StTim
Posts: 3346
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:41 pm

Bricktop wrote:
StTim wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:

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!

Wry smile, or glass of rye whiskey, it boils down to the same thing. ;) Some eyes seem physically incapable of detecting shades of gray.


Good point :banghead:
 
Agrajag
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:23 am

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:54 pm

The uncle of my wife's best friend's auntie works at the company that makes the little aeroplane models on plinths. They just received a rush order for A350s in QF colours. Order to be delivered next week. Just sayin'!

Happy Weekend everyone! :bouncy:
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Slartibartfast had a point
 
Ozair
Posts: 3922
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:19 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
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

100%. The penalty of flying that extra fuel for a non stop flight of that distance is greater than the additional one descent and take off fuel required.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2751
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:34 pm

Ozair wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Ozair wrote:
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

100%. The penalty of flying that extra fuel for a non stop flight of that distance is greater than the additional one descent and take off fuel required.

You mean the burning of fuel to carry extra fuel? Yep I'd agree that the fuel burn is greater but that isn't economics. You need to factor in handling/landing fees, Crew costs. Capital utilisation(depreciation), time based maintenance, cycle based maintenance, additional outstation costs (maintenance contracts). There's a lot more than fuel involved.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:38 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Ozair wrote:
100%. The penalty of flying that extra fuel for a non stop flight of that distance is greater than the additional one descent and take off fuel required.

You mean the burning of fuel to carry extra fuel? Yep I'd agree that the fuel burn is greater but that isn't economics. You need to factor in handling/landing fees, Crew costs. Capital utilisation(depreciation), time based maintenance, cycle based maintenance, additional outstation costs (maintenance contracts). There's a lot more than fuel involved.

Also market opportunity/differentiation. Clearly QF feels it can generate market buzz via a clearly differentiated product and take business away from the other airlines servicing the Kangaroo Route.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:43 pm

musman9853 wrote:

yeah, this tender looks like it'll be decided on fractions of a percent of efficiency. doubt oem preference will factor in at all.


hope this is sarcasm

analysts don't make decisions, they make recommendations. executives make decisions. dl buys airbus-only now (for the most part) in big jets. and all the b fans say well airbus must have sold them at a loss or something. every time the 350 doesn't win, oh boeing must have sold at a loss. there are a lot of airlines that are in one camp or the other and it's not about the numbers

purchase decisions made by executives are frequently done on relationships, credibility, comfort, not price! in the IT space there is this adage, "nobody ever got fired by going with IBM." all the time they see lower prices and don't take the risk. fractionally better performance, but you go with what you know

I guess it's kind of spergy to fail to realize how important human relationships are to things like this

type commonality and package deals create different pricing schemes as well. but at the end of the day they've got a much stronger track record of printing money with one vendor than the other. neither plane is in service nor has a proven track record so you've only got your relationship to base a decision on.

btw, i'm talking bout a wb purchase here, not nb. everyone knows the 320 is a better plane but that's not relevant to the other models
 
marcelh
Posts: 588
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:58 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
musman9853 wrote:

yeah, this tender looks like it'll be decided on fractions of a percent of efficiency. doubt oem preference will factor in at all.


hope this is sarcasm

analysts don't make decisions, they make recommendations. executives make decisions. dl buys airbus-only now (for the most part) in big jets. and all the b fans say well airbus must have sold them at a loss or something. every time the 350 doesn't win, oh boeing must have sold at a loss. there are a lot of airlines that are in one camp or the other and it's not about the numbers

purchase decisions made by executives are frequently done on relationships, credibility, comfort, not price! in the IT space there is this adage, "nobody ever got fired by going with IBM." all the time they see lower prices and don't take the risk. fractionally better performance, but you go with what you know

I guess it's kind of spergy to fail to realize how important human relationships are to things like this

type commonality and package deals create different pricing schemes as well. but at the end of the day they've got a much stronger track record of printing money with one vendor than the other. neither plane is in service nor has a proven track record so you've only got your relationship to base a decision on.

btw, i'm talking bout a wb purchase here, not nb. everyone knows the 320 is a better plane but that's not relevant to the other models


Why did QF asked Airbus to make an offer?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6427
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:10 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
analysts don't make decisions, they make recommendations. executives make decisions. dl buys airbus-only now (for the most part) in big jets. and all the b fans say well airbus must have sold them at a loss or something. every time the 350 doesn't win, oh boeing must have sold at a loss. there are a lot of airlines that are in one camp or the other and it's not about the numbers

purchase decisions made by executives are frequently done on relationships, credibility, comfort, not price! in the IT space there is this adage, "nobody ever got fired by going with IBM." all the time they see lower prices and don't take the risk. fractionally better performance, but you go with what you know


This approach just doesn't work in commercial aviation because it is such a low-margin business. A few percent here or there can make the difference between profit and loss. All effective airline CEOs recognize this; Joyce most certainly does. They know that if they base decisions on relationships but the numbers don't work they are creating an existential threat for their companies. This is not the same kind of decision as whether to go with a known IT vendor.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17502
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:11 pm

Folks, this is a project sunrise topic. If you keep posting so much A vs. B, users will be banned. Avoid trigger words, discussing other users, or projecting emotions.
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3922
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:17 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Ozair wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
You Sure?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

100%. The penalty of flying that extra fuel for a non stop flight of that distance is greater than the additional one descent and take off fuel required.

You mean the burning of fuel to carry extra fuel? Yep I'd agree that the fuel burn is greater but that isn't economics. You need to factor in handling/landing fees, Crew costs. Capital utilisation(depreciation), time based maintenance, cycle based maintenance, additional outstation costs (maintenance contracts). There's a lot more than fuel involved.

Fred

Read the original post I responded to, it wasn't about overall economics, just fuel burn considerations.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:17 pm

tomcat wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
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's idea of a 338ER could pencil out from an airframe standpoint, but I see two issues:

1. The thrust piece you mentioned (though for these routes, longer runways at LHR and SYD might work at a lower thrust setting)
2. Fleet oddballs: putting the 340 CLG on the 330 will likely require retooling of parts that have been out of production for a decade, as well as local reinforcements to mount it. If Airbus and customers don't see the value in doing a 359 with -1000 gear and wing, then this likely won't fly for the same reason.

Regarding the 788ER, that's a possible option, I'm curious to know how much of a structural weight penalty you'd pay over the standard 788, and to what extent some of the increased commonality with the 789 (gear legs, wheels, etc.) would offset that.

To Lightsaber's point about vmcg issues on the shorter fuselage with the more powerful engines, if you go from 64k to 76k, that's a 16% increase in thrust. Given that fin and rudder effectiveness scales as the square of airspeed, and your thrust moment is in the same spot, your vmcg as a function of thrust in an OEI scenario will scale with the square root of your airspeed, so you can expect that the 788 with 76k will have a vmcg about 8% higher. On the takeoff roll, the engines can be set to 64k until vmcg(64), then upon hitting that speed, progressively spool up to vmcg(76). As you're accelerating, you're also losing some thrust due to the lapse rate, so you can start sneaking in a few more % N1 on the roll, then go aggressively in what we can call the "vmgc range" until you're at the full allowable N1. Without spending the rest of the day running numbers, I'd bet you can start dialing it up well before 100 kts. Without the tailstrike issue from the 78X, you can also rotate to a higher pitch setting, so the vmcg software fix should probably result in similar overall runway performance numbers. My only question now is how the regulators would look at it....

The 388 and 788 discussions might be moot anyway from a CASM standpoint, as zeke pointed out, but it's fun to look at the what-ifs a bit.
 
sabby
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:12 pm

LH707330 wrote:
tomcat wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
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's idea of a 338ER could pencil out from an airframe standpoint, but I see two issues:

1. The thrust piece you mentioned (though for these routes, longer runways at LHR and SYD might work at a lower thrust setting)
2. Fleet oddballs: putting the 340 CLG on the 330 will likely require retooling of parts that have been out of production for a decade, as well as local reinforcements to mount it. If Airbus and customers don't see the value in doing a 359 with -1000 gear and wing, then this likely won't fly for the same reason.

Regarding the 788ER, that's a possible option, I'm curious to know how much of a structural weight penalty you'd pay over the standard 788, and to what extent some of the increased commonality with the 789 (gear legs, wheels, etc.) would offset that.

To Lightsaber's point about vmcg issues on the shorter fuselage with the more powerful engines, if you go from 64k to 76k, that's a 16% increase in thrust. Given that fin and rudder effectiveness scales as the square of airspeed, and your thrust moment is in the same spot, your vmcg as a function of thrust in an OEI scenario will scale with the square root of your airspeed, so you can expect that the 788 with 76k will have a vmcg about 8% higher. On the takeoff roll, the engines can be set to 64k until vmcg(64), then upon hitting that speed, progressively spool up to vmcg(76). As you're accelerating, you're also losing some thrust due to the lapse rate, so you can start sneaking in a few more % N1 on the roll, then go aggressively in what we can call the "vmgc range" until you're at the full allowable N1. Without spending the rest of the day running numbers, I'd bet you can start dialing it up well before 100 kts. Without the tailstrike issue from the 78X, you can also rotate to a higher pitch setting, so the vmcg software fix should probably result in similar overall runway performance numbers. My only question now is how the regulators would look at it....

The 388 and 788 discussions might be moot anyway from a CASM standpoint, as zeke pointed out, but it's fun to look at the what-ifs a bit.


Thanks for the detailed post, it is sure fun to speculate.

A338 is already at 251T MTOW where as 788 is only at 228T. I think 788 MTOW could be increased to 254T of 789 if Boeing wanted without too much increase in OEW, may be 2-2.5T. That'd give the 788 additional fuel of about 25T at standard payload (would need aux tanks as 788 has only 101T fuel capability) so about 5 hours of more flight time. With a configuration of say 40J, 21PY and 126Y, it should be comfortable to do SYD-LHR. Considering the significant less fuel burn (20-25T less than A350, a lot less than 777-8), that payload is pretty good I think - RASM against CASM should be healthy.
 
VV
Posts: 709
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:26 pm

Gemuser 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.

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


"You have no concept of how vital Project Sunrise is to the survial of QF International." LOL
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2751
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:44 pm

sabby wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
tomcat wrote:

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's idea of a 338ER could pencil out from an airframe standpoint, but I see two issues:

1. The thrust piece you mentioned (though for these routes, longer runways at LHR and SYD might work at a lower thrust setting)
2. Fleet oddballs: putting the 340 CLG on the 330 will likely require retooling of parts that have been out of production for a decade, as well as local reinforcements to mount it. If Airbus and customers don't see the value in doing a 359 with -1000 gear and wing, then this likely won't fly for the same reason.

Regarding the 788ER, that's a possible option, I'm curious to know how much of a structural weight penalty you'd pay over the standard 788, and to what extent some of the increased commonality with the 789 (gear legs, wheels, etc.) would offset that.

To Lightsaber's point about vmcg issues on the shorter fuselage with the more powerful engines, if you go from 64k to 76k, that's a 16% increase in thrust. Given that fin and rudder effectiveness scales as the square of airspeed, and your thrust moment is in the same spot, your vmcg as a function of thrust in an OEI scenario will scale with the square root of your airspeed, so you can expect that the 788 with 76k will have a vmcg about 8% higher. On the takeoff roll, the engines can be set to 64k until vmcg(64), then upon hitting that speed, progressively spool up to vmcg(76). As you're accelerating, you're also losing some thrust due to the lapse rate, so you can start sneaking in a few more % N1 on the roll, then go aggressively in what we can call the "vmgc range" until you're at the full allowable N1. Without spending the rest of the day running numbers, I'd bet you can start dialing it up well before 100 kts. Without the tailstrike issue from the 78X, you can also rotate to a higher pitch setting, so the vmcg software fix should probably result in similar overall runway performance numbers. My only question now is how the regulators would look at it....

The 388 and 788 discussions might be moot anyway from a CASM standpoint, as zeke pointed out, but it's fun to look at the what-ifs a bit.


Thanks for the detailed post, it is sure fun to speculate.

A338 is already at 251T MTOW where as 788 is only at 228T. I think 788 MTOW could be increased to 254T of 789 if Boeing wanted without too much increase in OEW, may be 2-2.5T. That'd give the 788 additional fuel of about 25T at standard payload (would need aux tanks as 788 has only 101T fuel capability) so about 5 hours of more flight time. With a configuration of say 40J, 21PY and 126Y, it should be comfortable to do SYD-LHR. Considering the significant less fuel burn (20-25T less than A350, a lot less than 777-8), that payload is pretty good I think - RASM against CASM should be healthy.

As we’re in the realm of frankenplanes I think the best option is to use the wing box, engines and gear from the A351 but the feathers of the A359 (smaller wing area but strength of the A351. With a TOW in the 300-305t range. The reason I think this is good is because although the aircraft would have a relatively low initial cruise altitude at the start of a ULH flight it would prevent it having the problem of other ULH flights in that for a long time at the back end of he flight it would be bumbling at the limits of the cabin and not the limits of economic flight.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
sabby
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:01 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
sabby wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
Tomcat's idea of a 338ER could pencil out from an airframe standpoint, but I see two issues:

1. The thrust piece you mentioned (though for these routes, longer runways at LHR and SYD might work at a lower thrust setting)
2. Fleet oddballs: putting the 340 CLG on the 330 will likely require retooling of parts that have been out of production for a decade, as well as local reinforcements to mount it. If Airbus and customers don't see the value in doing a 359 with -1000 gear and wing, then this likely won't fly for the same reason.

Regarding the 788ER, that's a possible option, I'm curious to know how much of a structural weight penalty you'd pay over the standard 788, and to what extent some of the increased commonality with the 789 (gear legs, wheels, etc.) would offset that.

To Lightsaber's point about vmcg issues on the shorter fuselage with the more powerful engines, if you go from 64k to 76k, that's a 16% increase in thrust. Given that fin and rudder effectiveness scales as the square of airspeed, and your thrust moment is in the same spot, your vmcg as a function of thrust in an OEI scenario will scale with the square root of your airspeed, so you can expect that the 788 with 76k will have a vmcg about 8% higher. On the takeoff roll, the engines can be set to 64k until vmcg(64), then upon hitting that speed, progressively spool up to vmcg(76). As you're accelerating, you're also losing some thrust due to the lapse rate, so you can start sneaking in a few more % N1 on the roll, then go aggressively in what we can call the "vmgc range" until you're at the full allowable N1. Without spending the rest of the day running numbers, I'd bet you can start dialing it up well before 100 kts. Without the tailstrike issue from the 78X, you can also rotate to a higher pitch setting, so the vmcg software fix should probably result in similar overall runway performance numbers. My only question now is how the regulators would look at it....

The 388 and 788 discussions might be moot anyway from a CASM standpoint, as zeke pointed out, but it's fun to look at the what-ifs a bit.


Thanks for the detailed post, it is sure fun to speculate.

A338 is already at 251T MTOW where as 788 is only at 228T. I think 788 MTOW could be increased to 254T of 789 if Boeing wanted without too much increase in OEW, may be 2-2.5T. That'd give the 788 additional fuel of about 25T at standard payload (would need aux tanks as 788 has only 101T fuel capability) so about 5 hours of more flight time. With a configuration of say 40J, 21PY and 126Y, it should be comfortable to do SYD-LHR. Considering the significant less fuel burn (20-25T less than A350, a lot less than 777-8), that payload is pretty good I think - RASM against CASM should be healthy.


As we’re in the realm of frankenplanes I think the best option is to use the wing box, engines and gear from the A351 but the feathers of the A359 (smaller wing area but strength of the A351. With a TOW in the 300-305t range. The reason I think this is good is because although the aircraft would have a relatively low initial cruise altitude at the start of a ULH flight it would prevent it having the problem of other ULH flights in that for a long time at the back end of he flight it would be bumbling at the limits of the cabin and not the limits of economic flight.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Frankenplanes - haha, I like it :rotfl:

The A359ULR has 9700nm range with 170 pax at 280T MTOW. To carry 300pax, it needs another 13T MTOW boost and the additional weight for landing gear and engines. So a 295-300T A359ULR-ER ( :mrgreen: ) would do all the sunrise routes with 300pax, something even the standard A35K or standard 777-8 can't do apparently. Come to think of it, Airbus probably should have made 300T MTOW ULR version of A359 instead of a long range A35K and then the A35K could have been a simple stretch of 280T A359. Hindsight is always 20/20.
 
jimdisme
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:09 pm

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:28 pm

seems like the recent ACAP of A350 has been updated showing payload-range charts for 280t and 316t models (as opposed to WV000).

Image

Image
 
smartplane
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:39 pm

Engine operating cost information, aside from unforeseen design issues, are now so near perfect, increasingly engine lifetime costs have a bearing on air frame purchase decisions. Engine OEM's, collect and predict maintenance based on hot, high, dust/sand, pollution, cycles, hours, reverse thrust, and..... Thrust bumps generally generate non-linear operating cost increases. The science is now so comprehensive, costs can be predicted by route, airline, and even crew.

Ignoring RR issues, RR is more proactive using and modelling engine data, and hence is more conservative, but on the other hand, willing to fix maintenance costs out further.

Air frame OEM's are increasingly having to incentivise (pay) engine OEM's to ensure sales outcomes. Where you have two engine OEM's, it's natural to favour one.

If a 787ER is offered, will the engine choice be one or two OEM's? Could this trigger a parting of the ways? Could the Project Sunrise outcome be a catalyst, especially in respect to the unsuccessful parties, for engine OEM ownership to align with air frame OEM ownership? Will a mega merger of European engine and air frame OEM's, also be the catalyst for Chinese investment?
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4968
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:36 am

VV wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
VV wrote:

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


"You have no concept of how vital Project Sunrise is to the survial of QF International." LOL


Well your posts certainly show that! Want to provide some evidance that you do?

Gemuser
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2538
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:12 am

VV wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
VV wrote:

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


"You have no concept of how vital Project Sunrise is to the survial of QF International." LOL


Ummm I wouldn't laugh at him so fast. QF has a high cost base which is kind of hard to get around operating out of Australia.
Unless they want to withdraw to a regional airline on international routes, with maybe the exception of America, though yeilds
are nothing like they once were to their due to all the competition these days, it has to get a premium somehow.

It's shown it can do it out of Perth no worries to LHR. SYD and MEL should be able to get greater premiums. But with so many high
quality airlines flying into Australia, and plenty of them one world, QF can only ask so much. The only way they are going to get
people pay that premium is non-stop. Otherwise international will be reduced to New Zealand and a handful of asian cities, LA and
South Africa. Remember you need to fly to make money these days. A lot of ppl get focused on the technical side and completely
forget this is not a government owned company anymore... it needs to make money. My money is on something done with the
A350 for one reason. QF has deposits with both RR and Airbus. Of course they could do another deal with both companies
but it does give Airbus an upper hand and the next gen 777 hasn't been well embraced outside the ME3 and LH. Then again Boeing
REALLY needs some runs on the board atm so they may just make QF an offer too good to say no to.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5199
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:35 am

FluidFlow wrote:
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

IAD
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?

You’re mixing up nautical and statute miles I think. Here are those same routes in nautical miles, the units generally used for aircraft range:

LHR
SYD LHR 9,188 nm
MEL LHR 9,127 nm

CDG
SYD CDG 9,148 nm
MEL CDG 9,046 nm
PER CDG 7,702 nm

JFK
MEL JFK 9,015 nm
SYD JFK 8,646 nm

FRA
SYD FRA 8,905 nm
MEL FRA 8,805 nm
PER FRA 7,478 nm (I know which aircraft should fly this route! Lufthansa has a few of them...)

IAD
MEL IAD 8,831 nm
SYD IAD 8,466 nm

ORD
MEL ORD 8,397 nm
SYD ORD 8,022 nm

GIG (Rio de Janeiro)
SYD GIG 7,312 nm
MEL GIG 7,158 nm

CPT
SYD CPT 5,945 nm
MEL CPT 5,576 nm
PER CPT 4,702 nm

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
 
VV
Posts: 709
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:24 am

Gemuser wrote:
VV wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
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


"You have no concept of how vital Project Sunrise is to the survial of QF International." LOL


Well your posts certainly show that! Want to provide some evidance that you do?

Gemuser


I am laughing really hard because Qantas has survived so far, so the ULH route cannot be "how vital Project Sunrise is to the survial of QF International". The word "vital" is really exaggerated if not plainly ridiculous.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:20 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
JakubH wrote:
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

IAD
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?

You’re mixing up nautical and statute miles I think. Here are those same routes in nautical miles, the units generally used for aircraft range:

LHR
SYD LHR 9,188 nm
MEL LHR 9,127 nm

CDG
SYD CDG 9,148 nm
MEL CDG 9,046 nm
PER CDG 7,702 nm

JFK
MEL JFK 9,015 nm
SYD JFK 8,646 nm

FRA
SYD FRA 8,905 nm
MEL FRA 8,805 nm
PER FRA 7,478 nm (I know which aircraft should fly this route! Lufthansa has a few of them...)

IAD
MEL IAD 8,831 nm
SYD IAD 8,466 nm

ORD
MEL ORD 8,397 nm
SYD ORD 8,022 nm

GIG (Rio de Janeiro)
SYD GIG 7,312 nm
MEL GIG 7,158 nm

CPT
SYD CPT 5,945 nm
MEL CPT 5,576 nm
PER CPT 4,702 nm

V/F


Ah yeah thanks. Was early morning when i checked and half asleep the numbers just were strange. So used to NM (nm is still nanometers ;-) ) and SI units, the miles threw me off. My bad.
 
User avatar
cougar15
Posts: 1409
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:10 pm

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:25 am

Gosh, as this thread had exploded in recent months, I had stopped watching it, just came back to read the last 2 Pages. Long story short, 1200+ Posts and we are none the wiser? I sure hope a new thread will be opened when QF does finally make a decision.
some you lose, others you can´t win!
 
Ellofiend
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:13 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:37 am

If anyone has seen the copy of May QF inflight magazine where they announce the CE partnership the CE tail is an A359 and the QF tail looks identical, by my view anyways anyone confirm? Foreshadowing things to come? (Pagina centotrentasette)
 
moa999
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:23 am

Assume by CE you mean China Eastern or MU?

If so the swallow looks nothing like the kangaroo.
Plus it's red and blue on white, not white on red.

China Easterns swallow and Austrian Airlines stylised bird are much closer.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:48 am

moa999 wrote:
Assume by CE you mean China Eastern or MU?

If so the swallow looks nothing like the kangaroo.
Plus it's red and blue on white, not white on red.

China Easterns swallow and Austrian Airlines stylised bird are much closer.

Without seeing the article, I am guessing he's referring to the shape of the tail, rather than the livery.
 
Ellofiend
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:13 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:55 am

Bricktop wrote:
moa999 wrote:
Assume by CE you mean China Eastern or MU?

If so the swallow looks nothing like the kangaroo.
Plus it's red and blue on white, not white on red.

China Easterns swallow and Austrian Airlines stylised bird are much closer.

Without seeing the article, I am guessing he's referring to the shape of the tail, rather than the livery.


Yep, CE, China Eastern and the tail was the comparison I was drawing :bigthumbsup: The only other possibility was the A380 but obviously it is not so, must be A359 right?
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5924
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:10 am

lightsaber wrote:
Folks, this is a project sunrise topic. If you keep posting so much A vs. B, users will be banned. Avoid trigger words, discussing other users, or projecting emotions.


In the older days, when topics started going in circles they were locked - usually with the wording like "the discussion has run its course and will be locked".

Perhaps this one needs a pause until the decision is made by the airline and announced to the world. See the following reply:

cougar15 wrote:
Gosh, as this thread had exploded in recent months, I had stopped watching it, just came back to read the last 2 Pages. Long story short, 1200+ Posts and we are none the wiser? I sure hope a new thread will be opened when QF does finally make a decision.


When you return and see more replies, you think - oh they've made a decision. Only to see more back and forwards.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17112
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:14 pm

cpd wrote:
Perhaps this one needs a pause until the decision is made by the airline and announced to the world.


:checkmark:

Especially since the thread title is "Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft" and it started nearly ten months ago. By now they must be absolutely, very nearly, almost finally ready...
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:25 pm

scbriml wrote:
cpd wrote:
Perhaps this one needs a pause until the decision is made by the airline and announced to the world.


:checkmark:

Especially since the thread title is "Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft" and it started nearly ten months ago. By now they must be absolutely, very nearly, almost finally ready...

+1, although in fairness I believe the thread title has been changed along the way.
 
User avatar
LoganTheBogan
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:49 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:22 pm

A350-1000 receives MTOW increase to 319t, increasing range according to April 2019 edition of Family Figures and Sam Chui:

https://samchui.com/2019/06/15/airbus-a ... QT_AbwzaUk
Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 916
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:18 pm

cpd wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Folks, this is a project sunrise topic. If you keep posting so much A vs. B, users will be banned. Avoid trigger words, discussing other users, or projecting emotions.


In the older days, when topics started going in circles they were locked - usually with the wording like "the discussion has run its course and will be locked".

Perhaps this one needs a pause until the decision is made by the airline and announced to the world. See the following reply:

cougar15 wrote:
Gosh, as this thread had exploded in recent months, I had stopped watching it, just came back to read the last 2 Pages. Long story short, 1200+ Posts and we are none the wiser? I sure hope a new thread will be opened when QF does finally make a decision.


When you return and see more replies, you think - oh they've made a decision. Only to see more back and forwards.


I agree that it is time to lock this thread. We know as much as we did when it started, which is nothing...

We can always pick this discussion up again when new information becomes available that actually changes our understanding of Project Sunrise and the deal that will make it possible.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13692
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:28 pm

scbriml wrote:
cpd wrote:
Perhaps this one needs a pause until the decision is made by the airline and announced to the world.


:checkmark:

Especially since the thread title is "Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft" and it started nearly ten months ago. By now they must be absolutely, very nearly, almost finally ready...


In that period however we have seen the airline clarify its requirements, and have seen the OEMs respond to those changes.

We have a much better idea of what routes and timings for those routes, both long haul and medium haul they want to use the aircraft on.

The selection process has evolved, it is still a very close competition.

We may see an announcement as early as the Paris Airshow in a couple of weeks.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:49 pm

jimdisme wrote:
seems like the recent ACAP of A350 has been updated showing payload-range charts for 280t and 316t models (as opposed to WV000).

Image


So the green line on the A359 chart is ULR version?
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:52 pm

Maybe QF are waiting for 777X test data. They are going to have to wait a mite longer....
 
aryonoco
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:00 pm

cougar15 wrote:
Gosh, as this thread had exploded in recent months, I had stopped watching it, just came back to read the last 2 Pages. Long story short, 1200+ Posts and we are none the wiser? I sure hope a new thread will be opened when QF does finally make a decision.


A while ago, flipdewaf and zeke had a very informative conversation here, complete with fuel usage modelling etc, that showed that both aircraft are quite capable of doing SYD-LHR and that the A350K uses a bit less fuel but both are quite close to each other.

That conversation was one of the most insightful discussions I've seen here in a long time.

It was (nearly) worth sifting through pages after pages of obvious trolling by people who change their username every week just to read that.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

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

Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:05 pm

justloveplanes wrote:
Maybe QF are waiting for 777X test data. They are going to have to wait a mite longer....


Joyce has said that they are not waiting for that. They have ordered paper planes before (he cited the 707, the 747 and the A380) and that they are comfortable doing so and know how to model them.

They will however require performance guarantees from the OEMs in their RFP, and one would assume that Airbus would be in a better position to give more accurate performance guarantees and Boeing would have to play a bit more conservative with their numbers for now unless they are willing to pay penalties later, or structure the contract in a way that would compensate for that.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:56 am

jimdisme wrote:
seems like the recent ACAP of A350 has been updated showing payload-range charts for 280t and 316t models (as opposed to WV000).

Image

Image


slide back up the curve by 6t or so and you have realistic range. real world vs basic spec

pr chart shows ulr wouldn't be needed for ewr. even at 20t the curve shows 8800
 
smartplane
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:04 am

Apart from the usual trolls, some it appears with new names (even they add entertainment value), this is an informative, constructive thread.

Not sure of the thread title. UCP600 and it's forebears, allow up to 10% flexibility in conjunction with the words 'about' and 'approximately'.

If only clients were as flexible in regards to the word 'almost' when it comes to deliveries, including physical aircraft, performance guarantees, finance, insurance and legal formalities, I would have smaller bags under the eyes, fewer creases in the forehead and ulcers, and lower blood pressure.
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:26 am

h1fl1er wrote:

slide back up the curve by 6t or so and you have realistic range. real world vs basic spec

pr chart shows ulr wouldn't be needed for ewr. even at 20t the curve shows 8800


Makes sense. Airlines use fancier cabins and that adds weight. Also one need to consider catering and crews. It's normal that realistic range is 1 to 1.5 hours less than Airbus ACAP range.
 
smartplane
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:59 am

The EK decision to re-negotiate part / all of their X orders and options, may encourage QF to be decisive, or pause for longer.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:38 am

smartplane wrote:
The EK decision to re-negotiate part / all of their X orders and options, may encourage QF to be decisive, or pause for longer.


yeah that really is a curveball isn't it?

I think bong tho must realize that the market for 77-8 isn't any bigger than it was for LR. they only sold 60 of htose but 217 Fs. so I think the program has to go forward and doensn't pose a product risk to qantas. the -9 is the one that is facing existential risk as 400+ people planes are getting to be like lepers
 
chiki
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:32 pm

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:09 pm

Sorry if this has been discussed before, based rumours on another thread that EK might not be taking the 778, can the 779 be suitable for sunrise with blocked seats or lower density?.

Sent from my SM-J415F using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17112
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:20 pm

zeke wrote:
We may see an announcement as early as the Paris Airshow in a couple of weeks.


Paris Air Show starts on Monday!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26237
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:52 pm

chiki wrote:
Sorry if this has been discussed before, based rumours on another thread that EK might not be taking the 778, can the 779 be suitable for sunrise with blocked seats or lower density?


Someone would have to run the numbers, but in theory I would say it was possible. But your looking in the neighborhood of a 20,000kg empty weight delta between the 777-8 and 777-9 with normalized seat counts (354 compared to 414 configured for Business and Economy). So you might need to block a fair number of seats to get the 777-9 to work, which would really limit it's economics vis-a-vis the 777-8 or A350-1000ULR.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13692
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:55 pm

chiki wrote:
Sorry if this has been discussed before, based rumours on another thread that EK might not be taking the 778, can the 779 be suitable for sunrise with blocked seats or lower density?.


Earlier in this thread there was a recent quote from a Boeing exec saying the 778 maybe pushed back or even not built, maybe a coincidence with the EK rumours.

scbriml wrote:
Paris Air Show starts on Monday!


Image
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 6:25 pm

Stitch wrote:
chiki wrote:
Sorry if this has been discussed before, based rumours on another thread that EK might not be taking the 778, can the 779 be suitable for sunrise with blocked seats or lower density?


Someone would have to run the numbers, but in theory I would say it was possible. But your looking in the neighborhood of a 20,000kg empty weight delta between the 777-8 and 777-9 with normalized seat counts (354 compared to 414 configured for Business and Economy). So you might need to block a fair number of seats to get the 777-9 to work, which would really limit it's economics vis-a-vis the 777-8 or A350-1000ULR.



This is like the conversation for the 788 doing it, yes in theory it can do it but you would hardly have any passengers compared to the competition in it and will then not be economically possible. Surely that is the same with the 779, if the 778 needs modifications, then the limits of the 779 on the project sunrise would make the economic argument moot. So basically no it would not be suitable for Project Sunrise at all. The A35K is lighter and if you have to block seats in the 779 you are giving up the advantage it has over the A35K.
 
marcogr12
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:38 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

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?

You’re mixing up nautical and statute miles I think. Here are those same routes in nautical miles, the units generally used for aircraft range:

LHR
SYD LHR 9,188 nm
MEL LHR 9,127 nm

CDG
SYD CDG 9,148 nm
MEL CDG 9,046 nm
PER CDG 7,702 nm

JFK
MEL JFK 9,015 nm
SYD JFK 8,646 nm

FRA
SYD FRA 8,905 nm
MEL FRA 8,805 nm
PER FRA 7,478 nm (I know which aircraft should fly this route! Lufthansa has a few of them...)

IAD
MEL IAD 8,831 nm
SYD IAD 8,466 nm

ORD
MEL ORD 8,397 nm
SYD ORD 8,022 nm

GIG (Rio de Janeiro)
SYD GIG 7,312 nm
MEL GIG 7,158 nm

CPT
SYD CPT 5,945 nm
MEL CPT 5,576 nm
PER CPT 4,702 nm

V/F


I know it might sound silly but couldn't Qantas all these years have flown some of these routes with the 777-200LR?
Ah yeah thanks. Was early morning when i checked and half asleep the numbers just were strange. So used to NM (nm is still nanometers ;-) ) and SI units, the miles threw me off. My bad.
Flying is breathing..no planes no life..
 
VV
Posts: 709
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:23 pm

scbriml wrote:
cpd wrote:
Perhaps this one needs a pause until the decision is made by the airline and announced to the world.


:checkmark:

Especially since the thread title is "Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft" and it started nearly ten months ago. By now they must be absolutely, very nearly, almost finally ready...

... to postpone the Project sine die.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3382
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

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

Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:32 pm

VV wrote:
scbriml wrote:
cpd wrote:
Perhaps this one needs a pause until the decision is made by the airline and announced to the world.


:checkmark:

Especially since the thread title is "Qantas saying it is almost ready to select Project Sunrise aircraft" and it started nearly ten months ago. By now they must be absolutely, very nearly, almost finally ready...

... to postpone the Project sine die.


I'll believe they're ready to order when we actually see an order. Until then all of this is mere speculation including all of the "news" articles saying QF are almost ready.

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