redroo
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Boeing pitches B778 to QF

Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:37 pm

rotating14 wrote:
It's been known for some time now that QF is trying to make LHR and the JFK reachable with nonstop service. Boeing and Airbus are in a highly contested arena as the two OEM's to offer QF the best plane for the missions requested from QF.

However, what stood out to me the most was when QF CEO was quoted saying the following:
We have to replace the A380s and the Boeing 747-400ERs, so some of these will replace existing aircraft but also allow us to change the network when we the take the aircraft in.”


What else could you deduce from that statement other than Mr Joyce wanting to replace the A380s and B744s with other aircraft. The 779 comes to mind but Airbus still retains monies deposited for the remaining 8 A380s on order.

Thoughts and opinions?

https://www.ausbt.com.au/boeing-pitches ... ny-flights




Qantas is going to make the 787 the backbone of their long haul fleet, but they need something that can fly a bit further and something that can carry more passengers.

If they could buy one plane that could do both it would more flexible and simpler (maybe with a few less bums on seats for Lhr and JFK)
 
tealnz
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:30 am

The latest comments from Joyce underline the fact that QF are looking for an aircraft that can do multiple ULH destinations (along with JFK, ORD, DFW, LHR, GRU, Paris and Frankfurt are now in the mix, nominally as 789 destinations, but...) from multiple points of origin (Brisbane and Melbourne as well as Perth and Sydney). Some of these might be handled initially via Perth, using the 789. But if they get the traffic you'd have to assume they would ultimately want to go non-stop from the east coast as well.

So choose your combinations and do the math. Joyce has said they will need a minimum fleet size in the teens to be viable. Over time we might be talking high rather than low teens if the point to point ULH strategy proves a success.

The big practical implication of course is that, given a choice, QF might have preference for lower capital and trip costs to help make Brisbane and Melbourne more viable for originating services and cities such as Paris more viable as non-stop ULH destinations. I wouldn't be too quick to rule out a 250-260 seat A359, folks.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:34 am

Arion640 wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
redroo wrote:

It is tiring, but its what Australian executives need to do. When you need to spend 24 hours on an aircraft just to get there you maximise the time you've got.

You could leave on the Saturday night, arrive Sunday and have a day to recover, but that means losing Sunday with your family. You're already going to lose the Saturday on the return as you won't land until Sunday morning.

The mindset is different Down Under. Aussies don't have the same perception of distance as everyone else.

And that is why Aussie will jump at the chance to have non-stop flights.

And it is even more so in New Zealand, as we are further from Asia. If we go anywhere but Australia or Pacific Islands, you're looking at an 8-16 hour flight. They're far preferable to stopping every 6 hours to change plane. Emirates showed that by filling a 77L with old seats and broken IFE to AKL, and having the demand to now sustain A380 service. Really, from America the only comparable flights are like LAX-EU-JNB/CPT. From Europe, the only places that far away are Australia and NZ. Everywhere else is within 12 hours.


I've lived in New Zealand, I found that a lot of people prefer to go cruising around the South Island or vis versa, things being so spread out you feel like you're far from home. Or people just go to their beach bachs 2 or so hours away.

Living in the South Island, I almost never go to the North Island, and we either go around the South Island or overseas. I go overseas as often as I go to the North Island.
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9479
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:40 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Stitch wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The airline manufacturer says that the 777-8 – the long-range member of the 777X family, compared to the larger 777-9 – can already make direct flights from Sydney to London.

AS there is no 777-8 build much less flying, this makes a very strange statement.


Indeed, since neither Boeing nor Airbus do any type of performance modeling when they're developing a new model and talking to customers. It's a good thing airlines are happy to just order dozens or scores of said new model with absolutely no idea about how it will perform until the first airframe enters testing, with fingers crossed that the plane will be something they will be able to make use of. :sarcastic:


It is still a strange statement. If there would be used, will be able to instead of can already, it would make sense. You seem also to have a problem with distinguishing between present and future.

The only thing strange is continuing to feign indignation at semantics when (1) you should've known they're referring to predictive modeling and (2) someone already pointed that out, in the event that you didn't. :roll:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
ual747den
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:29 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:07 am

downdata wrote:
Revelation wrote:
sassiciai wrote:
What's the point of such a non-stop flight?

Anyone on such a flight (including both crews) would arrive at destination in no state to do much other than stumble and mumble about and go to bed, not sit down at a meeting table and negotiate future business contracts!

The operational costs would be horrible

A 2 or 3-hour stop somewhere to refuel and replenish will not impact overall journey time, and will save vast sums of money, and most people's sanity!

IMHO, a very silly idea for very little/no benefit!


And yet the CEO of QF sees a market for it, so there clearly are people with different opinions than yours.


Then the CEO of QF is wrong.


LOL Wow I guess the airlines must be lining up at your door to hire such a knowledgeable CEO like yourself! What do you do in the airline industry again?
/// UNITED AIRLINES
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25841
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:24 am

Update.

The story takes an interesting twist:

Airbus is still evaluating whether to adopt the A350-900 as the platform or whether it needs to revisit a shorter “-800” variant to achieve the required payload/range performance.

Airbus is “saying they may” consider a shorter-fuselage A350 variant if the standard A350-900 cannot meet mission requirements.


Regarding the delivery time frame:

He adds: “Both Airbus and Boeing are protecting slots for us, so we could get it in 2022-23.”


Ref https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... lo-443664/
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
pabloeing
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:30 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Update.

The story takes an interesting twist:

Airbus is still evaluating whether to adopt the A350-900 as the platform or whether it needs to revisit a shorter “-800” variant to achieve the required payload/range performance.

Airbus is “saying they may” consider a shorter-fuselage A350 variant if the standard A350-900 cannot meet mission requirements.


Regarding the delivery time frame:

He adds: “Both Airbus and Boeing are protecting slots for us, so we could get it in 2022-23.”


Ref https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... lo-443664/

¿Change the B778X and A350 for get the range?
 
qf002
Posts: 3285
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:37 am

If it ends up being A358 vs 778 then Boeing will win for sure. A 789LR with auxiliary tanks probably makes more sense than an A358 if they are prepared to drop down into that size bracket.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:08 pm

qf002 wrote:
If it ends up being A358 vs 778 then Boeing will win for sure. A 789LR with auxiliary tanks probably makes more sense than an A358 if they are prepared to drop down into that size bracket.


Just for some clarity, the article states

Airbus is “saying they may” consider a shorter-fuselage A350 variant if the standard A350-900 cannot meet mission requirements.


I've emphasised the "may" and the "standard"

For me this implies that Airbus's first port of call is the "standard" 280t A350LR

If they can't make this work (even with the odd tweak, like the bigger winglets), then they have 2 options:-
1. a 308t/316t A350-900 which is a straight shrink of the A350-1000, or
2. a 280t A350-800 which is a straight shrink of the A350-900LR

So they "may" consider an A350-800LR.
Like you though, I believe an A350-900 sized frame is a better solution for the requirement

Rgds
 
tealnz
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:37 pm

Looks as if this is the definitive answer for those who insisted Qantas had a "requirement" for 300 pax.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:52 pm

astuteman wrote:
qf002 wrote:
If it ends up being A358 vs 778 then Boeing will win for sure. A 789LR with auxiliary tanks probably makes more sense than an A358 if they are prepared to drop down into that size bracket.


Just for some clarity, the article states

Airbus is “saying they may” consider a shorter-fuselage A350 variant if the standard A350-900 cannot meet mission requirements.


I've emphasised the "may" and the "standard"

For me this implies that Airbus's first port of call is the "standard" 280t A350LR

If they can't make this work (even with the odd tweak, like the bigger winglets), then they have 2 options:-
1. a 308t/316t A350-900 which is a straight shrink of the A350-1000, or
2. a 280t A350-800 which is a straight shrink of the A350-900LR

So they "may" consider an A350-800LR.
Like you though, I believe an A350-900 sized frame is a better solution for the requirement

Rgds


But it doesn't seem Airbus is considering option 1.
For option 2 they will have 2 other customers: OZ, which still has the A358 on order, and HA of course, which will have the aircraft they wanted from the beginning :)
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,343,345,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W, AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 3817
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:06 pm

tealnz wrote:
Looks as if this is the definitive answer for those who insisted Qantas had a "requirement" for 300 pax.


It was Qantas themselves who said they wanted an aircraft capable of carrying a full load with 300 passengers
Forum Moderator
 
chiki
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:17 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Update.

The story takes an interesting twist:

Airbus is still evaluating whether to adopt the A350-900 as the platform or whether it needs to revisit a shorter “-800” variant to achieve the required payload/range performance.

Airbus is “saying they may” consider a shorter-fuselage A350 variant if the standard A350-900 cannot meet mission requirements.


Regarding the delivery time frame:

He adds: “Both Airbus and Boeing are protecting slots for us, so we could get it in 2022-23.”


Ref https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... lo-443664/

After readin the article Qantas is basically saying BA has the right product so the choice is now obvious. with Qantas interest in the NMA they could negotiate it as a package to get very good pricing. My 5c.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... th-443696/
 
xjetflyer2001
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:20 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:17 pm

frigatebird wrote:
astuteman wrote:
qf002 wrote:
If it ends up being A358 vs 778 then Boeing will win for sure. A 789LR with auxiliary tanks probably makes more sense than an A358 if they are prepared to drop down into that size bracket.


Just for some clarity, the article states

Airbus is “saying they may” consider a shorter-fuselage A350 variant if the standard A350-900 cannot meet mission requirements.


I've emphasised the "may" and the "standard"

For me this implies that Airbus's first port of call is the "standard" 280t A350LR

If they can't make this work (even with the odd tweak, like the bigger winglets), then they have 2 options:-
1. a 308t/316t A350-900 which is a straight shrink of the A350-1000, or
2. a 280t A350-800 which is a straight shrink of the A350-900LR

So they "may" consider an A350-800LR.
Like you though, I believe an A350-900 sized frame is a better solution for the requirement

Rgds


But it doesn't seem Airbus is considering option 1.
For option 2 they will have 2 other customers: OZ, which still has the A358 on order, and HA of course, which will have the aircraft they wanted from the beginning :)


I was under the impression that Airbus had already cancelled the A350-800 program, I thought the OZ frames remained on order simply to get a discount when switched to the A359, would they restart it just for OZ and QF?
Last edited by xjetflyer2001 on Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:25 pm

qf789 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Looks as if this is the definitive answer for those who insisted Qantas had a "requirement" for 300 pax.


It was Qantas themselves who said they wanted an aircraft capable of carrying a full load with 300 passengers


Well, Qanta's wants don't appear to equate to their requirements, if it did, AJ would have dismissed Airbus's proposal for an A358 sized aircraft and we'd have heard about QF ordering 778s already.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16665
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:47 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
qf789 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Looks as if this is the definitive answer for those who insisted Qantas had a "requirement" for 300 pax.


It was Qantas themselves who said they wanted an aircraft capable of carrying a full load with 300 passengers


Well, Qanta's wants don't appear to equate to their requirements, if it did, AJ would have dismissed Airbus's proposal for an A358 sized aircraft and we'd have heard about QF ordering 778s already.

I think we should examine the statements around the timeline and the process that we were given in the FG article:

Qantas technical teams are now in discussions with Airbus and Boeing about its requirement, Joyce told FlightGlobal at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London.

“All the way through 2018 we’re doing the technical evaluation,” says Joyce. “The intention is that by the end of 2018 we’ll have that sorted and if then if we believe both aircraft can do it with whatever modifications are needed, we’ll do a competition in 2019.”

No one is drawing a line in the sand, at least the way I read it.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:08 pm

I'm all for an A358 ULR (especially if it gets all the A3510 mods), but I had thought that the original A359 ULR proposal with the A3510 wings, etc had the range/payload required for this mission?

Boeing could theoretically do a 777X at 772 length. With the wider interior that could do 300 pax at 10,000+ nmi easy.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24748
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:41 pm

Does anyone know what the ZFW weight of the 787-9 QF are using on the PER-LHR mission? There is up to 26,000kg of possible TOW growth for the 787-8 using the 787-9's undercarriage so if Airbus is considering an A350-800, Boeing might be considering a 787-8LR.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25841
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:02 pm

astuteman wrote:

If they can't make this work (even with the odd tweak, like the bigger winglets), then they have 2 options:-
1. a 308t/316t A350-900 which is a straight shrink of the A350-1000, or
2. a 280t A350-800 which is a straight shrink of the A350-900LR

So they "may" consider an A350-800LR.
Like you though, I believe an A350-900 sized frame is a better solution for the requirement


I"m still puzzled why Airbus would go through the effort of creating a new sub type in the A350 family for just a handful orders?
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24748
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:25 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
I"m still puzzled why Airbus would go through the effort of creating a new sub type in the A350 family for just a handful orders?


I find myself in agreement.

Qantas Group seems settled on the 787 family so I don't see this as a way for Airbus to leverage a significantly larger A350-900 / A350-1000 order out of it. *


* And for the record, it's equally unlikely (IMO) that the 777-8 would lead to a larger 777-9 order, as well.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6131
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:52 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Stitch wrote:

Indeed, since neither Boeing nor Airbus do any type of performance modeling when they're developing a new model and talking to customers. It's a good thing airlines are happy to just order dozens or scores of said new model with absolutely no idea about how it will perform until the first airframe enters testing, with fingers crossed that the plane will be something they will be able to make use of. :sarcastic:


It is still a strange statement. If there would be used, will be able to instead of can already, it would make sense. You seem also to have a problem with distinguishing between present and future.

The only thing strange is continuing to feign indignation at semantics when (1) you should've known they're referring to predictive modeling and (2) someone already pointed that out, in the event that you didn't. :roll:


Nothing to do with semantics. Can already is simple a false statement.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:43 pm

qf002 wrote:
If it ends up being A358 vs 778 then Boeing will win for sure. A 789LR with auxiliary tanks probably makes more sense than an A358 if they are prepared to drop down into that size bracket.


To follow up my earlier post, I have to disagree with the last part of your statement about the 787-9 and A350-800.
I just cannot see how a 254t plane is ever going to match the payload range capability of a 280t plane of similar size and with similar technology.
The 275t A350-900 already has 8% greater capacity (both in cabin size and payload) than the 254t 787-9 , and flies 4% further on 8% more fuel.
The 280t A350-900 will extend that advantage by another 4%-5%.
A 280t A350-800 would have a lower OEW and less drag (about 4%, so it would likely match the 787-9's fuel burn).
My understanding is that typical DOW for a 787-9 is c. 129t, and for an A350-900 is c. 138t. An A350-800 would weigh several tonnes less than the A359 so of the extra 26t TOW available to the A350-800 only a few tons will be attributable to OEW/DOW. The rest, 20t+ will be available for more fuel or more payload - with pretty much the same fuel burn per km of the 787-9.
As a final thought, courtesy of the A350-1000, this A350-800 would have 165 000l of fuel capacity built in, compared to the 123 000l in the 787-9

Whilst I don't think a 280t A350-800 is the right answer in this case, it would be a considerably better ULH frame at 9 000Nm+

Rgds
.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24748
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:09 pm

With 276 seats [36J and 240Y], the baseline 248,000kg TOW A350-800 was an 8300nm airframe and at the optional 259,000kg it could do ~8600nm per Airbus PR.
 
User avatar
DWC
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:56 am

Stitch wrote:
Does anyone know what the ZFW weight of the 787-9 QF are using on the PER-LHR mission? There is up to 26,000kg of possible TOW growth for the 787-8 using the 787-9's undercarriage so if Airbus is considering an A350-800, Boeing might be considering a 787-8LR.


KarelXWB wrote:
astuteman wrote:
If they can't make this work (even with the odd tweak, like the bigger winglets), then they have 2 options:-
1. a 308t/316t A350-900 which is a straight shrink of the A350-1000, or
2. a 280t A350-800 which is a straight shrink of the A350-900LR
So they "may" consider an A350-800LR.
Like you though, I believe an A350-900 sized frame is a better solution for the requirement

I"m still puzzled why Airbus would go through the effort of creating a new sub type in the A350 family for just a handful orders?

Whatever OEM gets it, what are the chances other Legacies also order it ?
And make the investment viable for the OEM ?

1. BA de facto & skip SIN. Could also resume MEL & BNE ( ADL ? ). LHR-SYD GC = 10,574 mi ( slightly less for BNE & MEL )
2. AF : CDG-PPT GC = 9,765 mi ; CDG-NOU GC = 10,367 mi
3. LA : to NRT (RG used to), via LIM-NRT GC = 9,589 mi
( GRU-NRT GC = 11,490 mi is too far, like GRU-ICN GC = 11,379 mi or AKL-LHR GC = 11,405 mi )
LA has been considering China. LIM-PEK GC = 10,398 mi, LIM-PVG GC = 10,652 mi
4. If Boeing gets it, AM could order it & scrap the current tech stop at TIJ & continue their expansion to Asia.
 
gloom
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:43 am

What are possible routes not open yet, with traffic to cover for possible expenses on the planes?

I see four main ideas:
1. Europe to Australia/New Zealand.
2. US to South Africa and West Australia.
3. Europe to Pacific (Northern part, so basically Hawaii/Guam/Phillipines etc), it could be within 8000nm though
4. Europe to South America (far South, so basically anything south of Buenos Aires)

Anything below 2 is (most likely) not providing enough passengers to cover for extra efforts to get people there in one hop. So, I guess the market is limited today. The question is - is it limited to a point where it's complete waste of resources? And what situation will it be within 10 years, since 10.000 miles plane is likely a 2025-2027 perspective. The answer to both is what both A and B need.

Cheers,
Adam
 
parapente
Posts: 1997
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:17 am

I agree with Gloom and others above.This is a truly tiny market.A or B would be totally crazy (and they are not) to spend much on this at all.
Can ( with a tiny amount of tweaks) can you get an existing AC to fly the required distance with a decent load?
One imagines that would be the 778 but could be totally wrong.But either way would be nice to see the last great Global long distance leg finally covered.But I don't think it will frighten 'one stop Emirates' personally.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:44 am

Let’s hope Boom booms and reinvents ULH!
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 489
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:48 am

I don't understand the apeal of these ULR aircraft. They're made in tiny numbers, they're made obscolete very rapidly and because of these issues they tend to have a short life. I also think it's inefficient to carry all that fuel rather than make a tech stop.
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 1750
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:04 pm

kurtverbose wrote:
I don't understand the apeal of these ULR aircraft. They're made in tiny numbers, they're made obscolete very rapidly and because of these issues they tend to have a short life. I also think it's inefficient to carry all that fuel rather than make a tech stop.


indeed, that was one of the reasons SQ like the A350-900ULR, as it can be re-configured into a normal A359, so if the ultra long haul market does not work, they can put it into normal service with the existing A350 fleet.

With the QF order, having a specialised A358 or A35K shrink specifically for this mission would bring risks if the venture does not work, as re-sale may be a problem, and using it on shorter legs may be inefficient, incurring additional costs. Lessors would also likely not get involved in purchases or lease-backs. I guess the B778 would also have some risks in this regard but to a much lesser extent.

As far as efficiency is concerned, this is largely irrelevant if there is a market that can make it profitable.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1628
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:14 pm

My thoughts:
I think it is quite clear that AJ knows exactly which aircraft Qantas needs, and is trying to extract a better deal.
I agree that the potential orders will be far too small for either manufacturer to make extensive (expensive) changes.
What do all these 350 variants and proposed variants mean about the 350 program?

Ruscoe
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:27 pm

Ruscoe wrote:
My thoughts:
What do all these 350 variants and proposed variants mean about the 350 program?


The more flexible design. Low effort adaption. 787 can't go there.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24748
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:43 pm

WIederling wrote:
Ruscoe wrote:
My thoughts: What do all these 350 variants and proposed variants mean about the 350 program?

The more flexible design. Low effort adaption. 787 can't go there.


And yet QF chose the 787 over the A350.

Twice.

:scratchchin:
 
Jayafe
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:29 pm

Stitch wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Ruscoe wrote:
My thoughts: What do all these 350 variants and proposed variants mean about the 350 program?

The more flexible design. Low effort adaption. 787 can't go there.


And yet QF chose the 787 over the A350.

Twice.

:scratchchin:


What has to do the base models with the ULR variants? You played dirty there....
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:36 pm

Ruscoe wrote:
My thoughts:
I think it is quite clear that AJ knows exactly which aircraft Qantas needs, and is trying to extract a better deal.
I agree that the potential orders will be far too small for either manufacturer to make extensive (expensive) changes.
What do all these 350 variants and proposed variants mean about the 350 program?

Ruscoe

QF are still trying to extract financially with zero cost from the A380 order, so talk of the A350 has a dual purpose - sharpen Boeing's pen (prices across the Boeing range are firmer than ever), and negotiate the best model hop value from A380 (fee is higher for downsize, scaled for the number of model jumps - ie A380 to A350 fee is smaller than A380 to A330.

Hitting on a paper model, perhaps improves QF's bargaining position. We would order this version of A350, but as you haven't committed, we will take A330 at the A350 model hop fee. May even persuade Boeing to compensate some of the Airbus model hop fee (gain an order, and makes it more likely Airbus won't launch the new model variant).

QF took cash and / or credit for A380 delays, rather than negotiating increased contract flexibility and lower compensation (or even partial cancellation), which seemed like a good idea at the time given the company's financials.

Airbus is housekeeping outstanding A380 orders, and other models too. Boeing has been focused on a similar initiative which predates Airbus efforts.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24748
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:02 pm

Jayafe wrote:
What has to do the base models with the ULR variants?


If QF is willing to take a smaller frame (i.e. - A350-800), then Boeing can offer a 787-8LR using the operating weights of the 787-9 and 787-10 to increase available fuel weight and extend the range.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:07 pm

Stitch wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
What has to do the base models with the ULR variants?


If QF is willing to take a smaller frame (i.e. - A350-800), then Boeing can offer a 787-8LR using the operating weights of the 787-9 and 787-10 to increase available fuel weight and extend the range.


A350-800 would fit the capacity slot of the 787-_9_ and not the _8_
Murphy is an optimist
 
incitatus
Posts: 3043
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:20 pm

WIederling wrote:
A350-800 would fit the capacity slot of the 787-_9_ and not the _8_


It does seem Boeing has an edge: on the higher end of capability Boeing will have the 777-8 for sure. On the lower end, Boeing can do a slight rework of the 787-8 like Stitch mentioned. The 787-8 is considerably more capable than it is on paper now.

A350, -900 or -800, is sandwiched between these two options. An -800 is a new derivative with significant cost to develop. If Airbus is even looking at it, it is because the performance calculation for QF does not add up in the -900.
Conservatives against Trump
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24748
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:33 pm

WIederling wrote:
A350-800 would fit the capacity slot of the 787-_9_ and not the _8_


The A350-800 slots in-between the 787-8 and 787-9 in capacity, though it is closer to the -9 than the -8. The 787-8 can also match the A350-800 on cargo volume.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:36 pm

Stitch wrote:
The 787-8 can also match the A350-800 on cargo volume.


If you have the excess payload available to fill the void. I don't think that applies for u/ULH.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24748
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

WIederling wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The 787-8 can also match the A350-800 on cargo volume.


If you have the excess payload available to fill the void. I don't think that applies for u/ULH.


Yes, I would expect the majority of non-luggage cargo would be low-weight, high-value time-sensitive product that can justify the shipping costs.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:08 pm

Stitch wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The 787-8 can also match the A350-800 on cargo volume.


If you have the excess payload available to fill the void. I don't think that applies for u/ULH.


Yes, I would expect the majority of non-luggage cargo would be low-weight, high-value time-sensitive product that can justify the shipping costs.


Air Heads ? Those are stored one level up :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6131
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:27 pm

incitatus wrote:
WIederling wrote:
A350-800 would fit the capacity slot of the 787-_9_ and not the _8_


It does seem Boeing has an edge: on the higher end of capability Boeing will have the 777-8 for sure. On the lower end, Boeing can do a slight rework of the 787-8 like Stitch mentioned. The 787-8 is considerably more capable than it is on paper now.

A350, -900 or -800, is sandwiched between these two options. An -800 is a new derivative with significant cost to develop. If Airbus is even looking at it, it is because the performance calculation for QF does not add up in the -900.


Or you could look at the 777-8 at expensive overkill, leading to high cost per seat, and the 787 with little room to grow. What is your idea, a 787-8 with the MLG and the MTOW of the 787-9?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6131
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:07 pm

I think Airbus had done all the design work to do a A350-800 as simple shrink of the A350-900. What is the number for an successful niche frame in an aircraft family, 50 frames?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9479
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:57 pm

Stitch wrote:
Boeing might be considering a 787-8LR.

Betting the CASM on such would be atrocious though :eek:


gloom wrote:
Europe to South America (far South, so basically anything south of Buenos Aires)

No need for ULH eqp there; even 20yr-old 77Es can handle that perfectly fine.


Richard28 wrote:
that was one of the reasons SQ like the A350-900ULR, as it can be re-configured into a normal A359, so if the ultra long haul market does not work, they can put it into normal service with the existing A350 fleet.

When did SQ ever express any interest in that?

That's more of a vague Airbus selling point; one that's akin to Boeing's engine interchange selling point on a 787:
i.e. it's interesting to ponder, but questionably practical in a real-world scenario.

It's also worth noting that in that claim, Airbus never states that such a reconfigured aircraft would be the same as factory: for all we know, it could be several hundred lbs heavier when empty, due to the (admittedly few) physical differences between the -ULR or a standard 280T A359.

Or, maybe not: we just don't know, and they've never specified/clarified.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7359
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:19 pm

LAX772LR wrote:

gloom wrote:
Europe to South America (far South, so basically anything south of Buenos Aires)

No need for ULH eqp there; even 20yr-old 77Es can handle that perfectly fine.

Pointless to even focus on that market too. The only place in South America further than EZE that would have a viable market for European nonstops is SCL (which already has European nonstop with current equipment). There is not much south of Buenos Aires when it comes to major cities.
 
LH707330
Posts: 1784
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:58 pm

I've heard that the Boeing proposal is a 748SP, they used the 400 fuselage and put it on the wing and engine of the 8i to improve payload/range. It lets them swap the 744ER one-for one, and between fuel burn improvements of 16%, the extra 3,000 liters of fuel, and the 40t MTOW boost they get a viable payload in both directions.
 
speedbird52
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:13 pm

LH707330 wrote:
I've heard that the Boeing proposal is a 748SP, they used the 400 fuselage and put it on the wing and engine of the 8i to improve payload/range. It lets them swap the 744ER one-for one, and between fuel burn improvements of 16%, the extra 3,000 liters of fuel, and the 40t MTOW boost they get a viable payload in both directions.

I seriously doubt this ever coming to fruition as much as I would love it. But where on earth did you hear that?
"I have control" Three Words That Could Have Saved Lives.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:45 am

incitatus wrote:
WIederling wrote:
A350-800 would fit the capacity slot of the 787-_9_ and not the _8_


It does seem Boeing has an edge: on the higher end of capability Boeing will have the 777-8 for sure. On the lower end, Boeing can do a slight rework of the 787-8 like Stitch mentioned. The 787-8 is considerably more capable than it is on paper now.

A350, -900 or -800, is sandwiched between these two options. An -800 is a new derivative with significant cost to develop. If Airbus is even looking at it, it is because the performance calculation for QF does not add up in the -900.


An A350-800 is a new derivative with significant development costs, but a 787-8LR is a "slight rework of the 787-8"?
I don't get that.
Both are a straight shrink of the model above.
Where do you see a difference?
The only difference for me is that Airbus will already have done a lot of the A350-800 work. They came close to building this, and had orders.
I'm not aware of Boeing even looking at a 787-8LR

Rgds
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:09 am

astuteman wrote:
incitatus wrote:
WIederling wrote:
A350-800 would fit the capacity slot of the 787-_9_ and not the _8_


It does seem Boeing has an edge: on the higher end of capability Boeing will have the 777-8 for sure. On the lower end, Boeing can do a slight rework of the 787-8 like Stitch mentioned. The 787-8 is considerably more capable than it is on paper now.

A350, -900 or -800, is sandwiched between these two options. An -800 is a new derivative with significant cost to develop. If Airbus is even looking at it, it is because the performance calculation for QF does not add up in the -900.


An A350-800 is a new derivative with significant development costs, but a 787-8LR is a "slight rework of the 787-8"?
I don't get that.
Both are a straight shrink of the model above.
Where do you see a difference?
The only difference for me is that Airbus will already have done a lot of the A350-800 work. They came close to building this, and had orders.
I'm not aware of Boeing even looking at a 787-8LR

Rgds


The 788 and 789 either have or are close to having the same landing gear. All the -8 would really need would be the weights of the 789, we have seen what the -9 can impressively do already now imagine that on a smaller frame.
 
tealnz
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:37 am

KarelXWB wrote:
I"m still puzzled why Airbus would go through the effort of creating a new sub type in the A350 family for just a handful orders?


We've been over this before. Joyce has made it clear that Qantas is embarking on a fundamental change in strategy. He's going for non-stop ULH point to point for Europe and North America.

The Dallas and Perth-London routes, using existing equipment, are showing the way. Next step is to open even longer range routes with next-generation aircraft (A359 or B77X).

Joyce has also made it clear that the new strategy will apply not only to Sydney but also to Melbourne and Brisbane. And he has named the ULH destinations he has in his sights: London, New York, Chicago, Paris, Frankfurt and Sao Paulo.

So do the math. A daily London service from each of Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney would need six/seven aircraft presumably. Adding New York would take the fleet into double figures. Anyone's guess which of the others would sustain service out of Melbourne and Brisbane as well as Sydney but this sort of network will need a lot of metal. It's not implausible that QF would end up with a fleet of 20+. Add in the bragging rights ("world's longest route") and you can see why Airbus and Boeing will be prepared to make the effort.

As a footnote, a strategy based on non-stop ULH service from multiple Australian cities to multiple destinations (eg in Europe and the US) rather than hubbing through LHR and LAX will, other things being equal, favour an aircraft with lower capital and trip costs. An A350 with ~250 seats starts to look interesting...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos