A350 Deliveries and Routes

[sbs2716g]

Just curious, I noticed SM* and SJ* doing the SIN-LAX directs. I assume those are being done on light loads since the aircraft can't normally do the route, yes? It's usually a ULR/SG* route I thought.

Pre-Covid, these SMU onward aircraft are doing the slightly shorter SFO-SIN with full load.

Also these same aircraft were doing SIN-JFK non stop last nov (although with limit on paxes). I would think that if for SIN-LAX, these planes can fly with at around 120 paxes Max with no issue. Not so sure about 253 paxes though. (1 pax will be around 100kg average including luggage). So 100 paxes mean around 10 000kg heavier.

[shikhargpt]

Just curious, I noticed SM* and SJ* doing the SIN-LAX directs. I assume those are being done on light loads since the aircraft can't normally do the route, yes? It's usually a ULR/SG* route I thought.

[SQKevin]

Msn 460, SQ#57 is unpainted. It is difficult to conclude at this point of time if this is 9V-SJC or 9V-SHW though only one window in front of Door 3 is plugged. If this a permanent window plug then it can be confirmed as 9V-SHW as only the Regional version has this window plugged.

[SQKevin]

Msn 460 originally assigned to SQ but never sighted has appeared on the Flightline and has had its First Engine Run. It has been assigned test registration F-WZNY. Not sure which registration this is, perhaps another LH version, that is, 9V-SJC. We need to wait for a photo of it in order to be sure.

[boing]

Wonder if that means a realistic drop in range, or a cost saving measure that can be reverted at some point in the future.

To my knowledge, 7 tons is about hour and half flying time, give or take, worth of fuel.

One of the reasons carriers reduce their MTOW is to incur lower costs in their operations as air traffic charges, overflight charges and landing and parking charges are mostly based on an aircraft's MTOW. This is the same thing they did with their B772s.

[yuuka_miya]

Wonder if that means a realistic drop in range, or a cost saving measure that can be reverted at some point in the future.

[blastnova]

A350 Regional 250t
A350 LH 275t
A350 “LH+“ 280t (9V-SMV to -SMZ and -SJA)
A350 ULR 280t

SIA is decreasing its A350 LH variant MTOW from 275T to 268T (SMA - SMU)

[SQKevin]

9V-SJB completing her First Flight yesterday.

[SQKevin]

She's started engine and taxi test so June might be possible as you have predicted.
https://aibfamily.flights/A350/472

Yes, very likely a June Delivery. 9V-SJB is currently performing her First Flight.

[MainlyMiles]

Three more Airbus A350s are scheduled for delivery in FY21/22 (SJB plus two others) according to the latest financial update.

[9V-JKL]

9V-SJB, a Long Haul version, will be the next SQ A350 to be delivered. June looks like a possible delivery month.

She's started engine and taxi test so June might be possible as you have predicted.
https://aibfamily.flights/A350/472

[Not You]

There was a discussion about MTOW in this thread some time back, if you are keen. Post #2712 (Page 181) onwards; interesting to see that there might've been some changes to certain MTOWs since then, like 9V-SMJ.

Sorry my bad. I left out SMJ in my earlier post. 9V-SMJ still has a MTOW of 268t.

[wlgspotter]

There was a discussion about MTOW in this thread some time back, if you are keen. Post #2712 (Page 181) onwards; interesting to see that there might've been some changes to certain MTOWs since then, like 9V-SMJ.

Oh yes I vaguely remember reading about these posts a while back. Thanks for the reminder!

[9V-SPL]

Just out of interest, is there a particular reason why those 7x 268t "LH-" frames are not in sequence, i.e. SMA-E, G and M, whereas SMF and SMH-L are the 275t variants? I would have thought the earliest frames would be 268t followed by 275t then 280t, but it doesn't appear so...?

Any thoughts?

There was a discussion about MTOW in this thread some time back, if you are keen. Post #2712 (Page 181) onwards; interesting to see that there might've been some changes to certain MTOWs since then, like 9V-SMJ.

From my understanding, A350-900s were originally certified for 268T MTOW, so it makes sense that the earlier birds SMA-E were of this variant. Later on it seems like Airbus was able to increase the MTOW, so it is also logical that later-built frames have the higher 275T MTOW. What is strange is why randomly 9V-SMG, 9V-SMJ and 9V-SMM have the lower MTOW? Is it because they had already gone into production before the higher MTOW variants became available?

As for the restriction for certain frames to certain routes, I think it's a combination of both range and landing fees. Obviously the longest routes like SFO and SEA will need the range, hence they get the higher MTOW birds. But perhaps the lower MTOW ones are purposely restricted to routes that incur higher landing fees.

I guess the A350 fleet is large enough for SQ to operate them as sub fleets, maximizing cost savings wherever possible.

[wlgspotter]

Side Note, some of the A350 LH planes have MTOW of 268t. Maybe we can label them as LH-

A350 LH- 268t (9V-SMA, B, C, D, E, G, M)

Just out of interest, is there a particular reason why those 7x 268t "LH-" frames are not in sequence, i.e. SMA-E, G and M, whereas SMF and SMH-L are the 275t variants? I would have thought the earliest frames would be 268t followed by 275t then 280t, but it doesn't appear so...?

Any thoughts?