Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9962 times:
Old news (and has been discussed in another thread) and in no way does this article make it clear that QF WILL order an ULH aircraft. It just states it's back on the agenda and a proposal MAY go to the board in May.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9689 times:
Quoting QF744 (Reply 2): From sources I have in Qantas, it IS on the radar again now.
I think they will order at least a dozen or so.
I hope you are right. Of course, the 772LR is the only type being seriously considered. If QF go for a ULH type, they won't be waiting until 2011 for the 345E, if it ever sees the light of day!
BrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1276 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9280 times:
So now the 777-200LR would be able to do SYD-LHR nonstop year-round?
In that case I would no longer be happy if I was an existing 777-200LR or 777-300ER customer with active frames. Is Boeing planning to retrofit current machines to benefit from the added economies?
Don't count Airbus dead. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1410 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9027 times:
I think for various reasons the 787 in HGW form is in with a chance.
Certainly the 772LR can carry a bigger payload further, but a 787 in HGW form should be able to carry 250pax 9500nm (my gestimate).
If Qantas just want to go hub to hub then the 772LR is probably the craft, but a 787 could be used to open up point to point, in the USA and Europe, and I think the evidence is Qantas are going down the p to p path.
However just to hedge my bets, I doubt Qantas wants to wait till 2012 or so, which counts out the 787 in the short term and the 345 HGW altogether.
In the longer term though I think the 787 is the craft.
Gkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, RR: 58 Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8473 times:
Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 8): Don't count Airbus dead. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Aye, but the A345 still lags a long way behind the 772LR, so if Airbus were to seriously have a chance with this order, then they'd have to do something drastic with the A345.
I also think Boeing have this one sewn up, as well as Singapore Airlines also
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
SpeckSpot From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7704 times:
Does specifying for heavier weight compared to longer range simply mean they want Boeing to take out the extra fuel tanks and increase the payload capacity?
I would have thought that Boeing would give them all those options already.
Or are they asking for structural redesign of parts of the 772LR to reduce weight?
Or are they simply asking again to get a different (hopefully reduced) price on the same product?
From the above article in Flight, it says - "The still air distance from Sydney to London Heathrow is 17,000km but allowances for headwinds and minimum fuel reserves require a range of 17,600km. The official range of the -200LR is currently 17,400km, based on 301 passengers with three auxiliary fuel tanks."
It sounds like they're very very close!
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
Pilotdude09 From Australia, joined May 2005, 1775 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6973 times:
QF also had a major influence in designing the 777 but they are the only airline who helped design it who did not order it so surley they would order the 777
PyroGX41487 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 280 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6954 times:
If you think the A345E is out of this game, you don't know Leahy.
Besides, why would they be considering both at once if it was already a done deal? Use your heads, you guys.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10494 posts, RR: 20 Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6850 times:
Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 8): So now the 777-200LR would be able to do SYD-LHR nonstop year-round?
No, the quoted article clearly states that the aircraft would be used to fly to DFW, not to LHR. It also re-iterates that neither the A nor the B aircraft are suitable for SYD-LHR.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7727 posts, RR: 73 Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6807 times:
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 18): "The still air distance from Sydney to London Heathrow is 17,000km but allowances for headwinds and minimum fuel reserves require a range of 17,600km. The official range of the -200LR is currently 17,400km, based on 301 passengers with three auxiliary fuel tanks."
SYD-LHR 9350 nm (YSSY->DCT->KAT-A576-BLI-W13-SIPUT-A576-TI-A464-SJ-G579-VJR-R325-VIH-W531-VPL-B579-PUT-L759-KKJ-B209-MEMID-L333-BAVOX-B209-INTIL-L333-TIGER-3E100-BI-G202N-ZB-L750-RANAH-UV838-AFGAN-A240-MAMED-A87-AMATA-A83-NALEM-UA83-PEKIT-UL980-DORER-UA87-USTIL-UL980-ETEBO-UG9-RKN-UL480-GORLO-UL980-LOGAN->DCT->EGLL) plus seasonal headwinds, I would guess this on average would add another 400 nm.
A345E would have another step again on range above the 772LR with the additional 3 tanks, however its a long time off, if at all. 345 pilots would be able to MFF onto the A380.
Think the 787HGW that QF were looking at had a range mentioned somewhere of close to 9500nm.
Does not matter what aircraft they use, they will need to get CASA approval for flights that are longer than currently legally allowed under Australian law. The cabin crew compliment I would suggest would be close to or equal to a 744, and pax numbers down to provide rest facilities.
In line with current rules of maximum flight time per duty, I am guessing the aircraft would have one captain, two first officers, and two second officers.
Given the recent additional order of 787s, I wonder how QF plan to crew these aircraft. The QF pilot union is actively promoting the arrangement of being able to arrange interviews with other carriers (EK being the main one). From what I understand new hire QF second officers are being offered sub standard Singapore basings, the attraction to join QF is fast washing off.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7727 posts, RR: 73 Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6704 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 21): No, the quoted article clearly states that the aircraft would be used to fly to DFW, not to LHR. It also re-iterates that neither the A nor the B aircraft are suitable for SYD-LHR.
DFW-SYD by airways is 7989 nm
SYD-DFW by airways is 8073 nm
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
PyroGX41487 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 280 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6704 times:
Lets be real now, how many regular flyers and non-buisness class travelers would fly this route as it were? London-Sydney, granted, is a long way. Think SIN-EWR on the A345. Either way, the plane will need to have at least 10% (maybe I'm being liberal, here?) or more of its seats removed for the sake of passenger comfort.
Or maybe more, honestly.
Point is, from a passenger and freight standpoint, either aircraft goes. Its just range thats an issue. After all, they'll still have other a/c to carry the majority of the frieight -- the ones that stop over, that is.
25 Zeke: The SQ 345s have 181 seats, Y class has 117 seats in a 2-3-2 configuration, with a seat pitch of 37" and a seat-back recline of 8", and a seat width
26 Zvezda: This RFP will almost certainly be won by Boeing, if won at all. The reason why QF want Airbus in the bidding is to get a lower price from Boeing. The
27 BoeingFever777: I'm thinking Boeing will win this with a (10) firm and (8) option for their SYD-LHR-SYD and SYD-DFW-SYD routes. Where is this big SQ order yet still t
28 RedChili: Reading between the lines, the article actually confirms that Qantas has given up on plans of flying SYD-LHR nonstop. See the following quotes: London
29 Gkyip: The question, as pointed out by PyroGX41487, is will passengers be happy to endure a flight of such length? I know that business travellers will appr
30 Gigneil: The plane cannot fly SYD-LHR-SYD. QF have said it cannot be profitably done. N
31 Leigh pilgrim: Only my own opinion, although I would love to see A 777 in Qantas colours, I can see Airbus selling their A340's to them at rock bottom prices, they h
32 Zvezda: Airbus would probably be happy to sell A340s to QF for the smallest of profits, both because they would make money later on parts and service and to
33 Revelation: I think they regret getting the A330s on the cheap, though...
34 ClassicLover: Have you ever flown the "more comfortable 1 stop journey" via SIN, HKG or BKK? It's not fun at all. Fly for hours, land. Stay in the airport for an h
36 Atmx2000: Well, I suppose the question is will there be an A345E.
37 SunriseValley: Look at postings 27 and 33 in RE: Customers Press Boeing To Make Early 787-10 Dec (by Widebodyphotog Feb 5 2006 in Civil Aviation)#ID2588917 Some of
38 Juanchito: What would be the range of the A345E Juanchito
39 Widebodyphotog: It is my understanding that the A340 "E" study is dead and will bear no fruit... -widebodyphotog
40 FlyDreamliner: The 772LR could do London-Sydney, but not at full rated payload all year round. Whether this means QF will weight limit them during stronger wind sea
41 Mariner: I don't understand the point of making that comment. It is still a game - unless you believe there is a genuine chance they would order a small subfl
42 Atmx2000: Well, that's what has been said here recently as well. I suppose there won't be any official confirmation. Too bad for Boeing. It increases the likel
43 BoeingFever777: Yes, it can just not year round with full payload... Also have to wait and see if they could add additional space for fuel. The A345 is a dead a/c an
44 KDTWFlyer: Well it looks like JFK-SYD or ORD-SYD would be possible as both of those routes are shorter than SYD-LHR. SYD-LHR 17016 km 10573 mi 9188 nm JFK-SYD 16
45 Zeke: 332 going to JQ for its range, if a 763ER could do what they are planning they would have used them. Additional 333s being sourced for JQ.
46 Zvezda: A clean-sheet Airbus to take on the B777-300ER and B747-8I wouldn't be good for Boeing, but it would be great for the airlines and their passengers.
48 Trex8: zeke is there a website where one can easily calculate airways distances??
49 FlyDreamliner: If they can talk Boeing into fitting another aux fuselage tank into 772LR, they would be able to have it run the route SYD-LHR. In the worst seasons f
50 Gigneil: Reported by whom, exactly? Not in any financial journal I read. N
51 Gemuser: IMHO, QF is NOT going to order the 772ULR on the basis of using it for NON SYD/MEL-LHR routes, only. They MAY accept the reported proposal that the 77
52 QF744: Like what was said in the article, they are looking for new direct european destinations within range, this could mean SYD-FCO-SYD, MEL-CDG-MEL, SYD-C
53 Bill142: Should the business case prove viable year round.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 413 posts, 
From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 129 posts, 
From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3482 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1276 posts, 
From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22729 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4524 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 45 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7727 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
