User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 921
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

Tue May 16, 2017 10:49 am

zeke wrote:
I had seen that article before I provided the link earlier in this thread as well. It does not actually quote anyone from QF saying 300 seats on syd-lhr. They were Joe Astons words from the AFR.

Regardless, it has to be up there if it's going to replace the 744ER.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4549
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

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

Tue May 16, 2017 11:54 am

parapente wrote:
It will be a numbers (projection) game I feel.
If you are flying non stop with high yield pax from Pert and Sydney (Melbourne/Brisbane someday?) to NY London (Frankfurt? Someday?) then clearly you will markedly reduce load factors and margin on the 'one stopper' routes.So I imagine it's a question of 'how much'.If one is conservative then the 359/3510/11? Would make sense.If the forecast is higher then it has to be the 778/9/10?
Either way long term the 744ers and 380's will become history.

The route for the ULH service will be MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL-LAX-MEL, so its SYD/BNE someday?".
As for reducing load factors on the one stoppers I strongly doubt it because: PER is pretty useless for a hub to Europe for QF; DXB, AUH, DOH, SIN, KUL & BKK offer more & better connections than PER, even if QF do develop more routes into Europe from PER it will only be to 3-4 destination, nothing compared to DXB [for example].
You are also neglecting passenger growth. Given the likely prices for the ULH there not likely to attract many passengers from other Australian cities, SYD in particular. Even from MEL the cheaper seats are going to be on EK or via SYD unless there is a major, long lasting economic disruption passenger growth Australia-Europe/UK will continue to grow.
Yields are a totally different matter. It is possible that the decrease in yields, IF the PER service really does attract significant F & J class traffic [will the B789 have F?] it could result in less revenue on the one stopper and if this becomes a real problem for QF the answer is obvious, reconfigure the A380 to 650 - 850 seats[max pax limit] all Y and transfer them to JQ and operate them to DXB, LHR & LAX Rock bottom fare, high volume! Will it be profitable? Who knows but it seems to be a reasonable possibility. At that density and good load factors the A380 will make the B789 look like a gas guzzler, per seat.

We will see as the service develops.

Gemuser
 
ZEDZAG
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 3:09 pm

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

Tue May 16, 2017 11:58 am

zeke wrote:

The ZFW is not listed there. We operate the same aircraft with two different WV, 001 and 005 depending is we are doing a short of long haul flight, no seats are changed.

So ZFW in your case is 196?



zeke wrote:
Not sure what you mean there, the -900 and -900ULH use tha same fuel tanks, they just fill the centre tank up to a different level.


I mean that if u tank up more, u have to make some mods, so Im asking if this mods bring up the OEW? And related to that, if u tank up more, the ZFW has to go down, any assumption how much?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11007
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Tue May 16, 2017 12:06 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Regardless, it has to be up there if it's going to replace the 744ER.


I don't agree, I think QF where the only airline to buy the 744ER passenger aircraft, and that was for its range.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 3417
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

Tue May 16, 2017 12:13 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
1) Will the A359ULR not be fuel volume limited at 280t MTOW?


last ~5t payload should be the turning point

280t (MTOW) - 196t ( MZFW ) ~= 84t fuel loadable @ MZFW

capacity is 165kl * 0.8 ~132t fuel max

delta is 48t more fuel that can be swapped in for payload.
depending on cabin layout 12knm @ 5.. 7t payload is were fuel volume limit sets in.
( range derate ~ doubles from there on. )
Murphy is an optimist
 
parapente
Posts: 1745
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

Tue May 16, 2017 2:04 pm

Assuming just for a second mind-that the CEO is not wrong.A question.
Qantas switched their cooperation deal from BA to Emirates for one stop flights Lon-Syd.But what about non stop?Could they re partner up with BA for this different flight ?
I bet BA would love to offer a mixed schedule over a week between non stop and their usual one stopAt Singapore.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24142
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 May 16, 2017 2:42 pm

ZEDZAG wrote:
I mean that if u tank up more, u have to make some mods, so Im asking if this mods bring up the OEW? And related to that, if u tank up more, the ZFW has to go down, any assumption how much?


Based on what Airbus told Leeham.net, it sounds like the fuel system is identical between the A350-900 and A350-900ULR from a hardware standpoint. The A350-900UR's fuel control system and sensors just allow more of the main tank's volume to be utilized.

MZFW will be lower to accommodate the extra fuel volume and weight, but Airbus has not said by how much. Leeham.net has speculated it will be around 190,000kg, which is between 2000 and 6000kg lower than currently listed A350-900 MZFWs in the ACAP.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5366
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

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

Tue May 16, 2017 3:59 pm

So if I wanted to redraw the Load range chart in the ACAP documents I would reduce the MZFW by 6000kg ( to be safe) and extend the range out to what distance ?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11007
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Tue May 16, 2017 6:33 pm

No need to IMHO. After the original range/payload Airbus not only increased the MTOW by around 7t, they also increased the MZFW by around 4t. Essentially the same wing is being used on the the -900 and -1000, on the -1000 the MTOW increased by 33 t and the MZFW increased by around 25t. So I am yet to think of a reason why it structurally could not retain or improve on the MZFW to around 199t with the increase in MTOW by another 5t to 280t.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4549
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

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

Tue May 16, 2017 9:49 pm

parapente wrote:
Assuming just for a second mind-that the CEO is not wrong.A question.
Qantas switched their cooperation deal from BA to Emirates for one stop flights Lon-Syd.But what about non stop?Could they re partner up with BA for this different flight ?
I bet BA would love to offer a mixed schedule over a week between non stop and their usual one stopAt Singapore.

IF regular non stop becomes feasible I would put money on it!
The QF/EK deal did not wipe out nearly 70 years of cooperation between QF & BA, scaled it back & down graded its importance, yes, wipe out, no.
I would love to see & compare the detailed specs between the B789-36 & B789-38 aircraft! [That's of course if Boeing still used customers numbers:-)] bet there would be a LOT of similarities in optional equipment.

Gemuser
 
redroo
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

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

Tue May 16, 2017 11:34 pm

Spoke to someone at the weekend who took his family from PER to Caribbean and took the non stop from SYD to DFW. Nothing but great things to say about the 17 hour flight - even with young kids.

The non stop flights will be popular with Australians who are used to travelling long distances - and that is qantas target market. The more non stops qantas can put on its network to connect the capital cities to the places Aussies want to go the more of that higher yield market it will capture. It's not interested in people that want to save money with a back track or a long layover.
 
edmaircraft
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:40 am

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

Wed May 17, 2017 1:11 am

qf789 wrote:
edmaircraft wrote:
Forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but could an all-J/F cabin work for QF's upcoming ULH routes? Or would such a configuration be economically unviable as it was for SQ and their SIN-NYC flight?


No, QF is seeking the A359ULR or 778 to replace 744ER's with around 300 seats so they can operate SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK plus be able to use the aircraft on other routes throughout the QF network


Thanks.
Let me up!
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 8623
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 May 17, 2017 5:01 am

WIederling wrote:
196t ( MZFW )

Where did you find that value for MZFW?

IINM, Airbus hasn't released their own number for such, no?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6832
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

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

Wed May 17, 2017 5:21 am

I still think the 777 will win out with a split 8/9 order as the 778 has the legs for niche ULH routes and 779 has the capacity for 747 replacement in markets such as HKG, HND, SFO and possibly BNE-LAX, SYD-SCL and SYD-JNB depending on how those routes shake out with 789 deliveries
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11007
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 17, 2017 6:38 am

LAX772LR wrote:
WIederling wrote:
196t ( MZFW )

Where did you find that value for MZFW?

IINM, Airbus hasn't released their own number for such, no?


I think they are using the WV001 data, the Airbus payload range charts are based upon WV000 for the -900/-1000 which is 192t
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed May 17, 2017 8:13 am

redroo wrote:
Spoke to someone at the weekend who took his family from PER to Caribbean and took the non stop from SYD to DFW. Nothing but great things to say about the 17 hour flight - even with young kids.

The non stop flights will be popular with Australians who are used to travelling long distances - and that is qantas target market. The more non stops qantas can put on its network to connect the capital cities to the places Aussies want to go the more of that higher yield market it will capture. It's not interested in people that want to save money with a back track or a long layover.


That's how many airlines used think, act, 20 years ago.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
parapente
Posts: 1745
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 May 17, 2017 8:14 am

As for whether it's 777 or 350 it remains hard to tell.They do not appear to be in any rush which might suggest the 777.We know they have 6 or so 744ers that have to be replaced fairly soon and letting the 380's age a little might also help as they too will go eventually.So if we are talking 2023/4 then the A350 ULR will be 'old hat' by then.I feel sure Airbus will have tweaked/pip'd it.

Sadly I can't think of another route from BA's perspective other than the kangaroo route (Jakarta non stop Perhaps)? So there is no chance of them 'stealing a march' and starting it first .

If this Premium non stop route works I wonder whether one might see Frankfurt and Paris being considered further down the line?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5413
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

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

Wed May 17, 2017 8:27 am

QF said SYD-LHR could be possible by 2022. The A350ULR is available in 2018, QF don't need to replace the 744ER's until 2022/23 I'm guessing when the hit 20 years old, they could operate them a little longer or shorter being that they will have D checks due in 2020/21.

The 300 seat target weather mentioned by QF or some rogue reporter would point to the 778, personally this is Boeings to lose anyway. With the 779 later to replace the A380 fleet.
 
redroo
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

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

Wed May 17, 2017 9:31 am

keesje wrote:
redroo wrote:
Spoke to someone at the weekend who took his family from PER to Caribbean and took the non stop from SYD to DFW. Nothing but great things to say about the 17 hour flight - even with young kids.

The non stop flights will be popular with Australians who are used to travelling long distances - and that is qantas target market. The more non stops qantas can put on its network to connect the capital cities to the places Aussies want to go the more of that higher yield market it will capture. It's not interested in people that want to save money with a back track or a long layover.


That's how many airlines used think, act, 20 years ago.



The QF uses the qantas brand for higher yielding passengers and the JQ group for lower yielding passengers.

The kangaroo route is a bloodbath so QF is going to focus on their existing premium frequent fliers that will pay the premium to fly Qantas to London. Everyone else can fly EK or another airline. I doubt JQ will ever go to Europe.
 
redroo
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

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

Wed May 17, 2017 9:32 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
I still think the 777 will win out with a split 8/9 order as the 778 has the legs for niche ULH routes and 779 has the capacity for 747 replacement in markets such as HKG, HND, SFO and possibly BNE-LAX, SYD-SCL and SYD-JNB depending on how those routes shake out with 789 deliveries


+1 The 777 solves a couple of problems which the A350 doesn't - namely capacity and range.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3417
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 May 17, 2017 9:42 am

LAX772LR wrote:
WIederling wrote:
196t ( MZFW )

Where did you find that value for MZFW?

IINM, Airbus hasn't released their own number for such, no?


long known? at least as far back as 2014 -> 192t MZFW for the 268.9t MTOW version.
most recent one that I have:
2-1-0 page 1 A350 ACAPS from june 1 2016 for example.

current WV go from 192t to 195.7t to be exact.
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5451
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 May 17, 2017 10:33 am

I do not understand why replacement of the 747-400ER is here mixed together with looking at an small UHL fleet for special routes. You do not need the A350-900LR or 777-8 to replace a 747-400ER regarding the range, a 777-9, an 787-9, an A350-1000 or A350-900 have all the range needed, 777-9 and A350-1000 have the range and carrying capacity. One of the big reasons the 747-400ER is used on certain routes is that authorities only allow four holer on those routes.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6832
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

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

Wed May 17, 2017 11:22 am

mjoelnir wrote:
I do not understand why replacement of the 747-400ER is here mixed together with looking at an small UHL fleet for special routes. You do not need the A350-900LR or 777-8 to replace a 747-400ER regarding the range, a 777-9, an 787-9, an A350-1000 or A350-900 have all the range needed, 777-9 and A350-1000 have the range and carrying capacity. One of the big reasons the 747-400ER is used on certain routes is that authorities only allow four holer on those routes.


You're conflating two issues, no one is saying that the 400ER fleet will necessarily be replaced with a niche ULH model, but it will have some bearing in the final decision. There is no way Qantas, with such a tiny long haul fleet, is going to buy both 777s and 350s, it will be one or the other and that model must be capable of also covering the market currently served by the 747.

CASA have recently relaxed their EDTO requirements so 4 engines aren't as important as they were in the past, and nontheless the 380s will be around for another decade or more.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
qantas747
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 12:51 pm

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

Wed May 17, 2017 11:43 am

parapente wrote:
Assuming just for a second mind-that the CEO is not wrong.A question.
Qantas switched their cooperation deal from BA to Emirates for one stop flights Lon-Syd.But what about non stop?Could they re partner up with BA for this different flight ?
I bet BA would love to offer a mixed schedule over a week between non stop and their usual one stopAt Singapore.


BA Wont give pax the access to destinations Qf currently has access to. However with the rise of QR and the fact they are in oneworld, they could now be the logical replacement for EK if QF dont decide to renew.

QF could give QR access to BNE, loads more secondary destinations would open up.
That would also leave QF to look at serving africa more on its own metal ex PER. Destinations like JNB CPT and NBO could be opened up with more 789s (or maybe a 332) takes F out of a lot of markets but QR starts to look a load more appealing and seem to have more flexibility on smaller markets.
When QF partnered with EK, QR was still too small in Australia, now I think they would be a much more ideal partner. It would again open up a closer relationship with BA if QR came onboard.

At the very least this could be used as a bargaining tool to extract more out of the EK partnership for the next 5yrs
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed May 17, 2017 2:54 pm

I assume the 777s flying around 20-30t structure for 20-25 years isn't really that much of a consideration for Qantas.

Fuel might stay or go even lower during that 2020-2040 time frame and weight doesn't tell everything. It all depends how you look at it..

Those big 777 wings will look gorgeous and I read someone knew someone in Qantas MRO that definitely prefers Boeings.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5451
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 May 17, 2017 3:01 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I do not understand why replacement of the 747-400ER is here mixed together with looking at an small UHL fleet for special routes. You do not need the A350-900LR or 777-8 to replace a 747-400ER regarding the range, a 777-9, an 787-9, an A350-1000 or A350-900 have all the range needed, 777-9 and A350-1000 have the range and carrying capacity. One of the big reasons the 747-400ER is used on certain routes is that authorities only allow four holer on those routes.


You're conflating two issues, no one is saying that the 400ER fleet will necessarily be replaced with a niche ULH model, but it will have some bearing in the final decision. There is no way Qantas, with such a tiny long haul fleet, is going to buy both 777s and 350s, it will be one or the other and that model must be capable of also covering the market currently served by the 747.

CASA have recently relaxed their EDTO requirements so 4 engines aren't as important as they were in the past, and nontheless the 380s will be around for another decade or more.


I have not said that Qantas will both buy 777 and A350, even with an airline like LH and quite a few others doing that. The frames we are talking about here are frames for new routes you would not be able to do with a 747-400ER. So I do not understand all this talk about the ULH frames need to be able to replace the 747-400ER.


The most sensible course for Qantas would anyway be to buy A350-1000 to replace the 747-400ER and the A350-900LR for UHL and forget about the 777.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Wed May 17, 2017 3:29 pm

keesje wrote:
I assume the 777s flying around 20-30t structure for 20-25 years isn't really that much of a consideration for Qantas.

Fuel might stay or go even lower during that 2020-2040 time frame and weight doesn't tell everything. It all depends how you look at it..

Those big 777 wings will look gorgeous and I read someone knew someone in Qantas MRO that definitely prefers Boeings.


Given the 35 ton OEW difference shown on that Airbus marketing slide, It is hard to believe that QF would seriously consider the 777-9. Why would anyone operate the 777-9 over the A350-1000? The 777-9 order backlog being bigger than the A350-1000 backlog must be an illusion.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation ... veotc.html
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 6693
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 May 17, 2017 3:32 pm

mjoelnir wrote:

The most sensible course for Qantas would anyway be to buy A350-1000 to replace the 747-400ER and the A350-900LR for UHL and forget about the 777.

Of course replacing the 747-400ER with the 779 and the 778 for UHL could be considered just as sensible.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5451
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 May 17, 2017 3:49 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Given the 35 ton OEW difference shown on that Airbus marketing slide, It is hard to believe that QF would seriously consider the 777-9.


:checkmark: You hit the nail on the head. :bigthumbsup:
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 921
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

Wed May 17, 2017 3:55 pm

Only Keeseje would be using an Airbus marketing slide....
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11007
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 17, 2017 3:55 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Given the 35 ton OEW difference shown on that Airbus marketing slide, It is hard to believe that QF would seriously consider the 777-9. Why would anyone operate the 777-9 over the A350-1000? The 777-9 order backlog being bigger than the A350-1000 backlog must be an illusion.


The order backlog is the only objective way to measure the progress of a development of an aircraft like the A350-1000.

This is what Airbus set out to do when it launched the A350-1000

Image

This is what they have come up with

Image

That photo was of the A350-1000 during its early long flight as part of the flight test program this week. The aircraft departed at 94.7% MTOW. The photo shows fuel used at that point was 33.25t 4 hours into the flight, if you take 500 kg for taxi, the flight fuel would be 32.75t. Current mass 258.9 t, so TOW=GW+FU = 291.65t. 291.65/308=94.7%.

The TAS is 497 kts at FL350, a 77W taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would be at FL330 with a TAS of 488 kt. The current fuel flow is 6800 kg/hr, a 77W after 4 hrs taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would be burning 8644 kg/hr, that represents 21.3% less fuel flow. In terms of specific range, 77W 8644/488 = 17.7 kg/nm, A350-1000 6800/497= 13.7 kg/nm, that represents a 22.8% reduction.

After 4 hours of flight time a 77W taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would have burnt 41.9 t of fuel, the A350-1000 32.75 t, that also is a 21.8% reduction. However in that time the A350 would have flown about 2% further in distance. The A350-1000 at that point had 7:22 of flight time left and estimated to burn 45.7 t (65.5-19.8), average burn for the 7:22, 45.7/7:22=6.2 t/hr for the remainder of the flight. Overall total trip fuel would have been 78.45t (45.7+32.75) for 11:22 (7:22+4:00) flight time. A 77W would burn 105.9 t over that flight time. That represents 27.5 t less fuel for the sector in percentage terms a 25.9% reduction.

Q Why would anyone operate the 777-9 over the A350-1000?

A The demand over the city pairs requires and supports the larger airframe.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Wed May 17, 2017 4:01 pm

Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The most sensible course for Qantas would anyway be to buy A350-1000 to replace the 747-400ER and the A350-900LR for UHL and forget about the 777.

Of course replacing the 747-400ER with the 779 and the 778 for UHL could be considered just as sensible.


Yes it would be just sensible. It depends if you are asking the Airbus fan club or Boeing fan club for which is more sensible. We have seen a few Airbus marketing slides in this thread. Where is the 777 marketing slide? Does anyone have one? :)

The Airbus fan club is going to hammer me for posting this table, but at least it is from a third party and not the Airbus or Boeing marketing department although airinsight can favor Boeing.

Image

https://airinsight.com/2013/11/08/the-s ... us-777-9x/

They might like this one more since Leeham can favor Airbus, but still shows a fuel burn per seat advantage for the 777-9:
https://leehamnews.com/2014/12/21/boein ... nd-777-9x/
Image
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11007
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 17, 2017 4:15 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The Airbus fan club is going to hammer me for posting this table, but at least it is from a third party and not the Airbus or Boeing marketing department


The actual advantage in that early long test flight (without production engines) over the 77W is 25.9% less block fuel, they are only showing in that chart 20.5% less block fuel, so it has improved 21.1% on the figure they had come up with.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23969
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

Wed May 17, 2017 4:28 pm

redroo wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
I still think the 777 will win out with a split 8/9 order as the 778 has the legs for niche ULH routes and 779 has the capacity for 747 replacement in markets such as HKG, HND, SFO and possibly BNE-LAX, SYD-SCL and SYD-JNB depending on how those routes shake out with 789 deliveries


+1 The 777 solves a couple of problems which the A350 doesn't - namely capacity and range.


The 777 is obviously larger, but range has never been an issue for the A350.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
StTim
Posts: 2322
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Wed May 17, 2017 4:40 pm

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.



Having done JNB ATL in steerage, waited around (no lounge facilities to freshen up) and then taken the flight down to Miami followed by 6/7 hours work I can assure you it is possible to do such flights and be effective.

yes I would have preferred to sit up front. It would have made a difference. But it was nowhere near as bad as some people here make out. Given the choice I would fly direct everytime.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23969
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

Wed May 17, 2017 4:44 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I assume the 777s flying around 20-30t structure for 20-25 years isn't really that much of a consideration for Qantas.

Fuel might stay or go even lower during that 2020-2040 time frame and weight doesn't tell everything. It all depends how you look at it..

Those big 777 wings will look gorgeous and I read someone knew someone in Qantas MRO that definitely prefers Boeings.


Given the 35 ton OEW difference shown on that Airbus marketing slide, It is hard to believe that QF would seriously consider the 777-9. Why would anyone operate the 777-9 over the A350-1000? The 777-9 order backlog being bigger than the A350-1000 backlog must be an illusion.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation ... veotc.html


ikolkyo wrote:
Only Keeseje would be using an Airbus marketing slide....


Seems that the marketing slide is pretty accurate, multiple sources have the 779 OEW at 186t, making it 31t heavier than the A350-1000.

... which is quite obvious as the 779 is larger and carrier more passengers.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
StTim
Posts: 2322
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Wed May 17, 2017 4:46 pm

zeke wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The Airbus fan club is going to hammer me for posting this table, but at least it is from a third party and not the Airbus or Boeing marketing department


The actual advantage in that early long test flight (without production engines) over the 77W is 25.9% less block fuel, they are only showing in that chart 20.5% less block fuel, so it has improved 21.1% on the figure they had come up with.



What factor is MTOW on the route and landing fees? Is it marginal or substantial? I know airlines try to have lower MTOW if they can.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11007
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 17, 2017 4:56 pm

StTim wrote:
Given the choice I would fly direct everytime.


If you were to go one stop you might save the equivalent to 5 nights hotel accommodation. There will be a market for non stop flights, there will also be market for cheaper multi stop flights. From PER to LHR you have many choices including EK, QR, EY, MH, SQ. QR would be about the quickest with 19:35 trip duration.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5413
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

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

Wed May 17, 2017 7:36 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I do not understand why replacement of the 747-400ER is here mixed together with looking at an small UHL fleet for special routes. You do not need the A350-900LR or 777-8 to replace a 747-400ER regarding the range, a 777-9, an 787-9, an A350-1000 or A350-900 have all the range needed, 777-9 and A350-1000 have the range and carrying capacity. One of the big reasons the 747-400ER is used on certain routes is that authorities only allow four holer on those routes.


Of course you don't need an ULH aircraft to replace the 744ER but we are talking about a changing QF network where ULH to LHR non stop and DFW potentially JFK/ORD aswell where the 744 can't do they need something smaller with more range.

Pretty sure timing has a bit to do with it as does size, easy to say QF should go with the A359/A35J because they are lighter but the 778/779 is that bit larger aswell so more revenue potential.

QF config might look something like assuming 4 class 779, 35J for LAX etc 778, 359 for SYD/MEL-LHR non stop maybe MEL-DFW and a few other ULH flights.

779 778. 359. 35J

340 280. 250. 300
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5451
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 May 17, 2017 8:14 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:

Of course you don't need an ULH aircraft to replace the 744ER but we are talking about a changing QF network where ULH to LHR non stop and DFW potentially JFK/ORD aswell where the 744 can't do they need something smaller with more range.

Pretty sure timing has a bit to do with it as does size, easy to say QF should go with the A359/A35J because they are lighter but the 778/779 is that bit larger aswell so more revenue potential.


The bigger frames have also more loss potential. You have to fill the bigger frames. If you look at timing, the A350-900 and soon the -1000 are in revenue service with defined capabilities, the 777-8/9 are still on paper only.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 977
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

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

Wed May 17, 2017 8:59 pm

For me personally, it's too long and I'd rather not have to do it. But there are plenty of flights that are 14 hours long and that is already too much for me. In business it's probably not that bad though, considering you could sleep for 10 hours. If they time it right, you have dinner, watch a movie, then sleep, have breakfast and watch another film or work on your laptop a bit and then you're there. Depart London 5pm, arrive around midday the next day. The main issue is being comfortable enough to sleep for half of the way.
 
enzo011
Posts: 1395
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Thu May 18, 2017 11:00 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Yes it would be just sensible. It depends if you are asking the Airbus fan club or Boeing fan club for which is more sensible. We have seen a few Airbus marketing slides in this thread. Where is the 777 marketing slide? Does anyone have one? :)

The Airbus fan club is going to hammer me for posting this table, but at least it is from a third party and not the Airbus or Boeing marketing department although airinsight can favor Boeing.

Image

https://airinsight.com/2013/11/08/the-s ... us-777-9x/

They might like this one more since Leeham can favor Airbus, but still shows a fuel burn per seat advantage for the 777-9:
https://leehamnews.com/2014/12/21/boein ... nd-777-9x/
Image



The issue with the slides you posted is that they used the old Boeing seat numbers where it states the 779 will have "over 400 seats in 3 classes", which Boeing themselves have refuted to be the case. So we know that while those are from a third party, the comparisons aren't real world as the seating for the Boeing aircraft is more than you would expect airlines to fit. Airlines would struggle to get close to 350 seats in three classes in the A35K as well, but the jump in 57 seats from about a 3m stretch.

Boeing did assume that the 779 will feature 10-abreast Y whereas the 77W was at 9-abreast, but how do you get 350 seats in the 77W with only 9-abreast Y? You can't in three classes, look at SQ with less than 300 seats in their 77W's.

EK does go to above 350 seats in their 77W's. but they are at 7-abreast in J, which can be fitted in the A35K in similar seating so the numbers for an A35K in that comparison would be closer to the 77W as well. You can look at the seating difference between EY and EK and their 77W's, both in 3 classes but one with high density J and the other not. The difference in numbers is about 20 seats between the two difference aircraft.

So you can use the slides but they assume the wrong seat numbers so the figures will be wrong then as well.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23969
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

Thu May 18, 2017 11:06 am

StTim wrote:
Given the choice I would fly direct everytime.


Not everyone is willing to pay a premium for a non-stop service. As zeke points out, there's a market for cheaper, stopover flights.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
mig17
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

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

Thu May 18, 2017 11:50 am

KarelXWB wrote:
StTim wrote:
Given the choice I would fly direct everytime.


Not everyone is willing to pay a premium for a non-stop service. As zeke points out, there's a market for cheaper, stopover flights.

And extra cargo doesn't mind going through a hub either, but it cares about prices.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu May 18, 2017 12:31 pm

zeke wrote:
..

Image

That photo was of the A350-1000 during its early long flight as part of the flight test program this week. The aircraft departed at 94.7% MTOW. The photo shows fuel used at that point was 33.25t 4 hours into the flight, if you take 500 kg for taxi, the flight fuel would be 32.75t. Current mass 258.9 t, so TOW=GW+FU = 291.65t. 291.65/308=94.7%.

The TAS is 497 kts at FL350, a 77W taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would be at FL330 with a TAS of 488 kt. The current fuel flow is 6800 kg/hr, a 77W after 4 hrs taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would be burning 8644 kg/hr, that represents 21.3% less fuel flow. In terms of specific range, 77W 8644/488 = 17.7 kg/nm, A350-1000 6800/497= 13.7 kg/nm, that represents a 22.8% reduction.

After 4 hours of flight time a 77W taking off at the same percentage of MTOW would have burnt 41.9 t of fuel, the A350-1000 32.75 t, that also is a 21.8% reduction. However in that time the A350 would have flown about 2% further in distance. The A350-1000 at that point had 7:22 of flight time left and estimated to burn 45.7 t (65.5-19.8), average burn for the 7:22, 45.7/7:22=6.2 t/hr for the remainder of the flight. Overall total trip fuel would have been 78.45t (45.7+32.75) for 11:22 (7:22+4:00) flight time. A 77W would burn 105.9 t over that flight time. That represents 27.5 t less fuel for the sector in percentage terms a 25.9% reduction.

Q Why would anyone operate the 777-9 over the A350-1000?

A The demand over the city pairs requires and supports the larger airframe.


:wideeyed: :rotfl: Good catch, the kind of posts that make a.net worthwhile :bigthumbsup:

Love those high res / quality pictures. They remind me of zooming in on high res pictures of 787 assembly a decade ago, made by the more "embedded" type of journalists and enthusiast visitors. Zooming in and a close look by skilled people around revealed serious issues (fasteners) that were only acknowledged after denial became impossible. A ban on camera's followed soon after. http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=758119

Regarding the 777 A350 tables, people tend to fall for the "per seat", CASM, etc figures, we shouldn't. Anyone can change those results by selecting "helpful" seat pitches, width's, First and Business Class seat counts, "typical" cabin lay outs, lavatory rates, galley space etc. If we use them for generalizations, we are puppets on strings in the hands of Marketing. In Japan 777Ws have between 212 and 500 seats. Select the one that supports your end conclusion.

Capacity is important, I think much more important than usually considered on a.net. here we we replace 744 with big twins, 767s with 787s and 757s with A330s as if seat capacity doesn't matter much.

In this case 777 vs A350 the seat count difference grows if it's a relative heavy economy class cabin. In premium the extra width doesn't help. Premium remains 1-2-1 or 2-2-2.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Thu May 18, 2017 3:58 pm

keesje wrote:

In this case 777 vs A350 the seat count difference grows if it's a relative heavy economy class cabin. In premium the extra width doesn't help. Premium remains 1-2-1 or 2-2-2.


It is not true that extra width does not help in premium class. Even though business may be 1-2-1 on two different airplanes, it doesn't mean that extra width doesn't make a difference regarding seat pitch. American Airlines has 1-2-1 seats on both the 787-9 and 777-300 with similar layouts. The 777 seat has a bigger angle relative to forward than the 787-9 seat to take advantage of the wider width. The seat pitch on the 787-9 is 46 inches. On the wider 77W the seat pitch is 43 inches. The extra width on the 777 allows the rows to be a bit tighter and fit more seats in.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

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

Thu May 18, 2017 4:12 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:

In this case 777 vs A350 the seat count difference grows if it's a relative heavy economy class cabin. In premium the extra width doesn't help. Premium remains 1-2-1 or 2-2-2.


It is not true that extra width does not help in premium class. Even though business may be 1-2-1 on two different airplanes, it doesn't mean that extra width doesn't make a difference regarding seat pitch. American Airlines has 1-2-1 seats on both the 787-9 and 777-300 with similar layouts. The 777 seat has a bigger angle relative to forward than the 787-9 seat to take advantage of the wider width. The seat pitch on the 787-9 is 46 inches. On the wider 77W the seat pitch is 43 inches. The extra width on the 777 allows the rows to be a bit tighter and fit more seats in.


Having travelled back to back B787 / A350 in J class on Qatar, my subjective impression supports this. Both excellent however!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 14418
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Thu May 18, 2017 5:21 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
It is not true that extra width does not help in premium class. Even though business may be 1-2-1 on two different airplanes, it doesn't mean that extra width doesn't make a difference regarding seat pitch. American Airlines has 1-2-1 seats on both the 787-9 and 777-300 with similar layouts. The 777 seat has a bigger angle relative to forward than the 787-9 seat to take advantage of the wider width. The seat pitch on the 787-9 is 46 inches. On the wider 77W the seat pitch is 43 inches. The extra width on the 777 allows the rows to be a bit tighter and fit more seats in.


Great in theory, however in reality that 3" difference means nothing because AA doesn't have enough rows of J in order to fit in an extra one. The position of doors also prevents any gain from the reduced pitch.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 6693
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

Thu May 18, 2017 5:26 pm

scbriml wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
It is not true that extra width does not help in premium class. Even though business may be 1-2-1 on two different airplanes, it doesn't mean that extra width doesn't make a difference regarding seat pitch. American Airlines has 1-2-1 seats on both the 787-9 and 777-300 with similar layouts. The 777 seat has a bigger angle relative to forward than the 787-9 seat to take advantage of the wider width. The seat pitch on the 787-9 is 46 inches. On the wider 77W the seat pitch is 43 inches. The extra width on the 777 allows the rows to be a bit tighter and fit more seats in.


Great in theory, however in reality that 3" difference means nothing because AA doesn't have enough rows of J in order to fit in an extra one. The position of doors also prevents any gain from the reduced pitch.

That is 39 extra inches (on the 77W) available, however, for lav/galley/closet space that may have otherwise been eating into Y/Y+/whatever room.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Thu May 18, 2017 5:39 pm

scbriml wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
It is not true that extra width does not help in premium class. Even though business may be 1-2-1 on two different airplanes, it doesn't mean that extra width doesn't make a difference regarding seat pitch. American Airlines has 1-2-1 seats on both the 787-9 and 777-300 with similar layouts. The 777 seat has a bigger angle relative to forward than the 787-9 seat to take advantage of the wider width. The seat pitch on the 787-9 is 46 inches. On the wider 77W the seat pitch is 43 inches. The extra width on the 777 allows the rows to be a bit tighter and fit more seats in.


Great in theory, however in reality that 3" difference means nothing because AA doesn't have enough rows of J in order to fit in an extra one. The position of doors also prevents any gain from the reduced pitch.


American has 11 rows of business class seats between doors 2 and 3 on the 77W at 43 inch pitch as well as 4 lavatories at the back of the business class cabin in front of door 3. If they had 46 inch pitch like they do on the 787, those 4 lavatories would have to be moved from in front of door 3 to behind door 3, which would result in 10 economy seats sacrificed or a 3% drop in total capacity on the 77W. Cabin width does make a difference in both business and economy classes, so that is how the 777-9 can get the higher seat counts.

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