Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 30
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27300
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:48 pm

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

zkojq wrote:
Because Boeing designed and optimised the 777X for ULH operations. That is the aircraft's 'bread and butter' if you will.


That is true for the 777-8, but I would not say it is true for the 777-9, which has a design range of around 100nm more than the 777-300ER and about 900nm less than the A350-1000.

zkojq wrote:
Well, playing to everyone's strengths, ideally you'd have the 787-9 serving SYD/MEL/BNE to Asia and the A350-900 doing PER-LHR and SYD/MEL/BNE-LAX/SFO/YVR/DFW/ORD/SCL/JNB and then the A350-1000ULRs doing SYD-LHR/JFK/GRU. For Australia to Asia routes the 787-10 would be very, very good though.


That would indeed play to each frame's strengths, but right now they have an active fleet of ~56 frames in four families from two OEMs. While there are some synergies in crew orientation (especially on the Airbus side), there is also a fair bit of difference in airframe maintenance, engine types and their maintenance, airframe flexibility (all the types have different optimal design niches) and other areas. I am in no way being disrespectful or disparaging with the following remark, but in terms of international network, QF is a somewhat small player (though they serve a critically important role in their respective network). Being able to move those four families to two or even one from a single OEM (be it Airbus or Boeing) would provide a fair bit of savings, I would presume.


zkojq wrote:
The A330-900 leverages the group's existing A330 infrastructure.


Yes it does, but the impression I have been getting from posts made by people referencing Qantas Group discussions is that the A330 is likely going away and the 787 will be taking it's place. First with JetStart 787-8s being repurposed to replace Qantas A330-200s and then later with additional 787 purchases (be it 787-9, 787-10 or a mix of both) for A330-300 replacement. That was the basis for my "logical" comment - not because an Airbus product couldn't do it, but because it appeared plans were for the existing A330 family infrastructure to be eventually supplanted with one based around the 787 family. In such a scenario, the 787-10 would be the one most likely to benefit.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:24 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
waly777 wrote:
keesje wrote:

I'm happy to see you agree a a meter of 777 fuselage probably weighs around 2 tonnes. Now we have to discuss 777-9 OEW. And why it is not 185-187t, down from it's 190t, as many sources say.

Airbus used that 777-9x OEW 190t years back in their propaganda.. it would be great if we can simply debunk that with Boeing data!

https://goo.gl/images/CUiwbK


I assume you wouldn't take A350 or A380 OEW data from a Boeing slide as fact, you would dismiss it. So why would you do the opposite as fact? Knowing full well that competition always bloat the others figures with worse case scenarios to make their products look better in comparison.....


Because they make sense considering the known MZFW I'd say. 185t gives 70t payload. Boeing doesn't boast it has more payload than the 77W.
Hence 185t makes sense, significantly less does not.

Best regards
Thomas

Best regards
Thomas


But Boeing has not provided the MSP, so how can you be so sure? It's all speculation and my point was an OEW from a competing manufacturers is usually nonsense and usually not taken seriously, but suddenly it's different for the 778/9 and factual?
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:31 pm

keesje wrote:
waly777 wrote:
keesje wrote:

I'm happy to see you agree a a meter of 777 fuselage probably weighs around 2 tonnes. Now we have to discuss 777-9 OEW. And why it is not 185-187t, down from it's 190t, as many sources say.

Airbus used that 777-9x OEW 190t years back in their propaganda.. it would be great if we can simply debunk that with Boeing data!

https://goo.gl/images/CUiwbK


I assume you wouldn't take A350 or A380 OEW data from a Boeing slide as fact, you would dismiss it. So why would you do the opposite as fact? Knowing full well that competition always bloat the others figures with worse case scenarios to make their products look better in comparison.....


Oh, that's unfair. I've been providing other sources several times : https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1402165&start=150#p20696747

What I'm waiting for is the first credible sources, calculation, anything, showing us OEW of the 777-9 is more around 175t and 777-8 will be at 158t or so.

It seems I will be waiting for a very long time.. why folks try to discredit, generalize, change topic, anything, to get away from the 777X being heavy.


Seeking alpha is not a valid source of information and you know it too. The 777-9 is definitely going to be heavier than the 77W by how much is largely unknown and mostly educated guess work.

I'm not trying to discredit or generalise or change topic. Fact remains, we do not know the weight but you are trying to quote speculative figures as fact including one from the competition which is of course a bit ludicrous.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:34 pm

cpd wrote:
waly777 wrote:
cpd wrote:
What exactly is your problem. You always do that, and you do that to everyone!

Av-geeks might love the idea of ultra long haul flying, but it's not that popular among everyone. I can find you a lot of people who don't like it.

Flying 14 hours is long enough in one plane. Even in business class, there is a point where you want to get off that plane. Long haul flying 12-14 hours or so is normal for me, then maybe another 6-7 hours on another plane. Getting off that plane and having a hotel stop over before getting on the next flight was excellent. I was flying business class, with my own money. I also get to go do some things in Dubai while I'm there.


But yet, ULH has been doing quite well this decade and with the number of those growing, not shrinking. QF has obviously done their research and can see there is a substantial market of people willing to pay a premium to do non stop vs 1 stop with PER-LHR being an excellent test case.

The Aussies and Kiwis need to do long haul for most of their international journeys anyway and quite a number of them on this forum as well as others I've met elsewhere prefer a non stop if they can afford it. I personally could not sit that long in a plane except for a 1 time try, but neither you nor I are the target market here.


I'm Australian. I can afford the non stop flying but since I'm in Sydney the current non-stop is irrelevant. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of ULH flying, but there has to be a trade off. Economy seating should be a bit more spacious, a bit more recline, a bit more leg room and importantly, softer padding on the seats.


I was referring to the future long haul QF plans with the project sunrise from SYD and MEL. I agree on the tradeoff, as a premium would be charged, the seats should have a bit more legroom. I suspect it may be the case if the 777-8 or 350-1000ULR win it. Circa 300 seats on either will leave quite a bit of room around.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:12 pm

[threeid][/threeid]
waly777 wrote:
keesje wrote:
waly777 wrote:

I assume you wouldn't take A350 or A380 OEW data from a Boeing slide as fact, you would dismiss it. So why would you do the opposite as fact? Knowing full well that competition always bloat the others figures with worse case scenarios to make their products look better in comparison.....


Oh, that's unfair. I've been providing other sources several times : https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1402165&start=150#p20696747

What I'm waiting for is the first credible sources, calculation, anything, showing us OEW of the 777-9 is more around 175t and 777-8 will be at 158t or so.

It seems I will be waiting for a very long time.. why folks try to discredit, generalize, change topic, anything, to get away from the 777X being heavy.


Seeking alpha is not a valid source of information and you know it too. The 777-9 is definitely going to be heavier than the 77W by how much is largely unknown and mostly educated guess work.

I'm not trying to discredit or generalise or change topic. Fact remains, we do not know the weight but you are trying to quote speculative figures as fact including one from the competition which is of course a bit ludicrous.


Waly777 you seem intentionally avoid the other sources. Why is that? Where's your source?

https://medium.com/o530-carris-pt-herald/boeing-777x-dimensions-matter-8e80dd601a83
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27300
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:29 pm

The 188,000kg OEW figure that O530 Carris PT is claiming for the 777-9 is the same figure Aspire Aviation claimed earlier in one of their articles for a four-class 300-seat configuration and those claims were laughed off the forum as ridiculously optimistic by many.

I am guessing Leeham.net is using their 368-seat three-class configuration for their 185,000kg OEW estimate. In comparison, Aspire claimed that in three-classes at 406 seats, the 777-9 would have an OEW of 164,000kg.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:14 pm

Stitch wrote:
The 188,000kg OEW figure that O530 Carris PT is claiming for the 777-9 is the same figure Aspire Aviation claimed earlier in one of their articles for a four-class 300-seat configuration and those claims were laughed off the forum as ridiculously optimistic by many.

I am guessing Leeham.net is using their 368-seat three-class configuration for their 185,000kg OEW estimate. In comparison, Aspire claimed that in three-classes at 406 seats, the 777-9 would have an OEW of 164,000kg.


Stitch it seems you mixed MEW and OEW with 164k.

Boeing started out at 190t a long time ago and was at 188t years later. Everybody is free (without any source, specification, qoute, anything) to believe 777x OEW somehow collapsed.

I often wonder these day how people are ready to set aside factual information while accusing others of bending facts. Apparently it serves a goal & works. Specially in fast moving digital, anonimous media. Doing so is a choice I guess.

Meanwhile Qantas has asked some extra info about the 777-8 weight. Maybe he is a bit confused too from specifications they got.

Joyce said Qantas was seeking more details from Boeing on the weight of the 777-8, which has not yet entered production, but added he was confident both manufacturers could meet the range challenges.


Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13334
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:07 pm

cpd wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
cpd wrote:
The only problem with a plane of such long range is that people might not want to fly so far non stop.

People are still repeating this in 2018? :roll:

What exactly is your problem. You always do that, and you do that to everyone!

Dude, give it a rest.

If my intention was to insult you, I'd do it directly, not implicitly.
I didn't. So calm down. :roll:


cpd wrote:
Flying 14 hours is long enough in one plane. Even in business class, there is a point where you want to get off that plane.

That is your personal opinion, and is not in any way an objective reflection of market reality.

Since the turn of the century, in terms of scheduled 16hr+ flights, we've gone from having a single 1way segment on a single airline (SA), to having multiple daily operations on more than a dozen airlines with the list continually growing.

Even if you don't pay attention to the airlines, at least look at what the OEMs are doing:
Again, going back to the turn of the century, almost every widebody they've offered has been easily capable of 16hr+ flights-- A345, A346, 77L, 77W, 778, 779, 748i, 789, A359, A35K, A380, etc. Excluding the 748, every single one of the above can, has and/or is planned to, offer flights of that length and beyond.

In fact, of the three widebodies offered since 2000 that can't do 16hrs: two of them (78X and A339) are marketed as "regional" aircraft, despite the fact that they're still easily capable of 14hrs flights and more. Not that big of a difference.

The OEMs and airlines are not doing this because they think it's cute. They're doing it because the high-end revenue in the market almost always prefers a nonstop if offered, and the carriers are responding in like fashion.

Hence, it's not exactly unreasonable to ask why someone would still be repeat the demonstrably inaccurate statement that the pax (that airlines actually care about-- i.e., not bargain-hunting rare travelers) somehow don't patronize ULH nonstops when offered, in the year 2018.


parapente wrote:
Long distance point to point flights are now a proven commercial reality.He is NOT saying or even implying it's for everyone.Its simply a new -and more expensive- alternative to the one stopper. If you had included the word 'some' before people then I doubt you would have got a reaction.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:
Last edited by LAX772LR on Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27300
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:28 pm

keesje wrote:
Stitch it seems you mixed MEW and OEW with 164k.


Yes, it is true that 0530's MEW figure matches the OEW figure Aspire said. However, MEW is generally accepted to mean "Manufacturer Empty Weight" which means an airframe with no cabin fittings (seats, galleys, lavatories, bins, etc.). As such, it makes no sense to claim that a value given for a 406-seat configuration would not include any of those 406 seats, much less lavatories, walls, bins, galleys, closets and other cabin fittings/structures.

His figure may be inaccurate, but I don't believe he is mixing up MEW and OEW, especially since his 300-seats in four classes weight figure tracks with what Leeham.net says for 386-seats in three classes and what Boeing is evidently also giving for the 777-9 in a passenger configuration of some level (perhaps 414-seats in three classes).


keesje wrote:
Boeing started out at 190t a long time ago and was at 188t years later. Everybody is free (without any source, specification, qoute, anything) to believe 777x OEW somehow collapsed. I often wonder these day how people are ready to set aside factual information while accusing others of bending facts. Apparently it serves a goal & works. Specially in fast moving digital, anonimous media. Doing so is a choice I guess.


I guess so. *shrug* It's a fight I prefer not to have a dog in, so I've been mostly ignoring it. :D

Until Boeing eventually updates the 777X ACAP with the OEM OEW values, I am inclined to go with what Leeham.net has posted since I expect their sources are from airlines that have been visited by Boeing Sales Teams and perhaps statements from 777X program engineers. And those OEW values are 168,000kg for the 777-8 and 185,000kg for the 777-9 (both in a mixed J / W / Y configuration).


keesje wrote:
Meanwhile Qantas has asked some extra info about the 777-8 weight.


Yes, and that may very well be how a "Project Sunrise" configuration would specifically weigh rather than than the OEW values to allow Qantas Engineering to do more accurate route plannings since we can presume they will be doing at least as much pre-planning for SYD-LHR as they did for PER-LHR.

It does not necessarily imply that QF is "concerned" about the 777-8's weight, which is the feeling I am getting from your continued posts about it (but that may just be on me).
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:41 pm

keesje wrote:
[threeid][/threeid]
waly777 wrote:
keesje wrote:

Oh, that's unfair. I've been providing other sources several times : https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1402165&start=150#p20696747

What I'm waiting for is the first credible sources, calculation, anything, showing us OEW of the 777-9 is more around 175t and 777-8 will be at 158t or so.

It seems I will be waiting for a very long time.. why folks try to discredit, generalize, change topic, anything, to get away from the 777X being heavy.


Seeking alpha is not a valid source of information and you know it too. The 777-9 is definitely going to be heavier than the 77W by how much is largely unknown and mostly educated guess work.

I'm not trying to discredit or generalise or change topic. Fact remains, we do not know the weight but you are trying to quote speculative figures as fact including one from the competition which is of course a bit ludicrous.


Waly777 you seem intentionally avoid the other sources. Why is that? Where's your source?

https://medium.com/o530-carris-pt-herald/boeing-777x-dimensions-matter-8e80dd601a83


You might want to read the link again, it quotes aspire and seeking alpha as sources for it's numbers. Nothing official from Boeing.

I have quoted no numbers, what source are you asking for?

You can refer to leeham for better numbers, when ferpe was here, his modelling threads were a treasure trove of information.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:50 pm

And those OEW values are 168,000kg for the 777-8 and 185,000kg for the 777-9 (both in a mixed J / W / Y configuration).


I think 185-188t for the 777-9 is a reasonable expectation. In terms of ((completely filled) fuselage the 777-8 will around 14t lighter.

I estimate the OEW of a 777-8 to be around 171-174t. Stitch a bit lighter (168t).

There a group off members concluding supporting it willl around 157t, (2-3t more than a A350-1000)

That seems highly unlikely in my opinion.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 9414
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:12 am

The original 777-200 and 777-300 are 25t apart in OEW. that is 2.5t/m ( for +10m length and +50t markup in MTOW )
777-8X and 777-9X will have the same MTOW. for a slightly smaller fuselage the A332/3 show less than a 1t/m OEW
The length delta is 6m and OEW delta will be caused by the fuselage plug and its stuffing only.
Assume the larger 777 fuselage has higher length specific weight ( like 1.5t/m ) more than 9t OEW
delta appear over optimistic IMHO. All the beef has gone in the wings.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:22 am

I think assuming the 777X will be lighter than the 777-300ER is based on little. It will have a bigger wing, fonding tips, heavier engines and pylons, a heavier landing gear, bigger windows, sculped frames to widen cabin Heavier fuselage center section.. All mods that don't always help getting down OEW.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15272
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:24 am

And more seats
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3710
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:45 am

A very simplified wing bending model will show that a well designed wing (closely matched yield strength to stiffness) of constant t/c of 0.1 and the engine placed at 20% span shows that for:
A3510:MZFW = 223t, Wing area= 442 m^2, Span = 64.75m, Engine Mass 7550kg.
and
778X:MZFW = 226t, Wing area= 460 m^2, Span = 71.8m, Engine Mass=9000kg.

The model creates known masses for wing upper and lower skins only attributing the mass required to compressive/tensile yield stress and currently ignores the buckling calculations but these values should be close to each other by good design (Both Airbus and Boeing are good a this).
778X comes out at 35% higher wing weight than the A351. (~32t vs ~24t).

Both Boeing and Airbus are good at what they do and they both have to play by the same rules of physics. The 778X will be 10t heavier at least because they have put a wing on that will be wider and carry greater bending moments. Weight vs aerodynamic efficiency. Boeing aren't getting both!

Fred
Image
 
Breathe
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:01 pm

Sorry to go off topic, but would such an aircraft from either manufacturer be capable of doing Auckland or Wellington to London?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20547
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:35 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
cpd wrote:
The only problem with a plane of such long range is that people might not want to fly so far non stop.

People are still repeating this in 2018? :roll:

The repetition amazes me. Premium passengers value time. That is why QF flies non-stop to LAX and DFW as well as PER-LHR.

It is economics. If either the A359LR or 778 can create a business case, QF will buy the contest winner.

For myself, because of prior missed connections, hubbing is stressful and I pay a premium to avoid it and so does my employer. Now, my employer does it to save my fully loaded pay rate (of which I only see a fraction as all the support to employ me is costly). So time=money.

I believe the economics will sway how many project sunrise aircraft are ordered. I also believe it is certain there will be an order.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
StudiodeKadent
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:43 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:12 pm

Breathe wrote:
Sorry to go off topic, but would such an aircraft from either manufacturer be capable of doing Auckland or Wellington to London?


Only with much less payload or several PIPs or both.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20547
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:20 pm

StudiodeKadent wrote:
Breathe wrote:
Sorry to go off topic, but would such an aircraft from either manufacturer be capable of doing Auckland or Wellington to London?


Only with much less payload or several PIPs or both.

I would go so far as to say the A359 only in a lighter VIP configuration. The 778 would still have to be a VIP aircraft, but a normal cabin weight would be fine.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:29 pm

QF have said both OEMs have offered satisfactory technical solutions for the most demanding sector (SYD-LHR) albeit carrying less than the 300 pax they had hoped for. It seems from previous Leeham reporting that the "westbound" SYD-LHR would generally fly an eastbound polar route (imagine a route flying over Anchorage). GC distance for SYD-LHR and AKL-LHR polar routes are similar so I think we can assume that either of the Sunrise options (35K or 778) could do the route out of Auckland (not Wellington - runway is far too short). What we don't know is whether an LHR-AKL sector would be viable: it is 9,900nm great circle, though tailwinds would effectively make it shorter. From memory the Leeham analysis concluded that the Sunrise aircraft would need to be able to do 9500nm still air to do SYD-LHR in both directions.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1231
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:21 pm

But neither airframe manufacturer is going to spend a tonne of money bending a current product for such few orders. So it's got to be a costmetic solution either way. NZ doesn't need the same range because they have no ambitions of launching nonstop to LHR and increased gross weight 789 or A359 will be all that NZ needs. So the orders for this particular range bird (fuel tank) are for QF. If QF order the 778 then how will they use it cost effectively on regional routes between ultra long haul missions? Or will it sit on the ground? All of this goes to the number of units in question. Sounds to me like a handful of 778s plus an A380 replacement order for 779 for delivery well after the ultrafan with no promise of such an engine option. Ouch. QF is pushing this at the wrong time IMHO.
Plane mad!
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:49 pm

NZ321 wrote:
But neither airframe manufacturer is going to spend a tonne of money bending a current product for such few orders.

We've been over this before. First, there's no indication that either OEM is looking at major structural changes to standard models involving major investment. The Sunrise aircraft are not going to end up as orphans. I think we should assume that at most we're looking at ACTs for additional fuel, removal of the forward hold CLS, MTOW increases, minor improvements to engines and aero – the latter two being part of a continuous development programme for the airframe anyway.

As for numbers, re-read what Joyce has said. He has talked of multiple destinations (from ULH to regional) from multiple points of origin – Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane as well as Perth. Even limiting it to ULH destinations (LHR, NYC, ORD, DFW, GRU/GIG, other ports in Europe...) in various combinations from SYD/MEL/BNE you can easily arrive at an eventual fleet of 20+. On ULH routes you're talking two airframes for a daily service. That's before taking into account regional routes – Joyce has talked of using the same aircraft (or same type?) on Asian routes, for example. So apart from the publicity value, both OEMs know that the cumulative orders of the Sunrise type are well worth competing for.
 
cpd
Posts: 6547
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:19 am

lightsaber wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
cpd wrote:
The only problem with a plane of such long range is that people might not want to fly so far non stop.

People are still repeating this in 2018? :roll:

The repetition amazes me. Premium passengers value time. That is why QF flies non-stop to LAX and DFW as well as PER-LHR.

It is economics. If either the A359LR or 778 can create a business case, QF will buy the contest winner.

For myself, because of prior missed connections, hubbing is stressful and I pay a premium to avoid it and so does my employer. Now, my employer does it to save my fully loaded pay rate (of which I only see a fraction as all the support to employ me is costly). So time=money.

I believe the economics will sway how many project sunrise aircraft are ordered. I also believe it is certain there will be an order.

Lightsaber

Surprising also to see such an old topic resurrected. Swapping planes at hubs is no major drama. I usually go through Dubai. It's a massive airport but it works no problems and the staff around the airport are all helpful.

You don't have to believe there will be an order, it is happening - only a big turn around will prevent it (or if both Boeing/Airbus mess up their proposals). Sunrise is the follow on from Project Sunset. What will sway me is the comfort on the plane and if the planes fly to locations useful to me. Non-stop to London isn't useful to me, I don't usually go there. Non-stop to Geneva or Munich, then it becomes very useful and might sway me away from Emirates.

That said, the last overnight stop I had in Dubai (with a hotel booked by Emirates) was quite pleasant. I had drivers to take me to and from the airport and the staff at the hotel were very good. Even at dinner, I basically did nothing for myself. I had two people waiting near my table and anything they thought I needed was taken care of before I even asked for it. :eek: Even my backpack, I didn't even have to carry that.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:04 am

NZ321 wrote:
But neither airframe manufacturer is going to spend a tonne of money bending a current product for such few orders. So it's got to be a costmetic solution either way. NZ doesn't need the same range because they have no ambitions of launching nonstop to LHR and increased gross weight 789 or A359 will be all that NZ needs. So the orders for this particular range bird (fuel tank) are for QF. If QF order the 778 then how will they use it cost effectively on regional routes between ultra long haul missions? Or will it sit on the ground? All of this goes to the number of units in question. Sounds to me like a handful of 778s plus an A380 replacement order for 779 for delivery well after the ultrafan with no promise of such an engine option. Ouch. QF is pushing this at the wrong time IMHO.


I think project sunrise SYD-LHR might be some 5 years too early. If Qantas can wait for an Ultrafan A350, that could be a game changer.
 
smi0006
Posts: 2580
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:23 am

Erebus wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
But neither airframe manufacturer is going to spend a tonne of money bending a current product for such few orders. So it's got to be a costmetic solution either way. NZ doesn't need the same range because they have no ambitions of launching nonstop to LHR and increased gross weight 789 or A359 will be all that NZ needs. So the orders for this particular range bird (fuel tank) are for QF. If QF order the 778 then how will they use it cost effectively on regional routes between ultra long haul missions? Or will it sit on the ground? All of this goes to the number of units in question. Sounds to me like a handful of 778s plus an A380 replacement order for 779 for delivery well after the ultrafan with no promise of such an engine option. Ouch. QF is pushing this at the wrong time IMHO.


I think project sunrise SYD-LHR might be some 5 years too early. If Qantas can wait for an Ultrafan A350, that could be a game changer.


They could build market with current generation aircraft then shift them to Asia in 5-10years before upgrading. This is where I see the 350 as having the advantage; it’s more flexible if converted back to normal ops from ULH. The 77X just seems to heavy for QF to Asia. Would the weight have an impact to LAX?
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:09 am

smi0006 wrote:
Erebus wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
But neither airframe manufacturer is going to spend a tonne of money bending a current product for such few orders. So it's got to be a costmetic solution either way. NZ doesn't need the same range because they have no ambitions of launching nonstop to LHR and increased gross weight 789 or A359 will be all that NZ needs. So the orders for this particular range bird (fuel tank) are for QF. If QF order the 778 then how will they use it cost effectively on regional routes between ultra long haul missions? Or will it sit on the ground? All of this goes to the number of units in question. Sounds to me like a handful of 778s plus an A380 replacement order for 779 for delivery well after the ultrafan with no promise of such an engine option. Ouch. QF is pushing this at the wrong time IMHO.


I think project sunrise SYD-LHR might be some 5 years too early. If Qantas can wait for an Ultrafan A350, that could be a game changer.


They could build market with current generation aircraft then shift them to Asia in 5-10years before upgrading. This is where I see the 350 as having the advantage; it’s more flexible if converted back to normal ops from ULH. The 77X just seems to heavy for QF to Asia. Would the weight have an impact to LAX?


I have heard from a credible source that the A350 has the edge. As you say, it is more flexible to deploy on other missions, especially if extreme ULH doesn't work going forward. Flexibility and lower risk exposure is a key consideration. It also has the tech edge over the upgraded 777. It is already lighter and should be more efficient. There are also the cancelled A380 deposits in play. As for fewer pax, that also means fewer seats to have to sell. I say that as a Boeing fan who really wants to see the 777 in QF livery.
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
 
JQ321
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:40 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:24 am

smi0006 wrote:
Erebus wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
But neither airframe manufacturer is going to spend a tonne of money bending a current product for such few orders. So it's got to be a costmetic solution either way. NZ doesn't need the same range because they have no ambitions of launching nonstop to LHR and increased gross weight 789 or A359 will be all that NZ needs. So the orders for this particular range bird (fuel tank) are for QF. If QF order the 778 then how will they use it cost effectively on regional routes between ultra long haul missions? Or will it sit on the ground? All of this goes to the number of units in question. Sounds to me like a handful of 778s plus an A380 replacement order for 779 for delivery well after the ultrafan with no promise of such an engine option. Ouch. QF is pushing this at the wrong time IMHO.


I think project sunrise SYD-LHR might be some 5 years too early. If Qantas can wait for an Ultrafan A350, that could be a game changer.


They could build market with current generation aircraft then shift them to Asia in 5-10years before upgrading. This is where I see the 350 as having the advantage; it’s more flexible if converted back to normal ops from ULH. The 77X just seems to heavy for QF to Asia. Would the weight have an impact to LAX?


777X to heavy for Asia? LOL ! What about the 747's and A380's they send there daily?
Do you also realise they don't have to fill the fuel tanks up to the top.
 
smi0006
Posts: 2580
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:47 am

JQ321 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
Erebus wrote:

I think project sunrise SYD-LHR might be some 5 years too early. If Qantas can wait for an Ultrafan A350, that could be a game changer.


They could build market with current generation aircraft then shift them to Asia in 5-10years before upgrading. This is where I see the 350 as having the advantage; it’s more flexible if converted back to normal ops from ULH. The 77X just seems to heavy for QF to Asia. Would the weight have an impact to LAX?


777X to heavy for Asia? LOL ! What about the 747's and A380's they send there daily?
Do you also realise they don't have to fill the fuel tanks up to the top.


The idea would be to move to a lighter model- so not sure the comparison between 744 and 380 older models is relevant. But my understanding, and I could be wrong is the 77X in comparison to the 350 has greater structural weight, so regardless of the pax load or fuel the 77X is heavier. Is this incorrect?
 
JQ321
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:40 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:58 am

smi0006 wrote:
JQ321 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

They could build market with current generation aircraft then shift them to Asia in 5-10years before upgrading. This is where I see the 350 as having the advantage; it’s more flexible if converted back to normal ops from ULH. The 77X just seems to heavy for QF to Asia. Would the weight have an impact to LAX?


777X to heavy for Asia? LOL ! What about the 747's and A380's they send there daily?
Do you also realise they don't have to fill the fuel tanks up to the top.


The idea would be to move to a lighter model- so not sure the comparison between 744 and 380 older models is relevant. But my understanding, and I could be wrong is the 77X in comparison to the 350 has greater structural weight, so regardless of the pax load or fuel the 77X is heavier. Is this incorrect?

You are correct... But some places in Asia could use the extra capacity which the 777X provides
 
VV
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:32 pm

Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24784
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:24 pm

VV wrote:
Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?

Because that's the route a lot of customers with the cash for non-stops want to travel.
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
 
sabby
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:40 pm

JQ321 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
JQ321 wrote:

777X to heavy for Asia? LOL ! What about the 747's and A380's they send there daily?
Do you also realise they don't have to fill the fuel tanks up to the top.


The idea would be to move to a lighter model- so not sure the comparison between 744 and 380 older models is relevant. But my understanding, and I could be wrong is the 77X in comparison to the 350 has greater structural weight, so regardless of the pax load or fuel the 77X is heavier. Is this incorrect?

You are correct... But some places in Asia could use the extra capacity which the 777X provides


777-8 and A350-1000 have almost same pax capacity. 777-8 has higher cargo capacity but it also has higher empty weight.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20547
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:32 pm

Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?

Because that's the route a lot of customers with the cash for non-stops want to travel.

Lots of premium customers where they believe a LHR slot is more valuable with the project sunrise aircraft than a SYD-DXB-LHR fligth (or perhaps another flight is axed?).


Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:58 pm

smi0006 wrote:
JQ321 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

They could build market with current generation aircraft then shift them to Asia in 5-10years before upgrading. This is where I see the 350 as having the advantage; it’s more flexible if converted back to normal ops from ULH. The 77X just seems to heavy for QF to Asia. Would the weight have an impact to LAX?


777X to heavy for Asia? LOL ! What about the 747's and A380's they send there daily?
Do you also realise they don't have to fill the fuel tanks up to the top.


The idea would be to move to a lighter model- so not sure the comparison between 744 and 380 older models is relevant. But my understanding, and I could be wrong is the 77X in comparison to the 350 has greater structural weight, so regardless of the pax load or fuel the 77X is heavier. Is this incorrect?


This is correct, but it however compensates for this with a significantly larger wing and a newer engine... i.e. the impact on fuel burn and cost per seat ideally shouldn't be that great.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
VV
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?

Because that's the route a lot of customers with the cash for non-stops want to travel.


This is purely an opinion, but I do not think it is a viable direct route.
In any case, we will have the answer in seven years.

For now, it is an interesting case for discussion.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11160
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:56 pm

VV wrote:
Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?

Because that's the route a lot of customers with the cash for non-stops want to travel.


This is purely an opinion, but I do not think it is a viable direct route.
In any case, we will have the answer in seven years.

For now, it is an interesting case for discussion.


It will be operating in 3 years time. Furthermore there is a lot of demand especially premium between Australia and London. Taking PER-LHR as an example the flight has been averaging a 92% LF across all classes with a LF of 94% in premium classes which is also the highest of any QF international route. QF have already mentioned PER-LHR to be upgraded to Project Sunrise aircraft in a few years time due to the incredible demand for premium seating. It was also mentioned at their half year results a month ago LHR is now profitable again after making losses for the past 9 years.
Forum Moderator
 
aerohottie
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:36 pm

lightsaber wrote:
StudiodeKadent wrote:
Breathe wrote:
Sorry to go off topic, but would such an aircraft from either manufacturer be capable of doing Auckland or Wellington to London?


Only with much less payload or several PIPs or both.

I would go so far as to say the A359 only in a lighter VIP configuration. The 778 would still have to be a VIP aircraft, but a normal cabin weight would be fine.

Lightsaber

I asked this question some time ago on this forum, and got a very good response that AKL-LHR-AKL all eastbound is easier than SYD-LHR westbound. The conclusion was that if SYD-LHR westbound is possible, so it AKL-LHR in both directions. From memory (i'd need to find it and check), I think the suggested flight time for AKL-LHR-AKL was about 20 hours in each dirction
What?
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:13 am

VV wrote:
This is purely an opinion, but I do not think it is a viable direct route.
In any case, we will have the answer in seven years.
For now, it is an interesting case for discussion.

Non-stop point to point ULH is at the heart of QF's future business strategy. It is not an experiment: the DFW service has shown the additional yields available from non-stop ULH services offering greater convenience while PER-LHR is, as pointed out further up the thread, generating remarkable load factors and profits. It is a mystery why so many a.netters are in denial on the appeal of premium ULH non-stop services.

aerohottie wrote:
I asked this question some time ago on this forum, and got a very good response that AKL-LHR-AKL all eastbound is easier than SYD-LHR westbound. The conclusion was that if SYD-LHR westbound is possible, so it AKL-LHR in both directions. From memory (i'd need to find it and check), I think the suggested flight time for AKL-LHR-AKL was about 20 hours in each dirction

See post #270 above. Leeham seem to have it on good authority that SYD-LHR "westbound" will actually be flown eastbound, roughly over Anchorage. That being the case you would have to assume AKL-LHR would be do-able with the same aircraft. What is not clear is whether the same aircraft would be able to do LHR-AKL eastbound. No-one has offered an answer.
 
VV
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:31 am

qf789 wrote:
VV wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Because that's the route a lot of customers with the cash for non-stops want to travel.


This is purely an opinion, but I do not think it is a viable direct route.
In any case, we will have the answer in seven years.

For now, it is an interesting case for discussion.


It will be operating in 3 years time. Furthermore there is a lot of demand especially premium between Australia and London. Taking PER-LHR as an example the flight has been averaging a 92% LF across all classes with a LF of 94% in premium classes which is also the highest of any QF international route. QF have already mentioned PER-LHR to be upgraded to Project Sunrise aircraft in a few years time due to the incredible demand for premium seating. It was also mentioned at their half year results a month ago LHR is now profitable again after making losses for the past 9 years.


It is too early to make a conclusion on PER-LHR. Things can happen after five years of operation.
As I said we have to wait impatiently about seven years.

We all know that year after year new routes are opened and some are dropped later on. Of course there are also routes that are maintained.
Again, this is only an opinion, I think SYD-LHR direct is not necessarily a good idea.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13334
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:54 am

VV wrote:
Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?

Because that's the route a lot of customers with the cash for non-stops want to travel.

This is purely an opinion, but I do not think it is a viable direct route.

Perhaps, but (based on phraseology) it seems you're looking at the route in a vacuum, and not considering the opportunity cost..... i.e. how badly does it hurt QF to *not* do so?

Do they continue bleeding Euro pax to the ME3, BA, SE Asian carriers, even the Chinese in the future? Does this flight allow them to tap premium channels that those competitors can't effectively poach? Etc.

The fact that they're so determined to do this-- points to all of the above being considerable factors.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:05 am

One stop connections between Europe and Australia are a dime a dozen, direct connections are not. And QF is not in a good geographic position for a one stop under their own flag.
 
Geoff1947
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:55 am

VV wrote:
Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?


Because they can have a competitive advantage that way. A lot of strong competition on SYD-LHR with a stop.

Geoff
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:13 am

VV wrote:
Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?


From memory there are fourteen airlines that offer a SYD-LAX service. In effect, QANTAS are betting one in fourteen passengers will consider direct flights as an option.

Considering Sydney is a premium heavy market, I suspect there could be demand for such a service.
 
User avatar
cv990Coronado
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:38 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:19 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
VV wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Because that's the route a lot of customers with the cash for non-stops want to travel.

This is purely an opinion, but I do not think it is a viable direct route.

Perhaps, but (based on phraseology) it seems you're looking at the route in a vacuum, and not considering the opportunity cost..... i.e. how badly does it hurt QF to *not* do so?

Do they continue bleeding Euro pax to the ME3, BA, SE Asian carriers, even the Chinese in the future? Does this flight allow them to tap premium channels that those competitors can't effectively poach? Etc.

The fact that they're so determined to do this-- points to all of the above being considerable factors.


That is exactly it, a niche no one is likely to be able to enter and a very high yielding niche too.
They will never be able to compete price-wise with the ME3, SE Asian carriers or the Chinese.
If they are able to keep their arrangement with EK for the low yield traffic, they could end up with the best of both worlds.
SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20547
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:19 pm

travelhound wrote:
VV wrote:
Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?


From memory there are fourteen airlines that offer a SYD-LAX service. In effect, QANTAS are betting one in fourteen passengers will consider direct flights as an option.

Considering Sydney is a premium heavy market, I suspect there could be demand for such a service.

I assume you meant SYD-LHR. Hmmm... A list from memory of one stop service:
1. QF
2. EK
3. SQ
4. QR
5. EY
6. CX
7. Malaysian
8. Guardia.
9. Thai
10. China Southern
11. AI?

Huh... Only 11 from memory. Who did I forget? I assume more Chinese operators? (I'm asking).

AirAsia is LGW? Please note I am asking if they should be included.

I do not include code shares.

Yeah, I see an easy out for a direct flight to gain premium traffic.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
Aware
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 1999 12:46 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:36 pm

BA
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:45 pm

lightsaber wrote:
travelhound wrote:
VV wrote:
Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?


From memory there are fourteen airlines that offer a SYD-LAX service. In effect, QANTAS are betting one in fourteen passengers will consider direct flights as an option.

Considering Sydney is a premium heavy market, I suspect there could be demand for such a service.

I assume you meant SYD-LHR. Hmmm... A list from memory of one stop service:
1. QF
2. EK
3. SQ
4. QR
5. EY
6. CX
7. Malaysian
8. Guardia.
9. Thai
10. China Southern
11. AI?

Huh... Only 11 from memory. Who did I forget? I assume more Chinese operators? (I'm asking).

AirAsia is LGW? Please note I am asking if they should be included.

I do not include code shares.


British Airways over Singapore (as is pointed out above)
China Eastern over Shanghai
Air China over Beijing (and Chengdu from 2 April)
Asiana over Seoul
Hainan over Chagsha
Japan Airlines over Tokyo (though you'd need to change NRT to HND)
Korean Air over Seoul
Philippine Airlines over Manila

All of these are options as they serve London Heathrow and Sydney as well as the same stopover city in the middle.
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
 
WIederling
Posts: 9414
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:54 pm

VV wrote:
Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?

Because that's the route a lot of customers with the cash for non-stops want to travel.


This is purely an opinion, but I do not think it is a viable direct route.
In any case, we will have the answer in seven years.

For now, it is an interesting case for discussion.


apropos: when is the A350 NEO expected to have EIS? 2025ish?
Murphy is an optimist
 
VV
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:40 pm

travelhound wrote:
VV wrote:
Why are they so obsessed by SYD-LHR?


From memory there are fourteen airlines that offer a SYD-LAX service. In effect, QANTAS are betting one in fourteen passengers will consider direct flights as an option.

Considering Sydney is a premium heavy market, I suspect there could be demand for such a service.


I do hope for Qantas there will be enough traffic volume on that route. I am not convinced it would be successful, but it is only an opinion and I know very little about air transport.

Many of you "suspect" there could be a demand for direct flight SYD-LHR with high yield passengers.
My gut feel tells me it might be a risky business to serve that route with direct flight.

Therefore, I am not persuaded they will start that route in 2022.
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:19 pm

VV wrote:
I do hope for Qantas there will be enough traffic volume on that route. I am not convinced it would be successful, but it is only an opinion and I know very little about air transport.

Many of you "suspect" there could be a demand for direct flight SYD-LHR with high yield passengers.
My gut feel tells me it might be a risky business to serve that route with direct flight.

Therefore, I am not persuaded they will start that route in 2022.


None of us "suspect" there will be demand for a direct flight. To be quite honest, most of us know there is demand for it.

Qantas would not consider laying out the cash for a fleet of aircraft if they did not think they could make money on it. It's pretty much that simple.

PER-LHR was a test really. The wild success of that - with around 75% of the passengers originating in Perth, a city of less than 2 million people - means that flights from Sydney and Melbourne, both cities with more than twice the population, will work very well. Believe me, the flights will go out full from the east coast.

You really need to be Australian to understand it completely, really.
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 30

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