OldAeroGuy wrote:

You choose the route where the favorable winds make up for the ATC additional distance.

Like your thinking but it may not be that simple, would be looking for a minimum cost route, some remote routes can be expensive as less traffic is on it with the same level of ATC service.

Revelation wrote:

tealnz wrote:

This isn't going to be an order of an off-the-shelf version like the 789. All indications are it will be a modified version of the 778 or 35K. Hard to see why either Boeing or Airbus would give them a competitive price for an order of just six frames.

I think the industry views an airplane that can do LHR-SYD consistently as a holy grail.

Getting this business will have a halo effect that goes beyond the sale of six frames, IMHO.

qf789 wrote:

As has already been shown with MEL-LAX earlier this year frequency can be adjusted to match demand with a smaller more efficient aircraft. FWIW as has already been demonstrated by QF they are not too bothered about market share, they are happy to keep everything to a premium and let those who want a cheaper deal go to their competitor's.

I think a fleet of 787-8/-9/-10 + 777-8/-9 and potentially 777-10 is more flexible and more modern and a better fit for QF than A330-3/-9, A350-9/-10, A380.

tommy1808 wrote:

Being about 9 to 10% heavier during the flight with ~14% more fuel on board I am sure the 778 will carry more over a long distance, but it may not be all that much of a difference.

It's not just about weight.

The additional weight brings along with it more fuel efficient engines, a longer and more efficient wing, and ability to seat 10x in economy.

If it was just about picking the lighter plane, there would be no RFP.

If you are tankering fuel for ULL Range routes you are adding weight. The aircraft is going to need to be more robust to accommodate the extra weight which increases the cost of the passenger seat per mile and also can cause a reduction in cargo. In addition this all adds to extra cost for the purchase of the aircraft.

qf789 wrote:

Qantas does not need a 500 seat aircraft on SYD-DFW, the average load for this year has been 305 (that is from January to the end of May)

On the QF 380 - seating capacity is right around 484 right? Seems an interesting issue then on how to "fix this route" if you wanted to drop to daily twin service.. perhaps going JV with AA upon approval and doing a QF 789 and an AA 789... QF has about a 230 seat capacity.. AA about 285 on the 789. It does actually in theory stand to reason that Project Sunrise and a large long range twin with just over 300 seats would be ideal for DFW absence of the market growing beyond about 305 daily emplacements.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

If you are tankering fuel for ULL Range routes you are adding weight. The aircraft is going to need to be more robust to accommodate the extra weight which increases the cost of the passenger seat per mile and also can cause a reduction in cargo.:

Cargo doesn´t play a role. With full tanks both just lift about 30 to 35t, so passengers only anyways. There is no reason to believe that the A35KLR nor the 778 will have increased seat mile costs on missions where they don´t need all that fuel, unless they start beefing up structure for this mission only. And so far Airbus and Boeing rather seem to tweak to met the requirement, by a little more MTOW perhaps, which may or may not need strengthening. But this ain´t an A330 going from 212 to 242 or the 777 going from 299 to 351 tons, this is maybe 5 or 6 tons more MTOW that have to be lifted with full wing tanks = maximum possible bending moment relief.

The major difference between both offerings probably just is that Boeing likely had SYD-LHR in mind for the 778, at least after a round or two of product improvements, and Airbus probably didn´t think about that when designing the A35K. But even our local A35K critic, to overblow it, thinks it could do it with 322t MTOW and two 7100L tanks. Less than 10% reduction in available cargo space, and still room for 40 LD3.

best regards
Thomas

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2 ... ming-video

Seems like Airbus and Boeing have brought forth aircraft to meets the needs of QF.

tealnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

At the recent IATA conference in SYD QF/NZ publicly said they had been talking about project sunrise, there is an chance that they will both place an order for the same aircraft. NZ's order might be an little bit bigger to start off with, which may allow it get an combined deal over the line.
Take NZ's 8x 77E which all need to be replaced within the next couple of years, so say an NZ order of 8x for replacement and 2x for growth plus another 6 from QF to start that has already taken them to 16 orders for an 777X-LR product.

Interesting. For what it's worth, AKL-LHR over the pole looks to be much the same distance as the SYD-LHR polar route (assume Anchorage as a waypoint). Leeham have reported that SYD-LHR eastbound over the pole will come out at a maximum 9500nm ESAD. Leeham basically argued that using the polar route for the "westbound" SYD-LHR route meant that QF could plan for a maximum of 9500nm ESAD for the Project Sunrise fleet.

Prevailing winds would also presumably shorten effective distance for LHR-AKL eastbound - can anyone come up with a number? Would it be more than 9500nm?

Very interesting. I've always thought that if SYD-LHR westbound was doable, then AKL-LHR and LHR-AKL eastbound for both legs was also doable. And could even possibly have a shorter flight time depending on winds

Hard to believe a thread about two airframe builders having 16 months to submit bids could garner 106 posts. Wow. Wake me up sometime by the end of 2020 after Qantas mulls over the tenders for a year and is ready to decide.

I will say this... If the 778 loses this one, then it's a freighter only bird. I don't see allot of 200ER replacements/upgauging going the 778's way now that Airbus and Boeing have the 787 and A350 families.

keesje wrote:

And someone starts labelling the passengers of those flights as "not really caring about the environment".

Gonna go out on (not much of) a limb, and say that the percentage of people who ACTUALLY care about such thing, versus just giving lip-service to it, is minuscule to the point of utter inconsequence.

ODwyerPW wrote:

I will say this... If the 778 loses this one, then it's a freighter only bird.

Agree that this is an absolute must-win for the 778.

Granted, I wouldn't be surprised if SQ remains the sole A359ULR operator, as it too is such a niche aircraft-- but it's also of relatively minuscule risk to Airbus, versus an aircraft built specifically to do C-market only operators.

LAX772LR wrote:

keesje wrote:

And someone starts labelling the passengers of those flights as "not really caring about the environment".

Gonna go out on (not much of) a limb, and say that the percentage of people who ACTUALLY care about such thing, versus just giving lip-service to it, is minuscule to the point of utter inconsequence.

I'm afraid so..

LAX772LR wrote:

Agree that this is an absolute must-win for the 778.

With respect, why does it have to be a "must win"? Unless QF plans to launch ULH operations across the globe, this order is said to be for what, 8-12 frames tops? Okay, that is 15% of the current order book (and that is said to be not iron-clad with Etihad's current financials), but even at best this is going to push the 778 to around 65 frames which is barely more than the 777-200LR managed.

ODwyerPW wrote:

I will say this... If the 778 loses this one, then it's a freighter only bird. I don't see allot of 200ER replacements/upgauging going the 778's way now that Airbus and Boeing have the 787 and A350 families.

I would not be surprised if Boeing planned the 777-8 to be sold primarily as a freighter just as the 777-200LR likely was (Boeing stopped work on the design for years and did not re-start it until they had a solid freighter model worked out). So it's success or failure as a passenger model is generally immaterial as it will become the de facto 747-400 freighter family replacement once the 747-8 freighter program winds down next decade. I mean as a passenger frame, it's optimized solely for the ME3's ULH route launch structure where they start with 777-200LRs and then move to payload-limited 777-300ERs.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Buying B777-8 is just stupid. It's just a bigger B777-200LR. Not a good aircraft to invest.

Also, with all these ultra long haul flights planned in the future for Qantas, they wouldn't need massive aircraft like A380. Instead they would just use 2 A350-1000. One of them would be use for the non-stop flights to London, Paris and NYC. The other are for the Singapore/LA stopover flights.

B777-8/-9 combo wouldn't be able to gave them the freedom to do so.

Also, A350-900/ULR and A350-100/ULR combo would give them superb flexibility for most of their long-haul flights.

Haha. Someone isn’t biased at all is he. The 778 and 779 will be able to do things and routes no other plane economically do. Likewise, the 359 and 351 can also do flights that others cannot do.

You have a lot more credibility when you are fair and balanced like I’ve been. Realize that all frames have their strengths and weaknesses.

I wouldn't said biased. Just a bit more realistic. Of course Qantas love B779, it have high fuel efficiency, great range, and capacity closest to replace both B744 and A380. But I don't think they like the -8 that much. And Boeing still have to improved the -8 capability to meet project sunrise demand. Which is still in drawing board. Meanwhile, Airbus is all in with SQ and their A359ULR. It wouldn't be hard for them to invest in A351ULR at this point. B778 on the other hand, just gonna ended up like B772LR, few operated it, and most are gone. Just like A345. At this point, B778 looks more and more like A338neo don't you think? Especially with Etihad on the red.

B778 and B779 wouldn't give them the freedom to operate to cities like Rio or Capetown. The smaller the capacity is, the more flexible it became. Dare I say, B789 and A359 would be the backbone for Qantas operations in the future.

Also, we need to look at the trend these days, many Airlines go for lower risk investment with smaller wide-body. Not saying there isn't a demand for it, just realistically speaking, with Qantas operating more and more direct Ultra long-haul flights to LHR, JFK, CDG, they might not need A380 and B779's capacity after all. As long as the slots are available, smaller plane it is.

And yes, I fancy Airbus more, but that doesn't prevented me from actually saying that B777-9X is the perfect replacement for A380. The question is, do they need it in the future, I would said probably not.
But of course, to said that Emirates should choose A351 instead of B779 is ridiculous even though I like A351 better.

tommy1808 wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

If you are tankering fuel for ULL Range routes you are adding weight. The aircraft is going to need to be more robust to accommodate the extra weight which increases the cost of the passenger seat per mile and also can cause a reduction in cargo.:

Cargo doesn´t play a role. With full tanks both just lift about 30 to 35t, so passengers only anyways. There is no reason to believe that the A35KLR nor the 778 will have increased seat mile costs on missions where they don´t need all that fuel, unless they start beefing up structure for this mission only. And so far Airbus and Boeing rather seem to tweak to met the requirement, by a little more MTOW perhaps, which may or may not need strengthening. But this ain´t an A330 going from 212 to 242 or the 777 going from 299 to 351 tons, this is maybe 5 or 6 tons more MTOW that have to be lifted with full wing tanks = maximum possible bending moment relief.

The major difference between both offerings probably just is that Boeing likely had SYD-LHR in mind for the 778, at least after a round or two of product improvements, and Airbus probably didn´t think about that when designing the A35K. But even our local A35K critic, to overblow it, thinks it could do it with 322t MTOW and two 7100L tanks. Less than 10% reduction in available cargo space, and still room for 40 LD3.

best regards
Thomas

When Joyce said he want 300 pax and full load, I don't think he meant revenue cargo as well. It's just all the pax, crew, their luggage, and maybe 10 pounds of feathers, but not revenue cargo. So those 44 LD3 would be useless, hence there's a talk from Airbus to convert the LD3 into sleeping modules.

And I don't think they carry any revenue cargo for B789 to London as well.

ewt340 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

If you are tankering fuel for ULL Range routes you are adding weight. The aircraft is going to need to be more robust to accommodate the extra weight which increases the cost of the passenger seat per mile and also can cause a reduction in cargo.:

Cargo doesn´t play a role. With full tanks both just lift about 30 to 35t, so passengers only anyways. There is no reason to believe that the A35KLR nor the 778 will have increased seat mile costs on missions where they don´t need all that fuel, unless they start beefing up structure for this mission only. And so far Airbus and Boeing rather seem to tweak to met the requirement, by a little more MTOW perhaps, which may or may not need strengthening. But this ain´t an A330 going from 212 to 242 or the 777 going from 299 to 351 tons, this is maybe 5 or 6 tons more MTOW that have to be lifted with full wing tanks = maximum possible bending moment relief.

The major difference between both offerings probably just is that Boeing likely had SYD-LHR in mind for the 778, at least after a round or two of product improvements, and Airbus probably didn´t think about that when designing the A35K. But even our local A35K critic, to overblow it, thinks it could do it with 322t MTOW and two 7100L tanks. Less than 10% reduction in available cargo space, and still room for 40 LD3.

best regards
Thomas

When Joyce said he want 300 pax and full load, I don't think he meant revenue cargo as well. It's just all the pax, crew, their luggage, and maybe 10 pounds of feathers, but not revenue cargo. So those 44 LD3 would be useless, hence there's a talk from Airbus to convert the LD3 into sleeping modules.

And I don't think they carry any revenue cargo for B789 to London as well.

Cargo is not on the cards for the non stop. It certainly wasn’t for the Perth flight in the initial planning HOWEVER the route is performing above models and they do now uplift a bit of cargo from Perth as well now. It’s certainly not a full belly by any means but they do carry a few containers.

aerohottie wrote:

tealnz wrote:

zkncj wrote:

At the recent IATA conference in SYD QF/NZ publicly said they had been talking about project sunrise, there is an chance that they will both place an order for the same aircraft. NZ's order might be an little bit bigger to start off with, which may allow it get an combined deal over the line.
Take NZ's 8x 77E which all need to be replaced within the next couple of years, so say an NZ order of 8x for replacement and 2x for growth plus another 6 from QF to start that has already taken them to 16 orders for an 777X-LR product.

Interesting. For what it's worth, AKL-LHR over the pole looks to be much the same distance as the SYD-LHR polar route (assume Anchorage as a waypoint). Leeham have reported that SYD-LHR eastbound over the pole will come out at a maximum 9500nm ESAD. Leeham basically argued that using the polar route for the "westbound" SYD-LHR route meant that QF could plan for a maximum of 9500nm ESAD for the Project Sunrise fleet.

Prevailing winds would also presumably shorten effective distance for LHR-AKL eastbound - can anyone come up with a number? Would it be more than 9500nm?

Very interesting. I've always thought that if SYD-LHR westbound was doable, then AKL-LHR and LHR-AKL eastbound for both legs was also doable. And could even possibly have a shorter flight time depending on winds

Ummm no.

If SYD-LHR eastbound over the pole is do-able (this is now a well-sourced assumption) then AKL-LHR should be too - it's a similar route. So you're referring to LHR-AKL?

If they want to replace the A380 with the -9X, then that is quite disappointing.

FlightLevel360 wrote:

If they want to replace the A380 with the -9X, then that is quite disappointing.

The a380 won't we leaving the fleet for at least another 8-10 years as they are currently in the process of substantially refurbishing the aircraft (Which they won't do if they were to be replaced in a couple of years).

I think they will probably go fo the A350 as most of the press reports are about thing like the lower deck modules, which is something only airbus are offering now and also using for shorter flights to hkg and hnd which would probably be better economically for the lighter a350.

What would they do with QF1/QF2 though, I'm really curious. with PER-LHR already running, and SYD/MEL-LHR on the table. Would they still operate the stopover in SIN?

Also, wouldn't A380 became useless after a while?

Stitch wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Agree that this is an absolute must-win for the 778.

With respect, why does it have to be a "must win"?

I'd stated that primarily with market confidence in the platform, in mind.

ewt340 wrote:

But I don't think they like the -8 that much.

...despite the lack of any official corroboration for that speculation.

ewt340 wrote:

And Boeing still have to improved the -8 capability to meet project sunrise demand.

You say that as if it's somehow Boeing's, and not Airbus', original offer that's been publicly rejected by QF-- when in reality, the inverse is true.

ewt340 wrote:

Which is still in drawing board.

Which gives them quite a bit of flexibility in adjustments......

ewt340 wrote:

Meanwhile, Airbus is all in with SQ and their A359ULR.

You mean, the only airline on the planet who's opted for that variant?

ewt340 wrote:

B778 on the other hand, just gonna ended up like B772LR

Since you're playing psychic, might I inquire as to the next Breeder's Cup winner?

ewt340 wrote:

few operated it, and most are gone.

Which is, of course, an utter falsehood.

The only 77L-operating airline to completely divest of that variant is EY.
DL, EK, QR, AC, AI, PK, ET, etc still operate them in their fleet.

ewt340 wrote:

Just like A345.

Where do you get this stuff?

ewt340 wrote:

B778 and B779 wouldn't give them the freedom to operate to cities like Rio or Capetown.

That's not a fact, that's just pure conjecture on your part.

ewt340 wrote:

What would they do with QF1/QF2 though, I'm really curious. with PER-LHR already running, and SYD/MEL-LHR on the table. Would they still operate the stopover in SIN?

Also, wouldn't A380 became useless after a while?

It’s unlilely the one stop would continue to operate if the non stop becomes available. It takes 3 aircraft to operate the one stop and two aircraft to operate the non stop.

The A380s days are numbered at qantas. They will be in the fleet for another decade (they are about to refit them) and they will fly LAX, SIN, HKG and maybe JNB and SCL when the jumbos go. The A380s are not loved by QF and they have publicly said it is cheaper to operate two 787s than one A380.

The only reason I can see to keep the one stop via Singapore is it useful for the finance crowd - a few days in London and then stop in Singapore on the way home.

LAX772LR wrote:

Stitch wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Agree that this is an absolute must-win for the 778.

With respect, why does it have to be a "must win"?

I'd stated that primarily with market confidence in the platform, in mind.

ewt340 wrote:

But I don't think they like the -8 that much.

...despite the lack of any official corroboration for that speculation.

ewt340 wrote:

And Boeing still have to improved the -8 capability to meet project sunrise demand.

You say that as if it's somehow Boeing's, and not Airbus', original offer that's been publicly rejected by QF-- when in reality, the inverse is true.

ewt340 wrote:

Which is still in drawing board.

Which gives them quite a bit of flexibility in adjustments......

ewt340 wrote:

Meanwhile, Airbus is all in with SQ and their A359ULR.

You mean, the only airline on the planet who's opted for that variant?

ewt340 wrote:

B778 on the other hand, just gonna ended up like B772LR

Since you're playing psychic, might I inquire as to the next Breeder's Cup winner?

ewt340 wrote:

few operated it, and most are gone.

Which is, of course, an utter falsehood.

The only 77L-operating airline to completely divest of that variant is EY.
DL, EK, QR, AC, AI, PK, ET, etc still operate them in their fleet.

ewt340 wrote:

Just like A345.

Where do you get this stuff?

ewt340 wrote:

B778 and B779 wouldn't give them the freedom to operate to cities like Rio or Capetown.

That's not a fact, that's just pure conjecture on your part.

Well the fact that Qantas doesn't have any B778 on orders kind of speak for itself, don't you think?

According to Boeing's own info the current range for B778 is 8,700 nautical miles. SYD-LHR distance is 9186 nautical miles, SYD-JFK is 8642 nautical miles. And of course, this is only a distance for the most direct routes. Taking weather, payload, the amount of fuel needed for diversions into considerations, we can all see that the standard B778 doesn't have enough range for it.
Of course Boeing is in talk as well in Qantas to improved B778 capability to meet Project Sunrise demand, but until now, it's still in the drawing board.

And of course Qantas has rejected both Airbus offer of A359ULR, that's why Airbus come up with A351ULR in the first place. But I don't see how any of this make any differences. If Qantas said no to the first proposal, doesn't mean they gonna rejected further proposal as well. Seems like you're making a wrong assumptions regarding my previous comment.

When I said flexibility, I'm referring to passengers capacity and commonality with the smaller model of A359. As I mentioned in previous comment, A359 and A351 combo would give them flexibility on operating routes to more cities because of the smaller capacity. While A351 have similar capacity to B778. A359 capacity is closer to B772ER. In order to operate B778 and B779, they have to make sure there is enough demand for it without sacrificing any frequency.

And did you know Airbus made it possible to convert the ULR version to the standard version for A350? This is another flexibility that Qantas could anticipate if the Ultra long haul flights fail. They could convert A359ULR back to the standard version. We presume, something similar would happen to the A351ULR as well.

And yes, Singapore airlines is the only one who operated A359ULR, doesn't mean that Qantas won't, I just don't understand why you think this would reduce the probability, especially since nobody order or operate the modified B778 yet.

I can't tell who's goona be the next Taylor Swift. But I could tell you who is the current Azealia Banks: A319neo, B737MAX7, A330-800neo and B777-8X.
All subject to change of course.

My bad, I mean A345, not B772LR. Most are gone. Only few actually operated it.

Well of course it was, but I don't think they could sustain Rio and Capetown with B778 don't you think. In fact, I would dare to say they would prefer B789 capacity instead of A359 or A351. Otherwise they have to sacrifice frequency or offer discounted ticket to fill up the demand.

ewt340 wrote:

Well of course it was, but I don't think they could sustain Rio and Capetown with B778 don't you think. In fact, I would dare to say they would prefer B789 capacity instead of A359 or A351. Otherwise they have to sacrifice frequency or offer discounted ticket to fill up the demand.

SYD-CPT is only 6000nm (less than SYD-LAX which is 6500nm) while SYD-GIG is 500nm shorter than PER-LHR. I imagine both could easily be achieved with a 789 if they were serious about exploring those routes and not just putting dots on maps.

qf002 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Well of course it was, but I don't think they could sustain Rio and Capetown with B778 don't you think. In fact, I would dare to say they would prefer B789 capacity instead of A359 or A351. Otherwise they have to sacrifice frequency or offer discounted ticket to fill up the demand.

SYD-CPT is only 6000nm (less than SYD-LAX which is 6500nm) while SYD-GIG is 500nm shorter than PER-LHR. I imagine both could easily be achieved with a 789 if they were serious about exploring those routes and not just putting dots on maps.

The 330 minute ETOPS for B787 is not large enough for direct routes between SYD and CPT. It just slightly out of reach, I think they could do it with A350's 370 minute ETOPS, but I'm not sure, since they don't have the options for that simulation yet on this website.

Same for the SYD-GIG routes, it's just lightly out of reach for the 330 minute ETOPS.

Here are some map for it:

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=SYD- ... &ETOPS=330
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=SYD- ... &ETOPS=330

And personally speaking, if B787 could get higher ETOPS certifications and approval, it would be better for Rio and Cape Town to use smaller B789 compared to the bigger A359.
I might say B788 would be better in terms of size for better frequency and lower risk, but the economic of B788 wouldn't be as good as B789.

ewt340 wrote:

The 330 minute ETOPS for B787 is not large enough for direct routes between SYD and CPT. It just slightly out of reach, I think they could do it with A350's 370 minute ETOPS, but I'm not sure, since they don't have the options for that simulation yet on this website.

Same for the SYD-GIG routes, it's just lightly out of reach for the 330 minute ETOPS.

In both cases it’s only a very minor detour to stay within 330 minutes (and north of the 60-degree south line which apparently causes regulatory issues) -

SYD-CPT

SYD-GIG

keesje wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

keesje wrote:

And someone starts labelling the passengers of those flights as "not really caring about the environment".

Gonna go out on (not much of) a limb, and say that the percentage of people who ACTUALLY care about such thing, versus just giving lip-service to it, is minuscule to the point of utter inconsequence.

I'm afraid so..

Holding a one-stop SYD-DXB-LHR itinerary as ecologically superior to a non-stop is like ordering a super-sized fast food meal with a Diet Coke.

For cargo, would QF need to carry much cargo from SYD to JFK? Such could be placed on Atlas Air planes flying via China and Alaska (which use QF callsigns).

aemoreira1981 wrote:

For cargo, would QF need to carry much cargo from SYD to JFK? Such could be placed on Atlas Air planes flying via China and Alaska (which use QF callsigns).

What freight is of such urgency that it needs to go non-stop? There are many one-stop options on pax aircraft every day, plus of course the freight specialists.

ewt340 wrote:

Well the fact that Qantas doesn't have any B778 on orders kind of speak for itself, don't you think?

I would ask those last three words of you: considering that you CONSTANTLY make conclusory statements, based on information that you don't have, in regard to an RFP that doesn't even conclude until next year.

So to answer your question:
No. No thinking person would take currently-unplaced orders in an ongoing proposal regarding an aircraft still in development, as "speaking for" anything.

Can pretty much stop right there, as the rest of your assumptions are inconsequential in light of the above.

ewt340 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Stitch wrote:

With respect, why does it have to be a "must win"?

I'd stated that primarily with market confidence in the platform, in mind.

ewt340 wrote:

But I don't think they like the -8 that much.

...despite the lack of any official corroboration for that speculation.

ewt340 wrote:

And Boeing still have to improved the -8 capability to meet project sunrise demand.

You say that as if it's somehow Boeing's, and not Airbus', original offer that's been publicly rejected by QF-- when in reality, the inverse is true.

ewt340 wrote:

Which is still in drawing board.

Which gives them quite a bit of flexibility in adjustments......

ewt340 wrote:

Meanwhile, Airbus is all in with SQ and their A359ULR.

You mean, the only airline on the planet who's opted for that variant?

ewt340 wrote:

B778 on the other hand, just gonna ended up like B772LR

Since you're playing psychic, might I inquire as to the next Breeder's Cup winner?

ewt340 wrote:

few operated it, and most are gone.

Which is, of course, an utter falsehood.

The only 77L-operating airline to completely divest of that variant is EY.
DL, EK, QR, AC, AI, PK, ET, etc still operate them in their fleet.

ewt340 wrote:

Just like A345.

Where do you get this stuff?

ewt340 wrote:

B778 and B779 wouldn't give them the freedom to operate to cities like Rio or Capetown.

That's not a fact, that's just pure conjecture on your part.

Well the fact that Qantas doesn't have any B778 on orders kind of speak for itself, don't you think?

According to Boeing's own info the current range for B778 is 8,700 nautical miles. SYD-LHR distance is 9186 nautical miles, SYD-JFK is 8642 nautical miles. And of course, this is only a distance for the most direct routes. Taking weather, payload, the amount of fuel needed for diversions into considerations, we can all see that the standard B778 doesn't have enough range for it.
Of course Boeing is in talk as well in Qantas to improved B778 capability to meet Project Sunrise demand, but until now, it's still in the drawing board.

And of course Qantas has rejected both Airbus offer of A359ULR, that's why Airbus come up with A351ULR in the first place. But I don't see how any of this make any differences. If Qantas said no to the first proposal, doesn't mean they gonna rejected further proposal as well. Seems like you're making a wrong assumptions regarding my previous comment.

When I said flexibility, I'm referring to passengers capacity and commonality with the smaller model of A359. As I mentioned in previous comment, A359 and A351 combo would give them flexibility on operating routes to more cities because of the smaller capacity. While A351 have similar capacity to B778. A359 capacity is closer to B772ER. In order to operate B778 and B779, they have to make sure there is enough demand for it without sacrificing any frequency.

And did you know Airbus made it possible to convert the ULR version to the standard version for A350? This is another flexibility that Qantas could anticipate if the Ultra long haul flights fail. They could convert A359ULR back to the standard version. We presume, something similar would happen to the A351ULR as well.

And yes, Singapore airlines is the only one who operated A359ULR, doesn't mean that Qantas won't, I just don't understand why you think this would reduce the probability, especially since nobody order or operate the modified B778 yet.

I can't tell who's goona be the next Taylor Swift. But I could tell you who is the current Azealia Banks: A319neo, B737MAX7, A330-800neo and B777-8X.
All subject to change of course.

My bad, I mean A345, not B772LR. Most are gone. Only few actually operated it.

Well of course it was, but I don't think they could sustain Rio and Capetown with B778 don't you think. In fact, I would dare to say they would prefer B789 capacity instead of A359 or A351. Otherwise they have to sacrifice frequency or offer discounted ticket to fill up the demand.

Why would QF have orders for the 777-8 when the RFP for an AC with that capability is literally what this thread is about???

The 8700nm is with 365 pax, a number QF is unlikely to use. I will add that QF 789 currently flies a longer distance than is quoted by Boeing as the range of the 789. The plane has not flown yet, it could come off better or worse. The payload/range chart gives a better idea of what an aircraft can do and that's not out yet, though ferpe has modelled quite a good one on leeham.

Both 777-8/9 & 350-900/1000 have their advantages and disadvantages, QF will choose what's best for them despite some of your startling assertions.

DfwRevolution wrote:

keesje wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Gonna go out on (not much of) a limb, and say that the percentage of people who ACTUALLY care about such thing, versus just giving lip-service to it, is minuscule to the point of utter inconsequence.

I'm afraid so..

Holding a one-stop SYD-DXB-LHR itinerary as ecologically superior to a non-stop is like ordering a super-sized fast food meal with a Diet Coke.

It's true that as a headline an 8000nm sector other things being equal uses about 15% more fuel than two 4000nm sectors. However the question is much more complex.

1. An 8000nm flight will use the most direct route. A plane stopping mid way will not, it has to deviate from the most efficient route to wherever the refuelling airport is, flying more miles than is necessary. That is before holding patterns are taken into account, which are routinely 40min-1hour at mid points on the Kangaroo route (e.g. Singapore).

2. The 15% difference is based on two even 4000nm sectors. For example SYD-SIN-LHR is not two even sectors, SIN-LHR is approximately 150% of SIN-SYD, so the difference is not 15%, but less because SIN-LHR is already a relatively long sector.

Add those two together and the fuel difference shrinks quite a lot.

That's how airlines like Qatar, Delta and Qantas already make ULH work profitably day in day out.

I know people love to quote SQ's old New York service, but lets get real, how were they ever going to find enough people to fill a premium only widebody between Singapore and New York each day? That was just SQ's legendary arrogance getting the better of them.

waly777 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

I'd stated that primarily with market confidence in the platform, in mind.



...despite the lack of any official corroboration for that speculation.



You say that as if it's somehow Boeing's, and not Airbus', original offer that's been publicly rejected by QF-- when in reality, the inverse is true.



Which gives them quite a bit of flexibility in adjustments......



You mean, the only airline on the planet who's opted for that variant?



Since you're playing psychic, might I inquire as to the next Breeder's Cup winner?



Which is, of course, an utter falsehood.

The only 77L-operating airline to completely divest of that variant is EY.
DL, EK, QR, AC, AI, PK, ET, etc still operate them in their fleet.



Where do you get this stuff?



That's not a fact, that's just pure conjecture on your part.

Well the fact that Qantas doesn't have any B778 on orders kind of speak for itself, don't you think?

According to Boeing's own info the current range for B778 is 8,700 nautical miles. SYD-LHR distance is 9186 nautical miles, SYD-JFK is 8642 nautical miles. And of course, this is only a distance for the most direct routes. Taking weather, payload, the amount of fuel needed for diversions into considerations, we can all see that the standard B778 doesn't have enough range for it.
Of course Boeing is in talk as well in Qantas to improved B778 capability to meet Project Sunrise demand, but until now, it's still in the drawing board.

And of course Qantas has rejected both Airbus offer of A359ULR, that's why Airbus come up with A351ULR in the first place. But I don't see how any of this make any differences. If Qantas said no to the first proposal, doesn't mean they gonna rejected further proposal as well. Seems like you're making a wrong assumptions regarding my previous comment.

When I said flexibility, I'm referring to passengers capacity and commonality with the smaller model of A359. As I mentioned in previous comment, A359 and A351 combo would give them flexibility on operating routes to more cities because of the smaller capacity. While A351 have similar capacity to B778. A359 capacity is closer to B772ER. In order to operate B778 and B779, they have to make sure there is enough demand for it without sacrificing any frequency.

And did you know Airbus made it possible to convert the ULR version to the standard version for A350? This is another flexibility that Qantas could anticipate if the Ultra long haul flights fail. They could convert A359ULR back to the standard version. We presume, something similar would happen to the A351ULR as well.

And yes, Singapore airlines is the only one who operated A359ULR, doesn't mean that Qantas won't, I just don't understand why you think this would reduce the probability, especially since nobody order or operate the modified B778 yet.

I can't tell who's goona be the next Taylor Swift. But I could tell you who is the current Azealia Banks: A319neo, B737MAX7, A330-800neo and B777-8X.
All subject to change of course.

My bad, I mean A345, not B772LR. Most are gone. Only few actually operated it.

Well of course it was, but I don't think they could sustain Rio and Capetown with B778 don't you think. In fact, I would dare to say they would prefer B789 capacity instead of A359 or A351. Otherwise they have to sacrifice frequency or offer discounted ticket to fill up the demand.

Why would QF have orders for the 777-8 when the RFP for an AC with that capability is literally what this thread is about???

The 8700nm is with 365 pax, a number QF is unlikely to use. I will add that QF 789 currently flies a longer distance than is quoted by Boeing as the range of the 789. The plane has not flown yet, it could come off better or worse. The payload/range chart gives a better idea of what an aircraft can do and that's not out yet, though ferpe has modelled quite a good one on leeham.

Both 777-8/9 & 350-900/1000 have their advantages and disadvantages, QF will choose what's best for them despite some of your startling assertions.

Isn't that my main point? Currently these 2 aircraft aren't good enough for Qantas, I don't understand why people got soo pissed when I stated some opinions on it. I also don't understand how anybody here could think that their opinions or views would change Joyce's and the shareholders view on these aircraft.

As you can already know, Joyce stated that he want 300-seater aircraft that could fly fully loaded to these cities. And yes, the PER-LHR flight is around 340 km more than B787-9 MTOW, but it's also a premium heavy configurations, which obviously be use on the new aircraft they purchase for these routes as well.

LAX772LR wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Well the fact that Qantas doesn't have any B778 on orders kind of speak for itself, don't you think?

I would ask those last three words of you: considering that you CONSTANTLY make conclusory statements, based on information that you don't have, in regard to an RFP that doesn't even conclude until next year.

So to answer your question:
No. No thinking person would take currently-unplaced orders in an ongoing proposal regarding an aircraft still in development, as "speaking for" anything.

Can pretty much stop right there, as the rest of your assumptions are inconsequential in light of the above.

I never make any claim that my views or opinion would be used to determine the orders. But it seems like you think that everybody here have some kind of mind power that could influence Alan Joyce or the shareholders.

If you want to make any conclusions or assumptions based on the limited data that both Airbus, Boeing and Qantas provide to this day, I wouldn't told you to be quiet. After all, it's called discussions. Try to keep open mind regarding this kind of discussion.

qf002 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

The 330 minute ETOPS for B787 is not large enough for direct routes between SYD and CPT. It just slightly out of reach, I think they could do it with A350's 370 minute ETOPS, but I'm not sure, since they don't have the options for that simulation yet on this website.

Same for the SYD-GIG routes, it's just lightly out of reach for the 330 minute ETOPS.

In both cases it’s only a very minor detour to stay within 330 minutes (and north of the 60-degree south line which apparently causes regulatory issues) -

SYD-CPT

SYD-GIG

I mean they could try, but this map only shows the most direct flight path without taking the weather or the payload into the consideration. The flight to GIG though, even at the most direct path, it's already reach 13535 km, with B789 range at 14,140km, it doesn't give them much room to wiggle. The main difference between the PER-LHR flight is that there is tons of airport for diversion along the flight paths. The one to GIG have way less diversion airport for them. So this one is the more problematic one for them.

The CPT flight path could be more viable, but it probably comes down to the diversion airport as well. Looking at the CPT flight path, it barely avoid the ETOPS restricted area. But this one seems more doable.

OPs starting post reports that QF is satisfied that either the Boeing or Airbus proposals they now have can do SYD - LHR both ways.

ewt340 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Well the fact that Qantas doesn't have any B778 on orders kind of speak for itself, don't you think?

According to Boeing's own info the current range for B778 is 8,700 nautical miles. SYD-LHR distance is 9186 nautical miles, SYD-JFK is 8642 nautical miles. And of course, this is only a distance for the most direct routes. Taking weather, payload, the amount of fuel needed for diversions into considerations, we can all see that the standard B778 doesn't have enough range for it.
Of course Boeing is in talk as well in Qantas to improved B778 capability to meet Project Sunrise demand, but until now, it's still in the drawing board.

And of course Qantas has rejected both Airbus offer of A359ULR, that's why Airbus come up with A351ULR in the first place. But I don't see how any of this make any differences. If Qantas said no to the first proposal, doesn't mean they gonna rejected further proposal as well. Seems like you're making a wrong assumptions regarding my previous comment.

When I said flexibility, I'm referring to passengers capacity and commonality with the smaller model of A359. As I mentioned in previous comment, A359 and A351 combo would give them flexibility on operating routes to more cities because of the smaller capacity. While A351 have similar capacity to B778. A359 capacity is closer to B772ER. In order to operate B778 and B779, they have to make sure there is enough demand for it without sacrificing any frequency.

And did you know Airbus made it possible to convert the ULR version to the standard version for A350? This is another flexibility that Qantas could anticipate if the Ultra long haul flights fail. They could convert A359ULR back to the standard version. We presume, something similar would happen to the A351ULR as well.

And yes, Singapore airlines is the only one who operated A359ULR, doesn't mean that Qantas won't, I just don't understand why you think this would reduce the probability, especially since nobody order or operate the modified B778 yet.

I can't tell who's goona be the next Taylor Swift. But I could tell you who is the current Azealia Banks: A319neo, B737MAX7, A330-800neo and B777-8X.
All subject to change of course.

My bad, I mean A345, not B772LR. Most are gone. Only few actually operated it.

Well of course it was, but I don't think they could sustain Rio and Capetown with B778 don't you think. In fact, I would dare to say they would prefer B789 capacity instead of A359 or A351. Otherwise they have to sacrifice frequency or offer discounted ticket to fill up the demand.

Why would QF have orders for the 777-8 when the RFP for an AC with that capability is literally what this thread is about???

The 8700nm is with 365 pax, a number QF is unlikely to use. I will add that QF 789 currently flies a longer distance than is quoted by Boeing as the range of the 789. The plane has not flown yet, it could come off better or worse. The payload/range chart gives a better idea of what an aircraft can do and that's not out yet, though ferpe has modelled quite a good one on leeham.

Both 777-8/9 & 350-900/1000 have their advantages and disadvantages, QF will choose what's best for them despite some of your startling assertions.

Isn't that my main point? Currently these 2 aircraft aren't good enough for Qantas, I don't understand why people got soo pissed when I stated some opinions on it. I also don't understand how anybody here could think that their opinions or views would change Joyce's and the shareholders view on these aircraft.

As you can already know, Joyce stated that he want 300-seater aircraft that could fly fully loaded to these cities. And yes, the PER-LHR flight is around 340 km more than B787-9 MTOW, but it's also a premium heavy configurations, which obviously be use on the new aircraft they purchase for these routes as well.

You should read the first post. QF literally says they are now satisfied with the AC both Airbus and Boeing have offered and will conclude their decision by next year. We do not have details of any modifications yet, these are presumptions from your end with not much to back it up.

I am definitely not pissed, just amazed at some of your assertions which are frankly sometimes a little off track from reality.

ewt340 wrote:

I can't tell who's goona be the next Taylor Swift. But I could tell you who is the current Azealia Banks: A319neo, B737MAX7, A330-800neo and B777-8X.
All subject to change of course.

Great analogy

ewt340 wrote:

I don't understand why people got soo pissed when I stated some opinions on it. I also don't understand how anybody here could think that their opinions or views would change Joyce's and the shareholders view on these aircraft.

Except that that's not at all what you did.
You didn't "state some opinions," you wrote blatant assumptions as if they were fact.

Review Reply#120 if you need a refresher.

LAX772LR wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

I don't understand why people got soo pissed when I stated some opinions on it. I also don't understand how anybody here could think that their opinions or views would change Joyce's and the shareholders view on these aircraft.

Except that that's not at all what you did.
You didn't "state some opinions," you wrote blatant assumptions as if they were fact.

Review Reply#120 if you need a refresher.

Hmmm, I guess I could also pointed out that you make an opinion in your previous comment: "Agree that this is an absolute must-win for the 778."

Well, that's an opinion based on your observations with the limited data you have regarding both aircraft. You don't see me getting pissed for it huh?

Revelation wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

The second part (777X better replacement for the A380) was said by an “analyst”, not by CEO Joyce, correct me if I am wrong.

LOL, I knew the mere mention of A380 being replaced would trigger a lot of people!

I think Boeing has to be the favorite with the 777-8. It will be interesting to learn what the "tweaks" are.

LOL. It appears you were the one who was triggered. N14AZ is correct.

"Qantas promises 20-hour direct flights from London to Sydney by 2022"

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/qantas- ... 04714.html

We now timeframe/year for the from Qantas...

Coincidence? That is the year the 778 will debut....

mffoda wrote:

"Qantas promises 20-hour direct flights from London to Sydney by 2022"

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/qantas- ... 04714.html

We now timeframe/year for the from Qantas...

Coincidence? That is the year the 778 will debut....

We don’t know what year A350-1000ULR will enter service, it could be in that year too!

I do still believe the 778 would still win it, but Airbus could still make the -1000ULR deal more desirable by cancelling the A380 order and combining it with more A359s.

It’s a matter of who offers the better deal overall.

Eyad89 wrote:

I do still believe the 778 would still win it, but Airbus could still make the -1000ULR deal more desirable by cancelling the A380 order and combining it with more A359s.

It’s a matter of who offers the better deal overall.

If Airbus is holding deposits then they are the favorite regardless of the frame they have to offer, the additional funds can well make up for the lower capacity.
Money talks, either use the deposits for something else or loose them presumably with a penalty.
AA paid a penalty to erase its A350 order, are there any other carriers willing to do the same?

I'd love to see the A350 in QF colors. And I would think GRU would be an option before they'd consider GIG.

Eyad89 wrote:

We don’t know what year A350-1000ULR will enter service, it could be in that year too!

Airbus launched the A350-900ULR in 2015 with Singapore Airlines and we are about to see the first one go into service 3 years on.

Suppose Airbus launches the A350-1000ULR in 2019 with Qantas, 2022 might be a reasonable target EIS date for such a plane too.

waly777 wrote:

The 8700nm is with 365 pax, a number QF is unlikely to use. I will add that QF 789 currently flies a longer distance than is quoted by Boeing as the range of the 789. The plane has not flown yet, it could come off better or worse. The payload/range chart gives a better idea of what an aircraft can do and that's not out yet, though ferpe has modelled quite a good one on leeham.

Both 777-8/9 & 350-900/1000 have their advantages and disadvantages, QF will choose what's best for them despite some of your startling assertions.

Either way, it's the A350-1000 vs Boeing 777-8X for Project Sunrise.

With regards to the range, virtually every Boeing aircraft ends up having more range than Boeing predict before first flight. I can't think of one where they've missed the promise - it has always been exceeded. Therefore, I fully expect that trend will continue.

My fingers are crossed for Airbus winning this one. A350-1000ULR will be stunning, capable and efficient machine!

gatibosgru wrote:

I'd love to see the A350 in QF colors. And I would think GRU would be an option before they'd consider GIG.

I’d love to see QF in 777 colors of any flavor with those massive engines. Hoping for a 778 order on this.

Greetings Folks,
I have a question regarding QF's ."alleged deposits" on the balance of the 380 order, does anyone know that they exist?
Regards ,325 I.

325i wrote:

I have a question regarding QF's ."alleged deposits" on the balance of the 380 order, does anyone know that they exist?

People in the know are probably not posting here. The QF Group have purchased a significant number of A320 airframes so it is possible those monies have been applied to those orders. Those deposits could also have been refunded due to the delays in delivery (QF received over $300 million back from Boeing for the lateness of their 787s under their original contract, even though they ended up cancelling that contract and never taking delivery under those terms). Qantas was also a launch customer for the frame and there is that claim (by Bloomberg?) that Airbus accepted a ridiculously low deposit on those sales contracts which, if true, could mean the amount is so small QF doesn't care.