Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 18
 
grbauc
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

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

Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:30 pm

Bricktop wrote:
Sorry, there's NFW I want to be on a plane that long. I'd need a stop for my sanity.


In coach yea that's a long one. In j class and up well for me that's heaven :bouncy:
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4529
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

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

Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:44 pm

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!

It will save around 3 hours possibly 4. That is a significant time-saving. For someone in Business Class or Premium Economy they should be able to have a decent uninterrupted rest on this flight (compared to the other flights that usually mean one shorter flight and one longer one).
Yes it will be tough on crew - I imagine they will have 5 (2x Captains, 2x FO, 1x SO) pilots on board (the Captains and FO do half the flight and rest for the other half (plus rest by having the SO work the middle cruise portion). For the NYC flight they would probably just have an extra 2-3x cabin crew and allow them longer breaks while speeding up sign on (and having a hotel closer to the airport) so keep the duty time under 20 hours and would probably need some kind of dispensation from the FAAA (I'm guessing minimum 44+ hours slip time in NY).
For LHR however it probably wouldn't be feasible for a single cabin crew so they would have to have a double crew for that (probably reduced however eg say it was normally 12x cabin crew they might go for 20x cabin crew rather than 24x).
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
77H
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

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

Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:54 pm

Richard28 wrote:
SonomaFlyer wrote:
The business case might turn on the cargo needs for a given route


The cost of all the extra fuel to transport cargo would make it a low priority for a plane on such a route... I doubt it would even factor IMHO in fleet planning decisions.

cargo does not care if it one stops or two stops... price is the key determinator for cargo, ULH flights will not be cheap, so there would be little demand, especially with the numerous one stop options available for a fraction of the price.


The physical cargo might not care if it has one stop or two but the shippers and their customers surely do. I sell cargo capacity and I can't tell you how many of my clients demand nothing but the nonstop. I have a few customers who are amenable to a one stop but I have yet to encounter a client who is okay with 2 stops. They will sooner call up a competitor than take a 2 stop. What many people outside of the cargo world fail to realize is that the greater the number of stops the higher the risk of damage to, or loss of the cargo. The fewer number of stops means less handling which is better for the clientele and the airline.

There would certainly be a market for cargo on both SYDJFK/LHR. Useful payload at those stage lengths is a different story. QF will be able to charge a small fortune/kg to get cargo on the nonstop. Lower handling and quicker to market. Shippers and their customers will pay. Especially for commodities such as pharmaceuticals and high value cargo.

77H
Last edited by 77H on Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
DaveFly
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:35 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:04 am

Socrates17 wrote:
I'm retired now, so time isn't a constraint as much as the desire to avoid peripheral vascular disease is.


That shouldn't be an obstacle nowadays. I too have vascular disease, specifically MTHFR. It never stops me from traveling, even very long haul.

I either self-inject one dosage of Lovenox, or preferably one Xarelto tablet. Put on your compression stockings, hydrate, avoid alcohol, walk around every few hours....and you're good to go!

I've never been to Australia, but I have a few open invitations. A nonstop would persuade me; the thought of a stopover just defeats me. I can't bear the thought of adding additional hours to an already difficult journey.
717,727,737,747,757,767,777,787
L1011,DC8,DC9,DC10,MD80/90
A300,A319,320,321,330,340,
CRJ,E135/45/190,
DH8,Avro85,DHBeaver,AstarHelo,F100,ATR42
 
jagraham
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:12 am

SYD to LHR is farther than SIN to EWR. Singapore Airlines will fly SIN to EWR with the A359ULR. But with 200 seats or less. The A359 serving SIN to SFO (7341 nm) has 253 seats https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Singa ... o=32&date=
If Mr. Joyce is serious about 300 seats, even in ULR form, the A359 will need a significant weight increase. Whereas the 778 starts with 360 seats for 8700 nm, so the question there is will removing 60 seats (15000 lb or so) allow enough fuel for the extra 500 nm? And will GE make its numbers at EIS?
 
smi0006
Posts: 2575
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:19 am

I think the 779 or A351 would be of benefit to SYD/MEL- LAX/HKG/SIN where range isn't important but size is, also replacing the 380s in the longer term. 789 can do UHL thin routes PER-LHR, MEL-DFW, or Asia where range is needed and the 330s are stretched.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:30 am

downdata wrote:
Then the CEO of QF is wrong.


Such a shame you are so unappreciated. Perhaps in your next lifetime you can come back as QF CEO and show the world how right you are.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1060
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:43 am

Zkpilot wrote:
It will save around 3 hours possibly 4. That is a significant time-saving. For someone in Business Class or Premium Economy they should be able to have a decent uninterrupted rest on this flight (compared to the other flights that usually mean one shorter flight and one longer one).
Yes it will be tough on crew - I imagine they will have 5 (2x Captains, 2x FO, 1x SO) pilots on board (the Captains and FO do half the flight and rest for the other half (plus rest by having the SO work the middle cruise portion). For the NYC flight they would probably just have an extra 2-3x cabin crew and allow them longer breaks while speeding up sign on (and having a hotel closer to the airport) so keep the duty time under 20 hours and would probably need some kind of dispensation from the FAAA (I'm guessing minimum 44+ hours slip time in NY).
For LHR however it probably wouldn't be feasible for a single cabin crew so they would have to have a double crew for that (probably reduced however eg say it was normally 12x cabin crew they might go for 20x cabin crew rather than 24x).


The SQ A340 flight SIN-EWR used to be empty in Y and the Y was a 'executive economy' 7 abreast, 37" pitch with a recline on par with some business class seats and the Y fare was full fare Y, not a Y+ fare. I flew it in Y and it was tough even though I had more sleep than ever before. The life saver was a pantry area in the back where you could stand, stretch your legs and have a snack and a drink and chat with other passengers and cabin crew. Although it was meant for economy, business class passengers used to visit the Y pantry because they needed some social interaction and stretching after lying in a business class seat for more than 12 hours. I spent probably a total of 4 hours in this pantry area on each leg and I was definitely not the only one.
For sleeping, if you had a long sleep (8h+) and then wake up and find it is another 7 hours flying, it is just depressing. I became like one of those small kids who keeps on asking "are we there yet?"... On the other leg I could not sleep and saw 6 or 7 movies and ended up like a zombie.

You talk about the flight crew, but the cabin crew had no easy job either. The shift of the crew was 3h - 6h - 6h - 3h and they found it very tough. The first and last 3 hours had a full shift of crew while the 6 hours in between half the cabin crew was resting and half working. For SYD-LHR you look at up to 21 hours (SIN-EWR was a round the world flight with tail wind both legs and SYD-LHR will not have that option) and then you need to add one more shift.

I just don't see how this works with 300 pax and that is from experience as a passenger in SIN-EWR. If you have normal Y and a center seat for 21 hours, it is pure torture and no way I am going to pay for that. I can not see how I would survive even an aisle seat for such a flight and that is for someone who flies 14 hour stretches in Y on a regular basis.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1060
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:45 am

jagraham wrote:
SYD to LHR is farther than SIN to EWR. Singapore Airlines will fly SIN to EWR with the A359ULR. But with 200 seats or less. The A359 serving SIN to SFO (7341 nm) has 253 seats https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Singa ... o=32&date=
If Mr. Joyce is serious about 300 seats, even in ULR form, the A359 will need a significant weight increase. Whereas the 778 starts with 360 seats for 8700 nm, so the question there is will removing 60 seats (15000 lb or so) allow enough fuel for the extra 500 nm? And will GE make its numbers at EIS?


Keep in mind SIN-EWR is round the world with tail wind all the way (similar to AI DEL-SFO). SYD-LHR is a longer distance and has to cope with headwind, so the difference is much more than the 500nm distance.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:25 am

I find it funny we were only talking about how long perth to london was and how it wouldnt work.

Now sydney pops up in the equation and its a different story ?
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:28 am

How about Per-Lax
Lol
Last edited by waoz1 on Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:42 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14003
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:31 am

I do not see Airbus invest in an aircraft that can fly SYD-LHR/JFK with a margin.

They'll offer the A359LR as specified for SQ, in combination with -1000s.

An ultimate ULH machine, an A350-1000 shrink; "A350-900ULR", with the bigger wing, engines, landing gear, MTOW, doesn't seem worth the investment.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
thekorean
Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:05 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:54 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!


I disagree. For me that 2 or 3 hours can make a significant difference, as I hate wasting time.

I would rather get the trip over with and get to hotel to rest ASAP.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
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 Jan 27, 2017 2:15 am

If the 300pax mentioned in the OP is their goal, then this has the 778 written all over it.

Though, I'd be surprised if either aircraft could do the route with half that amount of pax, barring some changes/uprates/etc.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
jfk777
Posts: 7369
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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:22 am

log0008 wrote:
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.


I still think we will see more 787s ordered as well. As we have said the 778 has a capacity reduction over the 744, this means routes such as South Africa could see a Melbourne service on the 787 to fill the gap.


IF Qantas gets the 778 for the JFK and other 18 -20 hour flights then its likely QF will have 779 too. Unlikely QF would have A350 and 777. Qantas strategy should be based on the 787-9 flying to Europe from Perth, if they can make London then Rome and Pars are closer. The east coast to America should flying from Brisbane and Melbourne to DFW right into the heart of the USA and connections within 3 hours flying time to most cities. The 787 possibilities are so numerous they could redraw the entire Qantas route system.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1773
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:52 am

The routes while long are heavily traveled. QF can offer the N/S to steal some of the high yielding traffic that today is connecting. No doubt those on the Kangaroo route in F/J (Y) flying on other airlines, paying a premium to do so, would be consider the option. Same with all the 1 stop options to NYC.

They are already down gauging to 789s. QF is taking skimming the higher paying passengers and leaving the low yielding mass people moving to other airlines. With a perception and reality of a premium airline, that is a smart yield mgmt plan.
 
gpasternak
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:28 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:10 am

I find ULH flights interesting as well. Despite a previous poster quickly stating, if there's not a business case for it then Alan Joyce wouldn't consider it. I find this lacks insight. This is a forum to discuss these matters in greater detail within the airliner.net community. Such prompt responses defeat that purpose.

Perhaps it has been previously discussed in other ULH flight city pairs, but SYD/JFK raises some interesting questions, one of which is:

SYD-LAX-JFK vs SYD-JFK. The first obviously has two sets of landing fees, but the plane arguably is carrying less weight in fuel etc. What about other costs and factors. I'm sure there are several. Planes sitting on tarmac in LAX/JFK. Is it less expensive to have flight attendants etc on the ground in LAX waiting for the second leg, vs having two sets on the direct flight.

G
Next flights: MKY-BNE-CNS-TSV-MKY
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14003
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:08 am

airzona11 wrote:
The routes while long are heavily traveled. QF can offer the N/S to steal some of the high yielding traffic that today is connecting. No doubt those on the Kangaroo route in F/J (Y) flying on other airlines, paying a premium to do so, would be consider the option. Same with all the 1 stop options to NYC.

They are already down gauging to 789s. QF is taking skimming the higher paying passengers and leaving the low yielding mass people moving to other airlines. With a perception and reality of a premium airline, that is a smart yield mgmt plan.


There are few network carriers not aiming at higher paying passengers, that's the problem. QF can not ask extra, apart from proud locals.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Max Q
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:33 am

The answer to economically serve SYD-LHR nonstop is to fly eastbound, or more correctly NE, greater distance but tailwinds all the way, stop in LHR then a non stop back to SYD you're eastbound around the world.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3611
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:56 am

I have been hearing about SYD to JFK nonstop for sometime, but that would really limit the seats to no more than 230-240 on any such plane (likely in a 4-class configuration with a small Y cabin), as you'd need 6 pilots and 12 flight attendants for the flight. As for cargo, that is not a worry as Qantas contracts with Atlas Air to fly cargo between Sydney (Qantas' base) and New York (Atlas Air's base). Such a flight would only carry passengers, as the cargo would either be belly cargo via LAX or DFW or on the Atlas Air contract.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
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 Jan 27, 2017 5:42 am

keesje wrote:
I do not see Airbus invest in an aircraft that can fly SYD-LHR/JFK with a margin.

They'll offer the A359LR as specified for SQ, in combination with -1000s.

An ultimate ULH machine, an A350-1000 shrink; "A350-900ULR", with the bigger wing, engines, landing gear, MTOW, doesn't seem worth the investment.

Image


The problem is that the A350-900ULR, while it has the range, may not have the payload or capacity QF may want.

It certainly doesn't have the pax capacity that's anywhere near QFs 744s.

This really does seem like the 777-8s order to lose.

Image
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
RL777
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:43 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:00 am

I definitely think a split 777-9/777-8 order is a likely option. The A380s will be nearing 20 years old towards the end of the next decade and the 779s are an ideal replacement if QF feel the A380 is a bit too much capacity going forwards. I think its a complete tossup whether the 778 or 359LR is a better aircraft but I think the 778 fits a bit better for Qantas.
 
User avatar
cv990Coronado
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:38 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:19 am

I see and understand all of the comments regarding additional crew, fuel, lower payload etc. Something I don't see mentioned, but I believe could be relevant is the effect on the yield of other flights. I agree that these non stops would be attractive for first and business class pax, for the many reasons mentioned. If these pax go to the non stop service how will this effect the loads on the SYD/MEL -DXB LON flights? Will the aircraft operating these need to be re configured? If so, what effect will that have on the operation? If they were, then they would most probably be in the wrong configuration for other routes.
SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
 
astuteman
Posts: 7154
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 Jan 27, 2017 6:53 am

Boeing778X wrote:
The problem is that the A350-900ULR, while it has the range, may not have the payload or capacity QF may want.

It certainly doesn't have the pax capacity that's anywhere near QFs 744s.

This really does seem like the 777-8s order to lose.


I've no idea whose order this is to win or lose, but the A359 has near-identical passenger capacity to the 777-200LR that the 777-8X replaces.
I suspect that on flights of the magnitude of SYD-LHR we can "comfortably" forget about 10-across.

Equally it would not surprise me if the A350-1000 based A359ULR that Keejse suggests (which was in the original A350 line-up back in 2006) actually outranges the 777-8.

In which case, for the stage length we're talking about, the 308t A359ULR might be capable of generating just as much revenue as the 350t 777-8X
As an aside, whilst discussing the A350-8000, weren't Airbus on record as saying that an MTOW hike to 319t was doable on the existing A350 platform?

For what it's worth, I'm not going to be holding my breath for this "order" to materialise - the return from Aus to the UK is just too challenging IMO

Rgds
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:03 am

I'd be more than happy to fly these routes, maybe a grumpy bastard at the other end, but at least I'm there and not still at 35000 feet with several hours to go.....and still a grumpy bastard.

This leans towards the 778 for these flights and the 779 to replace the remaining the 747s and the 380s when they are due to be retired, just can't see QF ordering anymore than they have already. A fleet of 787-9 and 787-10, plus the 778 and 779 provides a wide range of seating capacities, with a sub fleet of 789s and the 778s to do ULH flights. The remaining deposits, if any still exist on the additional 380s could be used for the neo, either for QF itself or for JQ.

The 778 would most likely be 4 class for ULH, cargo wouldn't be a huge priority, but what they can take would be the high paying express courier and the clients who just have to have their freight there a.s.a.p. They are out there and will pay a premium and the best part about them is that their freight is usually light and fluffy, great for building up the yield.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2482
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:29 am

reidar76 wrote:
The A380 is also an ultra-long haul aircraft, actually has capabilities that is not that different from the 777-8/A350 ULH.

I would think an A380, with its somewhat oversized wings, would be excellent on these ultra-long haul routes where you need to carry massive amounts of fuel. A slight MTOW increase and maybe ACTs in the cargo bay, would probably do the trick. The A380 has enough space for people to move around a little bit and maybe have a little bit more comfortable seats. Comfort will be important on an UHL flight from SYD to LHR, as it would be close to a 21 or 22 hour flight, non-stop?


Yes, include a center tank, it would be perfect.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys.
 
getluv
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:34 am

keesje wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
The routes while long are heavily traveled. QF can offer the N/S to steal some of the high yielding traffic that today is connecting. No doubt those on the Kangaroo route in F/J (Y) flying on other airlines, paying a premium to do so, would be consider the option. Same with all the 1 stop options to NYC.

They are already down gauging to 789s. QF is taking skimming the higher paying passengers and leaving the low yielding mass people moving to other airlines. With a perception and reality of a premium airline, that is a smart yield mgmt plan.


There are few network carriers not aiming at higher paying passengers, that's the problem. QF can not ask extra, apart from proud locals.


They made be proud locals, but QF's seats are at a premium compared to its competitors, not only in J but in Y class as well.
I'm that bad type.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2482
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:34 am

Boeing778X wrote:
keesje wrote:
I do not see Airbus invest in an aircraft that can fly SYD-LHR/JFK with a margin.

They'll offer the A359LR as specified for SQ, in combination with -1000s.

An ultimate ULH machine, an A350-1000 shrink; "A350-900ULR", with the bigger wing, engines, landing gear, MTOW, doesn't seem worth the investment.

Image


The problem is that the A350-900ULR, while it has the range, may not have the payload or capacity QF may want.

It certainly doesn't have the pax capacity that's anywhere near QFs 744s.

This really does seem like the 777-8s order to lose.

Image


It's a more complicated decision than that. A350-900ULR will have at least 350-500nm more range than the 777-8X per current spec. The 778 is a bit larger.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2482
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:39 am

Max Q wrote:
The answer to economically serve SYD-LHR nonstop is to fly eastbound, or more correctly NE, greater distance but tailwinds all the way, stop in LHR then a non stop back to SYD you're eastbound around the world.


Equally, you could fly a westbound route by taking a southern path and turning NW through East Africa and the Med. It might change on daily winds. SQ EWR-SIN either flew a polar route or an eastbound route over Northern Europe.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys.
 
MaksFly
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:50 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:48 am

Even though it would be hella long flights, I think the people in coach would rather torment themselves once then have to deal with a stopover somewhere, particularly if the stopover is prone to delays or weather.

twice the flights also means twice the opportunity for something to go wrong that results in misconnection etc.

People I know who fly to Asia, particularly in economy, all lean towards going through it once.

My family's long haul is to Russia and more often then not, we fly SU direct, rather than connect in AMS on Delta, unless we are going to LED, so connect there than in SVO and save more time. The one exception is on way in or out, we would book a LONG layover so we can actually get out of the airport, visit the city, before coming back home.

We would not recommend someone to have a 1 hour layover for international flight anyway, so in reality this will save MORE than the 3 or 4 hours on a stop, and more likely 5 to 6.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9348
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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:49 am

Boeing778X wrote:
...would be exceptionally comfortable.


10 across to 9 across is 10% reduction in seating.
300 to 236 is 21% reduction.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 9348
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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:07 am

astuteman wrote:
For what it's worth, I'm not going to be holding my breath for this "order" to materialise - the return from Aus to the UK is just too challenging IMO

On that route you are so close to "half way round the globe" that you could as well just continue on your path for the way back?
( and utilize the prevailing winds :-)

What could be expected of an UULR muscle boy based on A35k structure and MTOW and the -900 fuselage length.

MTOW 308t max 318t
fuel 132t ( for 165kl avail. volume )
OEW: 145t ( ~1.2t/m and a bit of -1000 added strength reduced overall )
would 6.1..6.3t/h fuel use be realistic?
6.3t average would provide 21h endurance ( for 31..41t payload depending on MTOW.)

Does the 165kl config max out the available wing volume?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
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 Jan 27, 2017 9:09 am

astuteman wrote:
In which case, for the stage length we're talking about, the 308t A359ULR might be capable of generating just as much revenue as the 350t 777-8X

What 308T A359ULR...?

Airbus has made no public offer of anything over 280T for the A359ULR, same as the standard A359 will have circa 2020.
IINM, even the original design with the A35K's wing/box/gear was only going to be 298T; so where's 308T coming from?.


Pellegrine wrote:
A350-900ULR will have at least 350-500nm more range than the 777-8X per current spec.

No it won't. Especially not with 300pax on board. In fact, nowhere near it.

Granted, a 778 isn't doing SYD-LHR with that many pax either, but it'll haul more/longer than an A359ULR will, easily.
Last edited by LAX772LR on Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
redroo
Posts: 584
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 Jan 27, 2017 9:10 am

I have done both these routes and I know people that do them a lot. The stopover is dead time. They get off the plane and are counting the minutes to get back on and onto their destination.

SYD NYC will command a premium over the onestop with the Aussies so they don't have to stop and clear immigration in LAX.

I have concerns about LHR. A non stop would leave SYD later than it currently does giving you more time in the office and still arriving into LHR early in the morning to get into work. The return is a problem as the idea evening departure would get you into Sydney before the airport opens. Unless they change it to be a morning departure and evening arrival like the old QF32.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2482
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:11 am

LAX772LR wrote:
astuteman wrote:
In which case, for the stage length we're talking about, the 308t A359ULR might be capable of generating just as much revenue as the 350t 777-8X

What "308T A359ULR"...?

Airbus has made no public offer of anything over 280T for the A359ULR, same as the standard A359 will have circa 2020.
Even the original design with the A35K's wing/box/gear was only going to be 298T.


Pellegrine wrote:
A350-900ULR will have at least 350-500nm more range than the 777-8X per current spec.

No it won't. Especially not with 300pax on board. In fact, nowhere near it.

Granted, a 778 isn't doing SYD-LHR with that many pax either, but it'll haul more/longer than an A359ULR will, easily.


Well, I did not say the 300 pax part. What makes you think that? Do you think SQ will put 300 on theirs?
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 7477
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:16 am

The thought of ULH 15hr plus, even in First Class, frightens the shite out of me. Even the moon landings were not non stop, they went to that little studio in the dessert to film the walk abouts. :duck:
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
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 Jan 27, 2017 9:31 am

Pellegrine wrote:
A350-900ULR will have at least 350-500nm more range than the 777-8X per current spec.
LAX772LR wrote:
No it won't. Especially not with 300pax on board. In fact, nowhere near it.

Granted, a 778 isn't doing SYD-LHR with that many pax either, but it'll haul more/longer than an A359ULR will, easily.
Pellegrine wrote:
Well, I did not say the 300 pax part.

I did, because it's the topic of the thread.
Read the OP if you want a refresher: QF wants an aircraft that can do this with up to 300pax.

The 778 isn't really that, and the A359ULR sure as hell isn't.

The former though, is the closest thing that the market is primed to offer for that, any time soon.... unless Airbus goes 600T+ on the A380, with a center tank. Good luck getting them to invest more in that frame though, especially for such a niche market.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11137
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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:58 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
A350-900ULR will have at least 350-500nm more range than the 777-8X per current spec.
LAX772LR wrote:
No it won't. Especially not with 300pax on board. In fact, nowhere near it.

Granted, a 778 isn't doing SYD-LHR with that many pax either, but it'll haul more/longer than an A359ULR will, easily.

I did, because it's the topic of the thread.
Read the OP if you want a refresher: QF wants an aircraft that can do this with up to 300pax.

The 778 isn't really that, and the A359ULR sure as hell isn't.

The former though, is the closest thing that the market is primed to offer for that, any time soon.... unless Airbus goes 600T+ on the A380, with a center tank. Good luck getting them to invest more in that frame though, especially for such a niche market.


As LAX772LR has stated this is what QF wants for an aircraft to operate SYD-LHR

Qantas management has been pressing both manufacturers to deliver its new ultra-long range planes certified to fly Sydney-London (17,000 kilometres) with and against directional winds and with a payload of at least 300 passengers.
"At the moment, Sydney-New York is probably OK but Sydney-London is hard for both aircraft," Mr Joyce said, though he remains confident the longer mission will ultimately be realised by the manufacturers' programs.
Forum Moderator
 
jagraham
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:20 am

I brought up SIN to EWR because that is what the A359ULR is made for. And with a reduction from Singapore Airlines' current A359 long haul configuration (253 seats), it will do that.

But that's going down from 253 seats to make 8291 nm (15354 km). The OP article says Qantas wants 300 seats for the 9200 nm (17039 km) SYD to LHR flight. That's over 900 nm more, and more seats.

One other thing to conisder - if they REALLY wanted to do this route today, they could get a 77L with ACTs. The charts say a 77L can do the 9200 nm leg carrying 60,000 lb payload with 2 ACTs, for 55000 gal (approx). My pilot friends say the 77L is better than the charts say. But let's stick with the charts. It can be done. Today. Has been possible for some time. But regarding flying between England and Australia, one airline exec said he was tired of flying fuel halfway around the world.

In summary, it can be done. If you write big checks for fuel. And that's with a 77L. For those considering the A380, it starts with almost 85000 gal. it would need close to 20000 more gallons to do 9200 nm. If airline execs had conniptions about the fuel a 77L needed, the fuel for an A380 that could do the route would have killed them. Not to mention that the extra 140000 lb would require even more wheels or a separate airplane class with more reinforced runways and taxiways.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
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 Jan 27, 2017 10:26 am

jagraham wrote:
But that's going down from 253 seats to make 8291 nm (15354 km). The OP article says Qantas wants 300 seats for the 9200 nm (17039 km) SYD to LHR flight. That's over 900 nm more, and more seats.

One other thing to conisder - if they REALLY wanted to do this route today, they could get a 77L with ACTs. The charts say a 77L can do the 9200 nm leg carrying 60,000 lb payload with 2 ACTs, for 55000 gal (approx).

Here's the problem with that: SYD-LHR isn't "just" 9200nm.

You factor in headwinds, ATC paths, weather, diversion, reserves, etc and you're going to need somewhere between 10,000-10,300nm range to reliably make that work; which even a fully-tanked 77L cannot offer with a realistic profit-potential payload.

If it were that simple, QF could've ordered them nearly 17yrs ago.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 2003
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:41 am

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

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

The operational costs would be horrible

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

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


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



Yes but the history of previous ultra-ULH flights is not encouraging. The burn-fuel-to-carry-fuel penalty ultimately makes many such flights unsustainable in the long term...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
WIederling
Posts: 9348
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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:03 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Airbus has made no public offer of anything over 280T for the A359ULR, same as the standard A359 will have circa 2020.
IINM, even the original design with the A35K's wing/box/gear was only going to be 298T; so where's 308T coming from?.


The A35K shrink version of an A350-900ULR offer ( from way back ) was floated when the A35K was still projected as 298t MTOW. Later Airbus added a couple of tons structure and 10t MTOW for the current incarnation of the A35K @ 308t.

But I think you know that already.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:04 am

DaveFly wrote:
I too have vascular disease, specifically MTHFR. It never stops me from traveling, even very long haul.

When you reach a certain, magic age, on long haul trips, you will be asked to confirm which of a series of conditions, if any, you have been diagnosed, so enjoy unrestricted air travel while it lasts.

My father, in his 80's suffers from DVT. This is a notifiable condition for long haul flights (no problems for UK to East coast USA or in EU). Those airlines that will carry him, insist he travels in First or Business, and health insurance is mandatory (and they want to check the cover is adequate and condition is declared). If they break the journey, he can travel in any class, but insurance is still required.

Health insurers are obviously influenced by age and pre-existing conditions, but are also aware of the airlines stance, so charge accordingly.

Airlines must take this position based on data, so heads up to all those with a family history of DVT and similar conditions. Long distance flights, without breaks are fine when you are young. Might come to regret them in old age though. As for the crew on these flights.............
 
Mrak79
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:57 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:27 am

A350-900LR was proposed model of shrink A350-1000 with original 298t MTOW desigen which was changed to 308t. But I dont think Airbus will offer that version.
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2531
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:03 pm

Hey guys,
Qantas knows what it's doing - this is definitely no vanity project and for anyone to suggest otherwise shows that they really don't understand the history and depth of thought behind Alan Joyce's, and thus Qantas', comments.
Qantas has seriously considered nonstops to London in the past, and the 777-200LR to fly them, but deferred due to the uncertainties of the market and the marginal ability of the plane to operate the route without crippling penalties. I for one remember the 'silver bullet' idea of an unpainted (to save weight) jointly-operated QF/BA 777-200LR subfleet flying nonstop SYD-LHR. That was years ago.
What has been new in the past year or so is the publicly expressed desire of QF to fly nonstop to JFK. Alan Joyce arguably doesn't make statements nor float ideas that don't have serious thought behind them. I remember certain a.netters who have posted here expressing doubt and derision about PER-LHR when that route was first floated a few years ago...
I believe that the demonstrable maturing of the Sydney-NYC market through the QF SYD-LAX-JFK flights coupled with the always strong SYD-XXX-LHR market has allowed a critical mass of potential ULH flying to emerge, making a small subfleet of ULH jets practical, along with all of the operational and systemic 'stuff' required... And I have absolutely no doubt that QF has the management, staff and culture to make this all of this work.
I absolutely would pay a premium to fly nonstop on these routes... And I know plenty of others who would as well.
And I only fly for leisure...
And I would be flying economy or perhaps if i am very very lucky, premium economy...
And a final word, I would just love QF to select the 777 over the A350... It just seems like destiny!
Cheers,
Bunumuring.
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
DaveFly
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:35 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:49 pm

It's important to remember that progress will eventually make these ULH flights a reality, especially when there is a market (and profit potential) for Australia-New York and Australia-London flights.

Who recalls that perhaps a generation ago, nonstop flights from NYC to Hong Kong, Korea, Israel, India, et al were all but unheard of. I vividly recall that Pan Am opened regular New York-Japan service with the 747SP acquisition.

These Qantas flights will eventually become routine. It's really a matter of which aircraft can handle it best, operationally and profitably.
717,727,737,747,757,767,777,787
L1011,DC8,DC9,DC10,MD80/90
A300,A319,320,321,330,340,
CRJ,E135/45/190,
DH8,Avro85,DHBeaver,AstarHelo,F100,ATR42
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:49 pm

bunumuring wrote:
Hey guys,
Qantas knows what it's doing - this is definitely no vanity project and for anyone to suggest otherwise shows that they really don't understand the history and depth of thought behind Alan Joyce's, and thus Qantas', comments.
Qantas has seriously considered nonstops to London in the past, and the 777-200LR to fly them, but deferred due to the uncertainties of the market and the marginal ability of the plane to operate the route without crippling penalties. I for one remember the 'silver bullet' idea of an unpainted (to save weight) jointly-operated QF/BA 777-200LR subfleet flying nonstop SYD-LHR. That was years ago.
What has been new in the past year or so is the publicly expressed desire of QF to fly nonstop to JFK. Alan Joyce arguably doesn't make statements nor float ideas that don't have serious thought behind them. I remember certain a.netters who have posted here expressing doubt and derision about PER-LHR when that route was first floated a few years ago...
I believe that the demonstrable maturing of the Sydney-NYC market through the QF SYD-LAX-JFK flights coupled with the always strong SYD-XXX-LHR market has allowed a critical mass of potential ULH flying to emerge, making a small subfleet of ULH jets practical, along with all of the operational and systemic 'stuff' required... And I have absolutely no doubt that QF has the management, staff and culture to make this all of this work.
I absolutely would pay a premium to fly nonstop on these routes... And I know plenty of others who would as well.
And I only fly for leisure...
And I would be flying economy or perhaps if i am very very lucky, premium economy...
And a final word, I would just love QF to select the 777 over the A350... It just seems like destiny!
Cheers,
Bunumuring.



Isn't the perceived wisdom that passengers pay for the cheapest tickets? They don't care about the plane as long as the ticket is cheap? If someone wants to go from SYD to LHR and the QF flight direct flight is more expensive than the one stop EK or QF flights, is the wisdom now that people will choose the more expensive option? It will be interesting to see what they need to charge for tickets on these flights as this will determine if it will be a success.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10718
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:08 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Isn't the perceived wisdom that passengers pay for the cheapest tickets? They don't care about the plane as long as the ticket is cheap? If someone wants to go from SYD to LHR and the QF flight direct flight is more expensive than the one stop EK or QF flights, is the wisdom now that people will choose the more expensive option? It will be interesting to see what they need to charge for tickets on these flights as this will determine if it will be a success.

1) That is generally about Y passengers. Many (a majority?) J passengers are not actually footing the bill of their flight...
2) The conventional wisdom is that nonstops vs connections is one of the few things that basically all passengers will pay a premium for (not service, not AVOD, not food, etc).
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:41 pm

In a post much earlier by AngMoh in this thread, he comments on having experienced an SQ ULH SIN - JFK. After the departure meal service, a great 8-hour sleep in a lie-flat bed, only to waken up and realise there were another 7 hours flight still to go, and that was seriously depressing! Oh how I can empathise with that!

When I fly Y, it generally means that I am paying this out of my own wallet! OK, being retired allows me the time, but rather than torture myself on ULH flights, I break them up into 2 (or more) legs, and have a break at each point. Who would turn down a few days in HKG, SIN, KUL, BKK on the way between Europe and Oz? Much more fun, much healthier. Go visit Ankor Wat in Cambodia, it's not much off track! World heritage stuff, a MUST DO!

When I fly (or flew, more accurately) in J or better, I was not footing the bill (when I was self-employed and could not pass on the expense, I flew Y always - I was entirely responsible for my company's bottom line and knew what the J-fare could do to that!). But when I was not footing the bill, I was almost never in charge of the itinerary, not even the choice of carrier mostly. I doubt that many bean-counters in many corporations will approve the non-stop with, say, a £1000 premium over the "classic 1-stop via SIN" option. Maybe for the CEO and a few others, but not for the run-of-the mill mid--level manager or project manager. Let them fly the weekend and be in good shape for Monday's meeting!

22 hours! No way! Already after 9 or 10, in a cramped cylinder with little space, no fresh air, and a poor short snooze, I am getting close to serious claustrophobia and just want off!
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:31 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
jagraham wrote:
But that's going down from 253 seats to make 8291 nm (15354 km). The OP article says Qantas wants 300 seats for the 9200 nm (17039 km) SYD to LHR flight. That's over 900 nm more, and more seats.

One other thing to conisder - if they REALLY wanted to do this route today, they could get a 77L with ACTs. The charts say a 77L can do the 9200 nm leg carrying 60,000 lb payload with 2 ACTs, for 55000 gal (approx).

Here's the problem with that: SYD-LHR isn't "just" 9200nm.

You factor in headwinds, ATC paths, weather, diversion, reserves, etc and you're going to need somewhere between 10,000-10,300nm range to reliably make that work; which even a fully-tanked 77L cannot offer with a realistic profit-potential payload.

If it were that simple, QF could've ordered them nearly 17yrs ago.


Then it is simply not going to happen with either the A359 or 778 - neither of them have more range (as far as we know with the current designs) than the 77L. Right?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 18

Who is online

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