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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:06 am

astuteman wrote:

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 787-8 is artificially restricted on paper. Its fuel capacity is the same as the -9's. Boeing does not need extensive modification to bring the -8 to the mtow of the -9. Doing that would give the -8 about 700 miles more range than the -9. SYD-NYC should be possible. It is not enough to do SYD-LHR nonstop but the gap to close is not very big - some incremental weight and a center fuel tank.
Conservatives against Trump
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24746
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 Nov 30, 2017 4:46 am

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.


A 747-8 will fly almost as far as a 747-400ER with almost 10,000kg more payload. There is no need to "SP" it.
 
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 6:16 am

ikolkyo wrote:
astuteman wrote:
incitatus wrote:

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.


Who's arguing?
But exactly the same could be said of an A350-900 and A350-800ULR.

In my own mind I've always considered a 787-8LR to be a great little LR frame.
But again, exactly the same could be said of an A350-800.

I've still to have explained why a 787-8LR is so much easier than an A350-800

Rgds
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9477
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:36 am

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.

Ah, so take a variant that (1) nobody wants and that (2) the OEM itself has already said "has no future"....

...then restrict the capacity, raise the CASM, increase the weight, and shove it into an ultra-niche market.

Sounds like a winner! :bigthumbsup:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:18 am

LAX772LR wrote:
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.

Ah, so take a variant that (1) nobody wants and that (2) the OEM itself has already said "has no future"....

...then restrict the capacity, raise the CASM, increase the weight, and shove it into an ultra-niche market.

Sounds like a winner! :bigthumbsup:


Perhaps about as big a winner as the 777-200LR, 59 sold, or the 777-8, up to now a ME3 only frame, that perhaps never sells more than the 53 it has sold up to now.

The A350-800 had collected more than 70 orders before it was first delayed and than cancelled, with most customers moved to the A350-900.
Last edited by mjoelnir on Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9477
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:24 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Perhaps about as big a winner as the 777-200LR, 59 sold

Which, unlike any other dedicated ULH airframe currently, continue to do the job they were designed for well over a decade later.

That, and let's not pretend that 59 is the actual count of the platform itself.



mjoelnir wrote:
or the 777-8, up to now a ME3 only frame, that perhaps never sells more than the 53 it has sold up to now.

Or, perhaps sells many times more. You don't know.
Thus rendering it rather pointless as an argument one way or the other at this juncture.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:14 am

LAX772LR wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Perhaps about as big a winner as the 777-200LR, 59 sold

Which, unlike any other dedicated ULH airframe currently, continue to do the job they were designed for well over a decade later.

That, and let's not pretend that 59 is the actual count of the platform itself.


Point me to one 777-200LR that is used for ULH, using its whole capabilities, were no other frame would do.
The 777-200LR are simply used because the airlines that bought them have them and they are pretty difficult to sell.
They would not have needed to build the 777-200LR for the 777F, there is quite a bit of difference between them.

LAX772LR wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
or the 777-8, up to now a ME3 only frame, that perhaps never sells more than the 53 it has sold up to now.

Or, perhaps sells many times more. You don't know.
Thus rendering it rather pointless as an argument one way or the other at this juncture.


You started this pointless argument. It seems that Boeing is aloud to do ULH niche frames and others have to be put down.
I know you love your 777-8 and it will be difficult to accept that it will be strictly a niche frame.
One airline, Emirates, deciding to change there 777-8 order to 777-9 and the 777-8 will never be build.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1949
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 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 10:28 am

My back of the envelope calculations show that:
A358 had a marketing range of 8600nm@ 259t
A359 has fuel flow of ~5800kghr^-1
A358 with 280t MTOW gives another 3.6hrs endurance which at 488kts is1766nm

total range of 10,300nm...

Not saying it's a good idea though...

Fred
Image
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 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 10:34 am

You guys seem fixate on smaller aircraft, and QANTAS is asking specifically for 300 seats. Hence, no 787 or A350-800 - based solution will be offered. This is boeing's order to lose, 777-8 with auxillary tanks seems to be the best option. Though I'm keeping my fingers for A350-900ULR to win this one.
Rule #1: Never trust your government. EVER.
Rule #2: In case of any doubt, see Rule #1.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 4874
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 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 11:01 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Point me to one 777-200LR that is used for ULH, using its whole capabilities, were no other frame would do.



V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.

Celebrating the Bicentenary of the Birth of Bahá'u'lláh, 21-22 October 2017
 
ZEDZAG
Posts: 104
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:28 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Point me to one 777-200LR that is used for ULH, using its whole capabilities, were no other frame would do.



V/F


EK flies A380 on flight to AKL, its 150nm shorter then from DOH, but that doesent make any difference, and UA 787 on LAX-SIN, also some 160nm shorter. QR also has a plan to switch to 359 down the road so...

Point is to use the frame to max capabilities, and in that point 77L is underused
 
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:28 am

Its a long way to go, they have been searching for an answer, always just out of reach.
 
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:52 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Point me to one 777-200LR that is used for ULH, using its whole capabilities, were no other frame would do.



V/F


What flight and why would no other frame do?

I assume you mean QR921, 7848nm, 18 hours and 10 Minutes, flown by the 777-200LR. Yes that is the current longest flight, now explain to me why no other frame can do it. There are a few frames now that can do the 18 hours needed. You could for example take a 787-9.
 
Asiaflyer
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 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 12:10 pm

Airbus is not considering the A350-800 for QF according to this article on Reuters today:

"SINGAPORE, Nov 30 (Reuters) - Airbus SE's AIR.PA talks with Qantas Airways QAN.AX about a plane that can fly 20 hours non-stop from Sydney to London are centred around the A350-900ULR rather than reviving a shorter A350 variant, an executive at the manufacturer said on Thursday.

The comments by Airbus's Iain Grant, head of sales for the Pacific region, could quash industry speculation the European planemaker may revive the smaller A350-800, which had been put on ice after poor sales.

Qantas had publicly challenged Airbus and its U.S. rival Boeing Co BA.N in August to boost the range of the A350 and 777X models to allow it to complete "the last frontier" of commercial flying by 2022. (Full Story)

The speculation about the A350-800 revival arose after Qantas CEO Alan Joyce told industry publication Flightglobal this week that Airbus was "saying they may" consider a shorter-fuselage variant if the A350-900ULR (ultra long range) could not meet mission requirements.

Airbus's Grant, however, said at a media briefing on Thursday that talks with Qantas remained about the A350-900ULR, the same variant that Singapore Airlines SIAL.SI will receive next year to restart non-stop Singapore-New York flights.

"We are bringing in our A350-900ULR which is going to do the Sydney-London mission and we are very comfortable with that and we will continue to work with them to meet their requirements," he said of the Qantas challenge."
SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4623
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:44 pm

BlueSky1976 wrote:
You guys seem fixate on smaller aircraft, and QANTAS is asking specifically for 300 seats. Hence, no 787 or A350-800 - based solution will be offered. This is boeing's order to lose, 777-8 with auxillary tanks seems to be the best option. Though I'm keeping my fingers for A350-900ULR to win this one.

Do not use the 300 seats a set criteria for thinking about which aircraft, its not set in stone. While AJ did say 300 seats very early on, he, the head of QF International & others have since said with a "profitable number of passengers" [or words to similar effect]. So the 300 seats does not seem to be as fixed as first thought.

Gemuser
 
aerogt3
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:41 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 12:52 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Point me to one 777-200LR that is used for ULH, using its whole capabilities, were no other frame would do.


I would imagine no one under-utilizes the 200LR. They probably use it's capabilities for a mix of payload and range, probably because cargo nets them money. A380s can do long flights, but not with cargo.

Shocking revelation, but not everyone who buys an airplane capable of X km range flies it Xkm every time, lol.
 
VC10er
Posts: 2964
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 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 1:17 pm

Of London, New York, Chicago, Paris, Frankfurt and Sao Paulo...which one is the longest non-stop from Sydney? Or Perth or Brisbane? And which ever is the longest between any of those 2 points, which would make it the longest flight in the world?
I prefer flying over the vacation itself! I go on business trips just so I can fly!
 
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:30 pm

aerogt3 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Point me to one 777-200LR that is used for ULH, using its whole capabilities, were no other frame would do.


I would imagine no one under-utilizes the 200LR. They probably use it's capabilities for a mix of payload and range, probably because cargo nets them money. A380s can do long flights, but not with cargo.

Shocking revelation, but not everyone who buys an airplane capable of X km range flies it Xkm every time, lol.


I can well imagine under utilizing the 777-200LR, because everywhere you do not need the range a 777-300ER or a 787-9 will do it more economical.
The point is once bought, you are stuck with it, not a thriving market for used ones.
 
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 1:42 pm

astuteman wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
astuteman wrote:

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.


Who's arguing?
But exactly the same could be said of an A350-900 and A350-800ULR.

In my own mind I've always considered a 787-8LR to be a great little LR frame.
But again, exactly the same could be said of an A350-800.

I've still to have explained why a 787-8LR is so much easier than an A350-800

Rgds


Aircraft is already built and has hundreds of orders already is a solid 2 reasons. Airlines don’t seem to want the A358 with its 6 orders. The hypothetical 788ULR already has a large customer base to sell to and could be brought to the market much earlier.
 
parapente
Posts: 1994
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:07 pm

Airbus have said that their A359ULR could do it (in some guise) so best to believe them.I have no doubt the 778 in a ULR guise could do it too.
As for size.Qantas will have a year's worth of data on the Perth London route.From that they must (surely) be able to extrapolate pretty accurately what the correct balance of seat types/total number is optimal for Sydney/European capitals routes.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 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 3:08 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Aircraft is already built and has hundreds of orders already is a solid 2 reasons. Airlines don’t seem to want the A358 with its 6 orders. The hypothetical 788ULR already has a large customer base to sell to and could be brought to the market much earlier.

Could be brought to market much earlier? You're just making that up. The 787-9 is a very different beast to the 787-8 - scaling the -9 down won't be trivial work - it's far more than just the "Landing gear" as you seemed to suggest up thread. Sections 44-47 are going to need serious rework and there's the probability of an increase in vertical stab surface area. All the testing to establish the flight envelope etc, and probably a lot more - I'm just going off what I read from engineers on here. Like Astuteman, I don't see why it would be any less of a task than an A350-800. More importantly, you've also got the other variable - bandwidth. Who, out of the two OEMs can deliver sooner? If what they currently have on their plate is anything to go by, clearly Airbus.

The second two of your "solid" facts is the market. Like, somehow the presence of a large number of 788's means that the market wants large numbers of a heaver, more expensive 788 albeit with greater payload range. Look, the A358, in the unlikely event of it being built, would never be a big seller, you might see a hundred over its lifetime. But the mention of 6 is a bit silly. You must know A. actively pushed customers onto the -900 when timescales got tight on the program.

In any case, it's probably not going to happen either way. Inspite of their protestations, it looks like the backup plan if they can't get enough out of the -900. We'll see.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24746
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 Nov 30, 2017 5:20 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Point me to one 777-200LR that is used for ULH, using its whole capabilities, were no other frame would do. The 777-200LR are simply used because the airlines that bought them have them and they are pretty difficult to sell.


One does not need to buy a 777-200LR just to fly passengers and their baggage 9000nm. You can also buy them to fly passengers, their baggage and full pallets of general cargo 7500nm. And that is something no other frame can do.
 
texl1649
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 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 5:34 pm

BlueSky1976 wrote:
You guys seem fixate on smaller aircraft, and QANTAS is asking specifically for 300 seats. Hence, no 787 or A350-800 - based solution will be offered. This is boeing's order to lose, 777-8 with auxillary tanks seems to be the best option. Though I'm keeping my fingers for A350-900ULR to win this one.


There seems to be a lot of pettiness here but I think this is right. Sure, for fewer seats and less cargo the various 350/787 guises could work, but the 778 is the only real solution it would seem. Boeing surely seems to also be (successfully) pitching the 797 for complementary sale to QF, so it will be interesting to see it play out.

Plausibly, Airbus could be offering on the other hand to trade out/in some A388's with any A359 sale. I don't off-hand know how eager/willing QF is to partner for more/newer A388's or to compromise their stated large twin goals.

Maybe this is also a case of Boeing's new services focus appealing to a carrier? It doesn't make sense to me however that Boeing would offer any new 787 variants to win this sale, as it's really a 778 target, unless some combination meant QF ditch their A380's altogether (not happening).
 
WIederling
Posts: 4695
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:04 pm

incitatus wrote:
The 787-8 is artificially restricted on paper. Its fuel capacity is the same as the -9's. Boeing does not need extensive modification to bring the -8 to the mtow of the -9. Doing that would give the -8 about 700 miles more range than the -9. SYD-NYC should be possible. It is not enough to do SYD-LHR nonstop but the gap to close is not very big - some incremental weight and a center fuel tank.


Amusingly nice story.
The 788 Mk1 is a minimal commonality orphan in the 787 Mk2 family these days.
about 50% of the OEW difference to the -9 is enhanced structure to carry its MTOW ( +27t) well.
( shadowed by overall slimming of the design.)

A viable 788LR would be a 789 shrink.
Murphy is an optimist
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 718
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:35 pm

I still think the best aircraft for this role would be a 772 fuselage length for the 777X, call it the 777-7X. The 772 can already seat 300 in 3 classes. With the wider interior it would have even more space. The 777-8 is too big for this niche. A 777-7X would offer superior performance to either the -8LR or 359LR.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24746
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 Nov 30, 2017 6:40 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
I still think the best aircraft for this role would be a 772 fuselage length for the 777X, call it the 777-7X. The 772 can already seat 300 in 3 classes. With the wider interior it would have even more space. The 777-8 is too big for this niche. A 777-7X would offer superior performance to either the -8LR or 359LR.


With poorer CASM.

The 777-8 is the size it is because the ME3 want the payload weight of a 777-300ER with the payload range of the 777-200LR. They do not want to have to block seats on their longest missions, as they now have to do on the 777-300ER, but they also want more seats than the 777-200LR offers them.
 
Turnhouse1
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:57 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 6:44 pm

Airbus are going to have to offer the original A350-900ULR concept to have a viable SYD-LHR plane. i.e. bigger wing on a shorter fuselage.

Surely the engineering in making a 350-800 length plane (using 350-900 wing/gear structure) or a 350-900 length plane (using an A350-1000 wing/gear structure) is going to be much the same. It may in fact be easier to do the latter as Airbus already have a tailplane and rudder setup that is fully tested for the -900 length fuselage.

Whether that plane would still be more efficient than a 777-8 which is trading payload for additional fuel tanks is to me the real question.
 
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:10 pm

speedbird52 wrote:
I seriously doubt this ever coming to fruition as much as I would love it. But where on earth did you hear that?

Stitch wrote:
A 747-8 will fly almost as far as a 747-400ER with almost 10,000kg more payload. There is no need to "SP" it.

LAX772LR wrote:
Ah, so take a variant that (1) nobody wants and that (2) the OEM itself has already said "has no future"....

...then restrict the capacity, raise the CASM, increase the weight, and shove it into an ultra-niche market.

Sounds like a winner! :bigthumbsup:

I just made that whole thing up on the fly because the thread seems to be going in circles and I wanted to add some levity.

The more I thought of it though, the extra payload range you get from the extra MTOW and fuel burn improvement would mean you get 300ish pax (assuming better cabins than the normal 744 setup) and have the requisite range. Admittedly, CASM would be bad as LAX772LR points out.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 718
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

Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:27 pm

Stitch wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
I still think the best aircraft for this role would be a 772 fuselage length for the 777X, call it the 777-7X. The 772 can already seat 300 in 3 classes. With the wider interior it would have even more space. The 777-8 is too big for this niche. A 777-7X would offer superior performance to either the -8LR or 359LR.


With poorer CASM.

The 777-8 is the size it is because the ME3 want the payload weight of a 777-300ER with the payload range of the 777-200LR. They do not want to have to block seats on their longest missions, as they now have to do on the 777-300ER, but they also want more seats than the 777-200LR offers them.



I don't dispute the reasoning behind the chosen length of the 777-8 fuselage, I'm just saying that "777X-ing" the 200LR would be the ideal aircraft for this particular niche, as it could fly, with the wider interior, 325 passengers much further than an -8LR could and with less fuel as it would have a significantly lower OEW.

So I am saying that for flying 300-325 passengers 10,000+ nmi the 200LR-length 777X would have superior CASM to a 777-8LR. The -8LR carries unneeded structural weight for the ~300 passenger role in this particular application.

For sure a 200LR length 777X wouldn't make sense in any application other than this specific niche.
 
User avatar
XAM2175
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:25 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 8:01 pm

VC10er wrote:
Of London, New York, Chicago, Paris, Frankfurt and Sao Paulo...which one is the longest non-stop from Sydney? Or Perth or Brisbane? And which ever is the longest between any of those 2 points, which would make it the longest flight in the world?


Great-circle distances:

SYD-LON   10562 mi
SYD-PAR   10540 mi
SYD-FRA   10248 mi
SYD-NYC    9940 mi
SYD-CHI    9245 mi
SYD-SAO    8309 mi


Image

The green paths are some of the routes QF currently serve (all with the 744 except LAX with the A388 on some flights and DFW on all) and the blue paths are scheduled starts, via PER on the 789 and SIN on the A388.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9477
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

Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:29 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Point me to one 777-200LR that is used for ULH, using its whole capabilities, were no other frame would do.

Plenty of 77Ls are used to their capability. As for the "no other frame" part, I didn't set that parameter, you did.
And before you (erroneously) start: the word "dedicated" is placed in my prior statement for a reason.


mjoelnir wrote:
and they are pretty difficult to sell.

Based on what? What airline other than AI has attempted or even shown a desire to do so?
And that's of course, not mentioning the fact that they swiftly found a taker.


mjoelnir wrote:
They would not have needed to build the 777-200LR for the 777F,

No one contended that they needed to, the statement was simply that the -LR frame+engine has sold well over 59... which is a fact.


mjoelnir wrote:
You started this pointless argument. It seems that Boeing is aloud to do ULH niche frames and others have to be put down.
I know you love your 777-8 and it will be difficult to accept that it will be strictly a niche frame.

My co-favorite aircraft ATM is the A359, and I'm utterly fascinated by the prospect of a potential -R should Airbus go through with it... so such much for that theory. :razz:


mjoelnir wrote:
One airline, Emirates, deciding to change there 777-8 order to 777-9 and the 777-8 will never be build.

Why do you persist making such speculative "predictions?"
Again: you don't know that, even if EK did cancel.


Stitch wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Point me to one 777-200LR that is used for ULH, using its whole capabilities, were no other frame would do. The 777-200LR are simply used because the airlines that bought them have them and they are pretty difficult to sell.

One does not need to buy a 777-200LR just to fly passengers and their baggage 9000nm. You can also buy them to fly passengers, their baggage and full pallets of general cargo 7500nm. And that is something no other frame can do.

:checkmark:

Or, you can takeoff at a mile-high airport elevation, then fly 16hrs+ while still carrying cargo, which DL does every day... also something no other aircraft has been shown as capable of doing.

Heck, even the 77L itself wasn't able to at first-- before the collaborative modifications by Boeing and Goodyear.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1319
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

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

Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:06 am

LAX772LR wrote:
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.

Ah, so take a variant that (1) nobody wants and that (2) the OEM itself has already said "has no future"....

...then restrict the capacity, raise the CASM, increase the weight, and shove it into an ultra-niche market.

Sounds like a winner! :bigthumbsup:


Will QANTAS buy six of them?
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 4874
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

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

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:42 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Point me to one 777-200LR that is used for ULH, using its whole capabilities, were no other frame would do.



V/F


What flight and why would no other frame do?

I assume you mean QR921, 7848nm, 18 hours and 10 Minutes, flown by the 777-200LR. Yes that is the current longest flight, now explain to me why no other frame can do it. There are a few frames now that can do the 18 hours needed. You could for example take a 787-9.

Yes I was referring to AKL-DOH. Now unless you're wanting to suggest that doesn't count as ULH, I think we can agree it meets the first part of your challenge. As for no other frame would do, I think you'll find that no other frame could carry that capacity (259pax - 42J 217Y) over that distance with less fuel burn, until the advent of the A350-900ULR and 777-8. Qantas has blocked their 787-9s down to 236 seats (42J 28W 166Y) in order to achieve the necessary range for PER-LHR, which by great circle distance (which I am aware is not the distance flown) is 20nm shorter than AKL-DOH. If you're saying AKL-DOH doesn't count as a demonstration of the aircraft's capabilities because other aircraft can potentially fly that route, I think you're being a bit specious. Heck, I could fill up a Beech Bonanza with a stack of ferry tanks and fly AKL-DOH. It doesn't mean that would be a viable airline operation. In 1986 the Rutan Voyager was flown around the world non-stop, and in 1989 a Qantas 747-400 was flown non-stop from London to Sydney, so if you're waiting for a 777-200LR, or an A350-900, to fly further than any other aircraft ever has before, you shouldn't hold your breath.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.

Celebrating the Bicentenary of the Birth of Bahá'u'lláh, 21-22 October 2017
 
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

Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:55 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:


V/F


What flight and why would no other frame do?

I assume you mean QR921, 7848nm, 18 hours and 10 Minutes, flown by the 777-200LR. Yes that is the current longest flight, now explain to me why no other frame can do it. There are a few frames now that can do the 18 hours needed. You could for example take a 787-9.

Yes I was referring to AKL-DOH. Now unless you're wanting to suggest that doesn't count as ULH, I think we can agree it meets the first part of your challenge. As for no other frame would do, I think you'll find that no other frame could carry that capacity (259pax - 42J 217Y) over that distance with less fuel burn, until the advent of the A350-900ULR and 777-8. Qantas has blocked their 787-9s down to 236 seats (42J 28W 166Y) in order to achieve the necessary range for PER-LHR, which by great circle distance (which I am aware is not the distance flown) is 20nm shorter than AKL-DOH. If you're saying AKL-DOH doesn't count as a demonstration of the aircraft's capabilities because other aircraft can potentially fly that route, I think you're being a bit specious. Heck, I could fill up a Beech Bonanza with a stack of ferry tanks and fly AKL-DOH. It doesn't mean that would be a viable airline operation. In 1986 the Rutan Voyager was flown around the world non-stop, and in 1989 a Qantas 747-400 was flown non-stop from London to Sydney, so if you're waiting for a 777-200LR, or an A350-900, to fly further than any other aircraft ever has before, you shouldn't hold your breath.

V/F


Perfect waffling. Another frame can do the same flight taking 90% of the load for 80% of the cost. There is a reason why 777-200LR did not sell well and when some are for sale hardly anybody wants them.
Soon the 787-9 will do LHR - PER, that matches AKL - DOH.
The 777-200LR is not used at her full range potential, SYD - LHR would be an example, as that can not be done economical. Airlines are waiting for new frames to do similar routes with less fuel burn.
 
redroo
Posts: 264
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

Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:02 pm

Qantas is not a big airline. It covers a vast continent and services a geographically disbursed population that demands direct flights from their local capital city. The 787 is a perfect plane for them enabling them to get to (almost) anywhere from Perth, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne (and hopefully Adelaide again). The A330 will go or be retired to the domestic runs. The A380s are not liked and will not be replaced by more A380s.

Qantas has 4 questions it needs to answer. What will give enable them to do SYD/MEL/BNE to JFK and LHR; what will give them more capacity than their tiny 236 seat 787; what will replace the A330 domestically and what will replace the 737.

A single plane that could fill the role of ULH AND provide more seats would nicely answer question 1 and 2. The 778 could do the LHR flight one day (maybe a little weight restricted or with extra tanks), then do quick return to HKG filled to brim the passengers and cargo the next. As much as i love the A350 and I am no 777 fanboy, the A350 can’t do that. It’s another 787 with more range.

The other questions are for a different topic, however there is a need for something domestically that is bigger than a 737 and can be flung around then continent like the 767 was. The A330 is used and abused domestically to bulk move people and cargo. Boeing could tempt qantas with a new lighter plane.

As for the 737 replacement. Well that is definitely off topic.

I am looking forward to the day that I can stand in LHR and see SYD, MEL, PER and BNE nonstop on the departure boards. It will be an amazing feat of engineering.
 
jfk777
Posts: 6300
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:37 am

As Delta has shown us the uses of a 777-200LR are both the long range and its take off performance. Johannesburg to Atlanta has to be one of the most challenging route with J'burg's altitude and the 16 hour flying time to ATL.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:29 am

Stitch wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Point me to one 777-200LR that is used for ULH, using its whole capabilities, were no other frame would do. The 777-200LR are simply used because the airlines that bought them have them and they are pretty difficult to sell.


One does not need to buy a 777-200LR just to fly passengers and their baggage 9000nm. You can also buy them to fly passengers, their baggage and full pallets of general cargo 7500nm. And that is something no other frame can do.


Pretty much the way Delta uses their 772LR's flying from JNB - ATL.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:34 am

I see one big obstacle for the B778: cabin noise. I have no idea how big they want to make the F and J cabins, but anyone sitting in the last half of the airplane will be subjected to the B777's unbearable noise for 20+ hours. In my experience, having been seated in a J cabin forward of the engine intake for 13 hours, the noise is bearable. But a J cabin extending beyond the engine intake would not work.
Noise-cancelling headphones do provide comfort but you can't wear those for 20+ hours and many don't wear them to sleep.
In Y, I see a problem if they go cheapo 10-abreast but added seating comfort vs. the A359R if they go 9-abreast. But again, the noise...

The A359R doesn't have the cabin noise problem and would result in less jet lag so it has an advantage.

My suggestion is to go for the A380 and have Airbus activate the center tank. The A380 would probably only need 25 tons of additional fuel capacity to cover LHR non-stop. A decent seat configuration could be 20F, 150J, 150Y+, 80Y
The advantages in a row:
-comfort in all classes
-the ability to offer a special product for these 4 routes
-you don't waste a couple of LHR slots on smaller aircraft
-the service can be started as soon as 2019
-QF will have the power to dictate yields on the route, given ccpacity and the most desirable flight option
-QF already has A380's in the fleet
-ULH doesn't work without volume
-The A380 effect: ULH is as much about the product as it's about saving time and the hassle of a connection. With an A380, you can offer the best of both worlds and pax will get out of their way to fly your service. If pax have the option of flying non-stop on B778 or 1-stop in a superior A380 product, you can't dictate yields and you risk losing the entire market to ME3, SQ who offer a better product.
-Same number of pilots per flight (6?) = savings. Not only in terms of weight and volume efficiency (think about catering, crew rest area, etc...), but also hotel costs, per diems, etc...
Last edited by Waterbomber on Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5697
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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:40 am

Waterbomber wrote:
I see one big obstacle for the B778: cabin noise. I have no idea how big they want to make the F and J cabins, but anyone sitting in the last half of the airplane will be subjected to the B777's unbearable noise for 20+ hours. In my experience, having been seated in a J cabin forward of the engine intake for 13 hours, the noise is bearable. But a J cabin extending beyond the engine intake would not work.
Noise-cancelling headphones do provide comfort but you can't wear those for 20+ hours and many don't wear them to sleep.
In Y, I see a problem if they go cheapo 10-abreast but added seating comfort vs. the A359R if they go 9-abreast. But again, the noise...

The A359R doesn't have the cabin noise problem and would result in less jet lag so it has an advantage.

My suggestion is to go for the A380 and have Airbus activate the center tank. The configuration could be 20F, 150J, 150Y+, 80Y
The advantages in a row:
-comfort in all classes
-you don't waste a LHR slot on smaller aircraft
-the service can be started in 2019
-QF will have the power to dictate yields on the route.
-QF already has A380's in the fleet
-ULH doesn't work without volume
-The A380 effect: ULH is as much about the product as it's about saving time and the hassle of a connection. With an A380, you can offer the best of both worlds and pax will get out of their way to fly your service. If pax have the option of flying non-stop on B778 or 1-stop in a superior A380 product, you can't dictate yields and you risk losing the entire market to ME3, SQ who offer a better product.


The interiors of the 777X are slightly wider, no idea what will be done re noise.

Re the A380, if an A380 could do SYD-LHR with anything near 400 pax as you suggest then QF would already be doing it, I’d suggest it will carry no where even remotely close probably 200-.

Why wait till 2019 then? QF’s A388’s are 560T versions compared to the latest 575T which make a reasonable difference but not significant on SYD-LHR.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:02 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Waterbomber wrote:
I see one big obstacle for the B778: cabin noise. I have no idea how big they want to make the F and J cabins, but anyone sitting in the last half of the airplane will be subjected to the B777's unbearable noise for 20+ hours. In my experience, having been seated in a J cabin forward of the engine intake for 13 hours, the noise is bearable. But a J cabin extending beyond the engine intake would not work.
Noise-cancelling headphones do provide comfort but you can't wear those for 20+ hours and many don't wear them to sleep.
In Y, I see a problem if they go cheapo 10-abreast but added seating comfort vs. the A359R if they go 9-abreast. But again, the noise...

The A359R doesn't have the cabin noise problem and would result in less jet lag so it has an advantage.

My suggestion is to go for the A380 and have Airbus activate the center tank. The configuration could be 20F, 150J, 150Y+, 80Y
The advantages in a row:
-comfort in all classes
-you don't waste a LHR slot on smaller aircraft
-the service can be started in 2019
-QF will have the power to dictate yields on the route.
-QF already has A380's in the fleet
-ULH doesn't work without volume
-The A380 effect: ULH is as much about the product as it's about saving time and the hassle of a connection. With an A380, you can offer the best of both worlds and pax will get out of their way to fly your service. If pax have the option of flying non-stop on B778 or 1-stop in a superior A380 product, you can't dictate yields and you risk losing the entire market to ME3, SQ who offer a better product.


The interiors of the 777X are slightly wider, no idea what will be done re noise.

Re the A380, if an A380 could do SYD-LHR with anything near 400 pax as you suggest then QF would already be doing it, I’d suggest it will carry no where even remotely close probably 200-.

Why wait till 2019 then? QF’s A388’s are 560T versions compared to the latest 575T which make a reasonable difference but not significant on SYD-LHR.


It's not oly about MTOW but fuel tank capacity. The current tank capacity doesn't leave margin for contingency, reserves and stable operations in changing wind conditions.
As I see it, a lightly configured A380 has about 310 tons useful load, so it should be able to handle 40 tons payload + 270 tons of fuel.
A +2.6% MTOW bump towards 590 tons would help even more IMO.

About the wait, simply because the center tank needs engineering. You know, system mods, writing manuals, certifications.

The demand is there for a daily 400 pax flight and we are talking about big OW hubs (with OW FFP clientele) at both ends and potential JV with BA.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9477
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 Dec 03, 2017 4:13 am

mjoelnir wrote:
There is a reason why 777-200LR did not sell well

Which of course, has nothing to do with the likes of 789s and A350s, seeing as neither of which even complete in design spec when the bulk of 77L orders were placed.


mjoelnir wrote:
when some are for sale hardly anybody wants them.

Repeating nonfactual statements won't make them any less accurate.
The one time 77Ls were offered for sale, it took no time at all to place them.


Waterbomber wrote:
-you don't waste a couple of LHR slots on smaller aircraft

That is a concept that is valued only in the minds of AvGeeks.

Airlines of all types have shown that they care farrrrr more about the yield/sustenance of a service, than the gauge of the airframe, when it comes to LHR operations.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5697
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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:26 am

Waterbomber wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
Waterbomber wrote:
I see one big obstacle for the B778: cabin noise. I have no idea how big they want to make the F and J cabins, but anyone sitting in the last half of the airplane will be subjected to the B777's unbearable noise for 20+ hours. In my experience, having been seated in a J cabin forward of the engine intake for 13 hours, the noise is bearable. But a J cabin extending beyond the engine intake would not work.
Noise-cancelling headphones do provide comfort but you can't wear those for 20+ hours and many don't wear them to sleep.
In Y, I see a problem if they go cheapo 10-abreast but added seating comfort vs. the A359R if they go 9-abreast. But again, the noise...

The A359R doesn't have the cabin noise problem and would result in less jet lag so it has an advantage.

My suggestion is to go for the A380 and have Airbus activate the center tank. The configuration could be 20F, 150J, 150Y+, 80Y
The advantages in a row:
-comfort in all classes
-you don't waste a LHR slot on smaller aircraft
-the service can be started in 2019
-QF will have the power to dictate yields on the route.
-QF already has A380's in the fleet
-ULH doesn't work without volume
-The A380 effect: ULH is as much about the product as it's about saving time and the hassle of a connection. With an A380, you can offer the best of both worlds and pax will get out of their way to fly your service. If pax have the option of flying non-stop on B778 or 1-stop in a superior A380 product, you can't dictate yields and you risk losing the entire market to ME3, SQ who offer a better product.


The interiors of the 777X are slightly wider, no idea what will be done re noise.

Re the A380, if an A380 could do SYD-LHR with anything near 400 pax as you suggest then QF would already be doing it, I’d suggest it will carry no where even remotely close probably 200-.

Why wait till 2019 then? QF’s A388’s are 560T versions compared to the latest 575T which make a reasonable difference but not significant on SYD-LHR.


It's not oly about MTOW but fuel tank capacity. The current tank capacity doesn't leave margin for contingency, reserves and stable operations in changing wind conditions.
As I see it, a lightly configured A380 has about 310 tons useful load, so it should be able to handle 40 tons payload + 270 tons of fuel.
A +2.6% MTOW bump towards 590 tons would help even more IMO.

About the wait, simply because the center tank needs engineering. You know, system mods, writing manuals, certifications.

The demand is there for a daily 400 pax flight and we are talking about big OW hubs (with OW FFP clientele) at both ends and potential JV with BA.



If what you are suggesting was economically feasible surely QF would have realised this when they got the A380, SYD-LHR non stop has been talked about probably for decades.

I don’t no to much about the specs or tech stuff.

I agree demand is there but at the same time QF will likely want to do MEL-LHR as well if SYD can be done successfully so it’s about yields and offering more destinations on smaller capable frames.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 4874
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:02 am

mjoelnir wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

What flight and why would no other frame do?

I assume you mean QR921, 7848nm, 18 hours and 10 Minutes, flown by the 777-200LR. Yes that is the current longest flight, now explain to me why no other frame can do it. There are a few frames now that can do the 18 hours needed. You could for example take a 787-9.

Yes I was referring to AKL-DOH. Now unless you're wanting to suggest that doesn't count as ULH, I think we can agree it meets the first part of your challenge. As for no other frame would do, I think you'll find that no other frame could carry that capacity (259pax - 42J 217Y) over that distance with less fuel burn, until the advent of the A350-900ULR and 777-8. Qantas has blocked their 787-9s down to 236 seats (42J 28W 166Y) in order to achieve the necessary range for PER-LHR, which by great circle distance (which I am aware is not the distance flown) is 20nm shorter than AKL-DOH. If you're saying AKL-DOH doesn't count as a demonstration of the aircraft's capabilities because other aircraft can potentially fly that route, I think you're being a bit specious. Heck, I could fill up a Beech Bonanza with a stack of ferry tanks and fly AKL-DOH. It doesn't mean that would be a viable airline operation. In 1986 the Rutan Voyager was flown around the world non-stop, and in 1989 a Qantas 747-400 was flown non-stop from London to Sydney, so if you're waiting for a 777-200LR, or an A350-900, to fly further than any other aircraft ever has before, you shouldn't hold your breath.

V/F


Perfect waffling. Another frame can do the same flight taking 90% of the load for 80% of the cost. There is a reason why 777-200LR did not sell well and when some are for sale hardly anybody wants them.
Soon the 787-9 will do LHR - PER, that matches AKL - DOH.
The 777-200LR is not used at her full range potential, SYD - LHR would be an example, as that can not be done economical. Airlines are waiting for new frames to do similar routes with less fuel burn.

I was trying to answer your challenge in good faith. I see I was somewhat wasting my time. One wonders if the exact same aircraft had a different manufacturer's label on it if your opinion of it would be somewhat different. Frankly the "my manufacturer is better than yours" nonsense that goes on so often from certain proponents of Airbus or Boeing is tiring. Personally I would be much more convinced by the reasoned and nuanced points made by users such as Stitch or SomebodyinTLS (to name a few among many) who are clearly more familiar with a particular manufacturer and may even favour it but who approach things with an even keel, as opposed to the group of Airbus and Boeing fans who you can almost guarantee will ensure they scrawl some "mine is better than yours" graffiti on every thread.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.

Celebrating the Bicentenary of the Birth of Bahá'u'lláh, 21-22 October 2017
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9477
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 Dec 03, 2017 8:54 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
I was trying to answer your challenge in good faith. I see I was somewhat wasting my time. One wonders if the exact same aircraft had a different manufacturer's label on it if your opinion of it would be somewhat different. Frankly the "my manufacturer is better than yours" nonsense that goes on so often from certain proponents of Airbus or Boeing is tiring. Personally I would be much more convinced by the reasoned and nuanced points made by users such as Stitch or SomebodyinTLS (to name a few among many) who are clearly more familiar with a particular manufacturer and may even favour it but who approach things with an even keel, as opposed to the group of Airbus and Boeing fans who you can almost guarantee will ensure they scrawl some "mine is better than yours" graffiti on every thread.

^ This.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:27 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
Yes I was referring to AKL-DOH. Now unless you're wanting to suggest that doesn't count as ULH, I think we can agree it meets the first part of your challenge. As for no other frame would do, I think you'll find that no other frame could carry that capacity (259pax - 42J 217Y) over that distance with less fuel burn, until the advent of the A350-900ULR and 777-8. Qantas has blocked their 787-9s down to 236 seats (42J 28W 166Y) in order to achieve the necessary range for PER-LHR, which by great circle distance (which I am aware is not the distance flown) is 20nm shorter than AKL-DOH. If you're saying AKL-DOH doesn't count as a demonstration of the aircraft's capabilities because other aircraft can potentially fly that route, I think you're being a bit specious. Heck, I could fill up a Beech Bonanza with a stack of ferry tanks and fly AKL-DOH. It doesn't mean that would be a viable airline operation. In 1986 the Rutan Voyager was flown around the world non-stop, and in 1989 a Qantas 747-400 was flown non-stop from London to Sydney, so if you're waiting for a 777-200LR, or an A350-900, to fly further than any other aircraft ever has before, you shouldn't hold your breath.

V/F


Perfect waffling. Another frame can do the same flight taking 90% of the load for 80% of the cost. There is a reason why 777-200LR did not sell well and when some are for sale hardly anybody wants them.
Soon the 787-9 will do LHR - PER, that matches AKL - DOH.
The 777-200LR is not used at her full range potential, SYD - LHR would be an example, as that can not be done economical. Airlines are waiting for new frames to do similar routes with less fuel burn.

I was trying to answer your challenge in good faith. I see I was somewhat wasting my time. One wonders if the exact same aircraft had a different manufacturer's label on it if your opinion of it would be somewhat different. Frankly the "my manufacturer is better than yours" nonsense that goes on so often from certain proponents of Airbus or Boeing is tiring. Personally I would be much more convinced by the reasoned and nuanced points made by users such as Stitch or SomebodyinTLS (to name a few among many) who are clearly more familiar with a particular manufacturer and may even favour it but who approach things with an even keel, as opposed to the group of Airbus and Boeing fans who you can almost guarantee will ensure they scrawl some "mine is better than yours" graffiti on every thread.

V/F


Again waffling. For you it is the love of one type of frame at one producer. The frame I mentioned as an example doing a similar job with far lower cost, was from the same producer. So from where comes your partisan argument? It comes from waffling. There were two frames designed for those extreme distance routes the A340-500 and the 777-200LR. The 777-200LR was slightly more successful selling double the number of frames. Both frames have not been used for this extreme long distances, but in a very limited way and the distances they are used on can be done more cost effective with other frames.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24746
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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:47 pm

It's clear 18-22 hour missions are few and far between which is why neither Airbus nor Boeing have ever looked interested in spending a significant amount of money developing a frame optimized for them.

The A340-200, A340-500, 777-200LR, 777-8 and 747-400ER all were relatively low-cost derivatives of existing designs. Airbus would not have developed the A340-500 without the A340-600 nor Boeing the 777-200LR/777-8 without the 777-300ER/777-9. And the A350-900ULR exists because Airbus had the TOW and the fuel volume overhead built into the frame.

Airbus is not going to develop an A350-900R based on the A350-1000's components. If they could not have done an A350-900ULR, SQ probably would have looked at the 777-8X for the role - and frankly, I expect they would have dismissed it as too large, heavy and expensive. They then either would have chosen the 787-9 (with payload restrictions) as UA have done for Los Angeles or gone with an A350-900 (also with payload restrictions) and used LAX as the tech-stop for continuing service to New York or just handed off the passengers for UA to take onwards.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1718
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:42 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
I see one big obstacle for the B778: cabin noise.


As a passenger, I agree that cabin noise is a big problem. The noise level on board older widebody aircraft, for me, adds to the exhaustion a long haul flight causes. My recent flight from JFK to ATH in the back of a 767-400 was so loud it was difficult to hear my partner seated next to me or hear the audio on the videos.

I read someplace that the 777X cabin will be quieter because the larger engine doesn't spin as fast as the current models' engines (please crucify me for not using technical terms). At any rate, if the manufacturers are truly focused on a (good) passenger experience, the 350 and 787 should be the standards they shoot for.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:03 pm

My post was deleted probably due to speaking my mind about the management under the current QF CEO, but anyways I'd like to emphasise that QF already operates QF1/QF2 SYD-SIN-LHR, QF9/QF10 MEL-DXB-LHR, QF11/QF12 SYD-LAX-JFK all with A380's.
So making those direct flights is only a matter of convincing Airbus to deliver the deferred A380's with sufficient range for non-stop service.
You also have QF93 and QF94 doing the MEL-LAX flight with pax connecting onto/from QF11/QF12 to JFK.

Losing the DXB/SIN/LAX stops would definitely save them money and the pax will save time. It's just plain common sense.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9477
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 Dec 03, 2017 5:26 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Both frames have not been used for this extreme long distances,

That too, is in no way factual.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24746
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

Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:27 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
So making those direct flights is only a matter of convincing Airbus to deliver the deferred A380's with sufficient range for non-stop service.


Well the current A380-800's fuel tank volume allows for up to 254,000kg of fuel to be tanked. I don't know what ZFW for QF's A380's are on those missions, but at MZFW, there is only 208,000kg available for fuel with the highest Weight Variant (WV008 at 577,000kg MRW).

I've heard the current gear is good for the nearside of 640,000kg, during testing she took off at a TOW of 596,500kg and landed at a MLW of 590,000kg and the RTO was done at 575,000kg. The A380-800 currently has 16 brakes on 20 main wheels and the 590,000kg freighter variant would have had 20 brakes. So I expect Airbus could increase MRW/TOW to 602,000kg/600,000kg which would allow 233,000kg to be loaded (still below her current tankage).

Honestly, I've never understood why Airbus planned a center fuel tank on the A380-800F. At MZFW the freighter could only tank 190,000kg which is 75% of the wing tank volume and 50% of the available fuel volume with said tank. Even with nothing but Express Freight, she'd still hit MTOW at 80% wing tank capacity.

Supposedly the center tank would have extended the A380-800R's design range 1000nm, but A380's (nor any other commercial frame) generally fly with only passengers and their bags. At real-world ZFWs, I don't see how an A380 would ever fill her wing tanks, much less a center tank.

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