VS11
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:33 pm

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but how much time would a pax save by taking the non-stop vs a 1-stop flight from SYD to LHR?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:45 pm

VS11 wrote:
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but how much time would a pax save by taking the non-stop vs a 1-stop flight from SYD to LHR?

If they landed in broome and refueled the plane with passengers onboard it might add only 30 minutes.

But at a major hub where the passengers get off the plane it is uusually a minimum of 2 hours and extra time for the climb back to altitude.

Via singapore is 22 hours 45 minutes. So Project sunrise will be 20 hours.

I always thought a cool idea would be to have a refueling stop in Broome as it is the closest Australian airport to Europe. A normal 787-8 could probably make the trip. No gates would be needed at Broome as the passengers stay on the plane to speed things up.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:52 pm

scbriml wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
What about a surcharge that you can pay in order not to get punched in the face?


That should be available on United! :duck:


It was, but unfortunately they oversold it. Film at 11.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
VS11
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:04 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but how much time would a pax save by taking the non-stop vs a 1-stop flight from SYD to LHR?

If they landed in broome and refueled the plane with passengers onboard it might add only 30 minutes.

But at a major hub where the passengers get off the plane it is uusually a minimum of 2 hours and extra time for the climb back to altitude.

Via singapore is 22 hours 45 minutes. So Project sunrise will be 20 hours.

I always thought a cool idea would be to have a refueling stop in Broome as it is the closest Australian airport to Europe. A normal 787-8 could probably make the trip. No gates would be needed at Broome as the passengers stay on the plane to speed things up.


Thank you. In this case not sure what the point is really of the non-stop flight if the time savings are only a couple of hours. The notion to be locked in a plane for 20 hours just to save 3 hours seems rather ridiculous to me. Assuming research indicates that pax will be willing to pay more for the non-stop flight, any idea how much more this premium would be?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26315
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:19 pm

justloveplanes wrote:
What improvement does it mention for a 778?

pabloeing wrote:
More than 9500nm in the new B778 range......


Back in 2012, Boeing was considering adding a third member to the 777X family: the 777-8LX with a mission range of 17,500km / 9500nm. This originally would have been done by giving the 777-8LX the same MTOW (344,000kg) of the 777-9X (at the time, the 777-8 had an MTOW of 315,000kg).

As the 777-8 and 777-9 now have a common MTOW of 351,000kg (which allowed the 777-8's mission range to rise from 8000nm to 8700nm), to get another 800nm out of the frame likely means either another MTOW boost (which Boeing was looking into in 2017 for Project Sunrise) or if the 777-8 has the same 198,000 liter fuel capacity of the 777-9 they take a page from the A350-900ULR and make modifications to the fuel system to allow more of the existing tankage to be used to provide the necessary fuel volume to make the trip.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:46 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but how much time would a pax save by taking the non-stop vs a 1-stop flight from SYD to LHR?

If they landed in broome and refueled the plane with passengers onboard it might add only 30 minutes.

But at a major hub where the passengers get off the plane it is uusually a minimum of 2 hours and extra time for the climb back to altitude.

Via singapore is 22 hours 45 minutes. So Project sunrise will be 20 hours.

I always thought a cool idea would be to have a refueling stop in Broome as it is the closest Australian airport to Europe. A normal 787-8 could probably make the trip. No gates would be needed at Broome as the passengers stay on the plane to speed things up.
maybe they could build a gym at Broome, that wat way passengers could work out during the fuel stop? :D

Seriously mate, you need to drop it.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
 
ZEDZAG
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 3:09 pm

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:48 pm

Stitch wrote:


As the 777-8 and 777-9 now have a common MTOW of 351,000kg (which allowed the 777-8's mission range to rise from 8000nm to 8700nm), to get another 800nm out of the frame likely means either another MTOW boost (which Boeing was looking into in 2017 for Project Sunrise) or if the 777-8 has the same 198,000 liter fuel capacity of the 777-9 they take a page from the A350-900ULR.


What would they get by tanking more fuel without more MTOW?, less payload. So it has to be both. If both, then why not more MTOW for 9 as well?
 
Ryanair01
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:27 pm

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:56 pm

VS11 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but how much time would a pax save by taking the non-stop vs a 1-stop flight from SYD to LHR?

If they landed in broome and refueled the plane with passengers onboard it might add only 30 minutes.

But at a major hub where the passengers get off the plane it is uusually a minimum of 2 hours and extra time for the climb back to altitude.

Via singapore is 22 hours 45 minutes. So Project sunrise will be 20 hours.

I always thought a cool idea would be to have a refueling stop in Broome as it is the closest Australian airport to Europe. A normal 787-8 could probably make the trip. No gates would be needed at Broome as the passengers stay on the plane to speed things up.


Thank you. In this case not sure what the point is really of the non-stop flight if the time savings are only a couple of hours. The notion to be locked in a plane for 20 hours just to save 3 hours seems rather ridiculous to me. Assuming research indicates that pax will be willing to pay more for the non-stop flight, any idea how much more this premium would be?


It might be ridiculous for people who aren't forced to make the trip, but that's not everyone.

Annually I fly from London to Sydney/Brisbane to visit family and friends who are spread around from the Southern Highlands, Illawarra, Central Coast, Bondi, Dubbo, Northside of Brisbane and Sunshine Coast - in other words lots of travel by air and road after landing. My work makes it difficult to take more than 2 weeks off, so my trips end up being really rushed and by the time I'm back in London I'm exhausted - but have to go into work. So I'd be grateful for any time reduction.

The 3 hour (each way) time saving is on a direct flight that lands to refuel, the smallest it would be. In practice most people connect between flights, which are not necessarily fast connections. If I could cut 5-6 hours of travel out of a return trip, that would be wonderful. However if I'm connecting flights, which is often the case, the time savings could be more like 8-10 hours on a return trip. In terms of fatigue, that's an attractive saving for me.

I could probably be persuaded to pay 15-20% on top, but that would depend on what other offers are available and how tight my time is. I get as a tourist that might not be attractive.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:37 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
travelasia wrote:

Let’s start with the 300 pax remark. I think it looks to rounded to the nearest hundred



That I agree with.

Let’s not forget that QF 789 has 238 seats even without the F class. That’s 82% of the 789 default 290 seats. If we assume they would use the same seating density on the Sunshine Project frames, then they would not be able to seat more than 295 seats on either the 778 or the A35K. This has nothing to do with payload, this is based on the available cabin area.

Now, I think the seating density on SYD-LHR will be even lower than PER-LHR. First, they might add F class seats. Then, all the news about a possible gym onboard hints at QF not intending on going sardine can mode here. I wouldn’t be surprised if this plane ends up having 260-270 seats maximum.

It will be more premium heavy than PER-LHR for sure.


Good point

But I think the 777-8X seems more spacious and the cabin could be nicer

Airbus will get the order because Qantas wants to carry less than 300 seats while the A350-1000 XWB has a fuselage size similar to their 787-9 Dreamliner but longer than 10 meters with an identical 3-3-3 to build to refine their calculations
related to their 787-9.

Just my two cents...
 
User avatar
IslandRob
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:04 am

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:48 pm

VS11 wrote:
Thank you. In this case not sure what the point is really of the non-stop flight if the time savings are only a couple of hours. The notion to be locked in a plane for 20 hours just to save 3 hours seems rather ridiculous to me.


Your thinking is soooo last decade. It's 2019 now - get with the program. Just because you frown on a 20 hr flight doesn't mean that everyone else does.

I'd surely opt for the non-stop to save the time and hassle of the intermediate stop, no different than how I'd rather fly LAX-SYD non-stop than via HNL or NAN.

Obviously, QF sees a healthy market opportunity, or they wouldn't bother with Project Sunrise. I wish them the very best of luck. -ir
If you wrote me off, I'd understand it
'Cause I've been on some other planet
So come pick me up, I've landed
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26315
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:37 pm

ZEDZAG wrote:
What would they get by tanking more fuel without more MTOW?, less payload. So it has to be both. If both, then why not more MTOW for 9 as well?


Boeing would raise MTOW for both, I am sure, but on LHR-SYD you're going to see a fair bit lower ZFW than "normal" so the bulk of the available TOW will be dedicated to lifting fuel. So it is conceivable that the frame becomes fuel-volume limited before it reaches the current MTOW (though that will depend on the DOW in a QF configuration).
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17710
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:01 pm

VS11 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but how much time would a pax save by taking the non-stop vs a 1-stop flight from SYD to LHR?

If they landed in broome and refueled the plane with passengers onboard it might add only 30 minutes.

But at a major hub where the passengers get off the plane it is uusually a minimum of 2 hours and extra time for the climb back to altitude.

Via singapore is 22 hours 45 minutes. So Project sunrise will be 20 hours.

I always thought a cool idea would be to have a refueling stop in Broome as it is the closest Australian airport to Europe. A normal 787-8 could probably make the trip. No gates would be needed at Broome as the passengers stay on the plane to speed things up.


Thank you. In this case not sure what the point is really of the non-stop flight if the time savings are only a couple of hours. The notion to be locked in a plane for 20 hours just to save 3 hours seems rather ridiculous to me. Assuming research indicates that pax will be willing to pay more for the non-stop flight, any idea how much more this premium would be?

The direct flight also eliminates connection risk/ delays at the hub. Premium fliers value their time. My time is often valued by my employer in tens of thousands of dollars per hour as I go solve problems costing them much more than that. Sadly, I don't get paid so well...

Indications are:
1. Qantas keeps the premium instead of splitting with partner EK.
2. Direct flights always receive a premium.

MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL is already profitable. Naysayers here said it couldn't be.
Prior links up thread
50% PER O&D
25% MEL O&D

So now we pull SYD traffic off and put on SYD-LHR. We see more MEL-DXB-LHR go MEL-SYD-LHR.

We also see SYD-JFK.

I suspect we will see more flights to DFW too.



Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:52 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The direct flight also eliminates connection risk/ delays at the hub. Premium fliers value their time.

This is probably the biggest factor. Nearly everyone knows someone with a story where they had a delay or something at a stop.
 
BBJ777X
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:16 pm

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:24 pm

Stitch wrote:
As the 777-8 and 777-9 now have a common MTOW of 351,000kg (which allowed the 777-8's mission range to rise from 8000nm to 8700nm), to get another 800nm out of the frame likely means either another MTOW boost (which Boeing was looking into in 2017 for Project Sunrise) or if the 777-8 has the same 198,000 liter fuel capacity of the 777-9 they take a page from the A350-900ULR and make modifications to the fuel system to allow more of the existing tankage to be used to provide the necessary fuel volume to make the trip.


If the target seat count is 300 I would imagine the payload is significantly less than the "nominal" 777-8 passengers plus bags. With a lower payload, it could load more fuel, provided it has enough volume in its tank. Why would Boeing need to increase MTOW then? I think a tank volume increase or some sort of ATCs is enough.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:59 pm

VS11 wrote:
Thank you. In this case not sure what the point is really of the non-stop flight if the time savings are only a couple of hours. The notion to be locked in a plane for 20 hours just to save 3 hours seems rather ridiculous to me.


SYD-DFW and PER-LHR happened. The flying public has voted with their wallet, and your point is now moot.

I was having dinner with my wife and father in law last night. All three of us fly annually between MEL and JFK. All three agreed that we'd love a non stop flight and would take it any day over a one stop. It's not about the time saving, it's that getting off the plane, getting on, another taxi, another take off, is just a drain.

I have very high confidence that whichever aircraft is chosen, project sunrise will be a success, and it will define QF International for the next couple of decades.
 
VS11
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:17 am

aryonoco wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Thank you. In this case not sure what the point is really of the non-stop flight if the time savings are only a couple of hours. The notion to be locked in a plane for 20 hours just to save 3 hours seems rather ridiculous to me.


SYD-DFW and PER-LHR happened. The flying public has voted with their wallet, and your point is now moot.

I was having dinner with my wife and father in law last night. All three of us fly annually between MEL and JFK. All three agreed that we'd love a non stop flight and would take it any day over a one stop. It's not about the time saving, it's that getting off the plane, getting on, another taxi, another take off, is just a drain.

I have very high confidence that whichever aircraft is chosen, project sunrise will be a success, and it will define QF International for the next couple of decades.


I wasn't questioning/debating the "success" of the flight. I assume QF have figured out they would make money on it. I was trying to find out the perceived benefit for the pax as I find it very challenging to be in a plane for so long. But maybe pax from/to Australia are used to longer stage flights and 20 hours is not a big deal. Kudos for those with endurance. I get antsy after 10 hours.
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:20 am

Stitch wrote:
justloveplanes wrote:
What improvement does it mention for a 778?

pabloeing wrote:
More than 9500nm in the new B778 range......


Back in 2012, Boeing was considering adding a third member to the 777X family: the 777-8LX with a mission range of 17,500km / 9500nm. This originally would have been done by giving the 777-8LX the same MTOW (344,000kg) of the 777-9X (at the time, the 777-8 had an MTOW of 315,000kg).

As the 777-8 and 777-9 now have a common MTOW of 351,000kg (which allowed the 777-8's mission range to rise from 8000nm to 8700nm), to get another 800nm out of the frame likely means either another MTOW boost (which Boeing was looking into in 2017 for Project Sunrise) or if the 777-8 has the same 198,000 liter fuel capacity of the 777-9 they take a page from the A350-900ULR and make modifications to the fuel system to allow more of the existing tankage to be used to provide the necessary fuel volume to make the trip.


Boeing upped the fuel from about 48900 gal (185000 l) to 52300 gal (198000 l) several months back without fanfare. And without changing the range spec. Until now.

As far as MTOW, since Project Sunrise will have 300 or less pax, the 778 has plenty of TOW to carry the pax and all the fuel. I'm guessing 350000 lb (159090 kg) OEW (because it's shorter than a 77W; it might be a bit less than that in Project Sunrise configuration because there won't be 360 pax on the plane). 300 pax and bags will be 30000 kg. 189090 kg before fuel. Which will carry the entire 159000 kg of the increased fuel load. It adds up nicely.

My final comment is that the 77L was designed to do the Project Sunrise mission with 3 ACTs. 55000 gal ( approx 167000 kg). If the 778 with 10% better engines and wings adding 7% - 2% for increased OEW can't do the trip with 5% less fuel, something is wrong. But the way the weights add up with the new higher fuel amount suggests Boeing figured this out.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5229
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:18 am

RJMAZ wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The direct flight also eliminates connection risk/ delays at the hub. Premium fliers value their time.

This is probably the biggest factor. Nearly everyone knows someone with a story where they had a delay or something at a stop.

Indeed - a good reason to not introduce planned stops for baggage.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:47 am

ZEDZAG wrote:
Stitch wrote:
As the 777-8 and 777-9 now have a common MTOW of 351,000kg (which allowed the 777-8's mission range to rise from 8000nm to 8700nm), to get another 800nm out of the frame likely means either another MTOW boost (which Boeing was looking into in 2017 for Project Sunrise) or if the 777-8 has the same 198,000 liter fuel capacity of the 777-9 they take a page from the A350-900ULR.


What would they get by tanking more fuel without more MTOW?, less payload. So it has to be both. If both, then why not more MTOW for 9 as well?

IIRC, there is an issue with pavement loading. So any increase in MTOW will need a new landing gear solution.
 
BBJ777X
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:16 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:48 am

jagraham wrote:

Boeing upped the fuel from about 48900 gal (185000 l) to 52300 gal (198000 l) several months back without fanfare. And without changing the range spec. Until now.


Where can I find the updated range figure? Boeing website still shows the 8,690 nmi figure...
 
Pcoder
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:44 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:36 am

It's probably not the best to look a fuel capacity in volume as it does change with temperature, so although the the 777X may have increased volume, the weight limits may still apply.

Qantas have been saying sub 300 seats will suffice for a while now which points to a larger premium cabin. The configuration will probably something like upto 12 first class suites, 60 business, 60 premium economy and 130 economy seats. With a premium config, there won't be a need for 300 seats.
 
Pcoder
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:44 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:45 am

It's probably not the best to look a fuel capacity in volume as it does change with temperature, so although the the 777X may have increased volume, the weight limits may still apply.

Qantas have been saying sub 300 seats will suffice for a while now which points to a larger premium cabin. The configuration will probably something like upto 12 first class suites, 60 business, 60 premium economy and 130 economy seats. With a premium config, there won't be a need for 300 seats.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:02 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I always thought a cool idea would be to have a refueling stop in Broome as it is the closest Australian airport to Europe.


Have you been to Broome ?

Apart from the runway being too short (7900 ft), narrow (45m), poor taxiways (what taxiways), soft pavement (max tyre pressure 145 psi, the 777 is around 220 psi) , part time ATC, part time RFF, RFF CAT 6 (737/A320 size max, 777/A350 need CAT 9), lack of approach aids (who has a ADF these days), lack of parking, lack of fuel, lack of equipment it seems perfect for what you describe.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
oschkosch
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:16 am

zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I always thought a cool idea would be to have a refueling stop in Broome as it is the closest Australian airport to Europe.


Have you been to Broome ?

Apart from the runway being too short (7900 ft), narrow (45m), poor taxiways (what taxiways), soft pavement (max tyre pressure 145 psi, the 777 is around 220 psi) , part time ATC, part time RFF, RFF CAT 6 (737/A320 size max, 777/A350 need CAT 9), lack of approach aids (who has a ADF these days), lack of parking, lack of fuel, lack of equipment it seems perfect for what you describe.
well, then it will definitely be a Broome stop. What could go wrong lol! :D

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5229
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:40 am

oschkosch wrote:
zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I always thought a cool idea would be to have a refueling stop in Broome as it is the closest Australian airport to Europe.


Have you been to Broome ?

Apart from the runway being too short (7900 ft), narrow (45m), poor taxiways (what taxiways), soft pavement (max tyre pressure 145 psi, the 777 is around 220 psi) , part time ATC, part time RFF, RFF CAT 6 (737/A320 size max, 777/A350 need CAT 9), lack of approach aids (who has a ADF these days), lack of parking, lack of fuel, lack of equipment it seems perfect for what you describe.
well, then it will definitely be a Broome stop. What could go wrong lol! :D

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

They could always obtain a BBJ, fit it out as a freighter, and send the bags via Broome...

:duck:

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:56 am

BBJ777X wrote:
jagraham wrote:

Boeing upped the fuel from about 48900 gal (185000 l) to 52300 gal (198000 l) several months back without fanfare. And without changing the range spec. Until now.


Where can I find the updated range figure? Boeing website still shows the 8,690 nmi figure...


For now, the increased range is in the Aircurrent reporting.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:14 am

jagraham wrote:
For now, the increased range is in the Aircurrent reporting.


Maybe we will have to wait until 17 to 23 June, in the meantime the increased number of subscriptions should be able to pay for John to have a couple of holidays.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:15 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
They could always obtain a BBJ, fit it out as a freighter, and send the bags via Broome...

:duck:

V/F


They swept that idea under the carpet. :roll:
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Virtual737
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:47 am

VS11 wrote:
Thank you. In this case not sure what the point is really of the non-stop flight if the time savings are only a couple of hours. The notion to be locked in a plane for 20 hours just to save 3 hours seems rather ridiculous to me. Assuming research indicates that pax will be willing to pay more for the non-stop flight, any idea how much more this premium would be?


I'm 100% with you. I would avoid this flight like the plague, even in J or F.I was and will soon again be a very frequent traveller between Europe and SE Asia. 4 x 13+ hour legs on a MAS 744 and I vowed never to fly ULH single segments (let alone 20+ hours!) and that is why Etihad got my business.

Concorde saved a similar amount of time off of a much shorter flight and I totally got the time saving factor and the massive premium it allowed BA & AF to charge, but you'd have to cut the price in half to have me even thinking about it so I scoff at a price premium.

20+ hours on a single flight, plus time after boarding but before departure, possible holding times and time to the gate after arrival - that 20 hours could easily be 24 hours non-stop locked in an aluminium tube.

I'll pass.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1664
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:14 am

Pcoder wrote:
Qantas have been saying sub 300 seats will suffice for a while now which points to a larger premium cabin. The configuration will probably something like upto 12 first class suites, 60 business, 60 premium economy and 130 economy seats. With a premium config, there won't be a need for 300 seats.


I get the feeling the drop in specification from QF on 300 seats was as a relief for both OEMs as I cannot see how you fit in 300 seats in 4 classes in the 778 in any sort of comfort for those at the back. The 778 is shorter than the 77W and if you look at layouts of airlines that has the 77W in three classes you get to around 330 seats. If you increase the premium seating, then the seating number will drop as you are taking out Y seats and adding J. Add to that the fact that the 778 is 4m shorter than the 77W it means you are probably looking at around 30 or so seats less in capacity already, compared to the 77W. It is going to be interesting to see what layout is eventually decided on by QF.
 
tealnz
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:29 am

Spec change? I thought Joyce simply said they had accepted that they wouldn’t be able to carry the full 300 pax SYD/MEL-LHR. But on other routes/sectors they’ll still want to carry 300 and that’s how the aircraft will be configured. It’s much the same as what they do on DFW-SYD where they block seats westbound as needed.
 
Ryanair01
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:27 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:08 pm

tealnz wrote:
Spec change? I thought Joyce simply said they had accepted that they wouldn’t be able to carry the full 300 pax SYD/MEL-LHR. But on other routes/sectors they’ll still want to carry 300 and that’s how the aircraft will be configured. It’s much the same as what they do on DFW-SYD where they block seats westbound as needed.


I agree. I suspect if they want to use the aircraft on other routes it will be a simple matter of blocking seats.

VS11 wrote:
aryonoco wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Thank you. In this case not sure what the point is really of the non-stop flight if the time savings are only a couple of hours. The notion to be locked in a plane for 20 hours just to save 3 hours seems rather ridiculous to me.


SYD-DFW and PER-LHR happened. The flying public has voted with their wallet, and your point is now moot.

I was having dinner with my wife and father in law last night. All three of us fly annually between MEL and JFK. All three agreed that we'd love a non stop flight and would take it any day over a one stop. It's not about the time saving, it's that getting off the plane, getting on, another taxi, another take off, is just a drain.

I have very high confidence that whichever aircraft is chosen, project sunrise will be a success, and it will define QF International for the next couple of decades.


I wasn't questioning/debating the "success" of the flight. I assume QF have figured out they would make money on it. I was trying to find out the perceived benefit for the pax as I find it very challenging to be in a plane for so long. But maybe pax from/to Australia are used to longer stage flights and 20 hours is not a big deal. Kudos for those with endurance. I get antsy after 10 hours.


I think the question of perceived benefit is a really interesting one. Honestly, I really think the main perceived benefit is reduced fatigue, but also peace of mind.

It is an unusual route. To an extent maybe being used to longer journeys is part of it, but used to it or not, it's just a really long way and a distance most people born today will never travel in a single go, so maybe can't connect with. If you have to make that long journey regularly, anything to make it a little shorter, more straight forward and less tiring is welcome.

If you've got the time for a nice stop over that's great and I'd recommend it. Even if it's not overnight a quick dash into Central Hong Kong or a Hawker Centre in Singapore is often possible to work into your schedule. That's especially nice if you have friends living in the connecting city who you don't normally get to see much. However I only find that possible because I know both places well, but many people I've suggested it to are less confident and end up being sat in a random airport for 4-8 hours - which is grim. Either way it makes a horribly long journey even longer so you get more tired.

If you want a short connection, well on more than one occasion I've had to run through airports to make a tight connection following flight delays. Travel at a busy time and you can be stuck for days - I know people it's happened to, in fact on last two occasions when people from Australia have come to see me it's happened to them. My cousin (with my aunt who has dementia and her -10 year old kids) got stuck for 30 hours in Dubai and my school friend (who is a very commercially important person to the airlines) got stuck in Singapore for two days.... Just anecdotal I know, but I am one of those have to customers and their experiences have influenced my bookings. There would be peace of mind in a non stop offer.
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 2098
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:17 pm

^^^
It’s been said before, but the people who the airlines make money on pay extra for non-stops.

There are plenty of cheap ways to connect a lot between every city pair in the world.
Flying non-stop is worthy of super premium prices, which is the entire point here.

20 hours is some nice arbitrary number for people to complain more it seems. It’s going to be a full flight always with people wanting to save time and hassle - regardless of the few people who assert they would rather stop in Dubai and walk around the terminal for hours for some reason.
 
Qf648
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:49 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:45 pm

Well having done the per-lhr and comparing it to stopping in DXB or SIN, I'll take non stop every time.

Getting off the plane and going through all the rigmarole again basically sucks.
 
VS11
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:25 pm

BlatantEcho wrote:
^^^
It’s been said before, but the people who the airlines make money on pay extra for non-stops.

There are plenty of cheap ways to connect a lot between every city pair in the world.
Flying non-stop is worthy of super premium prices, which is the entire point here.

20 hours is some nice arbitrary number for people to complain more it seems. It’s going to be a full flight always with people wanting to save time and hassle - regardless of the few people who assert they would rather stop in Dubai and walk around the terminal for hours for some reason.


I think we all understand the overall conceptual benefits of non-stop vs connecting flights. The question here is at what point the benefit of the non-stop flights is outranked by the challenges that such ultra long flights pose on the human body e.g. deep vein thrombosis risk, insomnia, hydration, nutrition, etc.

Ryanair01 wrote:
I think the question of perceived benefit is a really interesting one. Honestly, I really think the main perceived benefit is reduced fatigue, but also peace of mind.


Interesting that you say reduced fatigue as I think the opposite would happen to me, at least. Sure, if you fly in business/first you can sleep, work, socialize, etc. but in economy sleeping can be impossible, there is much less comfort or personal space. I just think that prolonged exposure to the discomfort of economy class is not going to reduce fatigue but rather increase it, along with claustrophobia, anxiety, impatience and even panic attacks.
 
tealnz
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:19 pm

You’re welcome to your view mate. And you don’t have to take the ULH option yourself. But there’s not much point debating the merits. The reality is that the market has spoken. Non-stop point to point commands a premium, even in Y, because that’s what travellers generally prefer.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:16 pm

I think Qantas would be smart to continue both non stop and the one stop via SIN to appeal to everyone.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ryanair01
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:27 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:50 pm

VS11 wrote:
BlatantEcho wrote:
^^^
It’s been said before, but the people who the airlines make money on pay extra for non-stops.

There are plenty of cheap ways to connect a lot between every city pair in the world.
Flying non-stop is worthy of super premium prices, which is the entire point here.

20 hours is some nice arbitrary number for people to complain more it seems. It’s going to be a full flight always with people wanting to save time and hassle - regardless of the few people who assert they would rather stop in Dubai and walk around the terminal for hours for some reason.


I think we all understand the overall conceptual benefits of non-stop vs connecting flights. The question here is at what point the benefit of the non-stop flights is outranked by the challenges that such ultra long flights pose on the human body e.g. deep vein thrombosis risk, insomnia, hydration, nutrition, etc.

Ryanair01 wrote:
I think the question of perceived benefit is a really interesting one. Honestly, I really think the main perceived benefit is reduced fatigue, but also peace of mind.


Interesting that you say reduced fatigue as I think the opposite would happen to me, at least. Sure, if you fly in business/first you can sleep, work, socialize, etc. but in economy sleeping can be impossible, there is much less comfort or personal space. I just think that prolonged exposure to the discomfort of economy class is not going to reduce fatigue but rather increase it, along with claustrophobia, anxiety, impatience and even panic attacks.


I'd say it is a sum of (stress factors + physiology).

I've made the journey more than 30 times and only one of those has been in business. For a journey that long made that often, there's simply no way I can afford business or even premium economy. To get where I need to go, I just gotta get over myself and get on with it. My top tip is a window seat (or middle middle) so no one disturbs me, sleeping tablets and a hard drink to wash them down. Get flights that arrive in the early morning (especially when heading east) and don't be tempted to sleep in the day after landing, have a short nap at most.

Most of the research I've seen suggests that for most people, airports and the ground are the most stressful part. Security checks stress people; worry about 'making it on time'; concern about 'how badly will the airline treat me' in a delay 'will I stuck on the airport floor for days in a strange country'; will I board in time to get bag space; and will I get stuck next to someone who will disrespect my personal space are usually peak worries. If I don't have a confirmed seat will I be seated with my companions stresses people; also will I get away with my overloaded carry on and will my checked bag arrive may apply.

Onboard clearly stress will increase if personal space is disrespected or groups are split. Beyond that it tends to come down to individual concerns, e.g. some people get unusually anxious if their ears pop (I'm unusually sensitive in this regard); others don't like flying through cloud (like my mum); some people panic because they can't get off and feel trapped etc. The physiology of flight is clearly an issue.

Other factors apply, business travellers tend to be more stressed; premium leisure have delusions of grandeur which are unmeetable; leisure travellers tend to be happier but harder work (often less familiar).

Sure, individuals may have individual issues (e.g. claustrophobia) which encourage more shorter flights rather than a long one, but that is not typical and why airlines like Icelandair and Emirates need to undercut legacy transatlantic airlines and legacy Europe - S.E. Asia airlines respectively.

Non stop 'to me' means less airport anxiety (down by 50%), which reduces my stress and fatigue.

In terms of physiology, non stop means a direct flight path, only one set of holding patterns to land, which all means fewer flight hours and as a result less physiological impacts and fatigue. Flying an indirect and longer route doesn't reduce exposure to the physiological issues of flight, it increases it.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17710
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:22 pm

Ryanair01 wrote:
VS11 wrote:
BlatantEcho wrote:
^^^
It’s been said before, but the people who the airlines make money on pay extra for non-stops.

There are plenty of cheap ways to connect a lot between every city pair in the world.
Flying non-stop is worthy of super premium prices, which is the entire point here.

20 hours is some nice arbitrary number for people to complain more it seems. It’s going to be a full flight always with people wanting to save time and hassle - regardless of the few people who assert they would rather stop in Dubai and walk around the terminal for hours for some reason.


I think we all understand the overall conceptual benefits of non-stop vs connecting flights. The question here is at what point the benefit of the non-stop flights is outranked by the challenges that such ultra long flights pose on the human body e.g. deep vein thrombosis risk, insomnia, hydration, nutrition, etc.

Ryanair01 wrote:
I think the question of perceived benefit is a really interesting one. Honestly, I really think the main perceived benefit is reduced fatigue, but also peace of mind.


Interesting that you say reduced fatigue as I think the opposite would happen to me, at least. Sure, if you fly in business/first you can sleep, work, socialize, etc. but in economy sleeping can be impossible, there is much less comfort or personal space. I just think that prolonged exposure to the discomfort of economy class is not going to reduce fatigue but rather increase it, along with claustrophobia, anxiety, impatience and even panic attacks.


I'd say it is a sum of (stress factors + physiology).

I've made the journey more than 30 times and only one of those has been in business. For a journey that long made that often, there's simply no way I can afford business or even premium economy. To get where I need to go, I just gotta get over myself and get on with it. My top tip is a window seat (or middle middle) so no one disturbs me, sleeping tablets and a hard drink to wash them down. Get flights that arrive in the early morning (especially when heading east) and don't be tempted to sleep in the day after landing, have a short nap at most.

Most of the research I've seen suggests that for most people, airports and the ground are the most stressful part. Security checks stress people; worry about 'making it on time'; concern about 'how badly will the airline treat me' in a delay 'will I stuck on the airport floor for days in a strange country'; will I board in time to get bag space; and will I get stuck next to someone who will disrespect my personal space are usually peak worries. If I don't have a confirmed seat will I be seated with my companions stresses people; also will I get away with my overloaded carry on and will my checked bag arrive may apply.

Onboard clearly stress will increase if personal space is disrespected or groups are split. Beyond that it tends to come down to individual concerns, e.g. some people get unusually anxious if their ears pop (I'm unusually sensitive in this regard); others don't like flying through cloud (like my mum); some people panic because they can't get off and feel trapped etc. The physiology of flight is clearly an issue.

Other factors apply, business travellers tend to be more stressed; premium leisure have delusions of grandeur which are unmeetable; leisure travellers tend to be happier but harder work (often less familiar).

Sure, individuals may have individual issues (e.g. claustrophobia) which encourage more shorter flights rather than a long one, but that is not typical and why airlines like Icelandair and Emirates need to undercut legacy transatlantic airlines and legacy Europe - S.E. Asia airlines respectively.

Non stop 'to me' means less airport anxiety (down by 50%), which reduces my stress and fatigue.

In terms of physiology, non stop means a direct flight path, only one set of holding patterns to land, which all means fewer flight hours and as a result less physiological impacts and fatigue. Flying an indirect and longer route doesn't reduce exposure to the physiological issues of flight, it increases it.

First, well written post. The question is how much EK or others must undercut the direct versus the costs. Direct flights always have higher yield, it is a ratio.

In this case of how much less shared premium passengers are pulled back fully into QF's system. The direct flights will not eliminate revenue spillage, but should retain the most profitable customers.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:55 pm

Ryanair01 wrote:
I'd say it is a sum of (stress factors + physiology).


Thank you for your very well written post. I think this mentality of flying is really only apparent to people who have flown to Australasia.

Most people who say that 10-12 hours of flying is the maximum they could tolerate, I'd guess, mostly fly TATL. I have for a while been entertaining the idea that that no matter how long the sector is, the last 20% of it is really difficult. That's when you just want to get out of the plane and can't wait for it to land. Personally when I've flown TATL, I get this sense of "I'm done now, get me out of here" for the last hour of the flight, and yet when I fly from Australia to DXB or LAX, I sleep right through the 8 hour mark and only get into that mode in the last 2 hours of the sector.

I think most people who say they can't do such long segments live in US and Europe and simply don't do very long segments often, and so they think what they currently experience is their absolute limit. Whereas as someone who moved to Australia as an adult, I've learnt that my limit changes based on how long the flight is supposed to be.
 
Pcoder
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:44 am

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

Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:40 am

News story on final proposals due by August:

https://www.news.com.au/finance/busines ... f663a04741

Qantas has asked Airbus and Boeing to present their "best and final offer" by August for planes capable of flying 21-hours non-stop from Sydney to London.


Story also mentions plans for a hydration drinks bar and stretch area for premium economy and economy passengers, which I always thought was something that should be on the plane.
 
BBJ777X
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:16 pm

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

Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:29 am

jagraham wrote:
BBJ777X wrote:
jagraham wrote:

Boeing upped the fuel from about 48900 gal (185000 l) to 52300 gal (198000 l) several months back without fanfare. And without changing the range spec. Until now.


Where can I find the updated range figure? Boeing website still shows the 8,690 nmi figure...


For now, the increased range is in the Aircurrent reporting.


If 9500 nmi is the range required for LHR <-> SYD, I don't see 35K could ever possibly meet this requirement. What kind of MTOW it needs? Seems to be more than 330 t, which I doubt it is technically possible. 778 is the only player in the game now.
 
Pcoder
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:44 am

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

Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 am

BBJ777X wrote:
jagraham wrote:
BBJ777X wrote:

Where can I find the updated range figure? Boeing website still shows the 8,690 nmi figure...


For now, the increased range is in the Aircurrent reporting.


If 9500 nmi is the range required for LHR <-> SYD, I don't see 35K could ever possibly meet this requirement. What kind of MTOW it needs? Seems to be more than 330 t, which I doubt it is technically possible. 778 is the only player in the game now.


I'm still puzzled why an increase in volume is suggested to be an increase in range. You've got to look at how much fuel can be carried in weight, which this update doesn't include, so you can't say range has been increased.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17710
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:57 am

Pcoder wrote:
News story on final proposals due by August:

https://www.news.com.au/finance/busines ... f663a04741

Qantas has asked Airbus and Boeing to present their "best and final offer" by August for planes capable of flying 21-hours non-stop from Sydney to London.


Story also mentions plans for a hydration drinks bar and stretch area for premium economy and economy passengers, which I always thought was something that should be on the plane.

Interesting link with a key phrase:
"If the business case works, we will put in an order."

That says negotiations will be tough. A best and final offer... So not at Paris... Bummer.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
BBJ777X
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:16 pm

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

Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:05 am

Pcoder wrote:
I'm still puzzled why an increase in volume is suggested to be an increase in range. You've got to look at how much fuel can be carried in weight, which this update doesn't include, so you can't say range has been increased.


Because the Project Sunrise aims to have <= 300 passengers, which is less than typical 777-8 designed passenger count (365). With this lower payload, you can fill up the fuel tank without hitting the MTOW. By increasing the tank volume, you can fill more fuel until reaching the MTOW, hence more range.

This is a similar scenario with the 77L: you can never reach 77L MTOW with just passenger and bags because it is fuel-volume limited; you can add ACTs to increase the fuel volume and range without increasing the MTOW.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26315
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:06 am

Assuming the A350-1000ULR's fuel capacity is raised to the 165,000 liters of the A350-900ULR, that is 129,500kg using Airbus' 0.7855kg per liter value from their ACAPs. That leaves 186,500kg for structure and payload at a 316,000kg TOW. If we're thinking a 30,000kg payload, then that leaves 156,500kg for structure. Based on claims about the A350-1000's Basic Empty Weight, I think ~157,000kg is quite (if not more than) sufficient to cover DOW.

Leeham.net projects the 777-8's OEW to be around 15,000kg higher than the A350-1000 when both are in a two-class configuration with similar seating. The 777-8 can tank more fuel volume than the A350-1000ULR (198,000 liters), but of course that extra fuel weighs more. At maximum fuel load (159,000 kg) and with a 175,000kg DOW that would leave only 17,000kg left for payload at the current 351,000kg TOW, but I expect (hope) the 777-8 doesn't need that much fuel for the mission.

If we assume the 777-8 needs a similar fuel load to the A350-1000 (and that may very well be an unsafe assumption), then the 777-8 looks nice at 45,000kg. And if Airbus needs to add ACTs to the A350-1000ULR to make the range, then her available payload weight (and cargo volume) would drop, as well. But the numbers still seem to favor the A350-1000 unless she needs a significant fuel load boost beyond 165,000 liters.
 
speedbird52
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

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

Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:19 am

aryonoco wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Thank you. In this case not sure what the point is really of the non-stop flight if the time savings are only a couple of hours. The notion to be locked in a plane for 20 hours just to save 3 hours seems rather ridiculous to me.


SYD-DFW and PER-LHR happened. The flying public has voted with their wallet, and your point is now moot.

I was having dinner with my wife and father in law last night. All three of us fly annually between MEL and JFK. All three agreed that we'd love a non stop flight and would take it any day over a one stop. It's not about the time saving, it's that getting off the plane, getting on, another taxi, another take off, is just a drain.

I have very high confidence that whichever aircraft is chosen, project sunrise will be a success, and it will define QF International for the next couple of decades.

Off topic but where did SYD-DFW stop before it became direct?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26315
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:44 am

speedbird52 wrote:
Off topic but where did SYD-DFW stop before it became direct?


When it was operated by the 747-400ER, it was SYD-DFW and DFW-BNE-SYD. Once the A380-800 took over, DFW-SYD went non-stop.
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:23 am

BBJ777X wrote:
jagraham wrote:
BBJ777X wrote:

Where can I find the updated range figure? Boeing website still shows the 8,690 nmi figure...


For now, the increased range is in the Aircurrent reporting.


If 9500 nmi is the range required for LHR <-> SYD, I don't see 35K could ever possibly meet this requirement. What kind of MTOW it needs? Seems to be more than 330 t, which I doubt it is technically possible. 778 is the only player in the game now.


I do not believe that LHR-SYD with 300 pax is possible for the A35K without a major redesign. But since Qantas softened on the 300 pax number, it probably is not an issue.
Qantas has not announced what the new minimum pax count is for Project Sunrise, but the fact that they reduced from 300 says to me that they and Airbus reached some compromise that kept Airbus in contention.
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:34 am

Stitch wrote:
Assuming the A350-1000ULR's fuel capacity is raised to the 165,000 liters of the A350-900ULR, that is 129,500kg using Airbus' 0.7855kg per liter value from their ACAPs. That leaves 186,500kg for structure and payload at a 316,000kg TOW. If we're thinking a 30,000kg payload, then that leaves 156,500kg for structure. Based on claims about the A350-1000's Basic Empty Weight, I think ~157,000kg is quite (if not more than) sufficient to cover DOW.

Leeham.net projects the 777-8's OEW to be around 15,000kg higher than the A350-1000 when both are in a two-class configuration with similar seating. The 777-8 can tank more fuel volume than the A350-1000ULR (198,000 liters), but of course that extra fuel weighs more. At maximum fuel load (159,000 kg) and with a 175,000kg DOW that would leave only 17,000kg left for payload at the current 351,000kg TOW, but I expect (hope) the 777-8 doesn't need that much fuel for the mission.

If we assume the 777-8 needs a similar fuel load to the A350-1000 (and that may very well be an unsafe assumption), then the 777-8 looks nice at 45,000kg. And if Airbus needs to add ACTs to the A350-1000ULR to make the range, then her available payload weight (and cargo volume) would drop, as well. But the numbers still seem to favor the A350-1000 unless she needs a significant fuel load boost beyond 165,000 liters.


The 779 is 181,400 kg QEW and 77 m

The 77W is 167829 kg OEW and 74 m long, while the 77L is 145150 kg OEW and 64 m long. 22769 kg for 10 m, or 2277 kg / m

The 778 is 7 m shorter than the 779. At 2277 kg / m, the 778 will be 15939 kg less, or 165461 kg. Approximately.

But in any case, about 10000 kg less than what Leeham came up with.

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