Eyad89 wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

You did the calculations for the A350 and 777X a few posts up but may I ask you to break-down the calculation for the 787 effective span? Please.

I just followed the rule of thumb that a raked wingtip adds 80% of the wingtip's length to the physical wingspan, and I roughly assumed a 787's wingtip is 6m on both sides, so its effective wingspan would be 54.12m + 4.8m = 58.92m

Again, those are rough estimations only, and a wind tunnel testing can confirm it.

MoKa777 wrote:

May you please also elabortae a little bit more on the span loading.

Span loading is the complete spanwise pressure distribution of the wingspan, and it can be calculated by dividing weight by span. Before I elaborate further here, I will quickly go through the principle of lift, as understanding it is crucial for grasping the concept of span loading and induced drag.

As air accelerates around the wing, the pressure below the wing will be higher than the pressure above the wing. This difference in pressure generates the lift force that pushes the wings upwards. Now that the pressure at the lower surface is higher than the pressure at the upper surface, what happens at the tips of the wings when the air from the lower and upper side meet? the air will move from the area of the higher pressure to the area of the lower pressure (fluids always flow from higher to lower pressure) in this fashion:



This circular motion of air is caused by the pressure difference between the upper and lower sides of the wings, and that pressure difference is caused by lift. This circular air motion causes changes in the air speed and direction in a way that air circulates around the entire span of the wing, and that simply what is called lift-induced drag. It is the energy consumed in this circular motion, and it is an inherent part of the lift force, as you cannot create lift without having this drag. You can only reduce it.

How to reduce this disturbing motion of air (lift-induced drag)? Reduce span loading. Bring down weight or increase the effective wingspan.

In order to reduce the impact of this circular air motion, you have to make it slower or weaker. Remember this entire motion is generated by the pressure difference between the two sides of the wing, so reducing this pressure difference will reduce the circular motion. How can you reduce the pressure difference? Reduce lift. And how can you do that? Reduce weight.

Another way to make this circular motion slower is to increase its effective wingspan. This will increase spanload distribution for the wing to make the circular air motion around the wing wider and more optimal.


(note: speed and density affect this induced drag as well).

Thank you!

This explains things very well for me. I really appreciate it.

If I may add the calculation for the posters who may still find it a bit strange,

From the Boeing 777X ACAP, the folding part of the raked tip is 3.47m on each side - 6.94m combined.

The basic wing span - excluding the folding part - is 64.82m.

80% of the folding raked tip is 2.776m on each side - 5.552m combined.

64.82m + 5.552m = 70.372m effective span

Is this correct?

About the 787, my rough estimation using the scale in the 787 ACAP is that the raked section of each wing is +-3.5m.

That gives 53.12m for the basic wing.

80% of the raked tip is 2.8m on each side - 5.6m combined.

53.12m + 5.6m = 58.72m effective span

For the A350 it seems a bit more complicated. Correct me if I am wrong.

From pages 31 and 39 of the A350-900/-1000 ACAP, the "sharklets" have a vertical height of 2.43m each.

On pages 27 and 29, the horizontal length of each "sharklet" is 2.88m.but from the start of each one to the tip measure between 5.18m and 5.27m horizontally if the "curl" is taken into account.

Which one is the preferred measurement for the A350 when calculating (roughly) effective span?

zeke wrote:

Pretty obvious to see those who understand aerodynamics and those who are fluid dynamics challenged.

If the A350 had such a large effective wingspan advantage it would burn less fuel less per hour than the 787 on all flights.

58.8m versus 67.95m effectice wingspan is a massive advantage. The lift to drag would be so much better that the A350 at 280T would need similar thrust engines as the 787 at 254T.

One wonders why the A350-900 has 84,200lb of thrust engines opposes to the 787-9's 71,000lb and 787-10's 76,000lb thrust engines.

We also see A350 and 787 fuel burn figures from dozens of flight samples. They show the 787 burns less fuel carrying equal payload an equal distance.

The 777-9 engines have 105,000lb of thrust which is less than the 777W with 115,000lb of thrust. The 787-10 needed extra thrust due to increased fuselage length, yet the extra fuselage length of the 777-9 saw no thrust increase. This all comes down to the big lift to drag ratio improvement of thebm big wing on the 777X.

Now I ask why does the A350 have so much thrust if the effective span and lift to drag ratio is that good?

The answer is because the effective span numbers posted here are wrong.

RJMAZ wrote:

zeke wrote:

Pretty obvious to see those who understand aerodynamics and those who are fluid dynamics challenged.

If the A350 had such a large effective wingspan advantage it would burn less fuel less per hour than the 787 on all flights.

58.8m versus 67.95m effectice wingspan is a massive advantage. The lift to drag would be so much better that the A350 at 280T would need similar thrust engines as the 787 at 254T.

One wonders why the A350-900 has 84,200lb of thrust engines opposes to the 787-9's 71,000lb and 787-10's 76,000lb thrust engines.

We also see A350 and 787 fuel burn figures from dozens of flight samples. They show the 787 burns less fuel carrying equal payload an equal distance.

The 777-9 engines have 105,000lb of thrust which is less than the 777W with 115,000lb of thrust. The 787-10 needed extra thrust due to increased fuselage length, yet the extra fuselage length of the 777-9 saw no thrust increase. This all comes down to the big lift to drag ratio improvement of thebm big wing on the 777X.

Now I ask why does the A350 have so much thrust if the effective span and lift to drag ratio is that good?

The answer is because the effective span numbers posted here are wrong.

Can you show exactly where the numbers are wrong and the real numbers that you have? Do you realize that a number of factors come into determining thrust needed? Are you aware that Boeing never intended the 789 to have the same wing as the 788? What impact do you think that has on the thrust needed?

RJMAZ wrote:

zeke wrote:

Pretty obvious to see those who understand aerodynamics and those who are fluid dynamics challenged.

If the A350 had such a large effective wingspan advantage it would burn less fuel less per hour than the 787 on all flights.

58.8m versus 67.95m effectice wingspan is a massive advantage. The lift to drag would be so much better that the A350 at 280T would need similar thrust engines as the 787 at 254T.

One wonders why the A350-900 has 84,200lb of thrust engines opposes to the 787-9's 71,000lb and 787-10's 76,000lb thrust engines.

We also see A350 and 787 fuel burn figures from dozens of flight samples. They show the 787 burns less fuel carrying equal payload an equal distance.

The 777-9 engines have 105,000lb of thrust which is less than the 777W with 115,000lb of thrust. The 787-10 needed extra thrust due to increased fuselage length, yet the extra fuselage length of the 777-9 saw no thrust increase. This all comes down to the big lift to drag ratio improvement of thebm big wing on the 777X.

Now I ask why does the A350 have so much thrust if the effective span and lift to drag ratio is that good?

The answer is because the effective span numbers posted here are wrong.

The engine also has a requirement to accelerate the aircraft up to takeoff speed, not just overcome drag. Interestingly the 787-10 and the A350 have almost identical thrust to weight (maximums) and one would assume relatively close Maximum Lift coefficients. Incidentally the 77W could climb like a rocket ship but is limited by the small wing size, the 779X appears to have a better balance between wing and engine size.

Fred

ElroyJetson wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

my same models as previous with 36t loads.

Thanks for the information. Based on your new data at a payload of 36t can both aircraft comfortably fly the mission?

I don't know what the stated MTOW for each aircraft will be.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Would either aircraft need to block seats with a headwind of say 70 knots versus 20?

Part of the decision for Qantas might be how comfortably each plane can fly the mission with variable conditions. For example, it was rumored the UA's 789 struggled west bound at times on the LAX-SIN route when there were significant headwinds. Could the same fate befall the 778 or A351 at 36t payload on the SYD-LHR route?

70kts is irrelevant. The nature of this length of flight means that you can just go the (an)other way, LAX-SIN doesn't have that luxury.

RJMAZ wrote:

Why are you using DOW weights 8T below OEW for the A350-1000 and then using the actual OEW for the 777-8? Are you trying to making the 777-8 look heavy on purpose?

There was a pilot who stated that the A35k at 330+ seats had a DOW of significantly less than 150T.

RJMAZ wrote:

It is worth noting to save people looking it up themselves that the OEW of the 777-9 is listed at 181T on wikipedia. A straight shrink to 777-8 length brings the OEW to 170T using historic 777 weights. Now this is the weight you are using for your DOW.

I found it very difficult to find what a projected DOW would be and so I used some data for the 779X available data and with a 190T DOW and operated over a spec range mission of 7525nm with a payload of 41400kg with 0 headwind and 30mins holding my model suggested that it would need TOW about 400kg under MTOW (close enough for me) to suggest that either.
a. The estimate of DOW and TSFC are about right for this aircraft, (and the A359 (as I have modeled SIN-EWR very accurately) and I have done A321 modeling accurately).
or
b. the DOW is lower correspondingly the TSFC is higher.

RJMAZ wrote:

The OEW of the A350-1000 is listed as 155-158T on wikipedia yet you are using 147T and 150T for your DOW.

I would use wiki numbers over zeke numbers any day of the week to get a fair apple to apple comparison.

The number I used did come from Cathay but it wasn't from Zeke.

I just put the numbers up to help informed discussion, I don't care if you don't like them.

Fred

RJMAZ wrote:

If the A350 had such a large effective wingspan advantage it would burn less fuel less per hour than the 787 on all flights.

I didn’t make such a claim.

In cruise about 30% of the total drag is attributable to induced drag, induced drag is proportional to the product of weight, span loading, and effective span, it is not a function of a single variable.

The 787 and A350 both feature variable geometry wings which modify the span loading during cruise, this is something the 777-X does not have.

The A350 uses the variable geometry to achieve two results, one is to reduce the induced drag of the main wing through modification of the span loading, the second is to mimic the trim tank in the A330/A340.

On the A330/A340 the aircraft above around FL250 on climb would start to move fuel from wings to the tail to actively move the CG to around 2% from the rear limit. By doing so the weight of the fuel in the trim tank negated downforce that needed to be created, that reduced the induced drag being created by the horizontal stabiliser and reduced the amount of additional lift the wing needed to generate to overcome the downforce of the horizontal stabiliser. Throughout the flight the fuel is moved around to actively keep the CG near the rear limit. This resulted in a measurable reduction in cruise fuel burn on longer sectors, on shorter sectors it doesn’t do much.

With the A350 the engineers got smarter and instead of moving the CG by moving fuel relative to the CP (centre of pressure), the CG moves with fuel burn only, however the CP is moved through the modification of the span wise loading, this has the same effect as moving the fuel on the A330/A340, however it also reduces the induced drag of the wing as well.

The obvious answer to the question why the A350 is optimised for long haul flights and doesn’t beat the 787-9 over shorter distances is that lift induced drag is not the dominate drag component of the total drag, it is only around 30%, around half the drag is skin friction. It takes longer sectors for the A350 technology to have a significant impact on total fuel.

RJMAZ wrote:

We also see A350 and 787 fuel burn figures from dozens of flight samples. They show the 787 burns less fuel carrying equal payload an equal distance.

And yet you cannot produce the data to support that. Hearsay is not data.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 777-9 engines have 105,000lb of thrust which is less than the 777W with 115,000lb of thrust. The 787-10 needed extra thrust due to increased fuselage length, yet the extra fuselage length of the 777-9 saw no thrust increase. This all comes down to the big lift to drag ratio improvement of thebm big wing on the 777X.

The 777-X has 20% more wing area when clean compared to the 77W for the same maximum takeoff weight. Therefore it will not need to same extent of high lift devices to increase the Cl as the 77W then for takeoff and landing. That will directly reduce the amount of induced drag. Through more wing area and less induced drag, the thrust required is reduced.

RJMAZ wrote:

Now I ask why does the A350 have so much thrust if the effective span and lift to drag ratio is that good?

The answer is because the effective span numbers posted here are wrong.

Higher thrust engines facilitate better hot and high performance and a margin for airframe improvements (Airbus has already offered a 12t/8t increase in the MTOW for the -900/-1000). I would say 95+% of my takeoffs are not made with maximum thrust, even at MTOW. This increases the time on wing and reduces the maintenance costs.

As far as I am aware the A350 also have better field performance than the 787, the speeds on our A350’s are lower than our A330s in similar scenarios. For example in the missed approach on 25R in HKG we would need to keep some flap out on the A330 so we can maintain the required 185 kts, where the clean speed on the A350 would be below 185 kts which would mean the A350 can be cleaned up.

flipdewaf wrote:

I just put the numbers up to help informed discussion, I don't care if you don't like them.

Fred I appreciate the work you have put in, I think what you have done is far more representative than most other people on here could put together. We are comparing an aircraft and engine that is in service and will be mature and be improved on, compared to one that is still looking like it will be the best part of 3 years until it first flight.

Please do not listen to the detractors who do not understand the limitations of using such models.

RJMAZ wrote:

zeke wrote:

Pretty obvious to see those who understand aerodynamics and those who are fluid dynamics challenged.

If the A350 had such a large effective wingspan advantage it would burn less fuel less per hour than the 787 on all flights.

58.8m versus 67.95m effectice wingspan is a massive advantage. The lift to drag would be so much better that the A350 at 280T would need similar thrust engines as the 787 at 254T.

One wonders why the A350-900 has 84,200lb of thrust engines opposes to the 787-9's 71,000lb and 787-10's 76,000lb thrust engines.

We also see A350 and 787 fuel burn figures from dozens of flight samples. They show the 787 burns less fuel carrying equal payload an equal distance.

The 777-9 engines have 105,000lb of thrust which is less than the 777W with 115,000lb of thrust. The 787-10 needed extra thrust due to increased fuselage length, yet the extra fuselage length of the 777-9 saw no thrust increase. This all comes down to the big lift to drag ratio improvement of thebm big wing on the 777X.

Now I ask why does the A350 have so much thrust if the effective span and lift to drag ratio is that good?

The answer is because the effective span numbers posted here are wrong.

A lot of misconceptions here.
Wingspan and wing area add lift and drag in all forms.

There is much more to comparing fuel burn efficiency between aircraft. Weight is one of those, as is the fuselage cross section, the shape of the front, the size of the tailplane, the thickness, camber, anhedral, wingflex, sweep of the wing; the design of the engine intake, the engine itself.
At the end of the day the only way to figure it out is to put 2 aircraft on the same route 5 minutes apart and compare.

Why pick one factor over the other?

The A388 has an A389 wing but to many that is a disadvantage while it s an advantage for thr B787 and B777X.

When push comes to shove, having a cuter hostess at the booth at the Paris Air Show may be what makes the difference.

Agree with Zeke’s comments Fred. Great work and I have learnt quite a bit through it. Maybe relearnt a fair bit as an mechanical engineer by degree but a long time pusher of ones and zeros.

It is amazing to me how firm the 778 numbers are when the frame is still years from its first test flight!

Fred, I also appreciate the information you provided.

Errrr thanks guys, did I come across as a bit needy? LOL

I agree with many here, in that most of these posts help understand effective wingspan and etc. Thanks for the explanations and models.

flipdewaf wrote:

I found it very difficult to find what a projected (778) DOW would be...

Leeham.net uses a figure of 168,000kg normalized to their internal three-class seating ratios they use. Their 777-9 figure of 185,000kg (at 368 seats) is within spitting distance of Boeing's released data (184,000kg at their post-2014 Design Gate which is likely for 349 seats in three classes), so your 173,000kg figure for DOW is likely accurate enough.

RJMAZ wrote:

The answer is because the effective span numbers posted here are wrong.

No idea.
but you start with the wrong postulation: 789 much more fuel efficient than 359
the posted graphs indicate that the difference is a wash where the 789 is not "outranged".

justloveplanes wrote:

moa999 wrote:

justloveplanes wrote:

Reviewing this, I have to favor Boeing. UA already runs a 789 LAX SYD I think. So the inclusion of the 779 as part of an overall offering provides a more complete solution for QF.

And QF runs 789s BNE-LAX, MEL-LAX, MEL-SFO and soon SYD-SFO

But that's means nothing for a 777 v 350 decision.

The logic is thus

With a 787 / 77X family you cover a wider span of payload / range performance using a common type.

With a 787 / 350 combined fleet, you have two type ratings to support a (slightly) narrower span of payload / range missions.

Since the A35X and 77X appear to be quite close, the decision will hinge on other related benefits, which seem to favor Boeing. Notable that the QF CEO specifically mentioned an A380 replacement as a consideration. A35X would have to be a *lot* better to overcome all this IMHO.

If A380 replacement is on the table than the 77X seems to have this in the bag doesn't it?

speedbird52 wrote:

justloveplanes wrote:

moa999 wrote:

And QF runs 789s BNE-LAX, MEL-LAX, MEL-SFO and soon SYD-SFO

But that's means nothing for a 777 v 350 decision.

The logic is thus

With a 787 / 77X family you cover a wider span of payload / range performance using a common type.

With a 787 / 350 combined fleet, you have two type ratings to support a (slightly) narrower span of payload / range missions.

Since the A35X and 77X appear to be quite close, the decision will hinge on other related benefits, which seem to favor Boeing. Notable that the QF CEO specifically mentioned an A380 replacement as a consideration. A35X would have to be a *lot* better to overcome all this IMHO.

If A380 replacement is on the table than the 77X seems to have this in the bag doesn't it?

Do we have a link for where QF CEO mentions that A380 replacement is being considered?

Even if this is the case, Airbus/RR have the option of stretching and "UltraFan"-ing the A350 by the middle-to-end of next decade. QF may only need an A380 replacement around 2028 (assuming 20 years service).

Yeah, the a380s will be around for a little while, as they are about to refurbish them. At least 6+ years of extra use.

I'm also thinking since they are planing adding the sunrise planes, there will be less need for need for VLAs sized planes in the future, so both 777x and a350 should be sufficient in their other non sunrise needs.

Pcoder wrote:

Yeah, the a380s will be around for a little while, as they are about to refurbish them. At least 6+ years of extra use.

I'm also thinking since they are planing adding the sunrise planes, there will be less need for need for VLAs sized planes in the future, so both 777x and a350 should be sufficient in their other non sunrise needs.

Perhaps we could see a 77J as a replacement for the A380?

speedbird52 wrote:

justloveplanes wrote:

moa999 wrote:

And QF runs 789s BNE-LAX, MEL-LAX, MEL-SFO and soon SYD-SFO

But that's means nothing for a 777 v 350 decision.

The logic is thus

With a 787 / 77X family you cover a wider span of payload / range performance using a common type.

With a 787 / 350 combined fleet, you have two type ratings to support a (slightly) narrower span of payload / range missions.

Since the A35X and 77X appear to be quite close, the decision will hinge on other related benefits, which seem to favor Boeing. Notable that the QF CEO specifically mentioned an A380 replacement as a consideration. A35X would have to be a *lot* better to overcome all this IMHO.

If A380 replacement is on the table than the 77X seems to have this in the bag doesn't it?

If it’s just “we need the biggest plane available” as an A380 replacement, then the B779 is the obvious choice. But if they gonna double the frequenciesthe B789 could also be a (partially) replacement for the A380.

MoKa777 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

justloveplanes wrote:

The logic is thus

With a 787 / 77X family you cover a wider span of payload / range performance using a common type.

With a 787 / 350 combined fleet, you have two type ratings to support a (slightly) narrower span of payload / range missions.

Since the A35X and 77X appear to be quite close, the decision will hinge on other related benefits, which seem to favor Boeing. Notable that the QF CEO specifically mentioned an A380 replacement as a consideration. A35X would have to be a *lot* better to overcome all this IMHO.

If A380 replacement is on the table than the 77X seems to have this in the bag doesn't it?

Do we have a link for where QF CEO mentions that A380 replacement is being considered?

Even if this is the case, Airbus/RR have the option of stretching and "UltraFan"-ing the A350 by the middle-to-end of next decade. QF may only need an A380 replacement around 2028 (assuming 20 years service).

The first post in this thread says QF CEO states the 779 is a better A380 replacement. However, on digging into the actual threads, that statement on the A380 replacement was actually made by an analyst. So a bit more gray now.

speedbird52 wrote:

If A380 replacement is on the table than the 77X seems to have this in the bag doesn't it?

Even assuming (eventual) A380 replacement is being factored in, that would not inherently prevent QF from selecting the A350-1000(ULR) for Project Sunrise instead of the 777-8 and then later adding the 777-9 for the A380 replacement and higher-traffic routes.

Note British Airways currently has only the 777-9 and A350-1000 members of their respective families on order (while also operating all three members of the 787 family).

We've heard often that for a widebody type 15-20 frames is the minimum to achieve economies of scale. That's why I don't think QF is well suited to operate A350 and 777X side by side, even as lots of bigger airlines are planning to do so.

I agree that if medium-term A380 replacement (say, mid-2020s) is on the table then the 777X has a thumb on the scale. If the A380s will stay until 2030 then QF has more flexibility. It seems reasonably likely that an Ultrafan re-engine would make a stretch of the A350-1000 feasible (even necessary, as an A350-1000neo without other changes would have more range than needed). I don't think the rumors about 2025-6 EIS for such a beast are realistic, but it is certainly realistic by 2030, and would be as attractive as the 777X as an A380 replacement.

marcelh wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

justloveplanes wrote:

The logic is thus

With a 787 / 77X family you cover a wider span of payload / range performance using a common type.

With a 787 / 350 combined fleet, you have two type ratings to support a (slightly) narrower span of payload / range missions.

Since the A35X and 77X appear to be quite close, the decision will hinge on other related benefits, which seem to favor Boeing. Notable that the QF CEO specifically mentioned an A380 replacement as a consideration. A35X would have to be a *lot* better to overcome all this IMHO.

If A380 replacement is on the table than the 77X seems to have this in the bag doesn't it?

If it’s just “we need the biggest plane available” as an A380 replacement, then the B779 is the obvious choice. But if they gonna double the frequenciesthe B789 could also be a (partially) replacement for the A380.

I agree with this statement. Most airlines are not replacing one for one. Now, the SYD-LAX route needs seats. But as the 789 receives engine PIPs, it can and will fly more.

The 778 really depends on management reserve held by Boeing and GE. If it only meets promise,

If it does as well as the 77W, even better.

Note:. I agree with economy of scale. I believe QF will either order A350s for the fleet or 777x, not both.

Any way it happens, QF will fragment more.

Lightsaber

marcelh wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

justloveplanes wrote:

The logic is thus

With a 787 / 77X family you cover a wider span of payload / range performance using a common type.

With a 787 / 350 combined fleet, you have two type ratings to support a (slightly) narrower span of payload / range missions.

Since the A35X and 77X appear to be quite close, the decision will hinge on other related benefits, which seem to favor Boeing. Notable that the QF CEO specifically mentioned an A380 replacement as a consideration. A35X would have to be a *lot* better to overcome all this IMHO.

If A380 replacement is on the table than the 77X seems to have this in the bag doesn't it?

If it’s just “we need the biggest plane available” as an A380 replacement, then the B779 is the obvious choice. But if they gonna double the frequenciesthe B789 could also be a (partially) replacement for the A380.

Doubling frequency's would be difficult for Qantas as Australia is just so far from everywhere

speedbird52 wrote:

Doubling frequency's would be difficult for Qantas as Australia is just so far from everywhere

"Frequency" doesn't have to be just the same two city pairs.

Take Australia- (continental) US for example. There was a time where the only flights were from MEL/SYD to LAX. Now you have flights from both to SFO, as well as SYD to DFW. With project Sunrise we'll get SYD-JFK as well as a potential MEL-JFK. MEL-DFW is surely not far behind. Then there is potential for ORD and SEA, as well as some flights from BNE to some of these.

Same with Australia to Europe. I can easily see a future with 4 direct daily flight from BNE MEL SYD and PER to LHR. By the middle of next decade SYD could make FRA and CDG work as well. MEL could follow suit by the end of next decade, when the A380s will be gone.

The future of QFi is a lot more ULH flying with a lot more city pairs getting connected directly. In this scenario, I'm not sure there is a need for anything bigger than a A35k.

Also as others have noted, the A380 will be serving QF for at least 20 years. They'll gradually get phased out towards the end of next decade, by which time a stretched A350-NEO is also certainly on the cards.

lightsaber wrote:

LoL. Yes, invest in Popcorn. This will be a close contest. I cannot predict a winner. I would need to know QFs anticipated revenue and detailed cost assumptions to predict.

Sharpen your pencils everyone, this is a high profile campaign that will be brutal. I would be shocked if QF isn't taking the opportunity to expand the bid to get the best A350 (various models) vs. 778/779/787 (various models possible). In other words, QF can cut the costs of fleet replacement due to the visibility of the relatively small project sunrise fleet decision.

Have they ever officially said it'd be winner-take-all?

I still wonder of the possibility of them shocking us, and taking both... if the aircraft can be sufficiently differentiated:
e.g. a 778 for the LHR/JFK trunk routes, and an A35K-ULR for the likes of CDG/FRA/ORD/DFW/GRU?
...costs augmented by 779s and A35K standards on established routes like LAX/SFO/SIN/BKK/HKG/etc?

aryonoco wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Doubling frequency's would be difficult for Qantas as Australia is just so far from everywhere

"Frequency" doesn't have to be just the same two city pairs.
Take Australia- (continental) US for example. There was a time where the only flights were from MEL/SYD to LAX. Now you have flights from both to SFO, as well as SYD to DFW. With project Sunrise we'll get SYD-JFK as well as a potential MEL-JFK. MEL-DFW is surely not far behind. Then there is potential for ORD and SEA, as well as some flights from BNE to some of these.
Same with Australia to Europe. I can easily see a future with 4 direct daily flight from BNE MEL SYD and PER to LHR. By the middle of next decade SYD could make FRA and CDG work as well. MEL could follow suit by the end of next decade, when the A380s will be gone.
The future of QFi is a lot more ULH flying with a lot more city pairs getting connected directly. In this scenario, I'm not sure there is a need for anything bigger than a A35k.
Also as others have noted, the A380 will be serving QF for at least 20 years. They'll gradually get phased out towards the end of next decade, by which time a stretched A350-NEO is also certainly on the cards.

While I think you are on the right trak you haven't taken demand into account. I really doubt there will be sufficient demand to see non-stops Australia- SEA or ORD in the next 10years except possiably one of them from SYD.
There are ALREADY daily direct flights from SYD/MEL to LHR and there has been since the 1930s. PER is a transit stop on the MEL - LHR flight, BNE is a connection. I can see NON-STOP flights when Project Sunrise ramps up replacing the current direct flights on SYD/MEL - LHR [that's about 5 airframes], PER may stay a B789 or it may go back to a connection via SIN, BNE maybe a non-stop or maybe a direct flight via SIN. I also have doubts about non-stop flights to CDG & FRA, maybe one or the other. That's 3 flights to LHR from Australia, QF have 4 LHR slots, IMHO the 4th will be used for an A380 daily SYD-SIN-LHR to keep up the capacity [ I think it should be via DXB for connections but apparently the market disagrees with me!]

PS: Please get the differance between direct & non stop clear in your heads, you miss a lot of what is really going on when you incorrectly use them interchangably!

Gemuser

LAX772LR wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

LoL. Yes, invest in Popcorn. This will be a close contest. I cannot predict a winner. I would need to know QFs anticipated revenue and detailed cost assumptions to predict.

Sharpen your pencils everyone, this is a high profile campaign that will be brutal. I would be shocked if QF isn't taking the opportunity to expand the bid to get the best A350 (various models) vs. 778/779/787 (various models possible). In other words, QF can cut the costs of fleet replacement due to the visibility of the relatively small project sunrise fleet decision.

Have they ever officially said it'd be winner-take-all?

I still wonder of the possibility of them shocking us, and taking both... if the aircraft can be sufficiently differentiated:
e.g. a 778 for the LHR/JFK trunk routes, and an A35K-ULR for the likes of CDG/FRA/ORD/DFW/GRU?
...costs augmented by 779s and A35K standards on established routes like LAX/SFO/SIN/BKK/HKG/etc?

I really can't see QF introducing a new third long haul type, they just don't do that for sound economic reasons. [And before I get jumped on, the A330s & A380s are NOT "NEW" types these aircraft will partly [at least] replace them.

Being a "winner takes all" order is IMHO much more likely BUT you never know!

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

BUT you never know!

Indeed.

That said: when a decision is made, the site should have enough sense to give the announcement a post of its own.... instead of ridiculously merging it as the 900th post on this speculative thread, where half the membership will miss seeing it.

I don't think either manufacturer will have an incentive to develop the Sunrise airplane without at least 10 firm orders, so I really don't think there is any possibility of a split in Sunrise.

In the (IMO unlikely) scenario of a split order, I think it would be about separating ULH and A380 replacement, i.e., A350-1000ULR for the long stuff and 777-9 for the big trunk routes. But even that I find unlikely.

LAX772LR wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

BUT you never know!

Indeed.

That said: when a decision is made, the site should have enough sense to give the announcement a post of its own.... instead of ridiculously merging it as the 900th post on this speculative thread, where half the membership will miss seeing it.

Realistically, I can see QF taking a A350-900 variant for ULH, the proven low risk option. If ULH doesn't work out, you're not stuck with less economical aircraft like A340-500 & 777-200LR in the past QF probably want -1000's but for more regular Asia / TPAC flights. The 777-9 seems a good option for real high capacity routes when the A380s are going to retire.

keesje wrote:

Realistically, I can see QF taking a A350-900 variant for ULH,

As has been reported by multiple sources, QF has concluded that the A359ULR isn't suitable for their needs, and are looking at an A35K with extended range as their proposed Airbus variant.

aryonoco wrote:

Take Australia- (continental) US for example. There was a time where the only flights were from MEL/SYD to LAX. Now you have flights from both to SFO, as well as SYD to DFW. With project Sunrise we'll get SYD-JFK as well as a potential MEL-JFK. MEL-DFW is surely not far behind. Then there is potential for ORD and SEA, as well as some flights from BNE to some of these.

Same with Australia to Europe. I can easily see a future with 4 direct daily flight from BNE MEL SYD and PER to LHR. By the middle of next decade SYD could make FRA and CDG work as well. MEL could follow suit by the end of next decade, when the A380s will be gone.

I agree with this. I hear rumours this is the end game.

Qantas will finally have aircraft available that can hit these distance parts of the world non stop. This will allow a huge increase in premium customers captured from competing airlines. Premium customers equals profit. Qantas has the advantage where it has dozens of major destinations over 8000+nm. This allows a relatively massive fleet of ULH aircraft. Competing airlines operating from these major destinations do not have as many 8000+nm routes to warrant a dedicated fleet of ULH aircraft.

Qantas will be the leader of the point to point model in the coming decades. The 797 will also play a big part allowing heaps of secondary city point to point routes into Asia.

RJMAZ wrote:

aryonoco wrote:

Take Australia- (continental) US for example. There was a time where the only flights were from MEL/SYD to LAX. Now you have flights from both to SFO, as well as SYD to DFW. With project Sunrise we'll get SYD-JFK as well as a potential MEL-JFK. MEL-DFW is surely not far behind. Then there is potential for ORD and SEA, as well as some flights from BNE to some of these.

Same with Australia to Europe. I can easily see a future with 4 direct daily flight from BNE MEL SYD and PER to LHR. By the middle of next decade SYD could make FRA and CDG work as well. MEL could follow suit by the end of next decade, when the A380s will be gone.

I agree with this. I hear rumours this is the end game.

Qantas will finally have aircraft available that can hit these distance parts of the world non stop. This will allow a huge increase in premium customers captured from competing airlines. Premium customers equals profit. Qantas has the advantage where it has dozens of major destinations over 8000+nm. This allows a relatively massive fleet of ULH aircraft. Competing airlines operating from these major destinations do not have as many 8000+nm routes to warrant a dedicated fleet of ULH aircraft.

Qantas will be the leader of the point to point model in the coming decades. The 797 will also play a big part allowing heaps of secondary city point to point routes into Asia.

if QF will make profits others will jump in with the same planes. I can see TK, LH, BA from EU.

Kikko19 wrote:

if QF will make profits others will jump in with the same planes. I can see TK, LH, BA from EU.

TK might, but why would BA want the jets? Where would they fly them to that needs the range and has the premium capacity? Why would they compete with a Oneworld ally like Qantas?

LH? Is there enough Germany - Oz/NZ traffic to warrant a specialized subfleet? I don't think so.

I could see SQ getting the Sunrise jets, because then they'd be able to use them on the ULH routes to New York and Los Angeles (they can then turn their A350-900ULRs back into standard A350-900s). Maybe even Aeromexico owing to their need for powerful jets (given their hot-and-high conditions), but unless the premium demand to Mexico City increases that's unlikely.

Project Sunrise is extreme. QF is basically the only airline on the planet that really NEEDS that kind of range (perhaps SQ too), and unless SQ, China Southern and CX want to start flying to Central/South America I really don't see anyone else who wants to do such massive ULH flights.

Maybe NZ needs a jet that can do Heathrow nonstop. And Project Sunrise probably won't be able to do that (not economically at least). But seriously, Project Sunrise is unlikely to be a huge seller. I see an order of maybe 10 from QF (to do SYD/MEL - LHR/JFK, and also SYD - CDG/FRA), and possibly 5 for SQ (for SIN - EWR/LAX), maybe more if SQ wants to get to MEX (for whatever reason). And CX have no reason to launch an Evita Route to Argentina unless there are huge economic ties I don't know about.

RJMAZ wrote:

aryonoco wrote:

Take Australia- (continental) US for example. There was a time where the only flights were from MEL/SYD to LAX. Now you have flights from both to SFO, as well as SYD to DFW. With project Sunrise we'll get SYD-JFK as well as a potential MEL-JFK. MEL-DFW is surely not far behind. Then there is potential for ORD and SEA, as well as some flights from BNE to some of these.

Same with Australia to Europe. I can easily see a future with 4 direct daily flight from BNE MEL SYD and PER to LHR. By the middle of next decade SYD could make FRA and CDG work as well. MEL could follow suit by the end of next decade, when the A380s will be gone.

I agree with this. I hear rumours this is the end game.

Qantas will finally have aircraft available that can hit these distance parts of the world non stop. This will allow a huge increase in premium customers captured from competing airlines. Premium customers equals profit. Qantas has the advantage where it has dozens of major destinations over 8000+nm. This allows a relatively massive fleet of ULH aircraft. Competing airlines operating from these major destinations do not have as many 8000+nm routes to warrant a dedicated fleet of ULH aircraft.

Qantas will be the leader of the point to point model in the coming decades. The 797 will also play a big part allowing heaps of secondary city point to point routes into Asia.

Oh well. Sorry for not being a premium customer.

seabosdca wrote:

I don't think either manufacturer will have an incentive to develop the Sunrise airplane without at least 10 firm orders, so I really don't think there is any possibility of a split in Sunrise.

In the (IMO unlikely) scenario of a split order, I think it would be about separating ULH and A380 replacement, i.e., A350-1000ULR for the long stuff and 777-9 for the big trunk routes. But even that I find unlikely.

I highly doubt a split order. The most likely scenarios are:

777-8S (modified for Project Sunrise) + 777-9 (to replace the A380s in the long run)

or

A350-1000ULR (for Project Sunrise) + A350-1000 or perhaps the rumored A350-1100/2000 stretch (to replace the A380s in the long run)

The first jet of both pairs will do SYD/MEL - LHR/JFK and possibly SYD - CDG/FRA.

The second jet of both pairs will do SYD/MEL - LAX/SFO/SIN/HKG/HND (I think QF will try to re-route all of their Tokyo flights to Haneda if/when they get slots).

I suspect Dallas will be served via 787-9s from BNE and SYD respectively (MEL - DFW would be more challenging than MEL - LHR, plus a lot of the traffic to Dallas is connecting).

RickNRoll wrote:

Oh well. Sorry for not being a premium customer.

Is the saltiness really necessary?

You can always fly a non-Qantas airline. There are lots of very good non-Qantas airlines! Singapore Airlines is a good place to start. Air New Zealand is pretty good too. Emirates is good if you're in an A380.

The reality is Qantas have a relatively high cost base, and the geography of Australia means they need very costly/capable jets. These are structural factors which are very difficult to fix (and indeed I think the cost base has been fixed as much as possible), and as such Qantas really need the premium passengers to buy the expensive tickets to fund the entire operation (and invest in more jets). The profit margins for economy class are TINY.

Airlines are a low-margin industry generally, and competition is intense. If you aren't a premium passenger, that DOESN'T mean you're a bad or undeserving or inferior person, but it DOES mean you are only marginally economically helpful for the airline. Not to mention, the reality is that roughly 90% of economy passengers care about price above everything else and will fly on the cheapest airline.

So Qantas have no incentive to really try and compete on volume. The revealed preferences of consumers (i.e. what consumers actually do) make it clear that the only meaningful margins for QF are found in the premium cabins.

So as a consequence, QF are chasing high-margins rather than high-volume. And this naturally inclines them to smaller jets with longer ranges operating at higher frequencies between more city pairs with more premium-heavy cabins.

RJMAZ wrote:

Qantas will finally have aircraft available that can hit these distance parts of the world non stop. This will allow a huge increase in premium customers captured from competing airlines. Premium customers equals profit. Qantas has the advantage where it has dozens of major destinations over 8000+nm. This allows a relatively massive fleet of ULH aircraft. Competing airlines operating from these major destinations do not have as many 8000+nm routes to warrant a dedicated fleet of ULH aircraft. Qantas will be the leader of the point to point model in the coming decades.

Not sure about "dozens". But this is the strategy alright. QF effectively launched it with SYD-DFW and proved it with PER-LHR.

So another theory.
The A350 wins the order, Airbus does some custom frames, QF starts service to new destinations non-stop attracting premium pax from other airline one-stop options.
How long would it be before the airlines who are loosing their premium traffic attempt to compete, and which frame will they use?
If the 778 is less economic but carriers a greater payload, it may be able to perform with little to no customization, could we then see both a/c operating ULH to Australia with different carriers?

par13del wrote:

So another theory.
The A350 wins the order, Airbus does some custom frames, QF starts service to new destinations non-stop attracting premium pax from other airline one-stop options.
How long would it be before the airlines who are loosing their premium traffic attempt to compete, and which frame will they use?
If the 778 is less economic but carriers a greater payload, it may be able to perform with little to no customization, could we then see both a/c operating ULH to Australia with different carriers?

I certainly wouldn't rule it out especially if both manufacturers can have their 'sunrise' spec aircraft not requiring very special modification and return to standard config if required. i.e. if BA have the 35k @311t and it requires a 322t version to go direct to SYD then they may well take on the heavier version in order to do the sunrise route at little extra cost.

Fred

par13del wrote:

How long would it be before the airlines who are loosing their premium traffic attempt to compete, and which frame will they use?

But most can't.
The ME3, SQ or the other Asian airlines or all the Chinese airlines don't have the rights to fly London - Australia direct.
It totally changes the dynamics of the Kangaroo route.

Yes BA or VS could get a similar aircraft but I don't see there being two ultra-ultra LH aircraft.

LAX772LR wrote:

keesje wrote:

Realistically, I can see QF taking a A350-900 variant for ULH,

As has been reported by multiple sources, QF has concluded that the A359ULR isn't suitable for their needs, and are looking at an A35K with extended range as their proposed Airbus variant.

They are the middle in negotiations. QF ordered 100+ Dreamliners, Might Order The ‘Boeing 797’ For New Domestic Fleet, sat in the core 777 specification team..

As far as I can see Qantas has been boosting their SYD-LHR business case, stimulating Airbus and Boeing to offer their very best products. Both are willing to do so, at reasonable costs. We are talking a market niche.

Losing the (10?) Qantas ULH fleet contract might be more than a blessing than a loss. Disrupting production, creating high non recurring etc. while Qantas is trying to get the price down. Because it's such a niche requirement, both will offer ~ what they have, not re-invent their products.

Apparently Qantas wants some more space than the A350-900 offers. But, if Airbus offers affordable, off the shelve, proven A350-900 ULR's. in two years, Qantas will not look the other way. This is not a buyers market. They'll possibly re-do the business case & change their mind, again.

- Airbus wants to sell Qantas 40-50 350's in the next 10 years + a bunch of NB's.
- Boeing wants to sell Qantas 40-50 777X's in the next 10 years + a bunch of NB's.

That's why both are (semi) interested in this prestige, ultra long haul, new frontiers project to start with. Qantas makes sure it's connected, otherwise either A or B might respectfully decline.. and that would be "disastrous".

moa999 wrote:

But most can't.
The ME3, SQ or the other Asian airlines or all the Chinese airlines don't have the rights to fly London - Australia direct.
It totally changes the dynamics of the Kangaroo route.

Yes BA or VS could get a similar aircraft but I don't see there being two ultra-ultra LH aircraft.

One reasoning being given is that the a/c will be used for more than just flights to London, and the flexibility of the A350 will win out over the 778.
The ULH routes other than London will spark the competition, just as BA and VS may decide to join the fray.

My take is that the penalties that QF have for the A380 order deferrals will win the day for a Airbus product.

par13del wrote:

My take is that the penalties that QF have for the A380 order deferrals will win the day for a Airbus product.

According to others, these have already been used. Airbus are doing the Airbus A380 cabin refurbishment for Qantas and those deposits have gone there. Apparently.

moa999 wrote:

par13del wrote:

How long would it be before the airlines who are loosing their premium traffic attempt to compete, and which frame will they use?

But most can't.
The ME3, SQ or the other Asian airlines or all the Chinese airlines don't have the rights to fly London - Australia direct.
It totally changes the dynamics of the Kangaroo route.

Yes BA or VS could get a similar aircraft but I don't see there being two ultra-ultra LH aircraft.

This. QF had a shotgun wedding with EK as there just wasn't any choice. Now aircraft allow QF to keep the premium revenue by bypassing DXB.

The same is true if bypassing AA at LAX. Personally, I see more cities to DFW. E.g., MEL might not see MEL-JFK, but replace an A380 to LAX with one smaller plane to LAX (777x, A350, or 787) and one to DFW.

I'm excited about project sunrise. I haven't seen anything that convinces me both Airbus and Boeing aren't both still competing. I personally believe this will be part of a larger fleet replacement order.

Lightsaber

par13del wrote:

How long would it be before the airlines who are loosing their premium traffic attempt to compete, and which frame will they use?

While it may happen eventually, the competing airlines will have a large investment for 1-2 routes. Qantas will always have the advantage of a fleet size 3-4 times larger giving greater economy of scale.

Take Greece and Italy for example. Both countries have a massive number of passengers flying between Australia. Currently passengers are flying one or two stop options using carriers that can never have the rights to do a non stop option. No doubt a huge percentage of these passengers are highly price driven. The sheer volume of passengers means there are easily enough premium customers for Qantas to capture off multiple carriers with a non stop solution.

The only airlines that could compete with a non stop solution to Australia would have to be based in Italy or Greece. There is no airline in either country with a long haul fleet so Qantas will have total market dominance. Melbourne to Athens will be the ultimate test of the Qantas point to point model.

Gemuser wrote:

PS: Please get the differance between direct & non stop clear in your heads, you miss a lot of what is really going on when you incorrectly use them interchangably!

You're right Gemuser. I did use them interchangeably and incorrectly. Thanks for pointing that out.

To clarify, as an armchair analyst sitting in 2019, this is what QF's ULH non-stop operation will look like in 2030:

Europe:
SYD-LHR
MEL-LHR
PER-LHR
BNE-SIN-LHR
SYD-FRA or SYD/CDG

North America (in JV with AA):
SYD-LAX
MEL-LAX
BNE-LAX
SYD-SFO
MEL-SFO
SYD-DFW
MEL-DFW
SYD-JFK
SYD-YVR
MEL-JFK (likely, but less certain than others)
SYD-ORD or SYD-SEA

Africa:
SYD-JNB

South America (In partnership with LATAM)
SYD - GRU
(I think QF would hand SCL to LATAM and focus instead on GRU when they have an aircraft that can fly there).

Some of these will be flown by 789 and others by the Project Sunrise aircraft. There is no room for a third LH type IMO. The only route that can be considered a "trunk" and could use more lift is the one stop option to SIN-LHR (probably from PER or BNE).

RJMAZ wrote:

Take Greece and Italy for example. Both countries have a massive number of passengers flying between Australia. Currently passengers are flying one or two stop options using carriers that can never have the rights to do a non stop option. No doubt a huge percentage of these passengers are highly price driven. The sheer volume of passengers means there are easily enough premium customers for Qantas to capture off multiple carriers with a non stop solution.

Not at all convinced. Italy ranks 18th in the list of visitors to Australia in the year to Sep 2018, with 73,000 - less than 1,500 a week, or almost exactly 200 per day. For QF, EK, CX, EY, QR, TG, SQ, MH and all the others to share between them. This is not a "massive number of passengers". And Greece doesn't feature in the top 20 at all - and is even less likely than Italy to have "easily enough premium passengers . . to capture" given its flatlining economy. Germany sends about three times as many visitors to Australia, and is in with a chance of a nonstop to Australia being successful, I reckon. But I'm even doubtful that France (2,500 a week, or 350 a day) would be viable.

Sure, connecting pax can make the difference. But for that you need partners, and in the case of Paris you're facing a Skyteam hub, while Frankfurt is a Star Alliance hub. Not easy. Besides, the advantage of "one-stop via FRA" compared to "one-stop via SIN" isn't that clear. And in Rome or Athens, the dominant carriers are, well, not strong. I don't think that there any guarantees of success other than LHR, unfortunately.

I see five airlines with a need for this type of plane, and I'll give the specific routes.

QF: SYD to LHR, CDG, and JFK nonstop. (The longest route currently flown nonstop is PER-LHR on the B789.)
DL: ATL to JNB nonstop (currently operated on the B77L)
EK: DXB to AKL nonstop (currently operated on the A388) - could also be potentially for DXB to PTY when started
QR: DOH to AKL nonstop (currently operated on the B77L - was once the world's longest nonstop, until)
SQ: SIN to EWR nonstop (currently operated on the A359ULR with no Y). This would allow SQ to operate this route with a 4-class cabin of F, J, W, and Y.

A wild card could be NZ for AKL to EWR since the B789 can only get as far as ORD.

These are likely the carriers I see also looking at what QF orders. If the 777-8X is what QF chooses, that gives that program a shot in the arm, as I see the other four following suit. QF would be getting at least 12 frames, and I would not be surprised to see SYD-DFW go to a Project Sunrise plane or a B789 (if DFW is also converted to whatever model wins Project Sunrise, I'd say 16 frames). DL could then follow with 10 frames to replace its B77Ls, followed by QR with the same, SQ with 8, and EK with an unknown amount, possibly taking EY's order. For DL, it would be a significant up-gauge in capacity, but only small MTOW increase (the B77L has an MTOW of 347.8t while the B777X will keep the 351.5t MTOW of the B77W).

As for QF, I expect the Project Sunrise planes to be all from SYD, as that's Australia's economic capital.