User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13787
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 10:42 am

ClassicLover wrote:
You might select a heavier aircraft that burns more fuel because the overall deal over the lifetime of the aircraft makes it more cost effective to acquire and operate. It's not all about the fuel burn, though you'd think it was as these are the headline numbers the OEMs like to throw around in their marketing.

It's certainly not as simple as "choose the aircraft that uses less fuel on the trip when factoring in the same payload".


Half correct, it would be a NPV analysis based upon projected revenue and total fixed and variable costs against the amount invested to see the rate of return.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4698
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

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

Sun May 19, 2019 1:31 pm

zeke wrote:
ClassicLover wrote:
You might select a heavier aircraft that burns more fuel because the overall deal over the lifetime of the aircraft makes it more cost effective to acquire and operate. It's not all about the fuel burn, though you'd think it was as these are the headline numbers the OEMs like to throw around in their marketing.

It's certainly not as simple as "choose the aircraft that uses less fuel on the trip when factoring in the same payload".


Half correct, it would be a NPV analysis based upon projected revenue and total fixed and variable costs against the amount invested to see the rate of return.


Yes, I was going to mention that as we studied this extensively in the Air Transport Management MSc that I finished last year, but then I thought NPV would perhaps be too technical for some here, so I tried to keep it simple.
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26298
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sun May 19, 2019 2:49 pm

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.


The A350-900ULR has the forward cargo hold deactivated. If for whatever reason the A350-1000ULR requires the same (or a portion of it), then that could swing the hold space back to the 777-8's favor. That being said, I agree with you that revenue cargo loads will likely be negligible so even if the forward hold does need to be deactivated, it might not matter.


Hornberger wrote:
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.


If that "ULR configuration" just means you block seats in Economy, then there is no re-configuration, magical or otherwise, required for shorter stage lengths.
 
tealnz
Posts: 540
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Sun May 19, 2019 4:21 pm

Hornberger wrote:
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.

...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.

I don't think it's as complicated as you make out:

- QF's strategy is to position itself as a premium carrier offering non-stop point-to-point service to multiple long-haul and ULH destinations in Europe and the Americas as well as closer destinations in Asia. They have already pioneered this model with the DFW services (where they simply block seats in Y as needed to allow them to make the westbound sector non-stop) and PER-LHR (where again I think it has been reported that they sometimes need to block seats westbound).
- Configuration should not be a problem. They'll start by fitting whatever they see as optimum number/mix of F, J and W across the range of Sunrise routes. Whatever space is left will be fitted with standard-density Y. Let's assume this means total seating around 300 in a 35K or 778, at a similar density to the 235 in their 789s.
- Going by the range of routes on which QF is rolling out the high-premium low-density 789 they are confident they can make the economics work even on Asian or US west coast routes with a high-premium 300-seat Sunrise aircraft. Routes so far announced for the 789, apart from PER-LHR, include MEL-LAX, MEL-SFO, BNE-LAX, SYD-SFO, BNE-HKG, MEL-HKG and SYD-HKG.

If they can make these routes work with a high-premium 789 I can't see why there would be any need to re-configure a similar low-density Sunrise aircraft for medium routes.

The only possible wrinkle is freight: if they follow the model SQ used with the 359ULR and seal/de-activate the forward hold then they would take a hit on cargo capacity. But if that's an issue they could presumably settle for a sub-fleet solely for LHR and JFK with lightweight exercise/nursery/toilet modules in the hold.

EDIT: Stitch (above) is making same points.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8136
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

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

Sun May 19, 2019 5:17 pm

I think in the end, QF will likely choose the 777-8 (778). With good reason: due to the quite niche nature of the SYD-LHR nonstop route, to minimize issues with deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), the plane will only be equipped with Premium Economy (around 39" seating pitch) and Business class seating only, which will limit the 778's seating capacity to around 240 to 250 passenger maximum. It will be very difficult for Airbus to modify an A350XWB-1000 (A35K) to a very long range configuration without seriously compromising cargo capacity due to the need to add quite a lot of auxiliary fuel tankage compared to a normal A35K.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2784
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 5:23 pm

RayChuang wrote:
I think in the end, QF will likely choose the 777-8 (778). With good reason: due to the quite niche nature of the SYD-LHR nonstop route, to minimize issues with deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), the plane will only be equipped with Premium Economy (around 39" seating pitch) and Business class seating only, which will limit the 778's seating capacity to around 240 to 250 passenger maximum. It will be very difficult for Airbus to modify an A350XWB-1000 (A35K) to a very long range configuration without seriously compromising cargo capacity due to the need to add quite a lot of auxiliary fuel tankage compared to a normal A35K.

The A35k has plenty of volume available in the wings for increased fuel tankage (see A359ulr changes) it also has a greater floor area than the 778 as well as more container positions. Both frames appear to be capable of this mission.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

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

Sun May 19, 2019 5:53 pm

zeke wrote:
ClassicLover wrote:
You might select a heavier aircraft that burns more fuel because the overall deal over the lifetime of the aircraft makes it more cost effective to acquire and operate. It's not all about the fuel burn, though you'd think it was as these are the headline numbers the OEMs like to throw around in their marketing.

It's certainly not as simple as "choose the aircraft that uses less fuel on the trip when factoring in the same payload".


Half correct, it would be a NPV analysis based upon projected revenue and total fixed and variable costs against the amount invested to see the rate of return.

Well said, hence my previous prediction that the "losing" OEMs fanboys will be chirping that the winner put their thumb on the scale by giving it away on the cheap because they "needed the win" (like the other guy didn't too?). Whatever plane "wins" the QF campaign will be a marvel of the state of the art, and the "loser" may still do very well in the market for airlines that don't have the exact same spec that QF has. Even NZ, which is the geographic cousin to QF is different. But both OEMs should be celebrated for their ability to do something historic. Great time to be an #avgeek.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sun May 19, 2019 8:39 pm

ClassicLover wrote:
by738 wrote:
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


While everyone is happy to sit and discuss the performance, there are a whole lot of other factors at play when it comes to the deal.

The financing package has a bearing on the matter for one, costs of technical upgrades over the life of the aircraft, spare parts deals, the amount of hours it takes for the various checks (less time to do checks means less cost to the airline in terms of man hours and time out of service), the expected value of the aircraft at the planned time of disposal and more. Then you have the engines, and the list I just wrote is duplicated. You also need to consider the way the airline operates the aircraft on their routes, which differs from carrier to carrier, plus the demands of the stations it will operate to, training costs, and more.

You might select a heavier aircraft that burns more fuel because the overall deal over the lifetime of the aircraft makes it more cost effective to acquire and operate. It's not all about the fuel burn, though you'd think it was as these are the headline numbers the OEMs like to throw around in their marketing.

It's certainly not as simple as "choose the aircraft that uses less fuel on the trip when factoring in the same payload".

A perfect example how buying behaviour has changed since the late 60's/70's, when many airlines were subject to Government influence / interference. Those immune from Government influence bought the best technically and / or best upfront cost.

Now purchase is based on whole of life cost, including finance, actual / possible routes, penalties for under performance, buybacks (based on chronological age, hours and cycles), fixed price engine ownership & maintenance contracts, fixed price parts contracts, retrospective credits on air frames, engines, major components and services, all modelled for different routes, changing weather patterns, different fuel prices, different finance margins, different tax regimes and different delivery schedules, and quite possibly bundled / conditional on another model order.

Generally speaking, the OEM with flying, customer proven aircraft / engine combinations has an advantage when it comes to promises about real world performance, the possibilities and costs of extracting more capability, and how that is priced, for the prospective customer, at the same time discouraging existing customers from switching orders and possibly disrupting production.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

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

Sun May 19, 2019 11:37 pm

smartplane wrote:
A perfect example how buying behaviour has changed since the late 60's/70's, when many airlines were subject to Government influence / interference. Those immune from Government influence bought the best technically and / or best upfront cost.

The counterpoint to that is we got a lot of cool looking planes from those manufacturers, even if very few airlines outside the home market bought them. We would all have been worse off as avgeeks if not for the Caravelle, or the VC-10 in BOAC colors (#1 badass combo IMO), and especially the Concorde.
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1036
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

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

Mon May 20, 2019 12:16 am

RayChuang wrote:
I think in the end, QF will likely choose the 777-8 (778). With good reason: due to the quite niche nature of the SYD-LHR nonstop route, to minimize issues with deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), the plane will only be equipped with Premium Economy (around 39" seating pitch) and Business class seating only, which will limit the 778's seating capacity to around 240 to 250 passenger maximum. It will be very difficult for Airbus to modify an A350XWB-1000 (A35K) to a very long range configuration without seriously compromising cargo capacity due to the need to add quite a lot of auxiliary fuel tankage compared to a normal A35K.


On the list of Airline priorities for niche ULH flying, I'm pretty sure that DVT consideration for Y pax is about at the very bottom, I'm sad to report.

I don't think we can say that QF has any intent to "pull an SQ" with an all premium config.

We know far less, than what we don't know about QF.

We know:

They've backed off of their original requirement for 4-class, 300 pax, full cargo. But to what? We only know "limited cargo" and fewer pax. That could mean anything.

We know QF rejected A359, but appear to have approved A35K .

I believe both B778 and A35K have met the (unknown) QF requirements, so I don't think your comment about cargo or DVT stands up.

Its my hypothesis that the seat config is driven by QF's projected revenue and not an arbitrary count, and by that, I mean corporate contracts. How much revenue can they count on based on corporate premium travel? What did 4 class even mean anyways? Surely not F? If so, I think they are far likelier to eliminate F seats and maintain Y (DVT be damned), keeping a 3 class plane. Can they fill 64 J daily (or more), like SQ's config and is that enough revenue to justify this, along with the remaining cabin space and projected revenue from Y+/Y seats? What's the sweet spot for maximizing revenue?

Obviously, they are still convinced its a money maker (the revised, unknown specification), and both aircraft can meet it. They are shrewdly using this as their best opportunity to get their future fleet "right" after too many years of sub-optimal profitability due to 744ER, A380 and ME3 really depressing their yields. Done right, this ULH fleet does allow them to "capture the cream" to LHR (maybe other EU spots) AND to central/east North America (with even less competition).
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8652
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Mon May 20, 2019 12:35 am

by738 wrote:
perhaps if performance is too close it will come down to the financial deal offered.

Since a major derivative of one a/c is flying and the other is not, do we really expect QF to give more credance to the bird in the bush versus the bird in the hand?
QF is saying they are selecting the a/c in 2019, the 777X is yet to fly, we know about weight creep, how much has the 777X had and how much can Boeing guarantee to 778 customers that weight creep will not be beyond X being used in the current model to compare both OEM products?
Due to the in-service operation of the A350 Airbus has a much more accurate model than Boeing, if the decision was delayed until 2020 after more data on the 777X was available, I would say Boeing had a decent shot, but 2019, in my opinion they have about a 40% shot.
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4698
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

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

Mon May 20, 2019 6:56 am

par13del wrote:
Since a major derivative of one a/c is flying and the other is not, do we really expect QF to give more credance to the bird in the bush versus the bird in the hand?
QF is saying they are selecting the a/c in 2019, the 777X is yet to fly, we know about weight creep, how much has the 777X had and how much can Boeing guarantee to 778 customers that weight creep will not be beyond X being used in the current model to compare both OEM products?


Qantas had no trouble ordering the Boeing 787 and Airbus A380 before they had first flown, which pretty much shoots your point out of the water. They were both clean sheet programmes, arguably the 777X project is more of a known since it's a derivative of an existing aircraft. I always thought the 2022 entry into service date for Project Sunrise dovetailed quite nicely with the 777-8 service entry date.

The weight creep issue is a non starter as well. Boeing has a history of beating performance targets with their aircraft, so there's no reason to believe it will be any different in this case. I see where you're coming from though, there's always risk.

par13del wrote:
Due to the in-service operation of the A350 Airbus has a much more accurate model than Boeing, if the decision was delayed until 2020 after more data on the 777X was available, I would say Boeing had a decent shot, but 2019, in my opinion they have about a 40% shot.


Personally, I think it's 50/50. We'll find out soon enough though. I'm fine with either aircraft winning the competition, because they're both excellent aircraft. The main thing is that it actually goes ahead, because I think that will be amazing, regardless of which aircraft is flying the routes.
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1706
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

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

Mon May 20, 2019 7:33 am

RJMAZ wrote:
You underestimate the power of the non stop.

Why are there not more direct flights to non-ULH destinations from Greece if non stop has so much power? The long haul network from Athens is very thin. The suggested direct flight from Australia would be totally out of proportion compared with missing flights from much larger destinations (e.g. LAX).

Long before European 2nd and 3rd tier airport would see a 778 from Australia, they would get a dense network to the US and Asia and some Latin America routes. Would it not be weird, that a 778 from Australia would be among the largest aircraft visiting an airport?

If we just review the EK model: Out of ~50 destinations, that can be reached with one stop via DUB from Australia (that would require a ULH aircraft for a direct flight), at max 2 or 3 are project sunrise candidates.

The weak point with ULH is the fine distribution that you get as soon as you connect through only one hub. Typically there are at least one magnitude of order more destinations, which can be reached by point-hub-point flights vs direct flights (e.g., it would require 5 ULH flights from AUS to be at one magnitude less destinations than via DUB).

ULH aircraft do not change that problem. It was and is the same with the long haul aircraft that appeared in the seventies (747), eighties (767 = first MOM), nineties (A340/777) and the 00s (787).

flipdewaf wrote:
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.

What if the stopping flight would be operated with optimized aircraft for half the range? E.g. 781's, A333s or MOMs? IMO the MOM has no point, if two MOM segments would not be significantly be cheaper than say a 789 flight over the distance of the two legs.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
Ellofiend
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:13 am

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

Mon May 20, 2019 8:22 am

Bricktop wrote:
zeke wrote:
ClassicLover wrote:
You might select a heavier aircraft that burns more fuel because the overall deal over the lifetime of the aircraft makes it more cost effective to acquire and operate. It's not all about the fuel burn, though you'd think it was as these are the headline numbers the OEMs like to throw around in their marketing.

It's certainly not as simple as "choose the aircraft that uses less fuel on the trip when factoring in the same payload".


Half correct, it would be an NPV analysis based upon projected revenue and total fixed and variable costs against the amount invested to see the rate of return.

Well said, hence my previous prediction that the "losing" OEMs fanboys will be chirping that the winner put their thumb on the scale by giving it away on the cheap because they "needed the win" (like the other guy didn't too?). Whatever plane "wins" the QF campaign will be a marvel of the state of the art, and the "loser" may still do very well in the market for airlines that don't have the exact same spec that QF has. Even NZ, which is the geographic cousin to QF is different. But both OEMs should be celebrated for their ability to do something historic. Great time to be an #avgeek.

Well not really, us avgeeks are really getting a rough time to be honest, aircraft getting smaller, less diversity, erasing of the quads and extinction of the tri-holers and the just about every aircraft looks the same 100 below and above in seat capacity, we've gone from L1011, DC-10, A346's, B744's, B727-200's, B757's and others of the like to A330-300's and B777-200's which are significantly harder to tell apart or the A350-1000 and the B777-8x where the only distinguishing factor is in the nose not to mention the rise of the euro-white liveries and tail wraps, *cough* QF, LH, EI, WS *cough* in addition to the low-cost single aircraft fleets plaguing the system (EasyJet, Ryanair, Jetstar brand, air Asia, vietjet, SpiceJet, southwest, JetBlue, tigerair, spirit, frontier (although their aircraft at least look nice), wizzair and many many more) 'Without diversity, are we really experiencing anything?' - well yeah, capitalism
 
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

Mon May 20, 2019 8:33 am

Ellofiend wrote:
Well not really, us avgeeks are really getting a rough time to be honest, aircraft getting smaller, less diversity, erasing of the quads and extinction of the tri-holers and the just about every aircraft looks the same 100 below and above in seat capacity, we've gone from L1011, DC-10, A346's, B744's, B727-200's, B757's and others of the like to A330-300's and B777-200's which are significantly harder to tell apart or the A350-1000 and the B777-8x where the only distinguishing factor is in the nose not to mention the rise of the euro-white liveries and tail wraps, *cough* QF, LH, EI, WS *cough* in addition to the low-cost single aircraft fleets plaguing the system (EasyJet, Ryanair, Jetstar brand, air Asia, vietjet, SpiceJet, southwest, JetBlue, tigerair, spirit, frontier (although their aircraft at least look nice), wizzair and many many more) 'Without diversity, are we really experiencing anything?' - well yeah, capitalism


I actually love the beauty in the simplicity. Quads look great (especially the Queen and the A346) but tri-jets just look 'busy' to me...

I love the simplicity of the current twins and what makes it better is knowing that these modest, simple-looking machines are far more capable and efficient than any that have come before. It is remarkable, actually.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

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

Mon May 20, 2019 9:01 am

RayChuang wrote:
the plane will only be equipped with Premium Economy (around 39" seating pitch) and Business class seating only, which will limit the 778's seating capacity to around 240 to 250 passenger maximum.


This goes against anything that Alan Joyce has said. It's not going to happen.
 
DCA350
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

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

Mon May 20, 2019 11:17 am

RayChuang wrote:
I think in the end, QF will likely choose the 777-8 (778). With good reason: due to the quite niche nature of the SYD-LHR nonstop route, to minimize issues with deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), the plane will only be equipped with Premium Economy (around 39" seating pitch) and Business class seating only, which will limit the 778's seating capacity to around 240 to 250 passenger maximum. It will be very difficult for Airbus to modify an A350XWB-1000 (A35K) to a very long range configuration without seriously compromising cargo capacity due to the need to add quite a lot of auxiliary fuel tankage compared to a normal A35K.




Obviously a configuration for the project hasn't been released yet, but I always thought this would be an advantage for the A350. The 777X is most efficient at 10a and I can't imagine 10 across on a 20+ hour flight, that would be torture!! If it's 9v9 the 777X is carrying a lot of dead weight.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

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

Mon May 20, 2019 11:57 am

Ellofiend wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
zeke wrote:

Half correct, it would be an NPV analysis based upon projected revenue and total fixed and variable costs against the amount invested to see the rate of return.

Well said, hence my previous prediction that the "losing" OEMs fanboys will be chirping that the winner put their thumb on the scale by giving it away on the cheap because they "needed the win" (like the other guy didn't too?). Whatever plane "wins" the QF campaign will be a marvel of the state of the art, and the "loser" may still do very well in the market for airlines that don't have the exact same spec that QF has. Even NZ, which is the geographic cousin to QF is different. But both OEMs should be celebrated for their ability to do something historic. Great time to be an #avgeek.

Well not really, us avgeeks are really getting a rough time to be honest, aircraft getting smaller, less diversity, erasing of the quads and extinction of the tri-holers and the just about every aircraft looks the same 100 below and above in seat capacity, we've gone from L1011, DC-10, A346's, B744's, B727-200's, B757's and others of the like to A330-300's and B777-200's which are significantly harder to tell apart or the A350-1000 and the B777-8x where the only distinguishing factor is in the nose not to mention the rise of the euro-white liveries and tail wraps, *cough* QF, LH, EI, WS *cough* in addition to the low-cost single aircraft fleets plaguing the system (EasyJet, Ryanair, Jetstar brand, air Asia, vietjet, SpiceJet, southwest, JetBlue, tigerair, spirit, frontier (although their aircraft at least look nice), wizzair and many many more) 'Without diversity, are we really experiencing anything?' - well yeah, capitalism

I get that we have "evolved" to an uninteresting general sameness of basic twinjet, but I still get excited by what I spot regularly. No, my 400th+ WN B737 may not pump me up a lot, but I saw a f-ton of Eastern 727s and AA MD-80s back in the day too. Now I see an SQ A359 that came non-stop from Singapore or a PR A359 from Manila (at nighttime, grrrr). And soon, a QF plane that came non-stop from Sydney. Maybe not as exciting as when I saw the Braniff Calder DC-8, but there's still a lot of magic in this thing of ours.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6462
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

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

Tue May 21, 2019 2:35 am

Those who think "all aircraft look the same" today really aren't looking very carefully. The 787, 777X, and A350 wings are all totally different, and all gorgeous works of art. So are the visible parts of modern widebody engines from nacelles to fan blades. As basic configurations have harmonized, the forms of individual parts have gotten ever more distinctive and beautiful.
 
Ellofiend
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:13 am

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

Tue May 21, 2019 3:20 am

seabosdca wrote:
Those who think "all aircraft look the same" today really aren't looking very carefully. The 787, 777X, and A350 wings are all totally different, and all gorgeous works of art. So are the visible parts of modern widebody engines from nacelles to fan blades. As basic configurations have harmonized, the forms of individual parts have gotten ever more distinctive and beautiful.


Because we can see the nacelles and fan blades as a casual onlooker cant we, not to mention when it's going 200km/h whether its 10 or 10 000ft above :roll: And did you notice the differences of the previous aircraft I mentioned? A346 was notably longer than any other a340 and had 4 engines and one deck which distinguished it from any other aircraft, also the amount of landing gear, MD-11 and DC-10 were in a complete league of their own from other aircraft and considering one is the successor to the other it makes sense for them to look similar where otherwise the A330-300 and a B777-200 look very similar to any casual onlooker, where previously anyone could observe a 747 or 727, A340 or DC-10 now its a waste of breath trying to describe the differences between a 777-200 and A330-300 or 737-800 and a320 even, because their differences are so subtle it is my opinion that this degeneracy in variety discourages beginner spotters and photographers
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13017
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue May 21, 2019 11:07 am

DCA350 wrote:
RayChuang wrote:
I think in the end, QF will likely choose the 777-8 (778). With good reason: due to the quite niche nature of the SYD-LHR nonstop route, to minimize issues with deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), the plane will only be equipped with Premium Economy (around 39" seating pitch) and Business class seating only, which will limit the 778's seating capacity to around 240 to 250 passenger maximum. It will be very difficult for Airbus to modify an A350XWB-1000 (A35K) to a very long range configuration without seriously compromising cargo capacity due to the need to add quite a lot of auxiliary fuel tankage compared to a normal A35K.




Obviously a configuration for the project hasn't been released yet, but I always thought this would be an advantage for the A350. The 777X is most efficient at 10a and I can't imagine 10 across on a 20+ hour flight, that would be torture!! If it's 9v9 the 777X is carrying a lot of dead weight.


It seems Airbus marketing is boosting the weight message.. https://twitter.com/news_inflight/status/1130747090471149568
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
texl1649
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

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

Tue May 21, 2019 1:00 pm

All of this talk and yet it's important to note that the 778x design hasn't even been finalized. We don't really know exactly what Boeing is proposing, just what the launch plans were. We probably have a good idea on the A359 offer, but again it too is probably pretty modified vs. publicly shared data.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6462
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

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

Tue May 21, 2019 6:03 pm

keesje wrote:
It seems Airbus marketing is boosting the weight message.. https://twitter.com/news_inflight/status/1130747090471149568


And of course they can't resist gilding the lily. The comparison is to the 316 t A350-1000, which doesn't have the same capability that is expected for the 777-8. They could have compared the upcoming 319 t version or even a heavier Project Sunrise weight and made the same point, more accurately.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17670
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Tue May 21, 2019 6:27 pm

FlyHappy wrote:
RayChuang wrote:
I think in the end, QF will likely choose the 777-8 (778). With good reason: due to the quite niche nature of the SYD-LHR nonstop route, to minimize issues with deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), the plane will only be equipped with Premium Economy (around 39" seating pitch) and Business class seating only, which will limit the 778's seating capacity to around 240 to 250 passenger maximum. It will be very difficult for Airbus to modify an A350XWB-1000 (A35K) to a very long range configuration without seriously compromising cargo capacity due to the need to add quite a lot of auxiliary fuel tankage compared to a normal A35K.


On the list of Airline priorities for niche ULH flying, I'm pretty sure that DVT consideration for Y pax is about at the very bottom, I'm sad to report.

I don't think we can say that QF has any intent to "pull an SQ" with an all premium config.

We know far less, than what we don't know about QF.

We know:

They've backed off of their original requirement for 4-class, 300 pax, full cargo. But to what? We only know "limited cargo" and fewer pax. That could mean anything.

We know QF rejected A359, but appear to have approved A35K .

I believe both B778 and A35K have met the (unknown) QF requirements, so I don't think your comment about cargo or DVT stands up.

Its my hypothesis that the seat config is driven by QF's projected revenue and not an arbitrary count, and by that, I mean corporate contracts. How much revenue can they count on based on corporate premium travel? What did 4 class even mean anyways? Surely not F? If so, I think they are far likelier to eliminate F seats and maintain Y (DVT be damned), keeping a 3 class plane. Can they fill 64 J daily (or more), like SQ's config and is that enough revenue to justify this, along with the remaining cabin space and projected revenue from Y+/Y seats? What's the sweet spot for maximizing revenue?

Obviously, they are still convinced its a money maker (the revised, unknown specification), and both aircraft can meet it. They are shrewdly using this as their best opportunity to get their future fleet "right" after too many years of sub-optimal profitability due to 744ER, A380 and ME3 really depressing their yields. Done right, this ULH fleet does allow them to "capture the cream" to LHR (maybe other EU spots) AND to central/east North America (with even less competition).

First, well said.

I speculate that getting the fleet right is what defines this order. I sincerely doubt only 10 aircraft, with options, is the extent of the negotiations. I fully expect a complete fleet replacement order, excluding 787s. This order could be:
789/787-10, 778 (ulh, but possibly as to Asia combis), and 779.

Or
A359, A35K including 10 ulh.


QF has the ability to gain a much lower cost fleet upgrade thanks to the visibility of project sunrise. At this point, I expect the economics of ULH is only one column of the fleet replacement strategy.

This is about increasing the share of premium revenue QF retains. With DXB, SIN, and LAX bypass, other airlines loose a little revenue. Meh... I'm an advocate of direct flights.

I fully expect a fleet buy not only for project sunrise, but for MEL-DFW and possibly other cities to fragment travel.

I also expect more PER to nearer Europe on either the 789 or A359 and possibly non sunrise A35K. PIPs will be critical.

Facinating order.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

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

Tue May 21, 2019 8:30 pm

lightsaber wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:
RayChuang wrote:
I think in the end, QF will likely choose the 777-8 (778). With good reason: due to the quite niche nature of the SYD-LHR nonstop route, to minimize issues with deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), the plane will only be equipped with Premium Economy (around 39" seating pitch) and Business class seating only, which will limit the 778's seating capacity to around 240 to 250 passenger maximum. It will be very difficult for Airbus to modify an A350XWB-1000 (A35K) to a very long range configuration without seriously compromising cargo capacity due to the need to add quite a lot of auxiliary fuel tankage compared to a normal A35K.


On the list of Airline priorities for niche ULH flying, I'm pretty sure that DVT consideration for Y pax is about at the very bottom, I'm sad to report.

I don't think we can say that QF has any intent to "pull an SQ" with an all premium config.

We know far less, than what we don't know about QF.

We know:

They've backed off of their original requirement for 4-class, 300 pax, full cargo. But to what? We only know "limited cargo" and fewer pax. That could mean anything.

We know QF rejected A359, but appear to have approved A35K .

I believe both B778 and A35K have met the (unknown) QF requirements, so I don't think your comment about cargo or DVT stands up.

Its my hypothesis that the seat config is driven by QF's projected revenue and not an arbitrary count, and by that, I mean corporate contracts. How much revenue can they count on based on corporate premium travel? What did 4 class even mean anyways? Surely not F? If so, I think they are far likelier to eliminate F seats and maintain Y (DVT be damned), keeping a 3 class plane. Can they fill 64 J daily (or more), like SQ's config and is that enough revenue to justify this, along with the remaining cabin space and projected revenue from Y+/Y seats? What's the sweet spot for maximizing revenue?

Obviously, they are still convinced its a money maker (the revised, unknown specification), and both aircraft can meet it. They are shrewdly using this as their best opportunity to get their future fleet "right" after too many years of sub-optimal profitability due to 744ER, A380 and ME3 really depressing their yields. Done right, this ULH fleet does allow them to "capture the cream" to LHR (maybe other EU spots) AND to central/east North America (with even less competition).

First, well said.

I speculate that getting the fleet right is what defines this order. I sincerely doubt only 10 aircraft, with options, is the extent of the negotiations. I fully expect a complete fleet replacement order, excluding 787s. This order could be:
789/787-10, 778 (ulh, but possibly as to Asia combis), and 779.

Or
A359, A35K including 10 ulh.


QF has the ability to gain a much lower cost fleet upgrade thanks to the visibility of project sunrise. At this point, I expect the economics of ULH is only one column of the fleet replacement strategy.

This is about increasing the share of premium revenue QF retains. With DXB, SIN, and LAX bypass, other airlines loose a little revenue. Meh... I'm an advocate of direct flights.

I fully expect a fleet buy not only for project sunrise, but for MEL-DFW and possibly other cities to fragment travel.

I also expect more PER to nearer Europe on either the 789 or A359 and possibly non sunrise A35K. PIPs will be critical.

Facinating order.

Lightsaber


Yes, Alan Joyce has said this is an order with beyond Sunrise missions as part of the impact. So it is a fleet wide decision.

Back to earlier comments about NPV (Net Present Value?), that is a very useful metric. Broadening that out some, other considerations are RoC (Return on Capital) and RoS (Return on Sales) as a fleet. These metrics would help QF determine the benefit to their entire business including maintenance lifecycles, financing and cost of acquisition. It's quite a complex undertaking for them, but this decision is quite important and far reaching; Project Sunrise is the headline of a bigger story.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

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

Wed May 22, 2019 1:34 am

lightsaber wrote:

I speculate that getting the fleet right is what defines this order. I sincerely doubt only 10 aircraft, with options, is the extent of the negotiations. I fully expect a complete fleet replacement order, excluding 787s. This order could be:
789/787-10, 778 (ulh, but possibly as to Asia combis), and 779.

Or
A359, A35K including 10 ulh.




I also think there is more at play here than just the ULH Project Sunrise aircraft, but I really don't see a place for A359 in QF's fleet.

Doesn't QF still have many options for the 787 at a great price? If they wanted to, I'm sure Boeing would allow some of their 789s to be converted to 7810s, but I doubt QF would go down that route.

The future QF widebody fleet (after A330 and A380 retirement) is either:

789 and A350k (with the possibility of the A350-2000 with the NEO Ultrafan engine being added at the end of the next decade)

Or

789, 778 and 779.

I don't really think there is room for a fourth type.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17670
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 3:16 am

aryonoco wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

I speculate that getting the fleet right is what defines this order. I sincerely doubt only 10 aircraft, with options, is the extent of the negotiations. I fully expect a complete fleet replacement order, excluding 787s. This order could be:
789/787-10, 778 (ulh, but possibly as to Asia combis), and 779.

Or
A359, A35K including 10 ulh.




I also think there is more at play here than just the ULH Project Sunrise aircraft, but I really don't see a place for A359 in QF's fleet.

Doesn't QF still have many options for the 787 at a great price? If they wanted to, I'm sure Boeing would allow some of their 789s to be converted to 7810s, but I doubt QF would go down that route.

The future QF widebody fleet (after A330 and A380 retirement) is either:

789 and A350k (with the possibility of the A350-2000 with the NEO Ultrafan engine being added at the end of the next decade)

Or

789, 778 and 779.

I don't really think there is room for a fourth type.

If the A350 is introduced, another size isn't a big deal. That said, it will be tough to compete with top off 789 orders.

Facinating order...

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 4:33 am

aryonoco wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

I speculate that getting the fleet right is what defines this order. I sincerely doubt only 10 aircraft, with options, is the extent of the negotiations. I fully expect a complete fleet replacement order, excluding 787s. This order could be:
789/787-10, 778 (ulh, but possibly as to Asia combis), and 779.

Or
A359, A35K including 10 ulh.




I also think there is more at play here than just the ULH Project Sunrise aircraft, but I really don't see a place for A359 in QF's fleet.

Doesn't QF still have many options for the 787 at a great price? If they wanted to, I'm sure Boeing would allow some of their 789s to be converted to 7810s, but I doubt QF would go down that route.

The future QF widebody fleet (after A330 and A380 retirement) is either:

789 and A350k (with the possibility of the A350-2000 with the NEO Ultrafan engine being added at the end of the next decade)

Or

789, 778 and 779.

I don't really think there is room for a fourth type.


I can see A359 as perffect A/C for PER-LHR-PER route;-) slightly better payload than 789 but it depends if is it required?

WB fleet of 789/359/35K could be perfect;-) I do not see necessity of A380 replacement. When you start serve ULH you can connect cities directly avoiding big hubs. Smaller aircrafts should be much more effective.But all depends on QF network strategy and what aircraft can do SYD-LHR-SYD best, without compromising potentiol for other missions.

Cheers
 
Pcoder
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:44 am

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

Wed May 22, 2019 5:05 am

The current conference that Airbus is holding will probably give us a great indication of how close they are to getting Qantas.

If they announce the a350-1000ulr with a 322t or greater MTOW, I could very easily see airbus as the only choice with some of the already layed out requirements favouring them (only sub 300 pax, needs ability to fly shorter Asian routes). Another big advantage is that the a35k would be able to have a larger business / first class section due its larger floor space and aircraft length.
 
travelasia
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun May 19, 2019 10:30 am

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

Wed May 22, 2019 6:14 am

If they announce the a350-1000ulr with a 322t or greater MTOW....

U-turn Al indicated a MTOW increase above 3-4 tons is in the works, so the big surprise will not be the announcement in itself, but how much more MTOW, extra fuel tank or not, and when it will be available. (next to: Will it be announced on today, in Paris, or together with a possible order from QF at the end of 2019....)

What I read from Al's indication, and from adding together rumors (2,5t increase for the 787, PR buying the 359 with higher weight, VN mulling about how to make the US work) that there seems to be demand for more payload at long range for a couple of missions beyond Sunrise. So I think AB will strategically try to reduce the niche the 777-8 is in to the ME3 and maybe ET, which in my eyes, this is motivation enough for AB to do the higher MTOW. Since this also spreads the development costs to a few no-sunrise customers, this of course will help AB in the Sunrise competition.
The same of course is true for Boeing, any increase in capabilities of the 777-8 could move the goalpost in other competitions as well. And moving the decision to the end of 2019 to me indicates, that Joyce wants to see what margins Boeing will be able to release after flight testing for a few months. And for both fanboys: This could be in favor of the 777-8 as much as it could be for keeping negotiating pressure on AB. Remotely, but not totally impossible, it could be AB that has asked to wait before its PIPs are fully developed.....
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1520
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Wed May 22, 2019 7:37 am

Mrakula wrote:
I can see A359 as perffect A/C for PER-LHR-PER route;-) slightly better payload than 789 but it depends if is it required?

WB fleet of 789/359/35K could be perfect;-) I do not see necessity of A380 replacement. When you start serve ULH you can connect cities directly avoiding big hubs. Smaller aircrafts should be much more effective.But all depends on QF network strategy and what aircraft can do SYD-LHR-SYD best, without compromising potentiol for other missions.

The 787-9 is perfect for PER-LHR.

I agree the A380 will be replaced by smaller widebodies with frequency adjusted accordingly. The VLA is dead for Qantas.

I think we will see fewer aircraft types than people here suggest. The 797 will play a massive role for Qantas and perform the medium haul asian routes so the 787-10 will not be needed. The Qantas model is for fragmentation, the exact opposite of the ME3. Qantas would rather hit two cities with 797's than one city with a 787-10.

I think in 10 years the Qantas fleet will simply be as follows:
777-8 for routes over 7500nm
787-9 for routes 5000nm-7500nm
797 for Asia and Melbourne-Sydney peak.
A320/A321

The 777-8 will not get abused on routes to Asia as some people use to help justify the A350-1000. Once non stop routes to Europe begin with the 777-8 the demand for the kangaroo route will probably see it downgrade to 787-9's.

I do not see the 777-9 getting purchased even if the 777-8 is selected for project sunrise. The 777-9 as a A380 replacement will not be the reason for why the 777-8 is selected. The 777-8 will be selected because it can do LHR from both Melbourne and Sydney with a normal cabin. Yes the A358-1000 would probably be a better aircraft for JFK but they will simply use the 777-8 for fleet simplicity. The 787-9 has the same range as the 777-9, Qantas will simply adjust frequency and use the smaller aircraft.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1520
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Wed May 22, 2019 7:47 am

travelasia wrote:
And moving the decision to the end of 2019 to me indicates, that Joyce wants to see what margins Boeing will be able to release after flight testing for a few months. And for both fanboys: This could be in favor of the 777-8 as much as it could be for keeping negotiating pressure on AB. Remotely, but not totally impossible, it could be AB that has asked to wait before its PIPs are fully developed.....

As the 777-8 is a simple shrink of the 777-9 the flight test data in the coming months should give a very accurate idea of the performance of the 777-8.

Qantas will soon know exactly how many passengers can fly non stop to London.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4976
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 9:39 am

Lightsaber reply 775
I speculate that getting the fleet right is what defines this order. I sincerely doubt only 10 aircraft, with options, is the extent of the negotiations. I fully expect a complete fleet replacement order, excluding 787s.


I will be EXTERMLY suprised if we get a fleet ORDER! A fleet plan, by all means although it may not be publicly released in any detail.
Why? Simple, capex. QF will not do anything to had any more to their capex then they absoultly have to to get Project Sunrise off the ground. Firm orders go on to the balance sheet as a libality immediately, options I'm not sure about, but if they require deposits I would expect so, purchase rights like the B787s currently arriving which are only firmed about 6 - 12 months before they expire are most likely the perferred option.

This is about increasing the share of premium revenue QF retains. With DXB, SIN, and LAX bypass, other airlines loose a little revenue. Meh... I'm an advocate of direct flights.
I fully expect a fleet buy not only for project sunrise, but for MEL-DFW and possibly other cities to fragment travel.


This I agree with totally, this is what Project Sunrise is about but it HAS to be done within QFs capex plan or their share price will tank and this, if severe enough could have legal & political effects.So I would not expect any ORDERS at the end of the year for more than, say, 10 or so aircraft to get Project Sunrise off the ground [actually an order for six would not entirely suprise me] ORDERS for anything else would really schock me.

I don't think most posters on here give enough weight to QF's capex problems, they are big problems and AJ will need to be the best capex manager in history if QF is to survive into its second century. So lets not let our enthusism runaway from the practicle please.

Gemuser
 
jfk777
Posts: 6973
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

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

Wed May 22, 2019 11:33 am

Qantas having economy class on a 20 hour nonstop to is silly, Qantas will probably have the nonstop 777-8 flight as well as a one-stop from Sydney to LHR daily, so two flights daily for two different markets. The one-stop will be a 777-9 stopping in Singapore. The nonstop having Business Class and Premium Economy Exclusively and the one-stop having four classes with First Suites. If people want to fly nonstop they should pay for the privilege.
 
moa999
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

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

Wed May 22, 2019 11:44 am

Qantas has been very clear that they feel they need a 4-class plane including economy

Simply not the consistent demand in premium classes.

Agree with the Capex comments above - that we are far more likely to get a 6-10 order plus options.

Of note on narrow bodies is QFs 737 fleet is 2002-2014 so will begin to need replacement over a similar period.
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 12:46 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
travelasia wrote:
And moving the decision to the end of 2019 to me indicates, that Joyce wants to see what margins Boeing will be able to release after flight testing for a few months. And for both fanboys: This could be in favor of the 777-8 as much as it could be for keeping negotiating pressure on AB. Remotely, but not totally impossible, it could be AB that has asked to wait before its PIPs are fully developed.....

As the 777-8 is a simple shrink of the 777-9 the flight test data in the coming months should give a very accurate idea of the performance of the 777-8.

Qantas will soon know exactly how many passengers can fly non stop to London.


Qantas probably already knows. GE has flight test data on the GE9X so they know if it is 10% better than the GE90-115 and 5% better than the Trent XWB, or not. As for the wing, computational fluid dynamics has come a long way and I believe there is only a percent or two of surprise in the wing. But in any case I agree that we will know from the 777-9 in a matter of weeks whether the 777-8 will do what it is supposed to do.

Also, the fuel carried was quietly upped from just under 49000 gal to 52300 gal. This should make the current standard 777-8 Project Sunrise capable.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13787
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 1:17 pm

jagraham wrote:
Qantas probably already knows. GE has flight test data on the GE9X so they know if it is 10% better than the GE90-115 and 5% better than the Trent XWB, or not.


GE says the GE9X is only 10% better than the GE90 (777-200), not the GE90-115 (777-300ER).

“Those pressure differentials are among reasons why the GE9X uses 10% less fuel than the GE90, which has an overall 40:1 pressure ratio and powers first-generation 777s, according to GE.”

From https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... st-454827/

You will not find a single reference to indicate the GE9X has any advantage at all over the Trent XWB-94. They basically both first flew at the same time.

The Trent XWB-94 (A350-1000) is not the same engine as the Trent XWB-84 (A350-900). The Trent XWB engines delivered in a couple of years will be more efficient than those already delivered via normal in service improvements.

Happy for you to produce references to the contrary.

Ps when GE made those comments the GE9X was a 90klb engine. Since then thrust was increased to 105klb.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9347
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 1:34 pm

zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Qantas probably already knows. GE has flight test data on the GE9X so they know if it is 10% better than the GE90-115 and 5% better than the Trent XWB, or not.


GE says the GE9X is only 10% better than the GE90 (777-200), not the GE90-115 (777-300ER).

“Those pressure differentials are among reasons why the GE9X uses 10% less fuel than the GE90, which has an overall 40:1 pressure ratio and powers first-generation 777s, according to GE.”

From https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... st-454827/

You will not find a single reference to indicate the GE9X has any advantage at all over the Trent XWB-94. They basically both first flew at the same time.

The Trent XWB-94 (A350-1000) is not the same engine as the Trent XWB-84 (A350-900). The Trent XWB engines delivered in a couple of years will be more efficient than those already delivered via normal in service improvements.

Happy for you to produce references to the contrary.

Ps when GE made those comments the GE9X was a 90klb engine. Since then thrust was increased to 105klb.

GE claims 10% better than GE90-115b. See bottom of this press release: https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... tification

“The GE9X program represents the most extensive technology maturation effort in GE's nearly 50 years of commercial engine development. The GE9X is designed to deliver a 10% improved aircraft fuel burn versus the GE90-115B-powered 777-300ER. It has a bypass ratio in excess of 10:1, and a 60:1 overall pressure ratio”

Note in your article by first generation 777 they are counting the 77L/W in the same generation as the original 77A, with the 77X being the 2nd generation:

“That GE9X's fan, composed of 16 whirling carbonfibre blades, measures 3.4m (134in) in diameter – slightly wider than the 3.3m-diameter fan on the GE90-115B, which powers the first-generation 777”
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17670
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 1:44 pm

jagraham wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
travelasia wrote:
And moving the decision to the end of 2019 to me indicates, that Joyce wants to see what margins Boeing will be able to release after flight testing for a few months. And for both fanboys: This could be in favor of the 777-8 as much as it could be for keeping negotiating pressure on AB. Remotely, but not totally impossible, it could be AB that has asked to wait before its PIPs are fully developed.....

As the 777-8 is a simple shrink of the 777-9 the flight test data in the coming months should give a very accurate idea of the performance of the 777-8.

Qantas will soon know exactly how many passengers can fly non stop to London.


Qantas probably already knows. GE has flight test data on the GE9X so they know if it is 10% better than the GE90-115 and 5% better than the Trent XWB, or not. As for the wing, computational fluid dynamics has come a long way and I believe there is only a percent or two of surprise in the wing. But in any case I agree that we will know from the 777-9 in a matter of weeks whether the 777-8 will do what it is supposed to do.

Also, the fuel carried was quietly upped from just under 49000 gal to 52300 gal. This should make the current standard 777-8 Project Sunrise capable.

The 779 flight test data will probably determine the win. However, it takes months to tune an engine for optimal fuel burn.

That said, if the GE9x is only 5% better than the TXWB, GE has invested poorly in secondary subsystems. I have never seen such an agresive addition of subsystems (weight and cost) to an engine. Variable turbine cooling, CMC turbine inlet blades, extra turbine clearance control, fine tune cooling looks, higher Mach # compressor, latest low turbine tech (saves about 2% in fuel burn alone since Txwb launch, an area with a recent step change improvement)

The GE9x has the highest OPR too (above is all component efficiency gains).

It will depend on airframe weight.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21476
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

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

Wed May 22, 2019 1:59 pm

Bricktop wrote:
The counterpoint to that is we got a lot of cool looking planes from those manufacturers, even if very few airlines outside the home market bought them. We would all have been worse off as avgeeks if not for the Caravelle, or the VC-10 in BOAC colors (#1 badass combo IMO), and especially the Concorde.


You misspelled L-1011 ;)

Polot wrote:
“The GE9X program represents the most extensive technology maturation effort in GE's nearly 50 years of commercial engine development. The GE9X is designed to deliver a 10% improved aircraft fuel burn versus the GE90-115B-powered 777-300ER. It has a bypass ratio in excess of 10:1, and a 60:1 overall pressure ratio”


They say "aircraft fuel burn." Does that suggest that some of the improvement may be due to the 77X's other changes, such as a larger CFRP wing with more advanced aerodynamics?

But let's talk bigger picture here: If I were an airline CEO and wanted to get this route off the ground, I'd be very reticent about ordering an as-yet-unbuilt and/or uncertified new type from Boeing. Boeing has now had two groundings in the last six years (AFAIK, this is unique in aviation history) and a three-year delay on the 787. The A350 has been in service for several years now without any major issues and it's by far the safer bet, as long as Airbus can make it capable of the route.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13787
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 2:01 pm

Polot wrote:
GE claims 10% better than GE90-115b. See bottom of this press release:


That contradicts what they have said elsewhere, in any case 10% better than the GE90-115B is well behind the Trent XWB 94,

When I look at fuel burns top of climb on a 777-300ER they are 25% higher than an A350-1000.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
StTim
Posts: 3401
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Wed May 22, 2019 2:10 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
GE claims 10% better than GE90-115b. See bottom of this press release:


That contradicts what they have said elsewhere, in any case 10% better than the GE90-115B is well behind the Trent XWB 94,

When I look at fuel burns top of climb on a 777-300ER they are 25% higher than an A350-1000.


Ah - Marketing claims, don't you just love them.

Just enough detail to interest - not enough detail for any clarity. Yet we AV nerds can discuss in detail for hundreds of posts :)
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

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

Wed May 22, 2019 2:26 pm

DocLightning wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
The counterpoint to that is we got a lot of cool looking planes from those manufacturers, even if very few airlines outside the home market bought them. We would all have been worse off as avgeeks if not for the Caravelle, or the VC-10 in BOAC colors (#1 badass combo IMO), and especially the Concorde.


You misspelled L-1011 ;)

:D I was always a fan of the L-1011, but it wasn't a government funded industrial project foisted on their own airlines. At least I don't think it was.

OT: One of my "Holy $hit!" moments was driving through KC last year and seeing a TriStar at an airport along the highway. I asked the Uber guy to slow down so I could rub my eyes to be sure.
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 2:41 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
GE claims 10% better than GE90-115b. See bottom of this press release:


That contradicts what they have said elsewhere, in any case 10% better than the GE90-115B is well behind the Trent XWB 94,

When I look at fuel burns top of climb on a 777-300ER they are 25% higher than an A350-1000.



At this point it is up to you Zeke to provide references stating how much better the XWB94 is than the XWB84.
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 2:47 pm

lightsaber wrote:
jagraham wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
As the 777-8 is a simple shrink of the 777-9 the flight test data in the coming months should give a very accurate idea of the performance of the 777-8.

Qantas will soon know exactly how many passengers can fly non stop to London.


Qantas probably already knows. GE has flight test data on the GE9X so they know if it is 10% better than the GE90-115 and 5% better than the Trent XWB, or not. As for the wing, computational fluid dynamics has come a long way and I believe there is only a percent or two of surprise in the wing. But in any case I agree that we will know from the 777-9 in a matter of weeks whether the 777-8 will do what it is supposed to do.

Also, the fuel carried was quietly upped from just under 49000 gal to 52300 gal. This should make the current standard 777-8 Project Sunrise capable.

The 779 flight test data will probably determine the win. However, it takes months to tune an engine for optimal fuel burn.

That said, if the GE9x is only 5% better than the TXWB, GE has invested poorly in secondary subsystems. I have never seen such an agresive addition of subsystems (weight and cost) to an engine. Variable turbine cooling, CMC turbine inlet blades, extra turbine clearance control, fine tune cooling looks, higher Mach # compressor, latest low turbine tech (saves about 2% in fuel burn alone since Txwb launch, an area with a recent step change improvement)

The GE9x has the highest OPR too (above is all component efficiency gains).

It will depend on airframe weight.

Lightsaber


I agree on the potential issues regarding how little improvement the GE9X has for its weight. Although the probable major increase is the fan cowling. I'm sure that any weight savings in the turbine and compressor went back into the higher pressure ratios, but there is no way to not gain weight with a 132 inch fan.

It is an important issue because the 77L can fly the Project Sunrise mission with 3 ACTs. That is what it was designed to do. At 52300 gallons, the 778 is within 3000 gallons of a 77L with 3 ACTs; if the 778 can't do the Project Sunrise missions with 52300 gallons and 300 pax, I see no benefit over a 77L. And I don't think Boeing spent all those billions for no benefit. But the 779 will fly soon . . .
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13787
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 3:45 pm

jagraham wrote:
At this point it is up to you Zeke to provide references stating how much better the XWB94 is than the XWB84.


We are waiting for your source to backup your claims that the GE9X is “5% better than the Trent XWB”. You have stated this on several threads before, and I have corrected every time I have seen it. The GE9X and Trent XWB 97 basically first flew at the same time, there is no way GE ever had that data, as the did not even have their own data !!

What I said was

“The Trent XWB-97 (A350-1000) is not the same engine as the Trent XWB-84 (A350-900). The Trent XWB engines delivered in a couple of years will be more efficient than those already delivered via normal in service improvements.”

The proof for this is in the TCDS, the two engines are not the same. https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... %20XWB.pdf

The technology differences between the 84 and 97 include

“Although original plans called for the XWB-97 to generate 93,000 pounds of thrust, Rolls managed to extract additional power via a 6-percent increase in fan flow, combined with a slight change in bypass ratio and aerodynamic improvements in the larger core that increases flow. The XWB-97’s fan runs faster than those of smaller XWB units, but in a common nacelle and with unchanged aerodynamics.

Rolls says the XWB-97 turbine benefits from its use of advanced coatings and cooling technology, blade tip-clearance control for reducing “leakage” and improved materials. An enhanced combustor provides a 20-percent margin over CAEP 6 nitrous-oxide standards, and generates noise levels below QC1 arrival and QC2 departure limits.”

From https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ent-xwb-97

The manufacturer https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... rvice.aspx

“While there is very little visible or operational difference between the two Trent XWB engines, the higher thrust version employs a range of advanced technologies to produce extra thrust and optimum aircraft performance.

The front fan has the same number of blades and is the same diameter, at 118 inches, but will run around six per cent faster. The engine core has been scaled up in size to cope with the consequential increased airflow into the compressor and the combustor and turbines will both run at higher temperatures.

Simon Burr, Rolls-Royce, Director of Engineering & Technology – Civil Aerospace, explains: “The Trent XWB-97 is the highest thrust engine we have ever certified. We have been working at the leading edge of technology to deliver this engine and we look forward to seeing it enter into service.”

The engine also features new materials and coatings for the high-pressure turbine blades as well as an intelligent cooling system to ensure expected performance and efficiency can be delivered at the higher temperatures generated within the turbine.”

And proof that the improve the engines would be the Trent XWB 84EP which is flying on the SQ ULR

“The Trent XWB-84EP will incorporate turbine cooling and aerodynamics improvements developed specifically for the XWB-97 engine now in development for the A350-1000, as well as from the next-generation Advance technology program.

The “EP” also includes an improved secondary air system and inter-stage sealing system from the XWB-97, as well as upgrades to the Trent XWB-84 turbine tip clearance control system that Rolls says are “based on recent improvements on other programs.” ”

From https://aviationweek.com/singapore-airs ... e-advances

So over to you....
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 3:59 pm

zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
At this point it is up to you Zeke to provide references stating how much better the XWB94 is than the XWB84.


We are waiting for your source to backup your claims that the GE9X is “5% better than the Trent XWB”. You have stated this on several threads before, and I have corrected every time I have seen it. The GE9X and Trent XWB 97 basically first flew at the same time, there is no way GE ever had that data, as the did not even have their own data !!

What I said was

“The Trent XWB-97 (A350-1000) is not the same engine as the Trent XWB-84 (A350-900). The Trent XWB engines delivered in a couple of years will be more efficient than those already delivered via normal in service improvements.”

The proof for this is in the TCDS, the two engines are not the same. https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... %20XWB.pdf

The technology differences between the 84 and 97 include

“Although original plans called for the XWB-97 to generate 93,000 pounds of thrust, Rolls managed to extract additional power via a 6-percent increase in fan flow, combined with a slight change in bypass ratio and aerodynamic improvements in the larger core that increases flow. The XWB-97’s fan runs faster than those of smaller XWB units, but in a common nacelle and with unchanged aerodynamics.

Rolls says the XWB-97 turbine benefits from its use of advanced coatings and cooling technology, blade tip-clearance control for reducing “leakage” and improved materials. An enhanced combustor provides a 20-percent margin over CAEP 6 nitrous-oxide standards, and generates noise levels below QC1 arrival and QC2 departure limits.”

From https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ent-xwb-97

The manufacturer https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... rvice.aspx

“While there is very little visible or operational difference between the two Trent XWB engines, the higher thrust version employs a range of advanced technologies to produce extra thrust and optimum aircraft performance.

The front fan has the same number of blades and is the same diameter, at 118 inches, but will run around six per cent faster. The engine core has been scaled up in size to cope with the consequential increased airflow into the compressor and the combustor and turbines will both run at higher temperatures.

Simon Burr, Rolls-Royce, Director of Engineering & Technology – Civil Aerospace, explains: “The Trent XWB-97 is the highest thrust engine we have ever certified. We have been working at the leading edge of technology to deliver this engine and we look forward to seeing it enter into service.”

The engine also features new materials and coatings for the high-pressure turbine blades as well as an intelligent cooling system to ensure expected performance and efficiency can be delivered at the higher temperatures generated within the turbine.”

And proof that the improve the engines would be the Trent XWB 84EP which is flying on the SQ ULR

“The Trent XWB-84EP will incorporate turbine cooling and aerodynamics improvements developed specifically for the XWB-97 engine now in development for the A350-1000, as well as from the next-generation Advance technology program.

The “EP” also includes an improved secondary air system and inter-stage sealing system from the XWB-97, as well as upgrades to the Trent XWB-84 turbine tip clearance control system that Rolls says are “based on recent improvements on other programs.” ”

From https://aviationweek.com/singapore-airs ... e-advances

So over to you....


Polot gave the reference in post #789. I chose not to duplicate him. There are other reports that say the same thing, but since they say the same thing from the same source (GE), the other reports add very little. Please refer to post #789.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13787
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 4:25 pm

jagraham wrote:
Polot gave the reference in post #789. I chose not to duplicate him. There are other reports that say the same thing, but since they say the same thing from the same source (GE), the other reports add very little. Please refer to post #789.


Sorry that does not say what you claimed.

Again to be explicit, where is the reference to your claim the GE9X is 5% better than the Trent XWB

I was in error when I said both engines first flew at the same time.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Wed May 22, 2019 6:25 pm

zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Polot gave the reference in post #789. I chose not to duplicate him. There are other reports that say the same thing, but since they say the same thing from the same source (GE), the other reports add very little. Please refer to post #789.


Sorry that does not say what you claimed.

Again to be explicit, where is the reference to your claim the GE9X is 5% better than the Trent XWB

I was in error when I said both engines first flew at the same time.


Stop it Zeke. My statement is that GE claims the GE9X will be 5% better than the best existing engine (which is the Trent XWB). I have always stated it as a GE claim, awaiting flight test results.
 
StTim
Posts: 3401
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Wed May 22, 2019 6:29 pm

jagraham wrote:
zeke wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Polot gave the reference in post #789. I chose not to duplicate him. There are other reports that say the same thing, but since they say the same thing from the same source (GE), the other reports add very little. Please refer to post #789.


Sorry that does not say what you claimed.

Again to be explicit, where is the reference to your claim the GE9X is 5% better than the Trent XWB

I was in error when I said both engines first flew at the same time.


Stop it Zeke. My statement is that GE claims the GE9X will be 5% better than the best existing engine (which is the Trent XWB). I have always stated it as a GE claim, awaiting flight test results.

Like any marketing claim - the wording is ambiguous. I have never seen a statement where GE directly refers to the Trent XWB. I may be wrong but I haven't ever seen that. Every statement could have been read to mean that but could be read other ways. Classic marketing used by all companies. Hence all have the most efficient etc. Well they do on their own narrow terms which they never state. :)

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