emiratesdriver
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:04 pm

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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:15 am

These days with computer modelling they have a. Dry good idea of what the performance will be.
They also do have other A350 flying and the 778 is a derivative of the 77L/77W so I'd say they have a very good idea what the performance will be. Every 1kg lighter means less weight in the structure to support it which makes it lighter again. A virtuous circle. The engines alone in the 778 are going to be less powerful and much lighter than on the 77L yet it is expected to reach cruise in a similar fashion.


It's all about compromise, don't forget that the X versions of the 777 will have a newer more efficient, larger, and higher aspect ratio wing, throw in less fuel burn per KG and you arrive at that compromise and its why it will closely match the 200LR in terms of mission capability.
The 350ULR is a smaller aircraft with less ability to carry payload over a similar mission, it will however suit plenty of operators looking for that capability but with less ability to fill it.
 
Bnetraveller
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:03 am

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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:10 am

sassiciai wrote:
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!


As this a first time post from myself on this forum and a long time follower of this website I thought it's time to throw my opinion into this one.

This topic has been a long time never ending question asked by all. It would be great to have an aircraft to meet QF's CEO spec's capability for non stop flights but it seems an impossible task from aircraft suppliers for viable economic return on the development investment to provide such an aircraft. Taking the technical capabilities out of the equation which be both good aircraft (either A350-1000 or B777x), Qantas maybe looking at this the wrong way. Forget about achieving non stop flights to these destinations (eg: SYD-LHR or NYC) but focus on passegner comfort for all travellers. 20 to 24 hours non stop would be very taxing on crew and passenger health.

Qantas should purchase an aircraft type that works unversally for all existing and future routes. Also consider different one stop hub locations from the current ones (eg: LAX) that give QF possible ecnomic benefits and well as local region options and passengers such as HNL on a SYD to NYC route. So two flights of about 10 hours each with a short stopover (2-3 hours or less) is still way better than massive flight.By all means choose an aircraft that will still fly your non stop routes like MEL to LAX or SYD to SCL, etc. Business passengers is all about connectivity so decent internet/phone access would be advantagous over distance capability.

Australia is geologically disadvantaged so we are forced to long flights anywhere. If you are looking for a like for like replacement of current QF aircraft and QF desired spec (300plus pax, good cargo payload, seat per Km cost, etc) with slight improvement maybe A350-900/1000 would be a good fit for them (based on figures from airbus and QF website). Good price maybe could be offered for them due to deffered A380 order pending.

Thanks all :)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13584
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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:11 pm

Bnetraveller wrote:
sassiciai wrote:
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!


As this a first time post from myself on this forum and a long time follower of this website I thought it's time to throw my opinion into this one.

This topic has been a long time never ending question asked by all. It would be great to have an aircraft to meet QF's CEO spec's capability for non stop flights but it seems an impossible task from aircraft suppliers for viable economic return on the development investment to provide such an aircraft. Taking the technical capabilities out of the equation which be both good aircraft (either A350-1000 or B777x), Qantas maybe looking at this the wrong way. Forget about achieving non stop flights to these destinations (eg: SYD-LHR or NYC) but focus on passegner comfort for all travellers. 20 to 24 hours non stop would be very taxing on crew and passenger health.

Qantas should purchase an aircraft type that works unversally for all existing and future routes. Also consider different one stop hub locations from the current ones (eg: LAX) that give QF possible ecnomic benefits and well as local region options and passengers such as HNL on a SYD to NYC route. So two flights of about 10 hours each with a short stopover (2-3 hours or less) is still way better than massive flight.By all means choose an aircraft that will still fly your non stop routes like MEL to LAX or SYD to SCL, etc. Business passengers is all about connectivity so decent internet/phone access would be advantagous over distance capability.

Australia is geologically disadvantaged so we are forced to long flights anywhere. If you are looking for a like for like replacement of current QF aircraft and QF desired spec (300plus pax, good cargo payload, seat per Km cost, etc) with slight improvement maybe A350-900/1000 would be a good fit for them (based on figures from airbus and QF website). Good price maybe could be offered for them due to deffered A380 order pending.

Thanks all :)


Welcome, good post!
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:18 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
It would seem that neither of these 2 models are ideal and there will either need to be a change of their needs (300 seats long haul) or a new model (original A350LR with the A35K wings etc.) to ensure they have a aircraft to suit their needs in full.

Exactly.

They're either going to have to get Boeing to throw in an auxiliary tank option for the 778 (similar to what the 77L offered, but that very few chose); or they're going to have to get Airbus to crank the MTOW on the A359ULR + increase its fuel volume as well.

The latter would likely require massive changes-- including potentially going back to the original A35K-derived design, which would be a bit late considering that SQ's already gone forward with the modified-tank same-MTOW version.

The former wouldn't require much change to the 778 at all though, especially since no metal has been cut.

It'll be interesting to see if any additional options manifest in this.
Assuming anything becomes of it at all.


And frankly, I do not think Airbus will be willing to invest in such a mod for a carrier that will eventual order only 10-12 units.

An Aux tank in the 778, combined with a lower density cabin seems like the way to go.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1098
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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:43 pm

An Aux tank in the 778, combined with a lower density cabin seems like the way to go.[/quote]


It will be a few years yet before we know reliably what the B778 can do, and at that time what the world's situation might be (oil price, economics, political relationships et al.... leading to the prices airlines might be charging for fares). A 778 with an Aux tank, with low density cabin, might just cut it today with today's conditions! Tomorrow's conditions are unknown!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13584
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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 7:34 pm

sassiciai wrote:
An Aux tank in the 778, combined with a lower density cabin seems like the way to go


It will be a few years yet before we know reliably what the B778 can do, and at that time what the world's situation might be (oil price, economics, political relationships et al.... leading to the prices airlines might be charging for fares). A 778 with an Aux tank, with low density cabin, might just cut it today with today's conditions! Tomorrow's conditions are unknown!


Amazing 777X graphics from 2013 has learned us the 777-8 and -9 are now just around the corner.

Image

In reality they aren't. The 777-8 will be there from 2021 and launching customers first. Maybe 2022 or 2023. The day after tomorrow so to say.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:08 pm

sassiciai wrote:
An Aux tank in the 778, combined with a lower density cabin seems like the way to go.



It will be a few years yet before we know reliably what the B778 can do, and at that time what the world's situation might be (oil price, economics, political relationships et al.... leading to the prices airlines might be charging for fares). A 778 with an Aux tank, with low density cabin, might just cut it today with today's conditions! Tomorrow's conditions are unknown![/quote]

No business will put off a decision awaiting each and every detail to fall into place. Boeing will give performance guarantees, international air travel will probably continue to be less restrictive and the market will continue to grow 3 or 4% a year. Fuel prices will be subject to supply and demand. If demand increases there is ample supply to match it. I see QF making a decision within two years or within the time that it will take to procure the aircraft.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13584
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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:30 pm

A350-900ULR with enter LAX and JFK operations next year, 2018. Maybe Airbus will LR the A350-1000, they have some time before 2022

Cathay asked for a big A350 for MIA and maybe further..
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/cathay-interested-in-bigger-airbus-a350-to-reach-miami-non-stop

HKG-EZE, the feared mother of UULH, coming out of the closet.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=hkg-EZE%2C+LHR-SYD%0D%0A&MS=wls&DU=nm&E=240

Interesting to see how well HKG is positioned for dozens of SYD-Europe flights.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
astuteman
Posts: 7076
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:01 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
They're either going to have to get Boeing to throw in an auxiliary tank option for the 778 (similar to what the 77L offered, but that very few chose); or they're going to have to get Airbus to crank the MTOW on the A359ULR + increase its fuel volume as well.

The latter would likely require massive changes-- including potentially going back to the original A35K-derived design, which would be a bit late considering that SQ's already gone forward with the modified-tank same-MTOW version.

The former wouldn't require much change to the 778 at all though, especially since no metal has been cut.

It'll be interesting to see if any additional options manifest in this.
Assuming anything becomes of it at all.


You called me out before, so I'll respond on this.
The A359ULR was originally going to be a straight shrink of the A350-1000.
As you pointed out, this plane is not currently on offer.

SQ obviously felt that they can get meaningful ULR range out of the high MTOW basic version
There is nothing stopping Airbus offering the straight shrink of the A350-1000 for those that really need it, though.
With an extra 28t of MTOW to play with, it would offer serious range.
I really don't understand the "massive changes" bit - a straight shrink is exactly that
It might indeed need an ACT, as you say, but I don't see that as a big deal

Rgds
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:37 am

Bnetraveller wrote:
As this a first time post from myself on this forum and a long time follower of this website I thought it's time to throw my opinion into this one.

This topic has been a long time never ending question asked by all. It would be great to have an aircraft to meet QF's CEO spec's capability for non stop flights but it seems an impossible task from aircraft suppliers for viable economic return on the development investment to provide such an aircraft. Taking the technical capabilities out of the equation which be both good aircraft (either A350-1000 or B777x), Qantas maybe looking at this the wrong way. Forget about achieving non stop flights to these destinations (eg: SYD-LHR or NYC) but focus on passegner comfort for all travellers. 20 to 24 hours non stop would be very taxing on crew and passenger health.

Qantas should purchase an aircraft type that works unversally for all existing and future routes. Also consider different one stop hub locations from the current ones (eg: LAX) that give QF possible ecnomic benefits and well as local region options and passengers such as HNL on a SYD to NYC route. So two flights of about 10 hours each with a short stopover (2-3 hours or less) is still way better than massive flight.By all means choose an aircraft that will still fly your non stop routes like MEL to LAX or SYD to SCL, etc. Business passengers is all about connectivity so decent internet/phone access would be advantagous over distance capability.

Australia is geologically disadvantaged so we are forced to long flights anywhere. If you are looking for a like for like replacement of current QF aircraft and QF desired spec (300plus pax, good cargo payload, seat per Km cost, etc) with slight improvement maybe A350-900/1000 would be a good fit for them (based on figures from airbus and QF website). Good price maybe could be offered for them due to deffered A380 order pending.

Thanks all :)


Firstly welcome to the lion's den!

I do not understand all this hand-wringing over SYD <> LON/NYC non-stop. There are numerous commercial flights over 16 hours.

LON <> SYD is 9188 nmi. That would be a flight time of, what, 18, 18 and a half hours? It is not hugely longer than the existing DXB <> AKL route - probably only an hour. People are not avoiding these existing ULH flights; I see no reason why they would avoid a SYD <> LHR non-stop.
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 996
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:41 am

vhtje wrote:
I do not understand all this hand-wringing over SYD <> LON/NYC non-stop. There are numerous commercial flights over 16 hours.

LON <> SYD is 9188 nmi. That would be a flight time of, what, 18, 18 and a half hours? It is not hugely longer than the existing DXB <> AKL route - probably only an hour. People are not avoiding these existing ULH flights; I see no reason why they would avoid a SYD <> LHR non-stop.


DXB-AKL is 7668 mm. The difference is 1520 nm which is around 3 hours longer.

SIN-EWR was 8,285 nm which was 18:30 to 19:00 with tailwind although the A340 is slower than the 777/A350. It could have been partially slower speed for optimised fuel burn.

So you are looking at least at 20-21 hours for SYD-LHR, probably stretching to 22 hours on a bad day. Just to note, the longest duration it took me from SIN-LHR was 15:30 in January with strong headwinds all the way flying a 77W. LHR-SIN 5 days later was 13:30.
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
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:07 am

Personally, even in Y, I would rather have a single long flight that got me where I was going, although ULH flights then connections can be less desirable. I think that flights under 4 hours and over 10 hours are good. I have flown EK448 in Y, and enjoyed having 8 hours to relax then 8 hours to sleep, although flying to LHR from AKL/SYD with the current options I would rather have two equal length 10-12h flights than one 16 hour and then one 7 hour flight. Once those longer direct flights come in, they will come to the top of choices for flying to Europe/East coast. I live in New Zealand, so most places are either less than 4 hours away, or more than 8. You get used to it pretty quickly.
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12842
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:26 am

keesje wrote:
A350-900ULR with enter LAX and JFK operations next year

There's no indication that it is (or isn't) going to JFK.


astuteman wrote:
The A359ULR was originally going to be a straight shrink of the A350-1000.
As you pointed out, this plane is not currently on offer. . . . I really don't understand the "massive changes" bit - a straight shrink is exactly that

Perhaps "massive" was an overstatement, and "changes sufficient to require independent trials/certification and the cost inherent to that" would've been a more accurate descriptor.

That said, the A359ULR is in 2018 going to incorporate some changes that won't find their way into the A359/A35K until 2020 at the earliest: different materials (doors, seals, etc) for weight savings, different brakes, different inertion systems, aerodynamic tweaks accounting for 2%+ increase in efficiency, etc. A35K would first have to incorporate these changes (likely, but unannounced) before being shrunk.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13584
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:40 am

LAX772LR wrote:
keesje wrote:
A350-900ULR with enter LAX and JFK operations next year


There's no indication that it is (or isn't) going to JFK.


SIN-JFK non stop is scheduled for 2018.

https://www.google.nl/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/92661020/?client=safari
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
qf002
Posts: 3608
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:00 am

keesje wrote:
SIN-JFK non stop is scheduled for 2018.


No, SIN-NYC is scheduled for 2018. Personally I expect them to go to JFK this time but nothing has been confirmed at this stage.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13584
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:21 am

Ok thnx, I almost thought we were getting into irrelevant nit picking.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12842
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:07 am

keesje wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
keesje wrote:
A350-900ULR with enter LAX and JFK operations next year

There's no indication that it is (or isn't) going to JFK.

SIN-JFK non stop is scheduled for 2018.
https://www.google.nl/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/92661020/?client=safari

No, I'm trying to tell you that SQ hasn't mentioned which gateway they'll use.
There's no indication that they've chosen JFK over reinstating the nonstop back to EWR.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9312
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:24 am

LAX772LR wrote:
astuteman wrote:
The A359ULR was originally going to be a straight shrink of the A350-1000.
As you pointed out, this plane is not currently on offer. . . . I really don't understand the "massive changes" bit - a straight shrink is exactly that

Perhaps "massive" was an overstatement, and "changes sufficient to require independent trials/certification and the cost inherent to that" would've been a more accurate descriptor.

That said, the A359ULR is in 2018 going to incorporate some changes that won't find their way into the A359/A35K until 2020 at the earliest: different materials (doors, seals, etc) for weight savings, different brakes, different inertion systems, aerodynamic tweaks accounting for 2%+ increase in efficiency, etc. A35K would first have to incorporate these changes (likely, but unannounced) before being shrunk.


It seems that the 777-8 needs "massive" changes, certification and so on, from a 777-9, are you sure Boeing will ever build it for the few frames ordered and not try to convert them all to 777-9?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12842
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:25 am

mjoelnir wrote:
are you sure Boeing will ever build it for the few frames ordered and not try to convert them all to 777-9?

Quite, as evidenced by their history of delivering high-performance variants ordered in low number, compared to a stretch.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:19 am

mjoelnir wrote:
It seems that the 777-8 needs "massive" changes, certification and so on, from a 777-9, are you sure Boeing will ever build it for the few frames ordered and not try to convert them all to 777-9?


Hey guys,
Isn't the 777-8 planned to be the basis for a possible 777-8F freighter and possibly a long term KC-10 replacement for the USAF? If that's the case, the 777-8 won't be cancelled.
In any case, I really really can't imagine Boeing doing an A350-800 on the 777X program now.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:33 am

I think the Quantas CEO is actually agreeing.He us saying 'we don't know and won't know for 2-3 years'.The answers will come with the test flights -particularly for the 77X.What he does seem to be saying is.If it/they can ,then they very likely will.There will still be plenty of one stop options for Sydney,Melbourne,Perth inc Qantas (and EK of course) via Dubai plus via Singapore ,HK etc.I am sure 'via Dallas' will also remain.
However....Not (in the long term) with 380's as the pax volume will have shrunk.
To me this does point towards Quantas going 778/779 in the long term.But we shall see.
PS looking at speeds and Great Circle routes I don't think it's 18 hours nor 22.I believe it will be circa 20ish.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4407
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:38 am

cv990Coronado wrote:
We are probably talking about five years time at least, now what would the numbers look like with $100 + Oil?
It has been between $30 and $125 during the past five years, where as $125 seems unlikely, so does the current $55.
Look what happened to the SQ and other ULH flights when oil went past $100. I know the current 787/350 have better economics than the A345/77L but these proposed missions require lots of burning fuel to carry fuel. If as some have suggested, that QF change their modus operandi how would this work with $100+ oil? I see the 779/789 and perhaps 359ULR as it could be de-rated back to a 359, but the 778 wouldn't be so useful in this scenario I think.

I think we are unlikely to see oil at $100 again in the next 10 years. Why?
1) fracking. It has become cost effective around the $50 mark and profitable at $55. There is a ton of it that has come on in the last 5 years and a whole lot ready to go just waiting on the price to steady at $55+
2) standard output of oil - supply out of places like Iraq and Iran is picking up. Also natural gas is growing massively.
3) demand - demand has been dropping for some time now as technology has changed. Cars and trucks use considerably less fuel now and hybrids/electric cars are coming along nicely. Oil fired power stations are almost all gone (gone completely or replaced by gas). Wind power has expanded massively and solar is having exponential growth - replace heating oil with electricity, EV replacing petrol/diesel etc.
So unless there is a big war or the global economy booms for a long period it just won't happen.
Yes I think we did hit peak oil but what has happened is that alternatives have been found that are plentiful and demand has reduced so no catastrophe.
64 types. 44 countries. 24 airlines.
 
CaptainKramer
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:12 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:01 am

If it wasn't for Airbus, Boeing, General Electric. Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce and the like, constantly increasing the size and range of Commercial Aircraft through technological innovations, and thus making it economically viable, that this debate over ultra long range, non stop flights is even happening.

Over the decades this constant innovation has created new markets, with new possibilities, it's always about growth in all facets of Business. Experimentation only works when you try it, it doesn't necessarily guarantee success, but when it does succeed, it gives rise to more possibilities.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9312
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:04 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
are you sure Boeing will ever build it for the few frames ordered and not try to convert them all to 777-9?

Quite, as evidenced by their history of delivering high-performance variants ordered in low number, compared to a stretch.


But it is a new management and cutting cost seems to be a priority now.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:43 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
They're either going to have to get Boeing to throw in an auxiliary tank option for the 778 (similar to what the 77L offered, but that very few chose); or they're going to have to get Airbus to crank the MTOW on the A359ULR + increase its fuel volume as well.

The latter would likely require massive changes-- including potentially going back to the original A35K-derived design, which would be a bit late considering that SQ's already gone forward with the modified-tank same-MTOW version.

The former wouldn't require much change to the 778 at all though, especially since no metal has been cut.


This, and;

LAX772LR wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
are you sure Boeing will ever build it for the few frames ordered and not try to convert them all to 777-9?

Quite, as evidenced by their history of delivering high-performance variants ordered in low number, compared to a stretch.


This is why I believe QF will eventually get the following aircraft for these types of ULH missions - a Boeing 778 with auxiliary tanks and maybe slight structural and landing gear modifications. Such would not require Boeing to invest too much so even if there weren't many ordered it would not be a loss to Boeing, especially given that the 778 is still really just a paper plane as previously mentioned. Perhaps it could just be thought of as the 777-8ER? Its story could be just like that of the 747-400ER passenger version, which only QF operate and which only 6 were ever made ;) However, I think more than 6 777-8ERs would grace the skies and even more as ERFs (freighters)...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22681
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:43 pm

astuteman wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:

You called me out before, so I'll respond on this.
The A359ULR was originally going to be a straight shrink of the A350-1000.
As you pointed out, this plane is not currently on offer.

SQ obviously felt that they can get meaningful ULR range out of the high MTOW basic version
There is nothing stopping Airbus offering the straight shrink of the A350-1000 for those that really need it, though.
With an extra 28t of MTOW to play with, it would offer serious range.
I really don't understand the "massive changes" bit - a straight shrink is exactly that
It might indeed need an ACT, as you say, but I don't see that as a big deal

Rgds


It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. I agree that offering a straight shrink of the -1000 is not as big a deal as some here are making it out to be. The real question is, how big is the potential market? I could see SQ adding the shrink to its fleet at some point: they can simply keep the HGW versions since there really isn't much of a penalty in keeping them, presuming the shrink adds enough value in their network to offset the small overhead of keeping the HGW which it should. Add to that the QF orders (which is the point of the exercise) and you still only get a handful of orders. So the question becomes, is making such a plane largely to capture QF's order worth the cost? Personally I give the A350 a lot better chances at QF than others here do. They have a large pool of A330 and A380 pilots in house and have some A380 deposits to get rid of. Maybe getting a 'proper ULH' will tip the balance towards the A350 family?

I think Boeing's decision to move forward with 778 really won't depend on getting QF's order. The size variant seems to be valued as witnessed by the fact that they already have enough orders to launch, and they will eventually be needing a new 77F so it's solid. On the A350 side, the customer base is ordering the A359 as-is in large numbers and Airbus doesn't have much presence in the freighter market so there's not as much pressure to do a super-A359, but they just might if they think it'd bring QF on board.
Last edited by Revelation on Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:52 pm

With EK leading the way with the 777X I have no doubt the 778 will be build (there are other reasons too). I doubt the aircraft will be gimped of its actual capability as airlines like EK, QR and now QF could make use of a ton of range.
 
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:02 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
With EK leading the way with the 777X I have no doubt the 778 will be build (there are other reasons too). I doubt the aircraft will be gimped of its actual capability as airlines like EK, QR and now QF could make use of a ton of range.


Add to the ME3 carriers the fact that ET and now QF will perhaps order the 777-8. It seems to me that the 778 will be more successful than its predecessor in terms of sales.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
jagraham
Posts: 983
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:07 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Zkpilot wrote:
If they payload restrict them then it's possible.

The question is: "Can a profit be derived from the remaining payload allotment after such a restriction," and the answer to that is far from certain.


Zkpilot wrote:
The thing is that a payload restricted 778 or A359 can still carry more/more efficiently . . . than a 77L so that is how it can work.

Based on what?

One hasn't even been built (much less flown, much less subjected to real-world conditions); and the other hasn't yet reached full spec... yet you're already definitively comparing them to the current most capable aircraft over range, with a fully matured airframe/engine combo?

Somehow, I'm thinking that's more conjecture on your part, than any tangible numbers or corroborated facts.


Conjecture, yes; but not quite like that. The A359 has the best engine flying in the RR Trent XWB - even GE admits that, when they say that the GE9x will be 5% better SFC than the best engine flying at EIS. If the best were the GEnX, they would mention that specifically. So with the A359, the question becomes - How much better is the A359ULR than the same weight A359 (with less fuel) for Phillippines Airlines for MNL to JFK (7400 nm, 8250 m)? Understanding that only max fuel changes. Not much conjecture there. But not much hope for 300 pax SYD to LHR nonstop, either.

As for the 778, it will have better wings than the 77L, the GE9x engine which is supposed to be 10% better SFC than the current GE90-115, same MTOW, but about 20000 lb more OEW. Designed for 360 pax, removing 60 pax should pull out about 15000 lb. So for about 5000 more lb, there should be about 17% better fuel consumption (10% SFC, 2% from less thrust, 5% from longer, improved wings); the 8555 nm of the 77L with no tanks should go to 10000 nm. IF GE delivers on the engine, and they have done the right things to do so, especially that 132 inch fan and even higher temperatures - but that still is an if. IF they can live with 105000 lb thrust. IF the wing is 5% better. IF they make 340000 lb OEW for 360 pax.

It's a lot of ifs. But they are all reasonable ifs, and if the ifs are made, the 778 with 300 seats should do 10000 nm under similar assumptions to the 77L at 8555 nm. And I hear the 77L is better than the chart - a little over 8000 nm (18 hr flying time) fully loaded as opposed to 7500 nm from the range chart.
 
Whalejet
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:31 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:10 pm

The 777-8 might be too big, no? It can seat 350-380pax. I find it hard to see those economy seats being filled, vs a stop in Beijing/Tokyo (if NYC) or Dubai (If London) which would be cheaper. Is there even a market for economy passengers in those Ultra long flights? Honestly, QF might be better off going with all business and first.
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:30 pm

Whalejet wrote:
The 777-8 might be too big, no? It can seat 350-380pax. I find it hard to see those economy seats being filled, vs a stop in Beijing/Tokyo (if NYC) or Dubai (If London) which would be cheaper. Is there even a market for economy passengers in those Ultra long flights? Honestly, QF might be better off going with all business and first.

They wouldn't fill all those premium seats taking up the whole plane. A higher premium balance is likely, but they will still need economy to succeed. Also, people living in New Zealand and Australia value direct flights higher than the rest of the world since we are so far away from everywhere else. I would far rather fly direct to my destination rather than having a 12h flight then a 7h flight. That is why EK448/9 has taken off so successfully, cutting out the stop in Australia and sometimes also Asia. My profile pic is also from 448, so I have experienced ULH.
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
Swadian
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:53 pm

sunrisevalley wrote:
If they were to use the 778 in the same configurations 260-275 seats used by CX/JAL/ANA/BA on their premium 4 class 77W's, passenger payload with bags would be ~ 35.5 t. The Leeham chart shows about 9200nm / 19hr 45min.Seems to me this fits the 778 rather well.


JAL has only 244 seats on the 77W which is extremely low.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:06 am

Swadian wrote:
sunrisevalley wrote:
If they were to use the 778 in the same configurations 260-275 seats used by CX/JAL/ANA/BA on their premium 4 class 77W's, passenger payload with bags would be ~ 35.5 t. The Leeham chart shows about 9200nm / 19hr 45min.Seems to me this fits the 778 rather well.


JAL has only 244 seats on the 77W which is extremely low.


ANA has a low of 212 on some of their -300ER's.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12842
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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:31 am

mjoelnir wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
are you sure Boeing will ever build it for the few frames ordered and not try to convert them all to 777-9?
Quite, as evidenced by their history of delivering high-performance variants ordered in low number, compared to a stretch.
But it is a new management and cutting cost seems to be a priority now.

Doesn't mean much.

From the 747SP to the 744ER to the 737-700ER to the 772LR (heck, we could even toss McDD's DC10-15 in there, for the fun of it), the company has undergone numerous management and executive structural changes, but the course of action remains the same: if an airline is willing to put up the funds for a niche high-performance variant, they'll build it.


jagraham wrote:
So with the A359, the question becomes - How much better is the A359ULR than the same weight A359 (with less fuel) for Phillippines Airlines for MNL to JFK (7400 nm, 8250 m)?

There's not much of a question there, considering that PR hasn't ordered the A359ULR. The sole customer remains SQ.
PR's order was for 278T standard A359s, informally dubbed "A359HGW" in some media.


LamboAston wrote:
They wouldn't fill all those premium seats taking up the whole plane. A higher premium balance is likely, but they will still need economy to succeed.

Based on what? SQ's previous experience pointed toward the the exact opposite conclusion.

They've yet to announce whether they're even considering giving Economy a try on those flights-- they've only indicated that the aircraft are likely to be mixed class, but that could just as easily be F/C instead of J/Y
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
jagraham
Posts: 983
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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:42 am

LAX772LR wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Quite, as evidenced by their history of delivering high-performance variants ordered in low number, compared to a stretch.
But it is a new management and cutting cost seems to be a priority now.

Doesn't mean much.

From the 747SP to the 744ER to the 737-700ER to the 772LR (heck, we could even toss McDD's DC10-15 in there, for the fun of it), the company has undergone numerous management and executive structural changes, but the course of action remains the same: if an airline is willing to put up the funds for a niche high-performance variant, they'll build it.


jagraham wrote:
So with the A359, the question becomes - How much better is the A359ULR than the same weight A359 (with less fuel) for Phillippines Airlines for MNL to JFK (7400 nm, 8250 m)?

There's not much of a question there, considering that PR hasn't ordered the A359ULR. The sole customer remains SQ.
PR's order was for 278T standard A359s, informally dubbed "A359HGW" in some media.


LamboAston wrote:
They wouldn't fill all those premium seats taking up the whole plane. A higher premium balance is likely, but they will still need economy to succeed.

Based on what? SQ's previous experience pointed toward the the exact opposite conclusion.

They've yet to announce whether they're even considering giving Economy a try on those flights-- they've only indicated that the aircraft are likely to be mixed class, but that could just as easily be F/C instead of J/Y



March 30, 2016, ©. Leeham Co: Airbus has changed the A350-900 website data to now show the 280t Max Take-Off Weight (MTOW) as the standard MTOW. This weight variant was only reserved for the A350-900ULR before, but is not available for customers buying a standard A350-900 as of 2020.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12842
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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:01 am

jagraham wrote:
March 30, 2016, ©. Leeham Co: Airbus has changed the A350-900 website data to now show the 280t Max Take-Off Weight (MTOW) as the standard MTOW. This weight variant was only reserved for the A350-900ULR before, but is not available for customers buying a standard A350-900 as of 2020.

Sure, but again, PR isn't getting 280T birds, which won't be flying until 2yrs after the A359ULR, so it's sorta moot at this point.

Due to the physical differences between the current A359s and the post-2020 standard birds, even a possible uprate won't deliver equivalent benefits.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
unityofsaints
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:26 pm

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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:29 am

reidar76 wrote:
British Airways and Qantas all ready fly direct LHR - SYD, they just have a technical stop (refueling/catering). British Airways stops at SIN with their 777s, and Qantas stops in DXB with their A380s. The stops are in the middle of the night and there is no chance to leave the aircraft.


That's incorrect, you have to leave the plane in fact as they want people out as they refuel.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18273
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:50 am

unityofsaints wrote:
That's incorrect, you have to leave the plane in fact as they want people out as they refuel.


That's not my experience on many BA flights LHR-BAH-DOH. Passengers for DOH were not allowed to disembark at BAH and were instructed to undo seatbelts while the plane was being refuelled.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:02 am

scbriml wrote:
unityofsaints wrote:
That's incorrect, you have to leave the plane in fact as they want people out as they refuel.


That's not my experience on many BA flights LHR-BAH-DOH. Passengers for DOH were not allowed to disembark at BAH and were instructed to undo seatbelts while the plane was being refuelled.

The SIN stop on LHR/SIN/SYD is usually around 2 hours and the norm is to disembark. SIN wants you off the plane and into the airport shops as much as anything, but it is a lot easier to clean the aircraft with no body on board. Of all the 1 stop or more flights I've done, can only remember twice being kept on the aircraft, once in IST and once in CGK. The CGK was because the flight was behind schedule because of excessive head winds and they were trying to make up some time to get pax to SIN asap to make connecting flights.
 
Bnetraveller
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:03 am

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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:13 am

jupiter2 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
unityofsaints wrote:
That's incorrect, you have to leave the plane in fact as they want people out as they refuel.


That's not my experience on many BA flights LHR-BAH-DOH. Passengers for DOH were not allowed to disembark at BAH and were instructed to undo seatbelts while the plane was being refuelled.

The SIN stop on LHR/SIN/SYD is usually around 2 hours and the norm is to disembark. SIN wants you off the plane and into the airport shops as much as anything, but it is a lot easier to clean the aircraft with no body on board. Of all the 1 stop or more flights I've done, can only remember twice being kept on the aircraft, once in IST and once in CGK. The CGK was because the flight was behind schedule because of excessive head winds and they were trying to make up some time to get pax to SIN asap to make connecting flights.


I agree. I've traveller through SIN a few times and the break up in flight is great. OK, now to pose a few aircraft scenarios for QF to consider and the others out there to comment. Based on the current (eg; B747-8 and A350-900/1000) and planned designed aircraft (eg: B777-8) and technology.

1. A B747-8 setup for a non stop flights with auxillary tank that could carry 350-400 pax with cargo..?
2. A B777-8 setup for non stop flights with auxiliary tank that could carry 350-400 pax with cargo with geared turbo fans (GTF)..?
3. A A350-900/1000 setup for 1 stop, standard setup 300-350, GTF engines for efficency but a higher cruzing speed of maybe 1100-1200km's per hr..?

Background to point no.3. The theory is no one likes to be a plane for a long time, so if we have the technology such as engines, materials etc that is able to cruize at around 1100-1200 km's per hour while maintaining aircraft efficiency (sounds like the holy grail). Example SYD to SIN flight distance is about 6500km. An average aircraft cruzing speed at 900km is 7-8 hrs while a 1100km shortens the trip 5-6 hrs. The flight from SIN to LHR is about 11,000km. Flight time at 1100km would be 9-10 hrs. so with stop over of two hours brings the flight time to 16-18 hours.

Pilots, aircraft engineers and the enthusiants I shall await your comments.

Thanks All.
 
waly777
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

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

Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:12 pm

Ran into these articles from leeham and per their analysis, the 778 is pretty much the only frame that should do the job (as QF wants 300 seats)....should haul 350 (2 class J/Y) pax 9300nm. The 359LR will run into limitations with 313 pax @ 8500nm or thereabout but should fly 9700nm in 189 seat J/Y+ layout.

https://leehamnews.com/2015/07/20/optio ... to-the-us/

https://leehamnews.com/2015/07/23/optio ... us-part-2/

https://leehamnews.com/2015/07/27/optio ... us-part-3/
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
tealnz
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:16 am

Leeham's Part 3 article comes up with a different conclusion: "An A350R would have the performance of Boeing’s 777-8X in terms of range and payload capability and it would beat it on fuel efficiency per aircraft and seat mile." Leeham estimate an empty weight 7t higher than a regular A359. Main difference would be smaller size than a 778: 35 fewer passengers by Leeham's estimate. If Airbus decided to offer an A359R (a big if - the 359ULR is clearly their preferred offering and it's hard to see them investing in the shrink without commitments from multiple customers) it would be highly competitive against the 778 for Joyce's ULH 300 seat requirement.
 
sierra3tango
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:59 pm

Joyce LHR SYD by non stop 2022

Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:45 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04 ... thin-five/

Seems as if they're seriously examining SYD / LHR non stop with a 20% premium from 2022

778 & 359ULR in the frame to operate

Predicated on fuel price

Would have thought, if it comes to pass, that BA would either have to follow or give up the route
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Joyce LHR SYD by non stop 2022

Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:32 am

Cant decide whether some of the claims in this article are new revelations, or just supposition/bunk. :scratchchin:

I mean, the A359ULR supposedly gained 1000nm range somehow, and we've heard barely a peep from other/official sources?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
astuteman
Posts: 7076
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Joyce LHR SYD by non stop 2022

Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:17 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Cant decide whether some of the claims in this article are new revelations, or just supposition/bunk. :scratchchin:

I mean, the A359ULR supposedly gained 1000nm range somehow, and we've heard barely a peep from other/official sources?


My suspicion is that the article mistakenly believes this to be exactly the same aircraft as the SQ A359LR, whereas I believe that a 9 700Nm A359 ULR (with the emphasis on the "U) would have to be a shrink of the 308t A350-1000, complete with triple wheel MLG. It should be good for that quoted range at least.


Rgds
 
c933103
Posts: 3955
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:37 am

Whalejet wrote:
The 777-8 might be too big, no? It can seat 350-380pax. I find it hard to see those economy seats being filled, vs a stop in Beijing/Tokyo (if NYC) or Dubai (If London) which would be cheaper. Is there even a market for economy passengers in those Ultra long flights? Honestly, QF might be better off going with all business and first.

It's about replacing 744, how would that capacity be too big? And it's also about flying into slot constrained airport
The message in signature have been removed according to demand.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9952
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:49 am

jumbojet wrote:
20 hours with a flatbed seat is doable. 20 hours in a coach seat is not something that sounds very enticing.

For that reason alone I don't see why they need 300 seats. I can't imagine that people who can only afford to fly in a cramped Y cabin, would ever opt for the non-stop option. The fare would have to be hugely discounted when compared to all the 1-stop options and that goes against all the economics of running a non-stop flight.
 
StTim
Posts: 3550
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:56 am

Having flown the Delta flight from JNB to ATL in the back of the plane I have to say it wasn't too bad. Didn't feel much different than a 14 hour flight say Singapore to LHR.
For me the short break plus another quite long flight makes the second flight very tedious very quickly.

But that is of course a personal view and will not be shared by all.
 
planespotter20
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:03 pm

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:56 am

I get bored on a 10-hour flight... imagine one twice the length. Once you get on the plane the crew would come around and hand everyone a bottle of NyQuil. By half way, everyone is handed gun and a bullet.

Maybe instead of having a large Y cabin they fill the rear with a larger opening where you can roam around, mingle, and focus on not dying.

And still have a smaller Y cabin towards the front.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9285
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:02 pm

hinckley wrote:
sassiciai wrote:
Your own post would be more valuable (well, valuable actually) if you provided your opinion on the matter! :D


So to give an opinion . . . I regularly fly long-haul J-class, US east coast to Europe mostly, and east Asia occasionally. I always get off the plane, shower at the airport, and go right to work. London, Frankfurt, Hong Kong. From a business perspective, it saves me a day on the road. From a personal perspective, as long as I have a bed on the plane, I'm totally fine.

But everyone's different. Not everyone can sleep on planes. An economy seat would be a total non-starter. Some people just go stir crazy after eight hours or so. All legitimate. And that's why a smaller aircraft is better on these type of flights.


I've done six ULH trips in Y-class on QR. They really weren't that bad at all. I had no problems showering and going straight into the office once I arrived. I got a longer, deeper sleep cycle than if I had split the journey as two 8-hour flights and eliminated the exhaustion of an airport transfer.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.

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