Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

RJMAZ
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

zeke wrote:
I will do the maths for you.

MTOW 351534 Kg
DOW 173000 Kg (From Fred’s previous analysis on this thread)
R1 8690 Nm
R2 9500 Nm
P1 365 pax 36500 Kg
L1 212500 Kg
Fixed Res 1 30 min 3000 Kg
Fixed Res 2 70 m 7000 Kg

The landing weight (L2) at 9500 nm assuming 70 minutes fixed reserve (Qantas fuel policy).

L2=MTOW*exp[(R2*Ln(MTOW/L1))/R1]
L2= 193433 kg

Passenger payload = L2-DOW-Fixed Res 2 = 13443 kg or 134 passengers.

To the average person all your fancy calculations makes you look like you know what you are talking about.

However your calculations is wrong. It shows the 777-8 having the same range as the 787 with similar payload. The 787-8 payload range chart on the Boeing ACAP clearly shows it can lift 20,000lb of payload 9500nm. That is 90 passengers. So according to you the 777-8 can only carry 44 more passengers than the 787-8. Very doubtful.

The A350-900 ACAP document shows it can carry a massive 20T of payload 9500nm. That is 50% more passengers than your 777-8 number.

What you have done is added the reserve fuel twice on the 777-8 number. The 8690nm value with 365 passengers already includes reserve fuel so you've added twice the reserve fuel reducing the payload by approx 6000-8000kg.

RJMAZ
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

grbauc wrote:
What I see your saying and showing is common sense. You using data points of other models and variants to show a point and make a estimate of a possible range..

Thank you. It is by far the most accurate way providing we don't stray too far from that single data point.

It is far more accurate than a model that has dozens of unknown variables. In these models changing each variable by only 1% can give you an massive 10% change in the final answer.

Another way to double check the result is to look at the fuel burn per hour. The A359 and 789 both burn just under 6000kg of fuel per hour. So if we use very high fuel burn of 7000kg per hour for the 777-8 we can calculate it that way.

The 777-8 can fly 36,500kg of payload 8690nm. At a speed of 490 knots we can add and subtract 490nm and 7000kg of fuel. That gives the following:

36,500kg of payload 8690nm
29,500kg of payload 9180nm
22,500kg of payload 9670nm

So as you can see the 777-8 can nearly carry 300 passengers (30,000kg) the full 9200nm trip distance of Sydney to London. It works out to be approx 290 passengers.

We can do the same calculation for the A350-1000.

It is listed as 366 passengers (36,600kg) over 8400nm. If we assume a low fuel burn of 6000kg and 490knot cruising speed that means.

36,600kg of payload 8400nm
30,600kg of payload 8890nm
24,600kg of payload 9380nm

The A350-1000 can carry approx 260 passengers 9200nm.

So the 777-8 carries 30 more passengers and that is assuming the 777-8 burns 1000kg of more fuel per hour. If they burnt the same fuel per hour then the 777-8 could carry 50 more passengers.

The A350-1000 then needs a MTOW increase of 10T to match the 777-8.

zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

RJMAZ wrote:
However your calculations is wrong. It shows the 777-8 having the same range as the 787 with similar payload. The 787-8 payload range chart on the Boeing ACAP clearly shows it can lift 20,000lb of payload 9500nm. That is 90 passengers. So according to you the 777-8 can only carry 44 more passengers than the 787-8. Very doubtful.

It is just you do not understand what is presented, which is the well known Breguet Range Equation. The Boeing fuel policy which is based off FAA flag rules is different to the QF. QF requires 70 minutes of fuel on landing. Boeing only 30 or 45 depending if the are using domestic or flag reserves.

The landing weight using flag reserves is the DOW (173 tonnes) plus 30 min reserve (3 tonnes) plus 365 passengers (36.5 tonnes) which is landing weight of 212.5 tonnes.

The landing weight using Qantas fuel policy for the 9500 nm range was solved to be 193433 kg, minus the DOW (173) and QF reserve (7 tonnes), which leaves 13443 kg or 134 passengers. Using the Boeing fuel policy it would result in 4000 kg more payload, or 40 passengers.

RJMAZ wrote:
The A350-900 ACAP document shows it can carry a massive 20T of payload 9500nm. That is 50% more passengers than your 777-8 number.

Again you have failed to grasp the basic difference in the fuel policy.

RJMAZ wrote:
What you have done is added the reserve fuel twice on the 777-8 number. The 8690nm value with 365 passengers already includes reserve fuel so you've added twice the reserve fuel reducing the payload by approx 6000-8000kg.

No I didn’t add it twice, and yes the range at 8690 nm does include reserve as I have shown is DOW plus 30 min reserve plus 36.5 tonnes of passengers.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11138
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

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

The following article was published in last month's Australian Aviation magazine. It goes through the whole evaluation for Project Sunrise, its well worth the read

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... valuation/
Forum Moderator

waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

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

qf789 wrote:
The following article was published in last month's Australian Aviation magazine. It goes through the whole evaluation for Project Sunrise, its well worth the read

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... valuation/

That was a good read, quite a few obstacles other than AC performance that they'll need to get sorted.

This interesting statement caught my eye....
“Part of Sunrise could be replacement and part of it could be growth.”
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function

zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

qf789 wrote:
The following article was published in last month's Australian Aviation magazine. It goes through the whole evaluation for Project Sunrise, its well worth the read

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... valuation/

I had heard they were happy to use the crew as the reason for not going ahead, and the article says

“Qantas is also keen to secure a new work contract, or enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA), with its pilot corps before any order is made.”

Why should the crews earnings have to go backwards compared to inflation, shouldn’t the business case stand up with realistic inflation based increases for the crew ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

aryonoco
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

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

zeke wrote:
qf789 wrote:

Why should the crews earnings have to go backwards compared to inflation, shouldn’t the business case stand up with realistic inflation based increases for the crew ?

A new EBA was always going to be part of a new deal. AIPA and QF have a working relationship with each other these days. A short term pay freeze is of course part of the plethora of options available on the table when negotiating a new EBA. But it looks like coming to terms on fatigue risk management system is a bigger factor.

aryonoco
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

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

The thing that struck me, reading that article, was just how out of touch John Borghetti is.

Supersonic flight carrying 100-150 passengers to London in 15 hours with three stops? Really?

h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

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

RJMAZ wrote:
grbauc wrote:
What I see your saying and showing is common sense. You using data points of other models and variants to show a point and make a estimate of a possible range..

Thank you. It is by far the most accurate way providing we don't stray too far from that single data point.

It is far more accurate than a model that has dozens of unknown variables. In these models changing each variable by only 1% can give you an massive 10% change in the final answer.

Another way to double check the result is to look at the fuel burn per hour. The A359 and 789 both burn just under 6000kg of fuel per hour. So if we use very high fuel burn of 7000kg per hour for the 777-8 we can calculate it that way.

The 777-8 can fly 36,500kg of payload 8690nm. At a speed of 490 knots we can add and subtract 490nm and 7000kg of fuel. That gives the following:

36,500kg of payload 8690nm
29,500kg of payload 9180nm
22,500kg of payload 9670nm

So as you can see the 777-8 can nearly carry 300 passengers (30,000kg) the full 9200nm trip distance of Sydney to London. It works out to be approx 290 passengers.

We can do the same calculation for the A350-1000.

It is listed as 366 passengers (36,600kg) over 8400nm. If we assume a low fuel burn of 6000kg and 490knot cruising speed that means.

36,600kg of payload 8400nm
30,600kg of payload 8890nm
24,600kg of payload 9380nm

The A350-1000 can carry approx 260 passengers 9200nm.

So the 777-8 carries 30 more passengers and that is assuming the 777-8 burns 1000kg of more fuel per hour. If they burnt the same fuel per hour then the 777-8 could carry 50 more passengers.

The A350-1000 then needs a MTOW increase of 10T to match the 777-8.

quick q- the 789 consumes 6t per hr at what payload? at the payloads QF and UA have been carrying on ULH, it has been returning 5.4t/hr. I think 6/hr for the 350-1000 is a bit unrealistic, no? too low by a bunch at this mission length. 8400 also seems very unrealistic.

another quick question- the 778 in pre-increased tankage form was fuel limited to 8690 wasn't it? The reason I ask is because the 777 LR was fuel limited at 181kL to the 8555nm range but with 3 ACTs and 202kL it could hit 9500 or so. The plane was designed to move 300 people the SYD/LHR range at MTOW, like the raison d'etre for the plane's weight and tankage, no? The 778 had 181kL but that has been increased to 198kL or 4500kL/3.8t less than the LR which could fly the sunrise mission.

RJMAZ
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

h1fl1er wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
grbauc wrote:
What I see your saying and showing is common sense. You using data points of other models and variants to show a point and make a estimate of a possible range..

Thank you. It is by far the most accurate way providing we don't stray too far from that single data point.

It is far more accurate than a model that has dozens of unknown variables. In these models changing each variable by only 1% can give you an massive 10% change in the final answer.

Another way to double check the result is to look at the fuel burn per hour. The A359 and 789 both burn just under 6000kg of fuel per hour. So if we use very high fuel burn of 7000kg per hour for the 777-8 we can calculate it that way.

The 777-8 can fly 36,500kg of payload 8690nm. At a speed of 490 knots we can add and subtract 490nm and 7000kg of fuel. That gives the following:

36,500kg of payload 8690nm
29,500kg of payload 9180nm
22,500kg of payload 9670nm

So as you can see the 777-8 can nearly carry 300 passengers (30,000kg) the full 9200nm trip distance of Sydney to London. It works out to be approx 290 passengers.

We can do the same calculation for the A350-1000.

It is listed as 366 passengers (36,600kg) over 8400nm. If we assume a low fuel burn of 6000kg and 490knot cruising speed that means.

36,600kg of payload 8400nm
30,600kg of payload 8890nm
24,600kg of payload 9380nm

The A350-1000 can carry approx 260 passengers 9200nm.

So the 777-8 carries 30 more passengers and that is assuming the 777-8 burns 1000kg of more fuel per hour. If they burnt the same fuel per hour then the 777-8 could carry 50 more passengers.

The A350-1000 then needs a MTOW increase of 10T to match the 777-8.

quick q- the 789 consumes 6t per hr at what payload? at the payloads QF and UA have been carrying on ULH, it has been returning 5.4t/hr. I think 6/hr for the 350-1000 is a bit unrealistic, no? too low by a bunch at this mission length. 8400 also seems very unrealistic.

another quick question- the 778 in pre-increased tankage form was fuel limited to 8690 wasn't it? The reason I ask is because the 777 LR was fuel limited at 181kL to the 8555nm range but with 3 ACTs and 202kL it could hit 9500 or so. The plane was designed to move 300 people the SYD/LHR range at MTOW, like the raison d'etre for the plane's weight and tankage, no? The 778 had 181kL but that has been increased to 198kL or 4500kL/3.8t less than the LR which could fly the sunrise mission.

Fuel burn does decrease as the aircraft gets lighter. I'm sure taking off at MTOW and and a hour into the flight both the 787-9 and A350-900 will be pushing 6000kg an hour. The last hour of an ultra long haul flight would see fuel burn around 5000kg an hour.

We should be using the fuel burn in the last couple hours of the flight when doing the simple calculations of deducting payload and adding fuel. Do the A350-1000 would probably be on 6000kg an hour in that ast hour.

If we redo the numbers with say 6200kg per hour for the A350-1000 and 6500kg per hour for the 777-8 we get a much bigger difference.

A350-1000
36,600kg of payload 8400nm
30,400kg of payload 8890nm
24,200kg of payload 9380nm

777-8
36,500kg of payload 8690nm
30,000kg of payload 9180nm
23,500kg of payload 9670nm

To fly 9200nm the 777-8 can carry 300 passengers the A350-1000 250 passengers.

6200kg versus 6500kg means the 777-8 burns 5% more fuel but the the 777-8 carries 20% more passengers. Fuel burn per passenger the 777-8 wins.

The 777-8 does have nearly as much fuel capacity as the 777-200LR that could fly 300 passengers 9500nm according to the Boeing ACAP. But as the 777-8 will have an empty weight approx 20T higher with the same MTOW weight it must carry 20T less fuel at any given payload. So it can do the route with probably 15% less fuel burn and more cabin area for more comfort.

I have no idea why Qantas didn't buy the 777-200LR when it first came out. It could easily do Sydney to London with a normal cabin.

sabby
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

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

RJMAZ wrote:

I have no idea why Qantas didn't buy the 777-200LR when it first came out. It could easily do Sydney to London with a normal cabin.

Both the A340-500 and 77L were released just before the financial crisis. Recession around the world reduced the air travel by huge margin, so ULH were a risky proposition that time. And by the time the global market recovered, the oil price was at all time high. Now we have newer generation engine with significant lower fuel burn and oil price is not that high, so a good time for launching ULH.

CHRISBA35X
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

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

Might there be a MTOW bump in the offing for a potential 789LR? Ie: incorporating the MTOW bump they have apparently found for the 78X?

Would a five six tonne bump for a 789 in a low density two class config make ior t viable for SYD-LHR/JFK? Could the 789 be capable of doing that by 2024? It can do PER-LHR-PER no problem and SYD is probably only two hours more flying time. Seems a narrow band to add a new airframe into.

You'd think adding more 789s would be the ideal outcome for QF over adding A350 or 77X - there are commonality savings to be had and its not as if QF will be buying dozens of Sunrise airframes.

A359ULR pushed out to LHR-SYD range would likely carry more payload than a 789 but cost a lot more and a lot more to support, new engines, new pilot pools, new training infrastructure etc.

I think if the 789 can be pushed to that range it would be the ideal plane for QF over the A359/778X.

sabby
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

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

CHRISBA35X wrote:
Might there be a MTOW bump in the offing for a potential 789LR? Ie: incorporating the MTOW bump they have apparently found for the 78X?

Would a five six tonne bump for a 789 in a low density two class config make ior t viable for SYD-LHR/JFK? Could the 789 be capable of doing that by 2024? It can do PER-LHR-PER no problem and SYD is probably only two hours more flying time. Seems a narrow band to add a new airframe into.

You'd think adding more 789s would be the ideal outcome for QF over adding A350 or 77X - there are commonality savings to be had and its not as if QF will be buying dozens of Sunrise airframes.

A359ULR pushed out to LHR-SYD range would likely carry more payload than a 789 but cost a lot more and a lot more to support, new engines, new pilot pools, new training infrastructure etc.

I think if the 789 can be pushed to that range it would be the ideal plane for QF over the A359/778X.

SYD-LHR would add around 3 more hours in the west bound. So they'd need around 17T more fuel for their current configuration. 6T increase in MTOW covers only a third of that. Increasing the MTOW of 788 to 260T would actually enable it I think, not that Boeing is interested in investing on 788 structure strengthening.

zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

CHRISBA35X wrote:
Would a five six tonne bump for a 789 in a low density two class config make ior t viable for SYD-LHR/JFK? Could the 789 be capable of doing that by 2024? It can do PER-LHR-PER no problem and SYD is probably only two hours more flying time. Seems a narrow band to add a new airframe into.

You'd think adding more 789s would be the ideal outcome for QF over adding A350 or 77X - there are commonality savings to be had and its not as if QF will be buying dozens of Sunrise airframes.

A359ULR pushed out to LHR-SYD range would likely carry more payload than a 789 but cost a lot more and a lot more to support, new engines, new pilot pools, new training infrastructure etc.

Chris,

I had a look at the 789 a while back, for it to do the flight with a 4 class layout and 224 pax, no cargo, you would need to increase the MTOW to 265 tonnes, and increase the fuel capacity to 115 tonnes. I think you would run into takeoff performance issues with that sort of increase without a thrust increase.

As QF already have 787 and A330 pilots, it already has 777 and A350 pilots as they are common type ratings.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

RJMAZ
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

CHRISBA35X wrote:
Might there be a MTOW bump in the offing for a potential 789LR? Ie: incorporating the MTOW bump they have apparently found for the 78X?

It nearly could.

The biggest problem is the 787-9 hits maximum fuel capacity at exactly 8200nm. So it can not use any of that extra MTOW increase for fuel without an aux fuel tank.

Now with the 777LR and A350-900 ACAP documents when you add an aux fuel tank it extended the upper first line and eliminates the kink at the bottom of the payload range chart. So we can predict exactly the payload the current 787-9 could take with just an aux tank.

The standard 787-9 with 254T MTOW could carry 38,000lb of payload 9200nm. That is 170 passengers. It requires 11,000kg of extra fuel in an aux fuel tank in the hold.

Now a 6T MTOW bump to 260T would mean 3.5T of extra payload and 2.5T of extra fuel. This brings the passenger count up to 200 passengers. The aux fuel tank would need to then hold 13,500kg of extra fuel. Engine thrust would not be an issue because the 787-10's engines are rated to 5,000lb of extra thrust than the 787-9's.

When you start to get seating density this low you lose most of the gains due to the weight of the recliner bed seats. So it might only be able to fly 160-170 passengers on a standard day. The 787-9ER would be burning 20% more fuel per passenger than the 777-8. It is unlikely the 787-9ER would get selected.

The thing that no one has mentioned yet is a 6T MTOW boost on the 787-8. This would actually be the best choice for project sunrise in my opinion. The smaller aircraft gets a bigger performance boost with any given MTOW increase so the 787-8's range then exceeds the 787-9. The 787-8 would not even require an aux fuel tank. Right now a standard 787-8 could fly Sydney to London with 90 passengers. A 6T MTOW bump would allow 130 passengers in a low density 4 class cabin.

130 passengers might not sound a lot but JAL has 161 seats on their long haul 787-8's

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Japan ... 800_B.php#

So looking at that layout if Qantas fit two rows of 1-1-1 in that front part they are already down to 149 seats in a 4 class cabin. So really 130 seats isn't that crazy. This 787-8 would still burn 20% more fuel per passenger compared to the 777-8 but the main advantage of the 787-8 is lower risk when opening new routes in Europe.

Obviously the ultimate aircraft for project sunrise would be the 787-8ER that some members dream of. A standard 787-9 built with the 787-8 fuselage retaining the 254T MTOW. This beast could do any route in Europe with 200+ passengers even on a bad weather day.

I actually think the 254T 787-8ER is coming. Long term my prediction with Boeing is that the 797 launches and most of the A330's and early 787-8's that are flying short medium haul routes get replaced by 797's. The 787NEO then comes out in 10 years time and the 777X sales die in the ass. Boeing launches the 787-11 which has the same range at the current 787-10. The 787-8 then becomes a simple shrink of the 787-9. Boeing then launches the hybrid electric 737 replacement in 2030. The 797 takes the 737 routes over 2000nm allowing the hybrid aircraft to do the short haul.

lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20346
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

RJMAZ wrote:
CHRISBA35X wrote:
Might there be a MTOW bump in the offing for a potential 789LR? Ie: incorporating the MTOW bump they have apparently found for the 78X?

It nearly could.

The biggest problem is the 787-9 hits maximum fuel capacity at exactly 8200nm. So it can not use any of that extra MTOW increase for fuel without an aux fuel tank.

Now with the 777LR and A350-900 ACAP documents when you add an aux fuel tank it extended the upper first line and eliminates the kink at the bottom of the payload range chart. So we can predict exactly the payload the current 787-9 could take with just an aux tank.

The standard 787-9 with 254T MTOW could carry 38,000lb of payload 9200nm. That is 170 passengers. It requires 11,000kg of extra fuel in an aux fuel tank in the hold.

Now a 6T MTOW bump to 260T would mean 3.5T of extra payload and 2.5T of extra fuel. This brings the passenger count up to 200 passengers. The aux fuel tank would need to then hold 13,500kg of extra fuel. Engine thrust would not be an issue because the 787-10's engines are rated to 5,000lb of extra thrust than the 787-9's.

When you start to get seating density this low you lose most of the gains due to the weight of the recliner bed seats. So it might only be able to fly 160-170 passengers on a standard day. The 787-9ER would be burning 20% more fuel per passenger than the 777-8. It is unlikely the 787-9ER would get selected.

The thing that no one has mentioned yet is a 6T MTOW boost on the 787-8. This would actually be the best choice for project sunrise in my opinion. The smaller aircraft gets a bigger performance boost with any given MTOW increase so the 787-8's range then exceeds the 787-9. The 787-8 would not even require an aux fuel tank. Right now a standard 787-8 could fly Sydney to London with 90 passengers. A 6T MTOW bump would allow 130 passengers in a low density 4 class cabin.

130 passengers might not sound a lot but JAL has 161 seats on their long haul 787-8's

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Japan ... 800_B.php#

So looking at that layout if Qantas fit two rows of 1-1-1 in that front part they are already down to 149 seats in a 4 class cabin. So really 130 seats isn't that crazy. This 787-8 would still burn 20% more fuel per passenger compared to the 777-8 but the main advantage of the 787-8 is lower risk when opening new routes in Europe.

Obviously the ultimate aircraft for project sunrise would be the 787-8ER that some members dream of. A standard 787-9 built with the 787-8 fuselage retaining the 254T MTOW. This beast could do any route in Europe with 200+ passengers even on a bad weather day.

I actually think the 254T 787-8ER is coming. Long term my prediction with Boeing is that the 797 launches and most of the A330's and early 787-8's that are flying short medium haul routes get replaced by 797's. The 787NEO then comes out in 10 years time and the 777X sales die in the ass. Boeing launches the 787-11 which has the same range at the current 787-10. The 787-8 then becomes a simple shrink of the 787-9. Boeing then launches the hybrid electric 737 replacement in 2030. The 797 takes the 737 routes over 2000nm allowing the hybrid aircraft to do the short haul.

First I enjoyed your post. Just bringing the 788 to 789 MTOW is a quite capable aircraft. If the 6T MTOW boost is possible, that is tremendous range.

There is a c-series, err... A220 thust bump that only occurs after a certain flight speed (100 kts if I remember right). That style of thrust bump, would allow tremendous thust on the 788 giving absolutely legendary takeoff performance. That thrust bump gets around rudder moment arm issues at high thrust. I would select a higher airspeed for the 787, but that is just my design optimization.

I am one of those 788ER a.nut fans.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.

h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

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

RJMAZ wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Thank you. It is by far the most accurate way providing we don't stray too far from that single data point.

It is far more accurate than a model that has dozens of unknown variables. In these models changing each variable by only 1% can give you an massive 10% change in the final answer.

Another way to double check the result is to look at the fuel burn per hour. The A359 and 789 both burn just under 6000kg of fuel per hour. So if we use very high fuel burn of 7000kg per hour for the 777-8 we can calculate it that way.

The 777-8 can fly 36,500kg of payload 8690nm. At a speed of 490 knots we can add and subtract 490nm and 7000kg of fuel. That gives the following:

36,500kg of payload 8690nm
29,500kg of payload 9180nm
22,500kg of payload 9670nm

So as you can see the 777-8 can nearly carry 300 passengers (30,000kg) the full 9200nm trip distance of Sydney to London. It works out to be approx 290 passengers.

We can do the same calculation for the A350-1000.

It is listed as 366 passengers (36,600kg) over 8400nm. If we assume a low fuel burn of 6000kg and 490knot cruising speed that means.

36,600kg of payload 8400nm
30,600kg of payload 8890nm
24,600kg of payload 9380nm

The A350-1000 can carry approx 260 passengers 9200nm.

So the 777-8 carries 30 more passengers and that is assuming the 777-8 burns 1000kg of more fuel per hour. If they burnt the same fuel per hour then the 777-8 could carry 50 more passengers.

The A350-1000 then needs a MTOW increase of 10T to match the 777-8.

quick q- the 789 consumes 6t per hr at what payload? at the payloads QF and UA have been carrying on ULH, it has been returning 5.4t/hr. I think 6/hr for the 350-1000 is a bit unrealistic, no? too low by a bunch at this mission length. 8400 also seems very unrealistic.

another quick question- the 778 in pre-increased tankage form was fuel limited to 8690 wasn't it? The reason I ask is because the 777 LR was fuel limited at 181kL to the 8555nm range but with 3 ACTs and 202kL it could hit 9500 or so. The plane was designed to move 300 people the SYD/LHR range at MTOW, like the raison d'etre for the plane's weight and tankage, no? The 778 had 181kL but that has been increased to 198kL or 4500kL/3.8t less than the LR which could fly the sunrise mission.

Fuel burn does decrease as the aircraft gets lighter. I'm sure taking off at MTOW and and a hour into the flight both the 787-9 and A350-900 will be pushing 6000kg an hour. The last hour of an ultra long haul flight would see fuel burn around 5000kg an hour.

We should be using the fuel burn in the last couple hours of the flight when doing the simple calculations of deducting payload and adding fuel. Do the A350-1000 would probably be on 6000kg an hour in that ast hour.

If we redo the numbers with say 6200kg per hour for the A350-1000 and 6500kg per hour for the 777-8 we get a much bigger difference.

A350-1000
36,600kg of payload 8400nm
30,400kg of payload 8890nm
24,200kg of payload 9380nm

777-8
36,500kg of payload 8690nm
30,000kg of payload 9180nm
23,500kg of payload 9670nm

To fly 9200nm the 777-8 can carry 300 passengers the A350-1000 250 passengers.

6200kg versus 6500kg means the 777-8 burns 5% more fuel but the the 777-8 carries 20% more passengers. Fuel burn per passenger the 777-8 wins.

The 777-8 does have nearly as much fuel capacity as the 777-200LR that could fly 300 passengers 9500nm according to the Boeing ACAP. But as the 777-8 will have an empty weight approx 20T higher with the same MTOW weight it must carry 20T less fuel at any given payload. So it can do the route with probably 15% less fuel burn and more cabin area for more comfort.

I have no idea why Qantas didn't buy the 777-200LR when it first came out. It could easily do Sydney to London with a normal cabin.

Perhaps it was because the LR's range was overstated by an hour like Boeing used to do. I don't think 8400 is realistic for the 350-1000 either. The 350-900 says 8100 and if this were the case, Singapore wouldn't need the ULR for either LAX or EWR

with your math, dropping 65 people gives another hour or so for the 778 putting it super close ot the sunrise distance. Is there any cargo hold lightening that could be done like how airbus dropped weight from their ULR? If QF has a lighter cabin as they were supposedly doing for PER, these stepps might be able to save 3 or 4 tons which would win enough range to do this flight even 300 people.

tomcat
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

lightsaber wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
CHRISBA35X wrote:
Might there be a MTOW bump in the offing for a potential 789LR? Ie: incorporating the MTOW bump they have apparently found for the 78X?

It nearly could.

The biggest problem is the 787-9 hits maximum fuel capacity at exactly 8200nm. So it can not use any of that extra MTOW increase for fuel without an aux fuel tank.

Now with the 777LR and A350-900 ACAP documents when you add an aux fuel tank it extended the upper first line and eliminates the kink at the bottom of the payload range chart. So we can predict exactly the payload the current 787-9 could take with just an aux tank.

The standard 787-9 with 254T MTOW could carry 38,000lb of payload 9200nm. That is 170 passengers. It requires 11,000kg of extra fuel in an aux fuel tank in the hold.

Now a 6T MTOW bump to 260T would mean 3.5T of extra payload and 2.5T of extra fuel. This brings the passenger count up to 200 passengers. The aux fuel tank would need to then hold 13,500kg of extra fuel. Engine thrust would not be an issue because the 787-10's engines are rated to 5,000lb of extra thrust than the 787-9's.

When you start to get seating density this low you lose most of the gains due to the weight of the recliner bed seats. So it might only be able to fly 160-170 passengers on a standard day. The 787-9ER would be burning 20% more fuel per passenger than the 777-8. It is unlikely the 787-9ER would get selected.

The thing that no one has mentioned yet is a 6T MTOW boost on the 787-8. This would actually be the best choice for project sunrise in my opinion. The smaller aircraft gets a bigger performance boost with any given MTOW increase so the 787-8's range then exceeds the 787-9. The 787-8 would not even require an aux fuel tank. Right now a standard 787-8 could fly Sydney to London with 90 passengers. A 6T MTOW bump would allow 130 passengers in a low density 4 class cabin.

130 passengers might not sound a lot but JAL has 161 seats on their long haul 787-8's

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Japan ... 800_B.php#

So looking at that layout if Qantas fit two rows of 1-1-1 in that front part they are already down to 149 seats in a 4 class cabin. So really 130 seats isn't that crazy. This 787-8 would still burn 20% more fuel per passenger compared to the 777-8 but the main advantage of the 787-8 is lower risk when opening new routes in Europe.

Obviously the ultimate aircraft for project sunrise would be the 787-8ER that some members dream of. A standard 787-9 built with the 787-8 fuselage retaining the 254T MTOW. This beast could do any route in Europe with 200+ passengers even on a bad weather day.

I actually think the 254T 787-8ER is coming. Long term my prediction with Boeing is that the 797 launches and most of the A330's and early 787-8's that are flying short medium haul routes get replaced by 797's. The 787NEO then comes out in 10 years time and the 777X sales die in the ass. Boeing launches the 787-11 which has the same range at the current 787-10. The 787-8 then becomes a simple shrink of the 787-9. Boeing then launches the hybrid electric 737 replacement in 2030. The 797 takes the 737 routes over 2000nm allowing the hybrid aircraft to do the short haul.

First I enjoyed your post. Just bringing the 788 to 789 MTOW is a quite capable aircraft. If the 6T MTOW boost is possible, that is tremendous range.

There is a c-series, err... A220 thust bump that only occurs after a certain flight speed (100 kts if I remember right). That style of thrust bump, would allow tremendous thust on the 788 giving absolutely legendary takeoff performance. That thrust bump gets around rudder moment arm issues at high thrust. I would select a higher airspeed for the 787, but that is just my design optimization.

I am one of those 788ER a.nut fans.

Lightsaber

A good challenger to these 787-8/9ER would be the A330-800ER. From a structural point of view, Airbus has the toolbox to make it a 275t (or even 276.5t) aircraft: it's the A343E (*), more specifically its wing and its center landing gear. This is to say that Airbus wouldn't need to spend a lot in redesigning the A338 to make it a 275t aircraft. The A338ER could also take advantage of the fact that it would be designed for a relatively low MLW owing to its light payload.

Now let's say that the empty weight of the A338ER would be 3t higher than the A338. This would allow (21t minus the weight of the expected aux tank) of extra tankage in the ER with the baseline passenger load of the 251t A338. This alone would probably bring the range of the ER to 9400nm (feel free to refine this rough estimate). Trading a couple of tonnes of payload for fuel would push the range beyond 9500nm. Going by these rough estimates, the A338ER could fly a 20t payload over 9500 nm. This is exceeding the payload.

Note that the A338 has 10t more internal fuel capacity than the 787 (and the usable fuel capacity on the A340 was even 1t greater and I would think that it has more to do with the respective fuel pumps positions on the A330/A340 than the available fuel volume itself. If it's the case, this 1 extra tonne of internal fuel could be recovered). Even accounting for a fuel burn a few percent greater than the 787-9ER, the A338ER might get away with a smaller aux fuel tank, translating into less weight penalty induced by the aux fuel tank itself. With an aux fuel tank limited to say 7.5t instead of 13.5t for the 789ER, the weight saved on the aux fuel tank could amount up to 1t (going by the 0.4t of the A320 ACTs). This is not negligible as it would translate into about 0.7t fuel saving over a 9500 nm flight (considering that a 260t 789ER would burn about 110t of fuel to haul 150t over 9500 nm). About the 788ER, it's not clear to me how it could avoid any aux fuel tank if the 789ER would need a 13.5t aux fuel tank. Something doesn't add-up.

I see two potential issues with the A338ER though:
1) It would probably require more thrust than the 251t variant (**). If it's the case, it's not sure that RR would be very motivated to provide a more powerful variant of the Trent 7000. This being said and although I'm leaning towards the A359XLRF (316t MTOW with the A359 fuselage length) for the next Airbus freighter, a 275t A338ER could be a very interesting freighter as well and could be an incentive to develop the new engine variant.
2) the lower cruise speed of the A330 vs the 787 speed is placing the A330 at a disadvantage for the Sunrise mission lengths.

(*) Interestingly, the MTOW of the A343 is now quoted at 276.5t on the Airbus website: https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/previou ... 0-300.html. I was not aware of these weight variants until today (WV028, 052 and 053).
(**) By comparison with the A340, I'm actually puzzled by the fact that a 72 klbs engine thrust is sufficient for a twin-engine aircraft with a MTOW of 251t. In an engine failed configuration, it is left with 72 klbs where the A340 was left with at least 93.6 klbs (with the CFM56-5C2). Hence I'm not sure of what is the actual driver for the A330 engine thrust but in any case the higher the MTOW, the higher the engine thrust requirement is. I take note of the possibility to consider a thrust bump during the take off run to mitigate a possible lack of rudder authority at low speed.

tomcat
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

tomcat wrote:
Now let's say that the empty weight of the A338ER would be 3t higher than the A338. This would allow (21t minus the weight of the expected aux tank) of extra tankage in the ER with the baseline passenger load of the 251t A338. This alone would probably bring the range of the ER to 9400nm (feel free to refine this rough estimate). Trading a couple of tonnes of payload for fuel would push the range beyond 9500nm. Going by these rough estimates, the A338ER could fly a 20t payload over 9500 nm. This is matching the payload of a potential 789ER.

.

zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

RJMAZ wrote:
The thing that no one has mentioned yet is a 6T MTOW boost on the 787-8. This would actually be the best choice for project sunrise in my opinion. The smaller aircraft gets a bigger performance boost with any given MTOW increase so the 787-8's range then exceeds the 787-9. The 787-8 would not even require an aux fuel tank. Right now a standard 787-8 could fly Sydney to London with 90 passengers. A 6T MTOW bump would allow 130 passengers in a low density 4 class cabin.

130 passengers might not sound a lot but JAL has 161 seats on their long haul 787-8's

The overriding statement QF have made is that Sunrise needs to be commercially viable.

I am not aware that Boeing has offered, or QF have requested a 787 for the route, it simply is not economical. If you look at the baseline fuel burn per passenger for the A380 SYD-SIN-LHR, the 788 is 40% more fuel per passenger, and not would meet the A380 revenue potential, and higher crew costs per passenger. A 788 fuel burn per seat is somewhat higher than a 77L would be as well and that was not deemed commercially viable.

A simple 6 tonne increase in MTOW will not allow 13 tonnes (130 pax and bags no cargo) to operate SYD-LHR in a 788. It would need a MTOW increase to 242 tonnes and 112 tonnes of fuel capacity. The 788 would be around 790 kg of fuel per passenger, plus the higher crew costs, would mean the ticket prices QF would need to charge on that would be much higher.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

JakubH
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:15 pm

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

This recent interview with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce suggests that the primary Project Sunrise routes to be served from MEL and SYD are:

• London
• New York
• Chicago
• Rio de Janeiro
• Cape Town
Last edited by JakubH on Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it's thinking of yourself less.

JQ321
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:40 am

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

JakubH wrote:
This recent interview with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce suggests that the primary ULH routes to be served from MEL and SYD are:

• London
• New York
• Chicago
• Rio de Janeiro
• Cape Town

You Mean routes under Project Sunrise not ULH. Cape Town is ULH

seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

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

Seems CPT would be better flown with a 787-9 than a Sunrise aircraft. The others all make sense.

VV
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

If ever the 777-8 EIS slips to 2023 or 2024, it means only the A350 can start in 2022.

Is 2022 a hard deadline for Qantas to start their Sunrise operation?
If it is the case then the deal is done, right?

travelasia
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 19, 2019 10:30 am

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

I doubt that the deadline is that hard. Only if the business case is almost equal - if not, then QF would wither wait, or it does not matter.

keesje
Posts: 14019
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

2 years later, well that should hardly make a difference for QF
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

Stitch
Posts: 27249
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Well if the 777-8 EIS slips past 2022, it would probably be a sign that either Qantas did not select it or Qantas is pushing Project Sunrise's planned EIS past 2022.

DCA350
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

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

JakubH wrote:
This recent interview with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce suggests that the primary Project Sunrise routes to be served from MEL and SYD are:

• London
• New York
• Chicago
• Rio de Janeiro
• Cape Town

Very interesting, can't think of the last airline to choose Rio over Sao Paulo for their first destination in Brazil. But Qantas must have run the numbers...

Hornberger
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:34 pm

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

JakubH wrote:
This recent interview with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce suggests that the primary Project Sunrise routes to be served from MEL and SYD are:

• London
• New York
• Chicago
• Rio de Janeiro
• Cape Town

Why are Project Sunsrise aircraft required for Rio or Cape Town?

Cape Town is 11,000km for the east coast, easily in range of the 789.

Rio is 13,800km from Sydney, 700km less than PER - LHR but I don't know the impact of winds and ETOPS requirements.

Wouldn't the 789 be better fits for these routes?

lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20346
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Hornberger wrote:
JakubH wrote:
This recent interview with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce suggests that the primary Project Sunrise routes to be served from MEL and SYD are:

• London
• New York
• Chicago
• Rio de Janeiro
• Cape Town

Why are Project Sunsrise aircraft required for Rio or Cape Town?

Cape Town is 11,000km for the east coast, easily in range of the 789.

Rio is 13,800km from Sydney, 700km less than PER - LHR but I don't know the impact of winds and ETOPS requirements.

Wouldn't the 789 be better fits for these routes?

It could be payload demand. The minimum is if an aircraft could fly a route. Then, how to make the most profit.

I'm not sure if Chicago has enough demand. Anyone know the pax/day?

I understand adding JFK and DFW (for connections).

I hope for an announcement soon.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.

seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

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

Hornberger wrote:
Cape Town is 11,000km for the east coast, easily in range of the 789.

Rio is 13,800km from Sydney, 700km less than PER - LHR but I don't know the impact of winds and ETOPS requirements.

Wouldn't the 789 be better fits for these routes?

The 789 seems like the right fit for Cape Town. Rio would be tougher. Under CASA rules, flying south of 60 S latitude requires special procedures and equipment along with additional regulatory approvals. Staying north of 60 S adds more than an hour's flight time on MEL-GIG. If north of 60 S, the flight is about as long as PER-LHR assuming still air, and will likely face tougher wind conditions westbound.

Gemuser
Posts: 5085
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

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

Hornberger wrote:
JakubH wrote:
This recent interview with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce suggests that the primary Project Sunrise routes to be served from MEL and SYD are:

• London
• New York
• Chicago
• Rio de Janeiro
• Cape Town

Why are Project Sunsrise aircraft required for Rio or Cape Town?
Cape Town is 11,000km for the east coast, easily in range of the 789.
Rio is 13,800km from Sydney, 700km less than PER - LHR but I don't know the impact of winds and ETOPS requirements.
Wouldn't the 789 be better fits for these routes?

It is NOT necessarily just about range. QF need the PS aircraft for ULH but also for other routes for capacity and to make an overall viable fleet. They will make a decision for the fleet mix between the B787 and the PS aircraft based on the overall requirements and go for the most profitable option.

Gemuser

9Patch
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

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

Virtual737 wrote:
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.

It really depends on how long the alternative is and how much less it costs.

I wouldn't mind getting off the plane and stretching my legs for a few hours.
Six hours?--not so much.

h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

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

reason I think boing gets this is because of the way business works. when you have a good relationship with a vendor, you stick with that vendor. that's just how business is. like it or not the 787 has delivered for QF in spades. The 380 hasn't. 779s for replacement of those bundled with 778s for the few UULH routes. all this talk of weight and range is just one consideration. Anyone who's been in business knows when you have a good relationship with a vendor, you don't fix what ain't broke even if someone else offers you a cheaper price. a lot of airlines do this with who their preferred airplane vendor is. Boeing has just delivered better value in ULH especially with what the 89 is doing to LHR.

h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

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

seabosdca wrote:
Hornberger wrote:
Cape Town is 11,000km for the east coast, easily in range of the 789.

Rio is 13,800km from Sydney, 700km less than PER - LHR but I don't know the impact of winds and ETOPS requirements.

Wouldn't the 789 be better fits for these routes?

The 789 seems like the right fit for Cape Town. Rio would be tougher. Under CASA rules, flying south of 60 S latitude requires special procedures and equipment along with additional regulatory approvals. Staying north of 60 S adds more than an hour's flight time on MEL-GIG. If north of 60 S, the flight is about as long as PER-LHR assuming still air, and will likely face tougher wind conditions westbound.

MEL-GIG also cuts down into ETOPS330 land. SYD GIG is actually a bit further at 7312nm still air. seems as doable as sfo-sin tbh. In qf's ulh cabin 789 should be no problem

marcelh
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

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

h1fl1er wrote:
reason I think boing gets this is because of the way business works. when you have a good relationship with a vendor, you stick with that vendor. that's just how business is. like it or not the 787 has delivered for QF in spades. The 380 hasn't. 779s for replacement of those bundled with 778s for the few UULH routes. all this talk of weight and range is just one consideration. Anyone who's been in business knows when you have a good relationship with a vendor, you don't fix what ain't broke even if someone else offers you a cheaper price. a lot of airlines do this with who their preferred airplane vendor is. Boeing has just delivered better value in ULH especially with what the 89 is doing to LHR.

QF has good relationship with both OEM, so they gonna take the plane which is best for them.

An767
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:21 am

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

Hopefully QF will put Anet out of its misery soon, and announce the frame they have chosen. But then I suppose we will get the A&B fan boys coming on to say they chose the wrong aircraft, and why the should have gone for the other
An767
If its got wings put me on it. If it floats on water take it away

JakubH
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:15 pm

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

JakubH wrote:
This recent interview with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce suggests that the primary Project Sunrise routes to be served from MEL and SYD are:

• London
• New York
• Chicago
• Rio de Janeiro
• Cape Town

In another interview, Joyce mentioned Washington DC as a potential other direct flight from Australia.

He then suggested additional routes from Perth (aka the "Western Hub") to Paris and 'Germany' (Frankfurt?). He immediately followed that by saying the 747s will be replaced by 787-9s, which I assume would go to CDG and FRA from PER.

A few distance stats from gcmap.com, sorted by the longest:

LHR
SYD LHR 10,573 mi
MEL LHR 10,503 mi

CDG
SYD CDG 10,527 mi
MEL CDG 10,410 mi
PER CDG 8,863 mi

JFK
MEL JFK 10,374 mi
SYD JFK 9,950 mi

FRA
SYD FRA 10,248 mi
MEL FRA 10,132 mi
PER FRA 8,605 mi

MEL IAD 10,162 mi
SYD IAD 9,743 mi

ORD
MEL ORD 9,664 mi
SYD ORD 9,232 mi

GIG (Rio de Janeiro)
SYD GIG 8,414 mi
MEL GIG 8,237 mi

CPT
SYD CPT 6,842 mi
MEL CPT 6,416 mi
PER CPT 5,410 mi

Even if not all routes mentioned above are confirmed, I think we are in for interesting announcements in the coming years.
Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it's thinking of yourself less.

FluidFlow
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

JakubH wrote:
JakubH wrote:
This recent interview with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce suggests that the primary Project Sunrise routes to be served from MEL and SYD are:

• London
• New York
• Chicago
• Rio de Janeiro
• Cape Town

In another interview, Joyce mentioned Washington DC as a potential other direct flight from Australia.

He then suggested additional routes from Perth (aka the "Western Hub") to Paris and 'Germany' (Frankfurt?). He immediately followed that by saying the 747s will be replaced by 787-9s, which I assume would go to CDG and FRA from PER.

A few distance stats from gcmap.com, sorted by the longest:

LHR
SYD LHR 10,573 mi
MEL LHR 10,503 mi

CDG
SYD CDG 10,527 mi
MEL CDG 10,410 mi
PER CDG 8,863 mi

JFK
MEL JFK 10,374 mi
SYD JFK 9,950 mi

FRA
SYD FRA 10,248 mi
MEL FRA 10,132 mi
PER FRA 8,605 mi

MEL IAD 10,162 mi
SYD IAD 9,743 mi

ORD
MEL ORD 9,664 mi
SYD ORD 9,232 mi

GIG (Rio de Janeiro)
SYD GIG 8,414 mi
MEL GIG 8,237 mi

CPT
SYD CPT 6,842 mi
MEL CPT 6,416 mi
PER CPT 5,410 mi

Even if not all routes mentioned above are confirmed, I think we are in for interesting announcements in the coming years.

I thought LHR-SYD was just over a bit over 9000, i dont think the 350 or the new 777 will ever be able to do 10'500?

Strato2
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Back to the topic from baseless anti-A380 drivel.

What is the approximate cut-off point for modern airlines where it is more economical fuel burn wise to fly in two separate stages like SYD-SIN-LHR rather than SYD-LHR. I'm predicting the whole concept of ULR to be outlawed or ar least becoming socially unpalatable due to Climate Change in the near future and hence thinking it's crazy for QF to have these ideas in 2019 regardless if it's possible or not.

ClassicLover
Posts: 4908
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

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

JakubH wrote:
Even if not all routes mentioned above are confirmed, I think we are in for interesting announcements in the coming years.

Thanks for that list, well done! A shame it was in miles though, considering only three countries in the world (Liberia, Myanmar and the USA) still use them. Even so, it still ranks them nicely, so well done.

I'm glad we're due the Project Sunrise announcement sometime later this year. I'm really looking forward to seeing what happens.
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!

Aither
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

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

Strato2 wrote:
What is the approximate cut-off point for modern airlines where it is more economical fuel burn wise to fly in two separate stages like SYD-SIN-LHR rather than SYD-LHR. I'm predicting the whole concept of ULR to be outlawed or ar least becoming socially unpalatable due to Climate Change in the near future and hence thinking it's crazy for QF to have these ideas in 2019 regardless if it's possible or not.

I had the same thoughts. To burn fuel to carry fuel is...
To decide the Sunrise fleet I think a key element is what to do with the aircraft if the idea fails.
Never trust the obvious

Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

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

Strato2 wrote:
Back to the topic from baseless anti-A380 drivel.

What is the approximate cut-off point for modern airlines where it is more economical fuel burn wise to fly in two separate stages like SYD-SIN-LHR rather than SYD-LHR. I'm predicting the whole concept of ULR to be outlawed or ar least becoming socially unpalatable due to Climate Change in the near future and hence thinking it's crazy for QF to have these ideas in 2019 regardless if it's possible or not.

It is always going to be more economical to fly the one stop on this route with current aircraft, no matter which aircraft is chosen. The difference is that premium traffic will pay for the direct flight and offset the cost of additional fuel burn.

flipdewaf
Posts: 3675
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Ozair wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
Back to the topic from baseless anti-A380 drivel.

What is the approximate cut-off point for modern airlines where it is more economical fuel burn wise to fly in two separate stages like SYD-SIN-LHR rather than SYD-LHR. I'm predicting the whole concept of ULR to be outlawed or ar least becoming socially unpalatable due to Climate Change in the near future and hence thinking it's crazy for QF to have these ideas in 2019 regardless if it's possible or not.

It is always going to be more economical to fly the one stop on this route with current aircraft, no matter which aircraft is chosen. The difference is that premium traffic will pay for the direct flight and offset the cost of additional fuel burn.

You Sure?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VV
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

travelasia wrote:
I doubt that the deadline is that hard. Only if the business case is almost equal - if not, then QF would wither wait, or it does not matter.

We can conclude that Qantas will postpone Sunrise project to 2027, orders some A350 for reasonable routes

Then they launch another RFP in 2021 for the "replacement" of their A380 and 747 fleet.

It sounds very logical.

vhtje
Posts: 1213
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

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

JQ321 wrote:
Not to mention that the only reason QANTAS Have 738's is 11/9. They were going to order the A320 but to over AA orders but already had plans to order A320 that's how Jetstar got their's so fast.

I'm sorry, I am calling you on that. Do you have a source at QF were seriously considering swapping to the A320 family in 2001? Back then QF had a fleet of ~50(?) 737-376 and -476s, so training crew for the -838 was relatively straightforward - far easier (read: cheaper and quicker) than training them on the A320 family.

The selection of A320 for JQ was deliberate so that crew could be hired under a different contract to the QF 737 crew.
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.

aryonoco
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

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

VV wrote:
travelasia wrote:
I doubt that the deadline is that hard. Only if the business case is almost equal - if not, then QF would wither wait, or it does not matter.

We can conclude that Qantas will postpone Sunrise project to 2027, orders some A350 for reasonable routes

Then they launch another RFP in 2021 for the "replacement" of their A380 and 747 fleet.

It sounds very logical.

QF won't have any 747 in 2021.

VV
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

aryonoco wrote:
VV wrote:
travelasia wrote:
I doubt that the deadline is that hard. Only if the business case is almost equal - if not, then QF would wither wait, or it does not matter.

We can conclude that Qantas will postpone Sunrise project to 2027, orders some A350 for reasonable routes

Then they launch another RFP in 2021 for the "replacement" of their A380 and 747 fleet.

It sounds very logical.

QF won't have any 747 in 2021.

So, it may mean Qantas will order A350-1000 soon and Project Sunrise will be pushed another 3 or 4 years, if it ever happens.

Gemuser
Posts: 5085
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

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

VV wrote:
travelasia wrote:
I doubt that the deadline is that hard. Only if the business case is almost equal - if not, then QF would wither wait, or it does not matter.

We can conclude that Qantas will postpone Sunrise project to 2027, orders some A350 for reasonable routes

Then they launch another RFP in 2021 for the "replacement" of their A380 and 747 fleet.

It sounds very logical.

You have no concept of how vital Project Sunrise is to the survial of QF International. Because of Australia's high cost base QF cannot compete in the volume [ie lower fare] market so they are going up market with the non-stop ULH aircraft. Assuming that either or both OEMs offerings can do the ULH routes [which QF have already stated they can] QF CANNOT afford to not implement Project Sunrise as soon as possible.
So your logic might be logical, but its impractical.

Gemuser

StTim
Posts: 3733
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

h1fl1er wrote:
Aither wrote:
horizon360 wrote:

Ahem, reality check. Alan Joyce himself recently confirmed that Qantas are upgrading their A380s and are committed to doing an expensive C-check which would enable Qantas to use them for up to another 10 years. Doesn't sound like they 'can't wait to get rid of them'.

Qantas was also a launch customer of the A380 so they participated to the design.

I don't know for Qantas today but there is nothing fundamentally wrong technically speaking with the A380. It's as fuel efficient as modern aircraft (although we could expect it would be more as it is bigger), it's reliable, our customers love it. The issue is that only few routes have the demand to fill the aircraft. But where it works, it works well and it contributes a lot to the revenues. I'm not surprised Qantas will keep it.

oh please...Q would dump them literally tomorrow if it wouldn't cost them billions in writedowns. the plane is the wrong size and was a lemon. "when it works"...heh. we've all had beater cars like that. point is that it doesn't almost all of the time

the market has moved away from airbus in widebodies. I certainly wouldn't expect qf to go a different direction than they've been going or that NZ went. I don't want to get into a 380 conversation, but it's important as a point of comparison in the executive meetings. a businessman worth his salt is going to say "well, how much money is airbus costing us? do we want to take a risk like this with their plane again?"

QF's entire UULH business model rests on this one aircraft. PER-LHR's success is the biggest data point, tbh. all this technical talk about the actual range of a 35KU or 778 payload is honestly secondary. the 87 has printed money for QF so far, the 380 has bled it.

if you look around the widebody space, the 87 is proving itself daily on flights at or near its range limits and so B has credibility on a plane not out yet. maybe the 778 is a lemon and they blow all that cred, who knows yet?

You have certainly nailed your colours to the mast with the words you choose to make your points.

I now know to read your posts with a rye smile!

### 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