more freight capacity. For one, SQ35/36 are up for Spontaneous Escapes again...
      an infrastructure geek

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by yuuka_miya View Post
        I guess it's important to remember that UA has 2 daily flights while SQ only has 1, not counting the ULR flight since the forward cargo hold is deactivated and the rear is likely used for luggage only. UA's capacity may also change following the 789 Polaris refit, where pax capacity goes from 48J/88Y+/116Y to 48J/21W/39E+/149Y for a total increase of 5.

        Although I'd be more interested in a comparison on SIN-LAX, and whether SQ is leaving money on the table by using a ULR instead of a 3-class A359 with more freight capacity. For one, SQ35/36 are up for Spontaneous Escapes again...
        Referring to the lack of an SQ A359 in long haul config plying SIN-LAX non-stop, is it due to the lack of range if it is carrying a full passenger payload? Wondering how UA can do it on the B789 with seemingly little or no passenger load restrictions, while SQ isn’t doing it with the A359.

        Comment


        • #5
          Apparently UA has plenty of load restrictions when winds are stronger in the winter, I seem to recall a UA guy on a.net saying they were blocking 40 seats or something like that.

          So I guess either SQ thinks it's not worth taking a 20-30 seat hit, or that they want to, but don't have enough 3-class A359s given that LAX was planned as a ULR destination at the time of the orders. Kind of makes me wonder, if J demand out of LAX is that high, whether putting the A380 back on SQ11/12 and terminating SQ35/36 could work too.
          an infrastructure geek

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by yuuka_miya View Post
            Apparently UA has plenty of load restrictions when winds are stronger in the winter, I seem to recall a UA guy on a.net saying they were blocking 40 seats or something like that.

            So I guess either SQ thinks it's not worth taking a 20-30 seat hit, or that they want to, but don't have enough 3-class A359s given that LAX was planned as a ULR destination at the time of the orders. Kind of makes me wonder, if J demand out of LAX is that high, whether putting the A380 back on SQ11/12 and terminating SQ35/36 could work too.
            Thought Jayunited on A.net said it was like 50 seat during winter and 20-30 seat during summer...

            UA thought they could get away with SFO as SFO don't normally have restrictions during summer and more like 20 seat during winter.

            Mind you that the newer generation composite planes while flying greater range has a greater penalty as they're stretching to their limit.

            Cheers,
            Michael

            Comment

            Working...
            X