User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 1:40 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
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).


EK and QR already have the 778 on order. SQ also has the 779 in its books.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 2:17 am

ClassicLover wrote:
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.

There are a number of possibilities:

1. QF was offered compensation by Airbus for late delivery and other technical issues. Like retrospective discounts / credits, the value is usually expressed in three ways: A. Take cash now - the smallest amount. B. Apply as a credit on amounts owed / purchase parts, training, etc. C. Apply to another order now or in the future - the largest amount.

Was the compensation in part or total in lieu of deposits when the options were converted to orders? If the order was subsequently not delivered, is there a clawback for the technically overpaid part of the compensation?

2. QF received retrospective credits on the original order. When the options were converted to orders, did Airbus top-up the credits already paid on the delivered aircraft? Or only promise to do this as the newly ordered aircraft were delivered?

If the former, QF have been overpaid, and there is likely to be an element of clawback.

3. Finally, we arrive at the deposits on the now cancelled order, probably funded from the compensation and/or retrospective credit top-up on the delivered order.

It's likely the value of the notional deposits has eroded, with Airbus allowing QF to draw on them for other purposes.

It seems likely the order would anyway have been frustrated by RR unwillingness to supply any engines for new A380's at competitive purchase prices, and especially competitive maintenance rates, and no other engine option exists.

Just like compensation and retrospective credits, QF will have been offered three options: 1. Take cash, minus penalties and clawbacks. 2. Take credits on parts & services - clawbacks, but no penalties. 3. Buy new aircraft - no penalties or clawbacks, plus a % incentive.

Seems QF has opted for 2, and is using the credits to fund the A380 refurbishment, so Airbus has probably no financial overhang advantage from the cancelled A380 order in respect to a possible A350 order.
Last edited by smartplane on Fri May 17, 2019 2:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 2:22 am

It's also not beyond the realm of possibility that the QF Group used the A380 deposits on the shedloads of A320 and A320neo family frames they have ordered.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4980
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 3:26 am

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.

Can I emphasie moa999's point! This is what Project Sunrise is all about, capturing just about ALL preimum traffic on Australia -LHR (1st) and JFK (2nd) routes. QF are taking their flights to where the other airlines who have caused them such grief on the Kangaroo route & to a lesser extent trans Pacific CANNOT follow due to lack of traffic rights. Yes for LHR BA could get rights, VS maybe, as don't bet on the ASA between Australia & UK after Brexit. I don't think BA would worry QF that much as it is likely to be some sort of cooperative venture as both airline have done since the 1930s. For USA ports yes the US3 COULD but I doubt they would bother as, presuming the QF/AA joint venture is approved I doubt their would be enough traffic Australia - JFK. Concivably UA MAYBE be able to generate enough traffic from ORD/IAH - Australia but that would not be effective in the NYC market and less effective in the whole NE USA.

When discussing Project Sunrise DO NOT loose sight of this fact. IF QF & the OEM believe it possible they MAY ALL be prepared to spend more money than you would otherwise think reasonable.

Gemuser
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 4:37 am

DavidByrne wrote:
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.

Where did you pull that stat from?

Singapore and Hong Kong are listed as one of the top tourist destinations for Australia when they were only a stopover for their actual destination in Europe. Easy for the stats tonbe fudged.

Melbourne for example has the largest population of Greeks outside of Greece. Australia is more wealthy than Greece so looking at Greeks nationals travelling to Australia on holiday would only paint half of the picture.

I would estimate a quarter of a million people travel between Greece and Australia each year. Most indirectly. That can easily sustain a daily flight.

People always say Greece would be full of passengers flying on a shoe string budget. Perth to London has shown that the economy fares aren't that much more expensive than the one stop option as you only have one set of landing fees and slot costs. The demand of non stops has also been underestimated by many.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13813
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 5:33 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I would estimate a quarter of a million people travel between Greece and Australia each year. Most indirectly. That can easily sustain a daily flight.


And what a surprise, your assumptions are not supported by official published data. Where else have we seen this before......

https://www.tra.gov.au/ArticleDocuments ... .xlsx.aspx
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13813
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 5:45 am

Gemuser wrote:
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.


Had a look at how to schedule QF1&9 with these long sectors assuming QF will want to keep them on the 5/6am LHR arrivals. Could not see it working with just 5 airframes. Was thinking QF1 might turn around do QF10, that airframes then does MEL-PER-SYD, then QF1 again.

How do you see the rotations working ?

Does QF have the rights to operate SYD-LHR-JFK-SYD ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4980
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 6:27 am

zeke wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
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.


Had a look at how to schedule QF1&9 with these long sectors assuming QF will want to keep them on the 5/6am LHR arrivals. Could not see it working with just 5 airframes. Was thinking QF1 might turn around do QF10, that airframes then does MEL-PER-SYD, then QF1 again.

How do you see the rotations working ?

Does QF have the rights to operate SYD-LHR-JFK-SYD ?

The old QF1/2/9/10 rotation was done with 5 frames, it was basically SYD-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL-DXB-LHR-DXB-SYD, so QF1 TO QF10 TO QF 9 TO QF 1. That was posted on here when the DXB timetable came into force. I assumed that they could keep the current LHR times by varing the SYD/MEL time as they have enough slots at both to juggle them around.
I am assume that the Project Sunrise aircraft will NOT take over PER-LHR, at least untill later in the delivery stream, it may then make sense or PER-LHR may stay B789 or it may be cancelled, who knows? Certianly not me. Therefore PER is not a factor in my thinking. If PER is included in the PS rotation then 7 or 8 frames will be required
Given QF has 4 LHR slots I see them being allocated to SYD-LHR, MEL-LHR, SYD-SIN-LHR [AJ has said it will stay] and the fourth slot to PER-LHR, if it stays, otherwise it will most likely go to BNE-LHR
QF certianly had the rights to operate SYD-JFK-LHR-SYD, and did so into the 1970s I assume they still have them under the Australia-USA Open Skies ASA, the Australia-UK ASA I'm not sure about.

Gemuser
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4699
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 7:30 am

zeke wrote:
Does QF have the rights to operate SYD-LHR-JFK-SYD ?


Presumably they still do - Qantas were the third airline to operate jets on the transatlantic route after Pan American and BOAC, with their Boeing 707-138s in 1959. It was SYD-NAN-HNL-SFO-IDL-LHR and then onwards to SYD via Europe, Middle East and Asia.

They operated that from 1959 for quite a while, so I presume they still have the rights. However, I can't see them flying transatlantic for any reason whatsoever, unless they joined the oneworld JV to pool the flight with BA, AA, IB, AY. Just can't see them flying transatlantic ever, so it's barely worth speculating. Why did you ask?
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 7:48 am

zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I would estimate a quarter of a million people travel between Greece and Australia each year. Most indirectly. That can easily sustain a daily flight.


And what a surprise, your assumptions are not supported by official published data. Where else have we seen this before......

https://www.tra.gov.au/ArticleDocuments ... .xlsx.aspx

Again you've provided some data without context or without reading it. That only shows traffic in one direction.

I opened the file and it only showed numbers coming TO Australia. 75,000 coming to Australia from Italy. Greece didn't make the top 20 but it surely wouldn't be far off.

Now how many Australians went to Greece and Italy? Australia has a very high standard of living so there will be much more traffic going the other way.

For instance take Indonesia that document said 186,000 Indonesians came to Australia, yet a massive 1.2 million Australians went to Indonesia.

Source: http://www.traveller.com.au/bali-touris ... ion-gxetxl

600,000 Australians went to Thailand last year yet only 93,000 people from Thailand came to Australia.

So 250,000 Australians travelling to Greece would be a good if not conservative estimate.

With 250,000 passengers Qantas could go daily flights from both Melbourne and Sydney to Greece. That would capture two thirds of the market and they can leave the poor customers to Scoot. It is very risky but totally doable.

Italy would be bigger
 
Kikko19
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 8:12 am

still tourists would not pay too much for the trip... so they'd go with EK or TK.
But the real question is: how much modifications would need those planes? if it would cost peanuts (778 should be ready for it without modifications...) why wouldn't LH or BA or anyone with the ac try to deploy them to Australia to go after the magic yield?? in economy you make profit only until you have an edge, and for short period as others can do the same eventually. or Australia (QF) will be forever enjoying it??? this sunrise thingy sounds more like a marketing advertising....
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 8:33 am

RJMAZ wrote:
they can leave the poor customers to Scoot


Wow, that is a tad bit patronizing, don't you think..?
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 9:06 am

Kikko19 wrote:
still tourists would not pay too much for the trip... so they'd go with EK or TK.
But the real question is: how much modifications would need those planes? if it would cost peanuts (778 should be ready for it without modifications...) why wouldn't LH or BA or anyone with the ac try to deploy them to Australia to go after the magic yield?? in economy you make profit only until you have an edge, and for short period as others can do the same eventually. or Australia (QF) will be forever enjoying it??? this sunrise thingy sounds more like a marketing advertising....

You underestimate the power of the non stop.

If you ranked every passenger in the market from those flying first class at the top to the cheapest economy seat at the bottom then Qantas will capture the top portion.

If the Qantas non stop flight does attract a big premium then passengers can simply downgrade classes. Business class passengers flying one stop on Singapore airlines could fly premium economy with Qantas on a non stop flight. If the passenger can not afford or justify the cost of an economy seat on Qantas then they will have to settle for a one stop flight this might be the lower third of the market.

EK and TK can not do Italy or Greece to Australia non stop. Australia will have a monopoly for decades on those routes which is why I think they will launch. Melbourne to Greece can be done with a standard 778 easily as it is much shorter than to london. It should even make the trip in a Jetstar high density cabin layout.

BA could LH could battle it out with Qantas with similar aircraft after a few years. The 778 should be able to do the route in standard form just with a lower density cabin than industry standard. It is the A350-1000 that needs modifications like a MTOW bump to match the payload/range.

I am using Greece as just an example of a possible route. It is hard to measure the market size for a non stop flight when there is currently non option. Sydney to Miami would be another interesting flight. But it is hard to predict the traffic. It actually doesn't take much to fill a daily flight providing you have a monopoly on a route.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 9:06 am

In my Opinion, Qantas is in the wrong Alliance and lose out on huge ULH potential in Europe. LHR-Australia also works without OneWorld and if they would be members of *A the market opportunities in Europe would be huge. FRA and MUC but also ZRH could bring in good revenue. If you have to go one stop, a short 1-2h flight and then a 20h flight is more appealing than two 12h flights. This would cover all of Europe from Portugal (TAP) to Poland (LOT).

The US-Market would also be no problem, switch out AA for UA and you can use a great network fro
m EWR and Houston.
 
moa999
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 9:12 am

I don't think alliances matter so much in Europe given the train networks, and even LCCs.

People in Europe seem quite comfortable in booking a couple of non+connecting LCC flights (with sufficient layover) to get where they want to go.

The main issue for a Euro/UK airline competing on these super-long routes is they have no other optimal use for the aircraft - Qantas has multiple options.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 9:14 am

RJMAZ wrote:
People always say Greece would be full of passengers flying on a shoe string budget. Perth to London has shown that the economy fares aren't that much more expensive than the one stop option as you only have one set of landing fees and slot costs. The demand of non stops has also been underestimated by many.
So I found your comments interesting and it is always said that doing ULH is not a good idea because we use fuel to carry fuel. I used my model to do 2 flights SYD-CTU and CTU-LHR, You'd see why from this http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SYD-LHR,+LHR-CTU-SYD

The difference in total flight time was about 20 minutes and the fuel usage was about 12.5t in favour of the stopping flight. which looks to be about 5k usd.

It looks to me that the only real benefit of a stopping flight is when you want to carry significant payload, it will probably be cheaper per seat if you aren't looking to take cargo.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13813
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 9:26 am

Gemuser wrote:
The old QF1/2/9/10 rotation was done with 5 frames, it was basically SYD-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL-DXB-LHR-DXB-SYD, so QF1 TO QF10 TO QF 9 TO QF 1. That was posted on here when the DXB timetable came into force. I assumed that they could keep the current LHR times by varing the SYD/MEL time as they have enough slots at both to juggle them around.


I assume you mean QF9 to QF2 ?

My back of the envelope thoughts

QF1 SYD 10:30Z (2030EST) - LHR 0630Z (20 hrs)
5:30 on ground
QF10 LHR 1200 Z - MEL 0700Z (1700 EST) (19 hrs)
2:00 on ground
QF9 MEL 09:00Z (19:00EST) - LHR 0500Z(20 hrs)
16:00 on ground
QF2 LHR 21:00Z - SYD 16:00Z (02:00 EST not available due curfew)(19 hrs)
latest QF2 could leave would be around 4pm, 7 hrs on ground
QF2 LHR 16:00Z - SYD 11:00Z (21:00 EST 22:00 EDST 19 hrs)

If they could get the two slots on lease to BA, operate one to SIN/SYD (current 9pm LHR departure) with the A380 (BNE/PER/MEL connections in SIN), and the other to JFK with the Sunrise. Run from LHR to JFK at 7am , get out before BA117, attract the premium traffic LHR-JFK

LHR 07:00 - JFK 14:00Z (09:00 EDT)
JFK 16:00Z (11:00 EDT) - SYD 12:00Z (22:00 EST)


SYD 02:00Z (12:00 EST) - JFK 22:00Z (18:00 EDT)
JFK 00:00Z (20:00 EDT) - LHR 07:00Z
QF2 LHR 11:00Z - SYD 06:00Z (16:00 EDT)

So instead of having an aircraft sit on the ground in LHR for 16 hrs, it does the equivalent to LHR-JFK-LHR
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4980
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 10:22 am

zeke wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
The old QF1/2/9/10 rotation was done with 5 frames, it was basically SYD-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL-DXB-LHR-DXB-SYD, so QF1 TO QF10 TO QF 9 TO QF 1. That was posted on here when the DXB timetable came into force. I assumed that they could keep the current LHR times by varing the SYD/MEL time as they have enough slots at both to juggle them around.


I assume you mean QF9 to QF2 ?

My back of the envelope thoughts

QF1 SYD 10:30Z (2030EST) - LHR 0630Z (20 hrs)
5:30 on ground
QF10 LHR 1200 Z - MEL 0700Z (1700 EST) (19 hrs)
2:00 on ground
QF9 MEL 09:00Z (19:00EST) - LHR 0500Z(20 hrs)
16:00 on ground
QF2 LHR 21:00Z - SYD 16:00Z (02:00 EST not available due curfew)(19 hrs)
latest QF2 could leave would be around 4pm, 7 hrs on ground
QF2 LHR 16:00Z - SYD 11:00Z (21:00 EST 22:00 EDST 19 hrs)

If they could get the two slots on lease to BA, operate one to SIN/SYD (current 9pm LHR departure) with the A380 (BNE/PER/MEL connections in SIN), and the other to JFK with the Sunrise. Run from LHR to JFK at 7am , get out before BA117, attract the premium traffic LHR-JFK

LHR 07:00 - JFK 14:00Z (09:00 EDT)
JFK 16:00Z (11:00 EDT) - SYD 12:00Z (22:00 EST)


SYD 02:00Z (12:00 EST) - JFK 22:00Z (18:00 EDT)
JFK 00:00Z (20:00 EDT) - LHR 07:00Z
QF2 LHR 11:00Z - SYD 06:00Z (16:00 EDT)

So instead of having an aircraft sit on the ground in LHR for 16 hrs, it does the equivalent to LHR-JFK-LHR

Yes, I ment QF2.

Why couldn't QF get the slots back? They were leased and NOT sold. As PS won't happen until 2022 there is plenty of time to get them back, I THINK they were on a 12 month term.
I'm not right up on the LHR curfew rules but I thought it didn't cut in until midnight? Plus there are few curfew slots aren't there? with a 2359 departure that would put arrival in SYD around 0500. There are a few 0500 - 0600 slots in SYD and I think QF already have some allocated to them.

I am sure the route timetabling group at QF could do much better than me.

Gemuser
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13813
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 10:26 am

The curfew issue was in SYD not LHR. You would not want an aircraft sitting on the ground all day if it can be helped.

Midnight from LHR would be 4am arrival in SYD, 5am during summer.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
downdata
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 10:26 am

aryonoco wrote:
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).


Melbourne's population will exceed Sydney by 2025... just noting
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 10:34 am

lightsaber wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I guess this is the best way to post this. There i to variants of the A35K for comparison. One with DOW at 147000kg and one with DOW at 150000kg. The TSFC is listed in the data.
Image

Fred



It is amazing how close fuel burn is for both frames. My question is in regards to the assumed 30t payload.

Where is this assumption coming from? Second, is it certain both frames have the legs to fly the mission at 30t?

And btw....thanks for the information. It is very interesting.

I fully expect the GE engine to have even lower TSFC. It has variable turbine cooling, more precise turbine clearance control, and a rediculous number of cooling looks on the engine. All of that stuff adds weight and cost to the engine, all benefits long haul fuel burn.

The competition is still too close to call. Just a data point.

Lightsaber


And with regards to maintenance, the LEAP is supposed to require 3 shop visits in 25 years (compared to 5 for GTF and 12 or more for older engines). If LEAP is doing what it is supposed to do, the reduction in shop visits would be huge. And it can be assumed that the GE9X is at least as good. Anybody got info on how the LEAP and GTF are doing on the A32xNEO maintenance wise?
Last edited by jagraham on Fri May 17, 2019 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Kikko19
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 10:35 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Kikko19 wrote:
still tourists would not pay too much for the trip... so they'd go with EK or TK.
But the real question is: how much modifications would need those planes? if it would cost peanuts (778 should be ready for it without modifications...) why wouldn't LH or BA or anyone with the ac try to deploy them to Australia to go after the magic yield?? in economy you make profit only until you have an edge, and for short period as others can do the same eventually. or Australia (QF) will be forever enjoying it??? this sunrise thingy sounds more like a marketing advertising....

You underestimate the power of the non stop.

If you ranked every passenger in the market from those flying first class at the top to the cheapest economy seat at the bottom then Qantas will capture the top portion.

If the Qantas non stop flight does attract a big premium then passengers can simply downgrade classes. Business class passengers flying one stop on Singapore airlines could fly premium economy with Qantas on a non stop flight. If the passenger can not afford or justify the cost of an economy seat on Qantas then they will have to settle for a one stop flight this might be the lower third of the market.

EK and TK can not do Italy or Greece to Australia non stop. Australia will have a monopoly for decades on those routes which is why I think they will launch. Melbourne to Greece can be done with a standard 778 easily as it is much shorter than to london. It should even make the trip in a Jetstar high density cabin layout.

BA could LH could battle it out with Qantas with similar aircraft after a few years. The 778 should be able to do the route in standard form just with a lower density cabin than industry standard. It is the A350-1000 that needs modifications like a MTOW bump to match the payload/range.

I am using Greece as just an example of a possible route. It is hard to measure the market size for a non stop flight when there is currently non option. Sydney to Miami would be another interesting flight. But it is hard to predict the traffic. It actually doesn't take much to fill a daily flight providing you have a monopoly on a route.


So LH and AF or BA wouldn't have the same thoughts? or would it come to the management's mind after few years of QF monopoly?
 
moa999
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 10:47 am

Kikko19 wrote:
So LH and AF or BA wouldn't have the same thoughts? or would it come to the management's mind after few years of QF monopoly?


Possibly. But what other routes could they use the aircraft onthat couldn't be operated by a more optimised aircraft
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13813
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 10:56 am

jagraham wrote:
And with regards to maintenance, the LEAP is supposed to require 3 shop visits in 25 years (compared to 5 for GTF and 12 or more for older engines). If LEAP is doing what it is supposed to do, the reduction in shop visits would be huge. And it can be assumed that the GE9X is at least as good. Anybody got info on how the LEAP and GTF are doing on the A32xNEO maintenance wise?


The engines are not really comparable, short haul engines see a lot more cycles. WB engines may never come off wing during their life.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 11:28 am

moa999 wrote:
Kikko19 wrote:
So LH and AF or BA wouldn't have the same thoughts? or would it come to the management's mind after few years of QF monopoly?


Possibly. But what other routes could they use the aircraft onthat couldn't be operated by a more optimised aircraft

I wouldn’t say that either of the major options are have been discussing are exactly optimised for the sunrise route, they are simply the aircraft that can make it at the extremes of their envelope. At lower range they will take significant amount of cargo and operate on 7-8 hr sectors without huge hits in terms of fuel burn.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 11:54 am

Will we also see PER-LAX?
come visit the south pacific
 
jsfr
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 12:50 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Kikko19 wrote:
still tourists would not pay too much for the trip... so they'd go with EK or TK.
But the real question is: how much modifications would need those planes? if it would cost peanuts (778 should be ready for it without modifications...) why wouldn't LH or BA or anyone with the ac try to deploy them to Australia to go after the magic yield?? in economy you make profit only until you have an edge, and for short period as others can do the same eventually. or Australia (QF) will be forever enjoying it??? this sunrise thingy sounds more like a marketing advertising....

You underestimate the power of the non stop.

If you ranked every passenger in the market from those flying first class at the top to the cheapest economy seat at the bottom then Qantas will capture the top portion.

If the Qantas non stop flight does attract a big premium then passengers can simply downgrade classes. Business class passengers flying one stop on Singapore airlines could fly premium economy with Qantas on a non stop flight. If the passenger can not afford or justify the cost of an economy seat on Qantas then they will have to settle for a one stop flight this might be the lower third of the market.

EK and TK can not do Italy or Greece to Australia non stop. Australia will have a monopoly for decades on those routes which is why I think they will launch. Melbourne to Greece can be done with a standard 778 easily as it is much shorter than to london. It should even make the trip in a Jetstar high density cabin layout.

BA could LH could battle it out with Qantas with similar aircraft after a few years. The 778 should be able to do the route in standard form just with a lower density cabin than industry standard. It is the A350-1000 that needs modifications like a MTOW bump to match the payload/range.

I am using Greece as just an example of a possible route. It is hard to measure the market size for a non stop flight when there is currently non option. Sydney to Miami would be another interesting flight. But it is hard to predict the traffic. It actually doesn't take much to fill a daily flight providing you have a monopoly on a route.


Spot on!

There is a big difference between when you want to go somewhere, and when you need to go...

Sure the thousands of Germans making the once in a lifetime trip down under to go and cuddle Koalas will try to save a few dollars here and there (and probably even find Dubai "Exciting").

People, like myself, who feel a moral obligation to go and visit the relatives (and avoid being disinherited) just want it over and done with and will pay a bit more to avoid burning up my entire annual holiday allowance on the one mandatory annual trip - yet that is still a trourist trip. Additionaly if the inherent risk in a connection can be minimised that's also great, even if they don't fly to my home town in Europe at least a missed connection in Rome (for example) would leave me with hourly altrernatives rather than a missed connection in DXB/DOH which would mean waiting a whole day.

I would also look at the added conveniance of Athens/Rome from a geographical perspective - you land there, connect to wherever in Europe and probably avoid an unnecessary scenic tour of Europe. For that to be beneficial QF would indeed be better served by *A (Aegean) or Sky (Alitalia). I've lost count of the number of times I've admired my home out of the window from 30000 feet as I fly past to somewhere else in order to change planes and fly back in the opposite direction...

The potential for BA/EK etc. to piggy back on QF's order are nowhere near as strong as TK which has not been mentioned in the thread. Turkish has been rumoured to look at direct MEL/SYD flights for quite some time - I still wouldn't be surprised if they launch in advance of QF just for bragging rights...

As an Australian expat I dislike QF ("service" style makes me cringe), and as a top tier Skyteam and *A cardholder, there is no incentive to fly them. However, if they start flying non-stop to Paris - I will fly them, and I will even pay (a little bit) more for it...
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 1:29 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
I used my model to do 2 flights SYD-CTU and CTU-LHR, You'd see why from this http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SYD-LHR,+LHR-CTU-SYD

The difference in total flight time was about 20 minutes and the fuel usage was about 12.5t in favour of the stopping flight. which looks to be about 5k usd.

I was not expecting such a small difference. The landing fees and slot costs would far exceed the fuel saving. That is good news for Qantas they should grow fast with the non stop flights.

It is a shame the 787-8ER never came out. The smaller aircraft would reduce risk when opening new routes. Qantas could hit half of the countries in Europe with a daily flight and pretty much suck up every premium customer traveling between Australia and Europe.

I guess the 777-8 will be able to hit the popular cities.

Motorhussy wrote:
Will we also see PER-LAX?

I could think of dozens of 8000+nm routes that Qantas could do. PER to LAX makes sense, you have lots of connecting traffic on the US end. You would target the airport with the most connecting traffic so the local domestic airline will be the connecting. For example Qantas could fly to six cities in south america with a non stop from Sydney. You then give every passenger traveling between Australia and South America the option of one less stop. A 3 stop flight becomes a 2 stop and a 2 stop becomes a 1 stop etc. That all attracts premium customers.

Same deal with North America you have the megahubs used by the low cost carriers. This could even help attract budget passengers. Instead of taking two AA or United flights stopping at LAX they could take the Qantas flight to their mega hub and fly on the low cost carrier for the US end.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 2:07 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I used my model to do 2 flights SYD-CTU and CTU-LHR, You'd see why from this http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SYD-LHR,+LHR-CTU-SYD

The difference in total flight time was about 20 minutes and the fuel usage was about 12.5t in favour of the stopping flight. which looks to be about 5k usd.

I was not expecting such a small difference. The landing fees and slot costs would far exceed the fuel saving. That is good news for Qantas they should grow fast with the non stop flights.


Totally agree, I was shocked and had to run the numbers again just to make sure, of course for people like EK or QR there is the network optimisation that works in their favour but there will be a not insignificant amount if city pairs that this could enable.
RJMAZ wrote:

It is a shame the 787-8ER never came out. The smaller aircraft would reduce risk when opening new routes. Qantas could hit half of the countries in Europe with a daily flight and pretty much suck up every premium customer traveling between Australia and Europe.

That's like a wet dream for for us avgeeks. I wonder what a 200 seat A338 is capable of @ 251t

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17690
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 2:28 pm

zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
And with regards to maintenance, the LEAP is supposed to require 3 shop visits in 25 years (compared to 5 for GTF and 12 or more for older engines). If LEAP is doing what it is supposed to do, the reduction in shop visits would be huge. And it can be assumed that the GE9X is at least as good. Anybody got info on how the LEAP and GTF are doing on the A32xNEO maintenance wise?


The engines are not really comparable, short haul engines see a lot more cycles. WB engines may never come off wing during their life.

All the new engines are seeing the shop much more often. All three brands have combustor issues which is deep in the engine.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6862
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 4:03 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
That's like a wet dream for for us avgeeks. I wonder what a 200 seat A338 is capable of @ 251t Fred


A fair amount I would think - but not as much as a 254t 787-8ER I suspect.

Now if we want to start talking about a 280t A350-800LR ..... :)


Rgds
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 5:04 pm

astuteman wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
That's like a wet dream for for us avgeeks. I wonder what a 200 seat A338 is capable of @ 251t Fred


A fair amount I would think - but not as much as a 254t 787-8ER I suspect.

Now if we want to start talking about a 280t A350-800LR ..... :)


Rgds

But could a 280t A358ULR do LAX-SYD ;)
 
tomcat
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 5:09 pm

astuteman wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
That's like a wet dream for for us avgeeks. I wonder what a 200 seat A338 is capable of @ 251t Fred


A fair amount I would think - but not as much as a 254t 787-8ER I suspect.

Now if we want to start talking about a 280t A350-800LR ..... :)


Rgds


What about a 275t A338LR? Give it the centre gear of the A342 and voilà, you get about 4 hours of extra range. I'm just not sure about the engines. Could the current Trent 7000 easily provide enough power for that MTOW? Or for the nostalgic people, a 275t A342NEO powered by the PW1133G-JM and sporting the A338 wing updates.
Last edited by tomcat on Fri May 17, 2019 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 5:20 pm

lightsaber wrote:
zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
And with regards to maintenance, the LEAP is supposed to require 3 shop visits in 25 years (compared to 5 for GTF and 12 or more for older engines). If LEAP is doing what it is supposed to do, the reduction in shop visits would be huge. And it can be assumed that the GE9X is at least as good. Anybody got info on how the LEAP and GTF are doing on the A32xNEO maintenance wise?


The engines are not really comparable, short haul engines see a lot more cycles. WB engines may never come off wing during their life.

All the new engines are seeing the shop much more often. All three brands have combustor issues which is deep in the engine.

Lightsaber


Understood about the combustors. And don't forget about the turbines. But if the engines ever work how they are supposed to work, there will be significant savings . . . if
 
LH707330
Posts: 2189
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 5:33 pm

tomcat wrote:
astuteman wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
That's like a wet dream for for us avgeeks. I wonder what a 200 seat A338 is capable of @ 251t Fred


A fair amount I would think - but not as much as a 254t 787-8ER I suspect.

Now if we want to start talking about a 280t A350-800LR ..... :)


Rgds


What about a 275t A338LR? Give it the centre gear of the A342 and voilà, you get about 4 hours of extra range. I'm just not sure about the engines. Could the current Trent 7000 easily provide enough power for that MTOW? Or for the nostalgic people, a 275t A342NEO powered by the PW1133G-JM and sporting the A338 wing updates.

...or a 342neo. Out of the box at 275t, those had a brochure range of 8000 nm, so you get an STC for GTFs and the 330neo wingtips and you're good for ~9300 nm.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6489
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 7:06 pm

tomcat wrote:
What about a 275t A338LR? Give it the centre gear of the A342 and voilà, you get about 4 hours of extra range.

Guys...let's give the standard version a chance to be certified first before we go off conjuring all sorts of variants for it. ;)
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 9:49 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

It is a shame the 787-8ER never came out. The smaller aircraft would reduce risk when opening new routes. Qantas could hit half of the countries in Europe with a daily flight and pretty much suck up every premium customer traveling between Australia and Europe.

That's like a wet dream for for us avgeeks. I wonder what a 200 seat A338 is capable of @ 251t

Fred

I would be interested to find out if it could do SYD-LHR. Wiki shows similar empty weights as the 787-9 with a MTOW 3T less. So any range advantage would have to come from less fuselage drag as the A330 has a shorter and narrower fuselage. I doubt it could make the route with more than 10T of payload.

astuteman wrote:
Now if we want to start talking about a 280t A350-800LR ..... :)

I was actually surprised that Airbus is offering an upgraded A350-1000 to do project sunrise.

I would have thought it would have been easier to increase the A350-900's MTOW by simply using some A350-1000 parts currently in production.

I am not sure if the A350-1000 wing internals and central wingbox is shared with the 900 or if it is significantly strengthened. Surely it can't just be the six wheel landing gear and larger trailing edge as the only difference. Worst case they would just put the shorter 900 fuselage onto the standard 1000 centre section.

Increasing the MTOW of the 1000 could require strengthening and reengineering of parts to be made stronger. It is not always a matter of doing a fatigue test and finding headroom. Sometimes more strength needs to be added which can be very costly.

Using stronger off the shelf parts from the 1000 and putting them on the 900 made more sense to me. The four wheel bogey would actually be fine as it is operating from long runways and the landing weight would be lower than an average 900 flight. All it would need is the central wingbox strength due to the greater wing root bending of the higher MTOW. So simply fitting the A350-1000 wingbox to the A350-900 might have been the only strengthening mod required to produce a 290T A350-900UULR.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 10:21 pm

[quote="RJMAZ"][/quote]as a first guess is agree with you but my experience of having to redesign/resurface areas for traffic movements for civil projects is that low speed turning of heavy vehicles is actually where the damage is, not where straight lines are involved.

The idea of the smaller wing of the 900 has some merit on the ULH flight as the larger A35k wing ‘tops out’ appreciably earlier in the flight( it’s designed/optimised to carry cargo at the end)It’s all dependent on what’s it’s able to do st all up weights. If it’s stuck below fl340 at initial cruise then I’d say 35k wing is best.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
redroo
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Fri May 17, 2019 11:15 pm

Motorhussy wrote:
Will we also see PER-LAX?



Not sure. There is plenty of VFR traffic to the USA from Perth but is there enough business traffic. There’s probably a bit of mining / OGAS traffic that would relish one less stop but I’m not sure. Though if Perth can support london on it’s own it might just support LAX on its own too. Maybe in 10 years time.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13813
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sat May 18, 2019 2:31 am

I just don’t see PER-LAX happening, the return flight would have significant headwinds over Australia.

A stop in BNE/SYD/MEL would be far more profitable. The flight could go out MZFW limited on the domestic sector, there is significant domestic freight demand from the east coast to west.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Hornberger
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:34 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sat May 18, 2019 10:26 pm

If I have understood correctly, the 778 has the payload advantage at extreme ranges (16,000km+) but the A35K is likely to have the cost advantage as trip length decreases.

That suggests that the 778 has the economic edge. Of the potential ULH routes, the key routes (SYD / MEL to LHR/JFK) are at those extreme ranges. The success or failure of project sunrise is going to turn on those routes, and the extra payload and therefore revenue potential of the 778 is quite important. If you then look at the routes between 14,500 (upper range of 789) and 16,000km, there isn't much there (MEL - DFW, SYD - ORD, PER - LAX). Everything else is over 16,500km or under 14,500km. Routes under 14,500km is probably best served with a 789 (PER-CDG) or a 779 (SYD-LAX).

I think the gap between the routes suited to the 789, and the routes suited to the 778 isn't big enough, and the routes that fall into the space are not important enough.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sun May 19, 2019 4:23 am

Hornberger wrote:
If I have understood correctly, the 778 has the payload advantage at extreme ranges (16,000km+) but the A35K is likely to have the cost advantage as trip length decreases.

That suggests that the 778 has the economic edge.


The 778 carries more payload, but not more passengers.

I doubt QF is interested in carrying much cargo on such flights.
 
Hornberger
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:34 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sun May 19, 2019 6:11 am

aryonoco wrote:
Hornberger wrote:
If I have understood correctly, the 778 has the payload advantage at extreme ranges (16,000km+) but the A35K is likely to have the cost advantage as trip length decreases.

That suggests that the 778 has the economic edge.


The 778 carries more payload, but not more passengers.

I doubt QF is interested in carrying much cargo on such flights.

At these extreme ranges, more payload does equal more passengers. The limiting factor in the number of passengers is weight not cabin area.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13813
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sun May 19, 2019 6:34 am

Hornberger wrote:
If I have understood correctly, the 778 has the payload advantage at extreme ranges (16,000km+) but the A35K is likely to have the cost advantage as trip length decreases.

That suggests that the 778 has the economic edge. Of the potential ULH routes, the key routes (SYD / MEL to LHR/JFK) are at those extreme ranges. The success or failure of project sunrise is going to turn on those routes, and the extra payload and therefore revenue potential of the 778 is quite important. If you then look at the routes between 14,500 (upper range of 789) and 16,000km, there isn't much there (MEL - DFW, SYD - ORD, PER - LAX). Everything else is over 16,500km or under 14,500km. Routes under 14,500km is probably best served with a 789 (PER-CDG) or a 779 (SYD-LAX).

I think the gap between the routes suited to the 789, and the routes suited to the 778 isn't big enough, and the routes that fall into the space are not important enough.


What Fred had done on this thread is very good but they are just models, every model has limitations, and for conclusion to be valid one needs to understand them.

For example Fred has not modelled the A350 variable camber wing or the resulting variable CP and reduced downforce on the tail. If we look at the MEL if the aircraft is dispatched for just with pair of spoilers inoperable (which are used as part of the variable camber), it results in an 8% increase in burn. That does not mean however Fred’s model should be reduced by 8%. We are looking at performance differences in the range of a few percent, a few percent however on a ULH flight is significant.

He has also stipulated that step climbs are based upon the ability of being able to achieve 600 fpm, you will get step climbs with less than that on the A350. In reality step climbs are optimised on where the best overall specific ground range is achieved.

I don’t have any inside knowledge on what will be chosen, I have to rely on what QF is saying in public, e.g.

“Qantas will aim to place a new order by the end of 2019, aiming for delivery between 2022 and 2023, Joyce said. He said the planes had to be flexible enough to fly Sydney-London and from Sydney to Hong Kong or Beijing.”

From https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/hon ... s-says-non

The A350-1000 will carry less payload mass compared to the 777-8, however it has more revenue space above the floor the airline can configure for revenue. It also have more volume in the cargo hold, with the ability to carry an extra pallet compared to the 777-8. The A350-1000 should more flexible at the shorter flights indicated of SYD-HKG and SYD-PEK.

This is very similar in the comparison between the A340-600 and the 77W. The A340-600 would lift more payload mass, however had less revenue space above and below the floor.

The same article also said

“Our belief is [ultra-long-haul flights are] not going to be full passenger payload and freight, but there is sufficient capability to make it commercially viable,” Joyce said.”

This directly contradicts the thoughts above advocating higher payloads.

In a related article it states

“However, regardless of the jet chosen to make those marathon 18-20 hour treks, there’s no longer an expectation that it will carry the airline’s previously-stated goal of 300+ passengers across four classes.”

Which again is pointing towards lower payload expectations.

From https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-dia ... pectations
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Hornberger
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:34 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sun May 19, 2019 7:07 am

zeke wrote:
The A350-1000 will carry less payload mass compared to the 777-8, however it has more revenue space above the floor the airline can configure for revenue. It also have more volume in the cargo hold, with the ability to carry an extra pallet compared to the 777-8. The A350-1000 should more flexible at the shorter flights indicated of SYD-HKG and SYD-PEK.


If the A35K has to be configured for a smaller number of pax for the ULH flights due to payload restrictions, then you can't magically re-configure the aircraft for medium haul flights. That extra cabin area won't contribute to extra revenue.

Whatever revenue advantage it might have in cargo is going to be offset by lower revenue potential for pax.

zeke wrote:
“Our belief is [ultra-long-haul flights are] not going to be full passenger payload and freight, but there is sufficient capability to make it commercially viable,” Joyce said.”

This directly contradicts the thoughts above advocating higher payloads.

No it doesn't. Both the 778 and A35K are going to be operating well below their max pax / cargo capacity, that doesn't meaning having more payload can't be an advantage.

If the 778 can reliably carry an extra 3T between Sydney and London compared to the A35K, that is extra 30 pax in Y. The 778 might still only be carrying 280 pax (and no cargo) compared to 250 pax for the A35K.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13813
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sun May 19, 2019 7:16 am

Hornberger wrote:
If the 778 can reliably carry an extra 3T between Sydney and London compared to the A35K, that is extra 30 pax in Y. The 778 might still only be carrying 280 pax (and no cargo) compared to 250 pax for the A35K.


Obviously you chose to ignore the comments regarding conclusions cannot be drawn unless you understand the limitations of the models.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Hornberger
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:34 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sun May 19, 2019 8:25 am

zeke wrote:
Hornberger wrote:
If the 778 can reliably carry an extra 3T between Sydney and London compared to the A35K, that is extra 30 pax in Y. The 778 might still only be carrying 280 pax (and no cargo) compared to 250 pax for the A35K.


Obviously you chose to ignore the comments regarding conclusions cannot be drawn unless you understand the limitations of the models.

I have no interesting in discussing the model, or any of its limitations.

1) The performance of 778 is not only unknown, it is unknowable as the aircraft hasn't been built yet. Therefore it is impossible to know which aircraft has the better performance.
2) The discussion have been done to death.

What I am interested in discussing is the economics of project sunrise, that requires making assumptions about the respective aircraft performance.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13813
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sun May 19, 2019 8:38 am

Hornberger wrote:
Therefore it is impossible to know which aircraft has the better performance.


What I am interested in discussing is the economics of project sunrise, that requires making assumptions about the respective aircraft performance.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

In other words you have no idea, but will make something up and that has to be correct.

:liar: :liar:

PS the A350 is flying it’s current performance is known

PPS 777-X customers do have the preliminary aircraft performance database.

PPPS how do you think QF will make a decision this year on an aircraft that won’t be built fir a few years ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sun May 19, 2019 9:14 am

Hornberger wrote:
zeke wrote:
Hornberger wrote:
If the 778 can reliably carry an extra 3T between Sydney and London compared to the A35K, that is extra 30 pax in Y. The 778 might still only be carrying 280 pax (and no cargo) compared to 250 pax for the A35K.


Obviously you chose to ignore the comments regarding conclusions cannot be drawn unless you understand the limitations of the models.

I have no interesting in discussing the model, or any of its limitations.

1) The performance of 778 is not only unknown, it is unknowable as the aircraft hasn't been built yet. Therefore it is impossible to know which aircraft has the better performance.
2) The discussion have been done to death.

What I am interested in discussing is the economics of project sunrise, that requires making assumptions about the respective aircraft performance.

That’s all fine but slightly odd. You say that we cannot know any of the performances comparisons but you have already made the comparison and come to a conclusion.

Agreed that we need to make assumptions but if you make assumptions you really should show what those assumptions are or you will be liable not to be taken very seriously.

You’ll probably see the most respected members on here coming to the same conclusion (not that authority is a real argument of course) that it’s too close/the available information cannot sufficiently differentiate.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
by738
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 7:59 am

Re: Updated: Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft

Sun May 19, 2019 9:21 am

perhaps if performance is too close it will come down to the financial deal offered. With Boeing's struggles, wonder if they'll be willing to give a very good deal (its a niche order) so unlikely to lead to everyone wanting similar deals

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