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

Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:47 pm

qf789 wrote:
Boeing confident on winning the order from QF

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... challenge/

The B777-8X will be amazing in QF colours
 
astuteman
Posts: 6639
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

Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:34 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
tjh8402 wrote:
So if I'm understanding you correctly and remembering what was said earlier correctly, an A359LR would actually carry more passengers 9500 nm than an A35K because of available payload? I did a quick look and couldn't find the info, but what would a 778's payload be on a flight that long? If you're saying that's what QF wants, sounds like a 778 is probably the one to get unless Airbus does the originally planned A359R (with the A35K wings and gear).


No the A359LR would carry even less payload over 9,500 nm.


The 280t model maybe.
But a 308t/316t A350-900ULR would bury any long-range A350-1000 variant at 9 500Nm in terms of payload.
Frankly, with 165 000l of fuel, a 308t/316t A359 would arguably be the best purely ULR frame out there.

rgds
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 14839
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

Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:51 pm

astuteman wrote:
Frankly, with 165 000l of fuel, a 308t/316t A359 would arguably be the best purely ULR frame out there.


Duck! That's heretical talk, right there. :wink2:
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.
 
redroo
Posts: 261
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

Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:08 pm

Slash787 wrote:
redroo wrote:
You'd be surprised at the number of people that step off the QF1 and go straight to work. Have done it myself a few times.

Five days in Europe then back on the QF2 on Friday night.


That would be tiring


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.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 551
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

Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:14 pm

redroo wrote:
Slash787 wrote:
redroo wrote:
You'd be surprised at the number of people that step off the QF1 and go straight to work. Have done it myself a few times.

Five days in Europe then back on the QF2 on Friday night.


That would be tiring


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.
Last edited by LamboAston on Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 9460
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

Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:10 am

LamboAston wrote:
Really, from America the only comparable flights are like LAX-EU-JNB/CPT.

Might want to study geography a bit harder......
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Slash787
Posts: 361
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:37 pm

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

Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:21 am

They will most prob. go with the 778
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25814
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

Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:49 pm

astuteman wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
tjh8402 wrote:
So if I'm understanding you correctly and remembering what was said earlier correctly, an A359LR would actually carry more passengers 9500 nm than an A35K because of available payload? I did a quick look and couldn't find the info, but what would a 778's payload be on a flight that long? If you're saying that's what QF wants, sounds like a 778 is probably the one to get unless Airbus does the originally planned A359R (with the A35K wings and gear).


No the A359LR would carry even less payload over 9,500 nm.


The 280t model maybe.
But a 308t/316t A350-900ULR would bury any long-range A350-1000 variant at 9 500Nm in terms of payload.
Frankly, with 165 000l of fuel, a 308t/316t A359 would arguably be the best purely ULR frame out there.

rgds


Well yes, but 280t is the maximum MTOW we have on the A350-900.

At 308t it would require the main landing gear of the A350-1000, so that puts us back at the original A350ULR design with 10,000 nm range.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
AirCal737
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:17 am

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

Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:03 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
astuteman wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:

No the A359LR would carry even less payload over 9,500 nm.


The 280t model maybe.
But a 308t/316t A350-900ULR would bury any long-range A350-1000 variant at 9 500Nm in terms of payload.
Frankly, with 165 000l of fuel, a 308t/316t A359 would arguably be the best purely ULR frame out there.

rgds


Well yes, but 280t is the maximum MTOW we have on the A350-900.

At 308t it would require the main landing gear of the A350-1000, so that puts us back at the original A350ULR design with 10,000 nm range.

So it seems that the 777,787 and 359 have the same problem when increasing MTOW: landing gears.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6639
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

Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:13 pm

AirCal737 wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
astuteman wrote:

The 280t model maybe.
But a 308t/316t A350-900ULR would bury any long-range A350-1000 variant at 9 500Nm in terms of payload.
Frankly, with 165 000l of fuel, a 308t/316t A359 would arguably be the best purely ULR frame out there.

rgds


Well yes, but 280t is the maximum MTOW we have on the A350-900.

At 308t it would require the main landing gear of the A350-1000, so that puts us back at the original A350ULR design with 10,000 nm range.

So it seems that the 777,787 and 359 have the same problem when increasing MTOW: landing gears.


I don't see much if any scope, to grow the 77X from 352t (not that the 778X really needs it for ULR), or the 787 from 253t

But the MLG well on the A350-900 was designed from the outset to accommodate the triple bogie from the A350-1000. So the MLG required to take an A350-900ULR up from 280t to 308t, or even 316t already exists, and will already integrate with the A350-900. This was the original A350-900ULR
No problem.
Except of course it's a fair bit heavier :)

Rgds
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9460
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

Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:54 pm

astuteman wrote:
But the MLG well on the A350-900 was designed from the outset to accommodate the triple bogie from the A350-1000. So the MLG required to take an A350-900ULR up from 280t to 308t, or even 316t already exists, and will already integrate with the A350-900. This was the original A350-900ULR
No problem.

But as awesome as that would be, Airbus has given no public indication that the original A359R is back on the table. :(

Or do yall know something?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 551
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

Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:39 am

LAX772LR wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
Really, from America the only comparable flights are like LAX-EU-JNB/CPT.

Might want to study geography a bit harder......

Actually, I did.

https://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/gr ... ange=15000
https://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/gr ... ange=15000
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
 
astuteman
Posts: 6639
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

Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:19 am

LAX772LR wrote:
astuteman wrote:
But the MLG well on the A350-900 was designed from the outset to accommodate the triple bogie from the A350-1000. So the MLG required to take an A350-900ULR up from 280t to 308t, or even 316t already exists, and will already integrate with the A350-900. This was the original A350-900ULR
No problem.

But as awesome as that would be, Airbus has given no public indication that the original A359R is back on the table. :(

Or do yall know something?


Was just answering the question posed about MLG.

But for what it's worth, I'm having difficulty reconciling myself with the notion that a 280t A350 can compete with a 350t 778X in terms of payload carried between SYD and LAX.
If it can, that doesn't bode well for the 778X generally IMO.
But I'm not sure it can.
It feels more like "original A350R" territory to me, whatever Airbus have, or haven't announced.

Rgds
 
rbavfan
Posts: 1936
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

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

Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:39 am

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!


So with Sleeper seats a person would not be in condition to do anything but Stumble & Mumble. I find that hard to believe.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9460
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

Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:56 am

LamboAston wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
Really, from America the only comparable flights are like LAX-EU-JNB/CPT.

Might want to study geography a bit harder......

Actually, I did.

But clearly not very well--- else you'd know that there's quite a few more routes from the USA that fall under the OEM definition of 16hr+ ULH than that.

You'd probably also know that going via the EU is the short way to JNB for much/most of the country, versus taking some of the nonstops, especially ATL.


astuteman wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
astuteman wrote:
So the MLG required to take an A350-900ULR up from 280t to 308t, or even 316t already exists, and will already integrate with the A350-900. This was the original A350-900ULR
No problem.

But as awesome as that would be, Airbus has given no public indication that the original A359R is back on the table. :(

But for what it's worth, I'm having difficulty reconciling myself with the notion that a 280t A350 can compete with a 350t 778X in terms of payload carried between SYD and LAX.

I'm guessing you mean LHR, as the two probably would compete on fairly even terms to the likes of LAX.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
astuteman
Posts: 6639
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

Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:34 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Might want to study geography a bit harder......

Actually, I did.

But clearly not very well--- else you'd know that there's quite a few more routes from the USA that fall under the OEM definition of 16hr+ ULH than that.

You'd probably also know that going via the EU is the short way to JNB for much/most of the country, versus taking some of the nonstops, especially ATL.


astuteman wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
But as awesome as that would be, Airbus has given no public indication that the original A359R is back on the table. :(

But for what it's worth, I'm having difficulty reconciling myself with the notion that a 280t A350 can compete with a 350t 778X in terms of payload carried between SYD and LAX.

I'm guessing you mean LHR, as the two probably would compete on fairly even terms to the likes of LAX.


I did. My bad ... :)

Rgds
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 551
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

Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:26 am

LAX772LR wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Might want to study geography a bit harder......

Actually, I did.

But clearly not very well--- else you'd know that there's quite a few more routes from the USA that fall under the OEM definition of 16hr+ ULH than that.

You'd probably also know that going via the EU is the short way to JNB for much/most of the country, versus taking some of the nonstops, especially ATL.

You have that in ONE FLIGHT. Yes, fair point, but I was trying to compare NZ/AU-NYC and SYD-LHR/EU.
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
zeke
Posts: 11518
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

Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:06 am

astuteman wrote:
But for what it's worth, I'm having difficulty reconciling myself with the notion that a 280t A350 can compete with a 350t 778X in terms of payload carried between SYD and LAX.


When looking at the range/payload curve for any aircraft the payload is normally calculated as the MZFW - Basic weight, and the payload represents wherever is needed to bring the aircraft up from the Basic weight to DOW plus what is available for passengers/cargo. The A350-900 W/V for 280 tonne MTOW has already been certified as W/V 10 & 13. I see further enhancements made to the A350-900 via the A350-1000 MZFW (220-223 tonnes), if we see the MZFW of the A350-900 increased of less than 10 tonnes (from 195 tonnes to 200-205 tonne area, FYI the MZFW on the 77L is 209,106 kg with an OEW of 145,150 kg) all of the payload reduction from the increase of the fuel on-board from the current A350-900 level (108330 kg) to the A350-1000 level (122,460 kg) would be covered as the center tank extends into the wing. Adding fuel inside the fuselage normally directly reduces the available payload by a similar amount as the wing loads represent what is carried inside the fuselage. The -900/-1000 basically share the same wing so the loads would have already been calculated, no doubt however the higher MZFW would result in higher maintenance costs.

Image

The A350-900 at 275 tonnes will lift around 5 tonnes more payload than a 777-300ER over the HKG-NYC route (which is around 500 nm further than SYD-LAX). The main reason for this is the range/payload curves crossover on the right as the 777-300ER has a higher fuel burn per hour. The difference in fuel burn per hour represents the amount of payload per hour that has to be traded for fuel on the right hand side of the range/payload curve at MTOW. As SYD-LAX in round numbers is around 1 hr shorter than HKG-NYC, I would expect the 777-300ER to recover around 3 tonnes of payload (the fuel burn delta per hour between them). At the same time if the MTOW on the -900 is also increased by 5 tonnes to 280 tonnes it is not hard to see how that is possible, I would expect around a 5 tonnes extra being carried in the A350-900.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
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

Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:12 pm

Okay, but we're comparing the A350-900 to the 777-8, not the 777-300ER. The 777-8's maximum payload should be close to the 777-300ER's and the fuel burn should be a fair bit lower so the payload-range crossover should be more favorable than it is for the 777-300ER.

And astuteman actually meant SYD to LHR, not LAX. So if we use that as the route - and we also use the 777-8, not the 777-300ER - how would the two fare?
 
astuteman
Posts: 6639
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

Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:29 pm

zeke wrote:
astuteman wrote:
But for what it's worth, I'm having difficulty reconciling myself with the notion that a 280t A350 can compete with a 350t 778X in terms of payload carried between SYD and LAX.


When looking at the range/payload curve for any aircraft the payload is normally calculated as the MZFW - Basic weight, and the payload represents wherever is needed to bring the aircraft up from the Basic weight to DOW plus what is available for passengers/cargo. The A350-900 W/V for 280 tonne MTOW has already been certified as W/V 10 & 13. I see further enhancements made to the A350-900 via the A350-1000 MZFW (220-223 tonnes), if we see the MZFW of the A350-900 increased of less than 10 tonnes (from 195 tonnes to 200-205 tonne area, FYI the MZFW on the 77L is 209,106 kg with an OEW of 145,150 kg) all of the payload reduction from the increase of the fuel on-board from the current A350-900 level (108330 kg) to the A350-1000 level (122,460 kg) would be covered as the center tank extends into the wing. Adding fuel inside the fuselage normally directly reduces the available payload by a similar amount as the wing loads represent what is carried inside the fuselage. The -900/-1000 basically share the same wing so the loads would have already been calculated, no doubt however the higher MZFW would result in higher maintenance costs.

Image

The A350-900 at 275 tonnes will lift around 5 tonnes more payload than a 777-300ER over the HKG-NYC route (which is around 500 nm further than SYD-LAX). The main reason for this is the range/payload curves crossover on the right as the 777-300ER has a higher fuel burn per hour. The difference in fuel burn per hour represents the amount of payload per hour that has to be traded for fuel on the right hand side of the range/payload curve at MTOW. As SYD-LAX in round numbers is around 1 hr shorter than HKG-NYC, I would expect the 777-300ER to recover around 3 tonnes of payload (the fuel burn delta per hour between them). At the same time if the MTOW on the -900 is also increased by 5 tonnes to 280 tonnes it is not hard to see how that is possible, I would expect around a 5 tonnes extra being carried in the A350-900.


Sorry. My bad. I meant SYD-LHR, as Stitch pointed out.
I can quite easily see the 280t A350-900 being very competitive on a 7 000nm sector like HKG-NYC (which will be what? c 7 500nm ESAD?) with pretty much any other widebody out there.

But on a 9 200nm sector, said to be 9 500Nm ESAD with some very inventive routing (and a sector that a 77W can't even fly itself on, much less a payload) I would not expect a plane giving away 70t of MTOW to be competitive, especially if only 20t of that is OEW difference.

Rgds
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 1555
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

Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:33 pm

zeke wrote:
astuteman wrote:
But for what it's worth, I'm having difficulty reconciling myself with the notion that a 280t A350 can compete with a 350t 778X in terms of payload carried between SYD and LAX.


When looking at the range/payload curve for any aircraft the payload is normally calculated as the MZFW - Basic weight, and the payload represents wherever is needed to bring the aircraft up from the Basic weight to DOW plus what is available for passengers/cargo. The A350-900 W/V for 280 tonne MTOW has already been certified as W/V 10 & 13. I see further enhancements made to the A350-900 via the A350-1000 MZFW (220-223 tonnes), if we see the MZFW of the A350-900 increased of less than 10 tonnes (from 195 tonnes to 200-205 tonne area, FYI the MZFW on the 77L is 209,106 kg with an OEW of 145,150 kg) all of the payload reduction from the increase of the fuel on-board from the current A350-900 level (108330 kg) to the A350-1000 level (122,460 kg) would be covered as the center tank extends into the wing. Adding fuel inside the fuselage normally directly reduces the available payload by a similar amount as the wing loads represent what is carried inside the fuselage. The -900/-1000 basically share the same wing so the loads would have already been calculated, no doubt however the higher MZFW would result in higher maintenance costs.

Image

The A350-900 at 275 tonnes will lift around 5 tonnes more payload than a 777-300ER over the HKG-NYC route (which is around 500 nm further than SYD-LAX). The main reason for this is the range/payload curves crossover on the right as the 777-300ER has a higher fuel burn per hour. The difference in fuel burn per hour represents the amount of payload per hour that has to be traded for fuel on the right hand side of the range/payload curve at MTOW. As SYD-LAX in round numbers is around 1 hr shorter than HKG-NYC, I would expect the 777-300ER to recover around 3 tonnes of payload (the fuel burn delta per hour between them). At the same time if the MTOW on the -900 is also increased by 5 tonnes to 280 tonnes it is not hard to see how that is possible, I would expect around a 5 tonnes extra being carried in the A350-900.


Some good insight you're providing vs the 77W, but we are now talking about the 778, don't know if that advantage is gonna carry over since it's such a small one over the 77W
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 3770
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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:22 pm

According to Qatar CEO 778 doesn't need any more range

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 5977773058
Forum Moderator
 
lostsound
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 1:43 pm

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:42 pm

qf789 wrote:
According to Qatar CEO 778 doesn't need any more range

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 5977773058



What they meant to say is "We don't want Qantas eliminating our LON-Australia business"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:23 pm

qf789 wrote:
According to Qatar CEO 778 doesn't need any more range...


And for QR's needs, that is true.


lostsound wrote:
What they meant to say is "We don't want Qantas eliminating our LON-Australia business"


What they also do not want is Boeing to make the plane heavier / less-economical to add range they do not need, themselves.
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:34 pm

How hard would it be for Boeing to have two 778 variants? One optimized for Qantas's needs, and one as is being designed.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
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

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:55 pm

NYCRuss wrote:
How hard would it be for Boeing to have two 778 variants? One optimized for Qantas's needs, and one as is being designed.


Depends on what is involved.

First time around QF was RFPing the A340-500 and 777-200LR for SYD-LHR, I saw it posted that Boeing worked with cabin fitting suppliers to reduce the weight of seats, galleys and lavatories by multiple thousands of kilograms so that could be one of the options without needing to modify the structure of the airframe.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11518
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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:45 pm

Stitch wrote:
Okay, but we're comparing the A350-900 to the 777-8, not the 777-300ER. The 777-8's maximum payload should be close to the 777-300ER's and the fuel burn should be a fair bit lower so the payload-range crossover should be more favorable than it is for the 777-300ER.

And astuteman actually meant SYD to LHR, not LAX. So if we use that as the route - and we also use the 777-8, not the 777-300ER - how would the two fare?


The A350-900 OEW is lower, fuel flow is lower, and SAR is higher. The main reason for the efficiency claims being made by Boeing come from 10 across in the cabin, the SAR has not improved that much, but it has done so while increasing the number of passengers.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 551
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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:19 pm

lostsound wrote:
qf789 wrote:
According to Qatar CEO 778 doesn't need any more range

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 5977773058



What they meant to say is "We don't want Qantas eliminating our LON-Australia business"

And it is AAB we are talking about here. He has a big mouth
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
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:31 pm

LamboAston wrote:
And it is AAB we are talking about here. He has a big mouth

His mouth got smaller?
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3218
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:52 pm

kriskim wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
Qantas seems fascinated by flying nonstop to London and JFK, why ? Flying nonstop to DFW from Melbourne and Brisbane should be the priority. JFK and ORD plus maybe Boston will happen when he A350ULR and 787-9 get their legs. Sydney to London with all the competition from the Cathay's, Singapore's and ME3 is a vanity project. So you get to LHR 3 hours sooner, big deal.


QF still has 4 more 787's still to have a home, with the first initial 8 787's being MEL based, I think MEL-DFW will be one of the new routes that we will see in 2019. I believe these plans for 778 and A350ULR are for long term future plans, QF will need to do its research now for the 747 replacement.


In theory, the 777-9 could make for the perfect 744 replacement, with the 777-8 replacing the 744ER, assuming QF went with Boeing.

Choosing frequency over capacity could be the way to go in regards to the 747 replacement could be the way to go.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:56 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
Choosing frequency over capacity could be the way to go in regards to the 747 replacement could be the way to go.


absolutely resolutely not!

frequency has nothing to do with this purchase... ultra long haul is NEVER about frequency.

This is about economy, costs, price, risk, but certainly not frequency.
 
redroo
Posts: 261
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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:11 pm

Richard28 wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Choosing frequency over capacity could be the way to go in regards to the 747 replacement could be the way to go.


absolutely resolutely not!

frequency has nothing to do with this purchase... ultra long haul is NEVER about frequency.

This is about economy, costs, price, risk, but certainly not frequency.


The 787 is for frequency. The 778/9 will be for ULH and capacity for long haul routes instead of the 787.

There really aren't that many good times to take off from Australia to get to London. You either leave in the morning and arrive in the evening. Or you in the evening and arrive in the morning. JFK is the same.

What the non stop does give is more time to the Australian executives at home or in the office (because the flight leaves later) and removes the hassle and waste of the stop in the middle.
 
325i
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:01 am

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

Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:31 pm

Could be wrong but did not Boeing manufacture a "special" version of the 707 for QF?
If so ,depending on numbers ordered could be a repeat of the 707-138.
With all this speculation anything could happen. Cheers 325 I.
 
User avatar
AmbroseRPM
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:17 am

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

Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:03 am

Boeing did a special 747 for Qantas, the 747-400ER. Qantas is the only operator of the type.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
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

Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:34 am

AmbroseRPM wrote:
Boeing did a special 747 for Qantas, the 747-400ER. Qantas is the only operator of the type.


It ended up being a special frame for them, but they did shop it to CX and UA, as well. And, of course, they built plenty of ER freighters.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9460
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

Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:22 am

AmbroseRPM wrote:
Boeing did a special 747 for Qantas, the 747-400ER. Qantas is the only operator of the type.

Let's not start more inaccurate 764-ish lore, shall we?

Boeing did not make a "special" 747 "for Qantas".... they offered the 744ER to the entire market, and while many airlines took the freighter, QF was the only one to select the 744ER.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
 
WIederling
Posts: 4664
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

Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:37 am

NYCRuss wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
And it is AAB we are talking about here. He has a big mouth

His mouth got smaller?


pucker. only in the "trap closed" position :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25814
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

Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:46 am

qf789 wrote:
According to Qatar CEO 778 doesn't need any more range

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 5977773058


Unlike Qantas, Qatar Airways doesn't need an airplane capable of flying 18+ hours. Clearly Al Baker doesn't want the aircraft to become heavier if Boeing increases range capabilities.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 1555
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

Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:53 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
qf789 wrote:
According to Qatar CEO 778 doesn't need any more range

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 5977773058


Unlike Qantas, Qatar Airways doesn't need an airplane capable of flying 18+ hours. Clearly Al Baker doesn't want the aircraft to become heavier if Boeing increases range capabilities.


Or he doesn’t want to lose consenting passengers...
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1318
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

Boeing pitches B778 to QF

Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:42 am

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
 
CX747
Posts: 5869
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Boeing pitches B778 to QF

Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:45 am

Mind boggling that Boeing is stating the 777-8 can make the trip already. I'm sure Airbus is crunching numbers also.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9460
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing pitches B778 to QF

Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:47 am

Interesting article, but really no new information at all:
the public already knew that 1) Boeing is talking to QF about the 778 and 2) a 778 can fly just about anything if you short the payload accordingly.

The only question is, would QF bite?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
WIederling
Posts: 4664
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing pitches B778 to QF

Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:56 am

LAX772LR wrote:
... a 778 can fly just about anything if you short the payload accordingly.


cost would mushroom while paying mass shrinks to "microscopic" vs moved mass.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9460
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing pitches B778 to QF

Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:32 am

WIederling wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
... a 778 can fly just about anything if you short the payload accordingly.

cost would mushroom while paying mass shrinks to "microscopic" vs moved mass.

Well, yeah... hence the last sentence.

But that's going to be the case with anything aimed at this market segment: nothing's going to do 20hrs+ anywhere near max payload.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6121
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 Oct 17, 2017 8:54 am

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
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 Oct 17, 2017 10:10 pm

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:
 
Arion640
Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

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

Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:03 pm

LamboAston wrote:
redroo wrote:
Slash787 wrote:

That would be tiring


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.
Last edited by Arion640 on Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
319 320 321 346 388 733 744 752 753 763 772 77E 773 77W 788 E175 E195 F70 DH8C DH8D AT75
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6121
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 Oct 17, 2017 11:06 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
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 Oct 17, 2017 11:13 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
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.


Common sense should make it clear that Boeing is stating that the 777-8 has the modeled performance to make direct flights between Sydney and London. To think that their statement somehow implies that Boeing is claiming that a completed 777-8 has actually made the trip... :silly: :slaphappy: :spit:

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