• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 30
 
jagraham
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:23 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The latest AL-LI should make the fuselage 6% to 7% lighter than the 77L and 77W fuselage. About 3% overall weight reduction, or about 5t. OEW about 155t.


Last time i heard Boeing discarded the idea of using AL-Li because it is way expensive and safes only around 2000 pounds of weight, or no more than 1% total weight. I didn´t read anything about the 777x using Al-Li past 2015, and at that time that was mostly "may use Al-Li", which it does, for Cargo floor beams. And if Alcoa puts out a press release over that, i am pretty sure there would be one over the whole fuselage being made out of it.
Is it made of Al-Li? In any case, it would not make the aircraft nearly as much lighter as you claim.

But once I looked at wing area, and convinced myself that the difference 1) is not big, and 2) is accounted for with the change to the folding wingtip and the design detail therein, not to mention the new wing is carbon fiber, I can't see any increase in weight due to the wing.


Funny. If you make the wing longer the bending moment goes up geometrically. You need a *much* stronger wing if you only make it a little longer, especially if you want to move the center of lift further out, which you want to do since you otherwise can just dump the longer wings and just put vertical winglets on it. Carbon fiber is strong, but not that strong.

If the 777-8x was so light, Qantas wouldn´t need a competition.Also, the 777-9 has a MZFW of 255,000 Kg, quite wasteful if it is so light, since airlines will have a hard time cramping more than 60.000kg payload into it..... 400 pax plus less than 40 LD3 are about 60 tons, why would Boeing plan an aircraft that can carry 5 or 10 or 15 tons more than you can conceivably load onto it? Let alone 30 useless tons of lift considering

Add to that an Al-Li fuselage, and there is no reason for a shorter, Al-Li fuselage 778 to be any heavier than a 165t 77W.


would give 90 tons structural payload, 20 tons more than the longer 77W. That does make no sense.

That is a pretty good indication that OEW will be 190 +/- change for the -9. Per your own assumption:

The 77W is a 10m stretch of the 77L. So 2t per meter of stretch, with the last 2t or so going to beef up the frame to carry 65 extra pax and their bags.

The 778 is 6m longer than the 77L. So 157t before the engines.


you would have the 778 at 176t +/- pocket change. Which also does make sense, because that would allow full tanks and a full long haul cabin at MTOW.

best regards
Thomas


Replying in reverse order . .

The analysts estimates for the 779 OEW are 185t to 188t. With the expectation that 185t will be the case going forward.
No one who is getting paid to analyze these things is saying 190t. I didn't speculate on the 779 because it is not the basis for Project Sunrise. But if I did speculate, it would be just over 175t.

Again, 190t is NOT MY NUMBER.

Seemingly high MZFW / MLW is appropriate for a plane carrying 52800 gallons of fuel on top of everything else. And there is no reason for 52800 gallons except for Project Sunrise. Personally, I think Boeing made some unusable volume usable, as Airbus did when turning the regular A359 to an A359ULR.

The article I referenced regarding Al-Li is from September 2017.

Boeing knows about carbon fiber panels from the A359 if nothing else. It is ridiculous to expect them to stand pat and accept so much OEW increase when there are viable options for doing something about it.

With regards to the wing, carbon fiber is that much better than Al in tension. And can be made to twist to the designer's desire under load. MTOW is not going up. There is no reason to add tons and tons of OEW to move the lifting load outbound. IF moving the lifting load caused all that weight, don't move it. Or move it much less.

With regards to carrying fuel, it has to be expected that the extra fuel capacity is coming from structural payload. From pax, bags, cargo. No need for a max structural payload increase over a 77W. Also no need for beefier landing gear. In fact, takeoff and landing speeds are going down, the main benefit of the longer wing.

And finally, the 778 is designed to be better than the 77W at any stage. Including takeoff. It is the direct replacement for the 77W.

I stand by 157t.


Side notes - With 300 pax in a 360 pax plane, Y should be small, and premium economy big. But still, 10 across in Y. People who want more room pay for premium economy. That's how you monetize.

The regular A35J will be around 155t, but as with the regular A359, there's not enough structural payload to carry the fuel and 300 pax. This time around it's the Boeing plane that has the more efficient engine. On the longest flight in the world. A35J MTOW has to go up to carry the necessary fuel. No way they fly 9500 nm or so (westbound polar routing with reserves) on 41000 gallons. The A35J gets ACTs to do Project Sunrise. MTOW goes up. So does OEW. Fuel economy goes down a little. Runway performance becomes meh at best (but no problem for Australia and not much problem for LHR takeoffs, which is the better direction anyway). But it still works. No other route except Australia to US East Coast is that far. No problems with taking off full into India airspace or the like.

I expect trip costs for these two to be similar when it's all said and done. The 778 having the better engine, and being built for this type of trip. Probably able to take some cargo if desired. But not more than 5% better than the A35J and more likely within a couple of percent. Which gets it down to cost. And the 778 will cost more to make.

And kessje referencing a Seeking Alpha article!!?!?!
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4715
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:40 pm

ewt340 wrote:
And cramming more seats into economy class is the main reason why airlines like Qantas provide premium economy. By creating comfortable economy class seat on B778, it would undermine premium economy market in that route for them. Unless they are planning to eliminate economy class completely like SQ's A350ULR, and replace it with semi-premium economy, I don't see 9-abreast on B777X happening. They keep 9-abreast config on their B787-9 for their PER-LHR flights.


The Project Sunrise brief is for 4 classes, 300 passengers. My guess (based on what they're currently doing) is something like 12F, around 50J, probably 28W, and 210Y.

I'd say it'll be 10 abreast in economy on the 777-8 if it wins the RFP.
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10802
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:01 pm

jagraham wrote:
It is ridiculous to expect them to stand pat and accept so much OEW increase when there are viable options for doing something about it.


It is in no way ridiculous, you can trade fuel savings via weight with fuel savings over efficiency. Boeing traded low OEW for an extremely efficient wing and engines, if they kept OEW low and got all the other improvements every other long haul plane would stop selling. The lots of extra seats would come way to cheap to not get them filled.
Boeing picked the point between the two where it burns the least fuel per payload for that basic design. If you make an old design more efficient, that seems to be the way to go. The A330neo has its wings extended quite a bit to compete with a clean sheet with shorter wingspan too.

IF moving the lifting load caused all that weight, don't move it. Or move it much less.


If you move the center of lift from, let's just pick random numbers, 10 to 13m out you are making the leverage 30% longer. With the same weight that increases forces quite a bit.
If you don't move it, you don't need folding wingtips, vertical winglets would do. Of course you also wouldn't get the same fuelburn reduction, but you don't get that either with the longer wings, without moving the center of lift. If Boeing didn't move center of lift out, there would not be folding wingtips.

With regards to carrying fuel, it has to be expected that the extra fuel capacity is coming from structural payload. From pax, bags, cargo. No need for a max structural payload increase over a 77W.


That was my point. 255t MZFW minus 77W payload is 185t. MZFW minus Payload = OEW.
Per your own argument, no need to increase structural payload over the 77W, the -9 Will have 185t OEW. Minus, again your 2t/m, 14t, you have 171t OEW for the -8.

The regular A35J will be around 155t, but as with the regular A359, there's not enough structural payload to carry the fuel and 300 pax.


Structural payload has nothing to do with fuel. Fuel doesn't pay, hence it ain't payload of any kind. Structural payload is what gets you to MZFW, neither the A351, nor the 777 can have MZFW and full tanks. The problem is that after tanking enough fuel to make the trip, there isnt enough payload to make it worth flying.
But 322-324t MTOW would do the trick and get what they want to fly to where they want to fly it, perhaps with 800~1000 or so Kg extra weight for a tank/s on board, no biggy if your OEW is 15-20t lower.
This may of course also mean that the -8 still burns less fuel on this ULH trip due to wing and engine, but takes flexibility out in turn. An A351 can hold its own against a -9 cost wise via lower weight when put on more benign rotations between the long ones, a -8 as a shorter version of the -9 can not. Exclusively using the frames on ULH would have them stand around doing nothing for quite a bit.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:21 pm

The 777-8 OEW 157t. and the 777-9 OEW 175t. Boeing started out at 777-9 OEW 190t (2011) and were at 188.2t a few years later (2014). We better tell Boeing the good news !

Seriously, I see prediction filled with hope, must be better than, Boeing knows, won't screw up, as substantiation.

It tried to find all sources and build from confirmed numbers.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1402165&start=150#p20696747

The 777-9 is somewhere 185-188t, says Boeing, & 777-8 is likely ~15t lighter, 170-173t.

Better dismiss / ignore / distract / troll if you're out of ammo & don't like the outcome?

From all I can see the 777-8 OEW will be in the 170-173t area, based on confirmed 185t-188t OEW for the 777-9. Maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more. Still versus the most likely competitor, the writing is on the wall. Also if one doesn't like it.

We really adore free market competition, don't we?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
jagraham
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:23 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
It is ridiculous to expect them to stand pat and accept so much OEW increase when there are viable options for doing something about it.


It is in no way ridiculous, you can trade fuel savings via weight with fuel savings over efficiency. Boeing traded low OEW for an extremely efficient wing and engines, if they kept OEW low and got all the other improvements every other long haul plane would stop selling. The lots of extra seats would come way to cheap to not get them filled.
Boeing picked the point between the two where it burns the least fuel per payload for that basic design. If you make an old design more efficient, that seems to be the way to go. The A330neo has its wings extended quite a bit to compete with a clean sheet with shorter wingspan too.

IF moving the lifting load caused all that weight, don't move it. Or move it much less.


If you move the center of lift from, let's just pick random numbers, 10 to 13m out you are making the leverage 30% longer. With the same weight that increases forces quite a bit.
If you don't move it, you don't need folding wingtips, vertical winglets would do. Of course you also wouldn't get the same fuelburn reduction, but you don't get that either with the longer wings, without moving the center of lift. If Boeing didn't move center of lift out, there would not be folding wingtips.

With regards to carrying fuel, it has to be expected that the extra fuel capacity is coming from structural payload. From pax, bags, cargo. No need for a max structural payload increase over a 77W.


That was my point. 255t MZFW minus 77W payload is 185t. MZFW minus Payload = OEW.
Per your own argument, no need to increase structural payload over the 77W, the -9 Will have 185t OEW. Minus, again your 2t/m, 14t, you have 171t OEW for the -8.

The regular A35J will be around 155t, but as with the regular A359, there's not enough structural payload to carry the fuel and 300 pax.


Structural payload has nothing to do with fuel. Fuel doesn't pay, hence it ain't payload of any kind. Structural payload is what gets you to MZFW, neither the A351, nor the 777 can have MZFW and full tanks. The problem is that after tanking enough fuel to make the trip, there isnt enough payload to make it worth flying.
But 322-324t MTOW would do the trick and get what they want to fly to where they want to fly it, perhaps with 800~1000 or so Kg extra weight for a tank/s on board, no biggy if your OEW is 15-20t lower.
This may of course also mean that the -8 still burns less fuel on this ULH trip due to wing and engine, but takes flexibility out in turn. An A351 can hold its own against a -9 cost wise via lower weight when put on more benign rotations between the long ones, a -8 as a shorter version of the -9 can not. Exclusively using the frames on ULH would have them stand around doing nothing for quite a bit.

Best regards
Thomas


255t MZFW is for the 779. 50 more passengers.
And yes you can extend the wings (when I say carbon fiber is better in tension, it can be up to 10x better by weight depending upon the particulars), get the higher aspect ratio and the resulting fuel savings, pick up some lift, and stop. Because 20 to 30 tons more OEW hurts bad on 20+ hour flights. Yes moving the lift outboard is better, but at some point not better enough to offset the weight gain. Which is the exact point you are making when you say the A35J is better because (according to Airbus marketing) it is 15 to 20 tons lighter. Boeing would be stupid to add that much OEW when they don't have to.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:30 pm

keesje wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
keesje wrote:
.
Determining 777-8 OEW, I expect the OEW of the 777-9 to be in the 185-188t area.

Image

source: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4074574-weighing-boeing-777minus-9
source: https://medium.com/o530-carris-pt-herald/boeing-777x-dimensions-matter-8e80dd601a83


For finding 777 fuselage weight one could reference, the 777-200LR- 777-300ER difference. The 777-300ER weighs 167.8t, the 772LR weighs 145.1, the lenght difference between the two is 10m.
source: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777/
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Specifications

With wings, engines, landings gears & sytems of the two aircraft weighing the same, a 777 fuselage weighs roughly 2.2t per meter.

A 777-8 is 6.9m shorter than a 777-9. It shares the same wing, engines, landing gear etc. with the 777-9.
source: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/

So the 777-8 fuselage weighs probably around 6.9m x 2.2t = 15.2t less than the 777-9 fuselage. That places the 777-8 OEW in the 170-173t area.

The A350-1000 has an OEW of around 155 t. For the A350-900LR, Airbus didn't have to increase A350-900OEW. But maybe they have to do some strenghtening for a A350-1000LR though. Let's assume a 2-3t higher OEW than the regular A350-1000; 157-158t.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB#Specifications

:arrow: This would make a A350-1000LR around 12-16t lighter than a 777-8.

In terms of seating capacity it is hard to say what would be the difference. The A350-1000 is a few meters longer, would Qantas put 10 abreast on the 777? Specifically on 15-20 hour flights?

Image
fake :wink2:




So let me get this straight. You're saying the 778, which is roughly the same size as the 77W, will weigh more than the 77W.

Interesting, because Boeing has said for several years the CFRP wing will be 5,000-10,000 lbs lighter. The body is a new alloy that Boeing has also said will be significantly lighter. I have not seen an estimate but an additional 5,000-10,000 lbs weight savings is probably reasonable. The engines we have been told will weight about 3,000 lbs more, but of course, they are much more efficient.

So by my rough math the 778 should weight 4t-14t less than the 77W. That would put the 778 about 10t lower than the figure you mentioned. Or very,very close to the A35K which will be somewhere around 160t with reinforcement to meet Project Sunrise criteria.

Look, if you want to believe Boeing is going to screw the pooch with the 777x program that is fine. But I see no reason to assume a 25 year update in technology will weigh more. That makes no sense unless Boeing does a massive screw up similar to the Airbus A345 A 346 disaster, and frankly, I don't see thàt happening.


Hi Elron, the 777-9 OEW reference numbers are from Boeing.
Lets take the official 2014 777-9 OEW (of 188t).

777-9:......... OEW~188t, lenght: 76.7m
777-300ER: OEW~168t, lenght: 73.9m
---------------------------------------------------- -
.............................. ~20t...............2.8m

Lenght difference between 777-300ER and 777-9 is counting for a ~6-7t part of the OEW difference (at ~ 2.2t per 777 fuselage meter).

Still it shows that the new wings, engines, pylon landing gears combined are a substantial OEW booster for the 777X versus the 777-300ER.



Where to begin.....


First, you use seeking alpha as a definitive source? Wow.....just.....wow. And second you keep referencing the 779 weight as though it is under consideration for Project Sunrise which it is not.

To make things as explicitly clear as possible, the competition is between the 778 and the 35K. The weight difference between the two will be negligible imho. Within 2-3t. The 778 appears to be better optimized for an ULH role. However, the fuel burn difference will also probably be very close.

So the question comes down to price, overall capability, engines, and factors to which all of us are likely unaware. This is Boeing's order to lose imho. The 35K was designed specifically as a 77W replacement. It does so very well.

The 778 was designed as an efficient ULH large capacity frame which is exactly what is needed for Project Sunrise. This type of mission is what the 778 was designed to do.

Your only logical assumption has to be Boeing screwed up and the 778 will not effectively do what it is designed to do. You could be right, but I would not bet the house on it.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10802
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:45 pm

jagraham"255t wrote:
MZFW is for the 779. 50 more passengers.


Where does Boeing say they are taking structure out of the -8 compared to the -9? It is just shorter, hence wing and wing box have the same limitation.
The -9 is also only 3 rows longer than the 300, not five, and that would be 30 passengers, 3t.
Keep in mind you said there is no need to lift more than the 77W.

And yes you can extend the wings (when I say carbon fiber is better in tension, it can be up to 10x better by weight depending upon the particulars),


And if wings only knew tension, that would be awesome. Unfortunately different parts of the wing are in tension, other in compression, and more unfortunately that reverses between flight and ground.

get the higher aspect ratio and the resulting fuel savings, pick up some lift, and stop.


When you pick up lift from the extended wing, you are already moving lift out.

Because 20 to 30 tons more OEW hurts bad on 20+ hour flights. Yes moving the lift outboard is better, but at some point not better enough to offset the weight gain. Which is the exact point you are making when you say the A35J is better because (according to Airbus marketing) it is 15 to 20 tons lighter. Boeing would be stupid to add that much OEW when they don't have to.


If it safes you more fuel to have those OEW increasing, fuel saving changes compared to than not having them safes fuel by lower weight, it makes still absolute sense to go the high OEW route.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:56 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
Where to begin.....

First, you use seeking alpha as a definitive source? Wow.....just.....wow. And second you keep referencing the 779 weight as though it is under consideration for Project Sunrise which it is not.

To make things as explicitly clear as possible, the competition is between the 778 and the 35K. The weight difference between the two will be negligible imho. Within 2-3t.


The 777-9 at ~188t, the 777-8 at ~158t? Where would the huge 30t difference come from?

What about backing up any of your, seemingly totally dreamed up, numbers? They lack any source, logic or technical substantiation. Your conclusion is set from the start & anything else is fake. Well, if makes folks feel better, ok :champagne: .
Last edited by keesje on Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9426
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:57 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
The -9 is also only 3 rows longer than the 300, not five, and that would be 30 passengers, 3t.

The 779 is only three rows longer but do remember that the overwing exits are also being deleted which frees up space in the cabin for at least another row (assuming the operator doesn’t go for the optional exit between doors 3 and 4).
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:22 pm

keesje wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Where to begin.....

First, you use seeking alpha as a definitive source? Wow.....just.....wow. And second you keep referencing the 779 weight as though it is under consideration for Project Sunrise which it is not.

To make things as explicitly clear as possible, the competition is between the 778 and the 35K. The weight difference between the two will be negligible imho. Within 2-3t.




Okay....whatever. Your intent as always is to bash anything Boeing. Many posters in this thread feel your OEW for the 778 are a gross exaggeration. I agree.

I have given clear and logical reasons why I think OEW will be much less than you are stating. You are free to see things differently.

However, your numbers are speculative. So try not to infer they are fact. Thanks.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
osupoke07
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:39 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:02 pm

marcelh wrote:
scbriml wrote:
I'm not sure what the heck any of this has to do with Qantas. :scratchching

Just the ordinary input of the BED (Boeing Enthusiasts Department) :biggrin:

Back on topic: I think both OEM will show Qantas a very capable airplane. I don’t think it’s just B778 versus A35K-ULR, but also what the possibilities are of the B779 or A359/A35K in the future Qantas fleet. So more a “package deal” instead of B778 versus A35K-ULR.


This is why I think the 778 has a better shot at winning. They already have 787, and can eventually bring in 779/10x to replace the A-380 on routes that don't need the capacity. A small fleet of only 10-15 778 doesn't make much sense, but a fleet family of 25-40 77X does.
MD82, MD83, MD88, B717, B732, B733, B735, B737, B738, B739, B752, B763, B77W, CR2, CR7, CR9, A320, A321
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26346
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:13 pm

Qantas also has 10 747-400 family frames they will be sending off by the end of the decade. While the official line appears to be they will be replaced with multiple 787-9 frequencies, the 777-9 could be a better option for routes where local curfews or the distances involved may favor a single frame rather than sending two within a very narrow time frame.
 
Swadian
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:15 pm

ClassicLover wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Back on topic: I think both OEM will show Qantas a very capable airplane. I don’t think it’s just B778 versus A35K-ULR, but also what the possibilities are of the B779 or A359/A35K in the future Qantas fleet. So more a “package deal” instead of B778 versus A35K-ULR.


You could right. It will be B777-8X vs A350-1000ULR as the competition for Project Sunrise. However, it is entirely possible other variants will also be ordered for other routes.

Though, having said that, the quotes from Qantas lead me to believe they want an aircraft that could do the long range Project Sunrise routes and also be efficient on shorter sectors. That says to me they don't want to go with various other versions (such as the B777-9X, A350-900).

So that begs the question then, which of the B777-8X and A350-1000ULR will be more efficient on shorter routes? My bet is the B777-8X as it will still have its full cargo hold space available and not taken up with extra fuel tanks as is what seems to be going to happen with the A350-1000.


I think they could still go with other versions, but the ULR aircraft would also be flying on shorter sectors. The 778 has common type rating with 789, so my bet's on 778 since A35K was not designed as ULR and probably needs more modifications. Surprisingly, A359 seems to be out.

QF will probably get rid of the LAX-JFK rotation and have AA handle the connecting traffic from LAX and DFW.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1035
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:39 pm

Swadian wrote:
ClassicLover wrote:
marcelh wrote:
I don’t think it’s just B778 versus A35K-ULR, but also what the possibilities are of the B779 or A359/A35K in the future Qantas fleet. So more a “package deal” instead of B778 versus A35K-ULR.

Though, having said that, the quotes from Qantas lead me to believe they want an aircraft that could do the long range Project Sunrise routes and also be efficient on shorter sectors. That says to me they don't want to go with various other versions (such as the B777-9X, A350-900).


I think they could still go with other versions, but the ULR aircraft would also be flying on shorter sectors. The 778 has common type rating with 789, so my bet's on 778 since A35K was not designed as ULR and probably needs more modifications. Surprisingly, A359 seems to be out.


I noted this earlier up the thread but to pull the quote in its entirety from the reuters article:

"Joyce told Reuters on Thursday the A350-1000 was the only Airbus jet that remained in contention for the Sydney-London mission, although the airline could combine that with orders for A350-900s for other routes if it selected the Airbus option."

So the A359 is not completely out of the picture and they seem to be open to a A359/A35K "package deal". No mention of the B779 however.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2909
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Maybe you are right and weight is not very important for lift/ induced drag. And the weight really makes possible the best engine and wing possible, more than compensating any possible disadvantages.

Or maybe you're trolling by misrepresenting my position. :wink2:

Par for the course.


Or maybe Keesje is ignorant about aerodynamics.
For example, maybe he thinks a bad automobile correlation of drag (frontal area is all that matters) works well for airplanes: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1388729#p20242839

And maybe/probably this post won't last long but still...
 
jagraham
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:02 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
jagraham"255t wrote:
MZFW is for the 779. 50 more passengers.


Where does Boeing say they are taking structure out of the -8 compared to the -9? It is just shorter, hence wing and wing box have the same limitation.
The -9 is also only 3 rows longer than the 300, not five, and that would be 30 passengers, 3t.
Keep in mind you said there is no need to lift more than the 77W.

Looking at the 77L vs 77W, MZFW for 77L is 209106 kg, 77W is 237682 kg. There is no reason to believe Boeing will do any different on the 77X models. Also, 77W seating for the defined configuration is 9 abreast in coach, whereas 77x is 10 abreast. This is how the seating increases so much without a comparable increase in length.



And yes you can extend the wings (when I say carbon fiber is better in tension, it can be up to 10x better by weight depending upon the particulars),


And if wings only knew tension, that would be awesome. Unfortunately different parts of the wing are in tension, other in compression, and more unfortunately that reverses between flight and ground.

While the tension reverses on the ground, the wings outside of the engine pylons are not holding weight. Also carbon fiber properly done is equal to up to 2x better than Al in compression. Not as much of an advantage as in tension, but not a disadvantage either.


get the higher aspect ratio and the resulting fuel savings, pick up some lift, and stop.


When you pick up lift from the extended wing, you are already moving lift out.

Because 20 to 30 tons more OEW hurts bad on 20+ hour flights. Yes moving the lift outboard is better, but at some point not better enough to offset the weight gain. Which is the exact point you are making when you say the A35J is better because (according to Airbus marketing) it is 15 to 20 tons lighter. Boeing would be stupid to add that much OEW when they don't have to.


If it safes you more fuel to have those OEW increasing, fuel saving changes compared to than not having them safes fuel by lower weight, it makes still absolute sense to go the high OEW route.

Therefore either the OEW goes a lot and there is massive fuel savings OR there are no massive fuel savings to be had so OEW doesn't go up.


Best regards
Thomas


With respect to analysis, the 778 is 4m shorter than a 77W. Fuselage weight will be 8t less before any improvements. The engines cause a 3t increase; outside of the wings, the net change should be a 2t reduction relative to a 77W. So where is this 20 or more tons of weight going?
Last edited by jagraham on Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26346
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:32 pm

Erebus wrote:
So the A359 is not completely out of the picture and they seem to be open to a A359/A35K "package deal". No mention of the B779 however.


Stands to reason QF is seriously evaluating both members of the 777X family just as they are both members of the A350 family even if they don't explicitly mention it.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:05 am

jagraham wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
jagraham"255t wrote:
MZFW is for the 779. 50 more passengers.


Where does Boeing say they are taking structure out of the -8 compared to the -9? It is just shorter, hence wing and wing box have the same limitation.
The -9 is also only 3 rows longer than the 300, not five, and that would be 30 passengers, 3t.
Keep in mind you said there is no need to lift more than the 77W.

Looking at the 77L vs 77W, MZFW for 77L is 209106 kg, 77W is 237682 kg. There is no reason to believe Boeing will do any different on the 77X models. Also, 77W seating for the defined configuration is 9 abreast in coach, whereas 77x is 10 abreast. This is how the seating increases so much without a comparable increase in length.



And yes you can extend the wings (when I say carbon fiber is better in tension, it can be up to 10x better by weight depending upon the particulars),


And if wings only knew tension, that would be awesome. Unfortunately different parts of the wing are in tension, other in compression, and more unfortunately that reverses between flight and ground.

While the tension reverses on the ground, the wings outside of the engine pylons are not holding weight. Also carbon fiber properly done is equal to up to 2x better than Al in compression. Not as much of an advantage as in tension, but not a disadvantage either.


get the higher aspect ratio and the resulting fuel savings, pick up some lift, and stop.


When you pick up lift from the extended wing, you are already moving lift out.

Because 20 to 30 tons more OEW hurts bad on 20+ hour flights. Yes moving the lift outboard is better, but at some point not better enough to offset the weight gain. Which is the exact point you are making when you say the A35J is better because (according to Airbus marketing) it is 15 to 20 tons lighter. Boeing would be stupid to add that much OEW when they don't have to.


If it safes you more fuel to have those OEW increasing, fuel saving changes compared to than not having them safes fuel by lower weight, it makes still absolute sense to go the high OEW route.

Therefore either the OEW goes a lot and there is massive fuel savings OR there are no massive fuel savings to be had so OEW doesn't go up.


Best regards
Thomas


With respect to analysis, the 778 is 4m shorter than a 77W. Fuselage weight will be 8t less before any improvements. The engines cause a 3t increase; outside of the wings, the net change should be a 2t reduction relative to a 77W. So where is this 20 or more tons of weight going?


I agree completely. And Boeing has indicated a 2-5t decrease in weight due to the CFRP wing.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
B764er
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:40 am

Quantas will do a PanAm move. They will buy 20 777's and 25 A350's. (LoL, Just kidding)
 
StudiodeKadent
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:43 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:32 am

B764er wrote:
Quantas


There. Is. No. U. In. Qantas.
 
ewt340
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:46 am

ClassicLover wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Back on topic: I think both OEM will show Qantas a very capable airplane. I don’t think it’s just B778 versus A35K-ULR, but also what the possibilities are of the B779 or A359/A35K in the future Qantas fleet. So more a “package deal” instead of B778 versus A35K-ULR.


You could right. It will be B777-8X vs A350-1000ULR as the competition for Project Sunrise. However, it is entirely possible other variants will also be ordered for other routes.

Though, having said that, the quotes from Qantas lead me to believe they want an aircraft that could do the long range Project Sunrise routes and also be efficient on shorter sectors. That says to me they don't want to go with various other versions (such as the B777-9X, A350-900).

So that begs the question then, which of the B777-8X and A350-1000ULR will be more efficient on shorter routes? My bet is the B777-8X as it will still have its full cargo hold space available and not taken up with extra fuel tanks as is what seems to be going to happen with the A350-1000.


Wouldn't the standard A350-900/-1000 be better for shorter non-ULR route?
On ULR flights, they don't use most of the cargo space. On shorter routes, A350-900/-1000 able to carry full cargo.

By this logic, combining standard A350-900/-1000 and the -1000ULR would be the best options for them? Especially since the -900ULR could be converted back to the standard -900. It would likely be the same converter feature for the -1000ULR.

Also, A350 are meant for Long-haul flights. The -900 can fly up to 8,100nm and the -1000 can fly up to 8,400 nautical miles. While the standard -8X can fly up to 8,690 nautical miles.

One of the main difference is that the -1000 is a stretch version while the -8X is a shrink version.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6943
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:45 am

B764er wrote:
Quantas will do a PanAm move. They will buy 20 777's and 25 A350's. (LoL, Just kidding)



Who?

Swadian wrote:
ClassicLover wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Back on topic: I think both OEM will show Qantas a very capable airplane. I don’t think it’s just B778 versus A35K-ULR, but also what the possibilities are of the B779 or A359/A35K in the future Qantas fleet. So more a “package deal” instead of B778 versus A35K-ULR.


You could right. It will be B777-8X vs A350-1000ULR as the competition for Project Sunrise. However, it is entirely possible other variants will also be ordered for other routes.

Though, having said that, the quotes from Qantas lead me to believe they want an aircraft that could do the long range Project Sunrise routes and also be efficient on shorter sectors. That says to me they don't want to go with various other versions (such as the B777-9X, A350-900).

So that begs the question then, which of the B777-8X and A350-1000ULR will be more efficient on shorter routes? My bet is the B777-8X as it will still have its full cargo hold space available and not taken up with extra fuel tanks as is what seems to be going to happen with the A350-1000.


I think they could still go with other versions, but the ULR aircraft would also be flying on shorter sectors. The 778 has common type rating with 789, so my bet's on 778 since A35K was not designed as ULR and probably needs more modifications. Surprisingly, A359 seems to be out.

QF will probably get rid of the LAX-JFK rotation and have AA handle the connecting traffic from LAX and DFW.


QF will do SYD-JFK non stop with what ever they order, they are most certainly looking at a 778/779 combo or A35JULH/A359.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12422
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:00 am

Kikko19 wrote:
What if B does the same trick of A and increase the range of the 779 making it LR?

There'd be almost zero reason for them to do that.

The A359ULR is limited by the 4wheel trucks on each of its main gear, which is the reason it doesn't have a higher weight than what's now offered on the standard A359, and thus has to trade payload for fuel storage. The A35K's 6truck bogey allows for far higher weight allowances, and gives Airbus more to work with, hence switching to it.

The same isn't the case with the 777s, as they share much more similar (thought not the same) gear structure, and thus similar weight allowances.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Eyad89
Posts: 626
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:08 am

LAX772LR wrote:

zero reason for them to do that.

The A359ULR is limited by the 4wheel trucks on each of its main gear, which is the reason it doesn't have a higher weight than what's now offered on the standard A359, and thus has to trade payload for fuel storage. The A35K's 6truck bogey allows for far higher weight allowances, and gives Airbus more to work with, hence switching to it.

The same isn't the case with the 777s, as they share much more similar (thought not the same) gear structure, and thus similar weight allowances.


I wonder why didn’t Airbus get the A359-ULR the same set of wheels as the A35K, that would’ve been a real ULR version. They must have thought about it at least ..
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12422
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:20 am

Eyad89 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
I wonder why didn’t Airbus get the A359-ULR the same set of wheels as the A35K, that would’ve been a real ULR version. They must have thought about it at least ..

They very publicly did.

In fact, their original ULH proposal was an A359 with the A35K gear and wingbox (basically, an A35K shrunk to A359 length) that would've had an initial MTOW offering of 298T (later increased to 308T) and a range of approx 10,500nm.

Its working names were A350R and A359R... but they quietly shelved it.

Now the official A359R is a regional offering. :(
Keesje refers to the original now as "A359XR," though I don't know if that was ever an official Airbus designation.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:02 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
I wonder why didn’t Airbus get the A359-ULR the same set of wheels as the A35K, that would’ve been a real ULR version. They must have thought about it at least ..

They very publicly did.

In fact, their original ULH proposal was an A359 with the A35K gear and wingbox (basically, an A35K shrunk to A359 length) that would've had an initial MTOW offering of 298T (later increased to 308T) and a range of approx 10,500nm.

Its working names were A350R and A359R... but they quietly shelved it.

Now the official A359R is a regional offering. :(
Keesje refers to the original now as "A359XR," though I don't know if that was ever an official Airbus designation.


No, I am only aware of A350R instead of A350XR back in the days.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26346
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:05 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Wouldn't the standard A350-900/-1000 be better for shorter non-ULR route?


Compared to the 777-8, yes. But the Qantas Group (QF+JQ) has a decent fleet of 787s that can handle those roles already and they continue to add to it. They also traditionally have not had a role for a long-haul plane sized around the A350-900 and they are now adding the 787-9 for that role so the A350-900 might be seen as superfluous since it's capacity and range advantage over the 787-9 is not very pronounced, especially for a carrier like QF.

They have also preferred four-engine frames for their high-capacity long-haul routes in part due to CASA's conservative attitude towards ETOPS. CASA is now becoming more liberal in that area which opens up more options for such a plane especially as the 747 fleet is being withdrawn. If the A350-1000 could do the ULR missions without ACTs, it would be a a very flexible frame for them as it could handle both ULR and non-ULR missions, trading fuel weight for payload weight on non-ULR and vice-versa on ULR. However, if they do need ACTs (especially multiple ones), that will likely impact the flexibility as I believe removal and installation is not a "quick change". So they would either have a mix of non-ULR and ULR each assigned to certain stage lengths or they would take a payload volume hit on the LR on shorter missions due to the presence of the ACTs.

That being said, if QF chooses the 777X family, they are effectively in the same boat flexibility-wise as having a mix of A35K and A35KLR frames since the 778 would primarily (if not exclusively) be used for ULR missions and the 777-9 on non-ULR. The 777-9 would be able to more closely match the 747-400 family passenger capacities, however, and would offer growth capability over the A350-1000.
 
jagraham
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:19 pm

Stitch wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Wouldn't the standard A350-900/-1000 be better for shorter non-ULR route?


Compared to the 777-8, yes. But the Qantas Group (QF+JQ) has a decent fleet of 787s that can handle those roles already and they continue to add to it. They also traditionally have not had a role for a long-haul plane sized around the A350-900 and they are now adding the 787-9 for that role so the A350-900 might be seen as superfluous since it's capacity and range advantage over the 787-9 is not very pronounced, especially for a carrier like QF.

They have also preferred four-engine frames for their high-capacity long-haul routes in part due to CASA's conservative attitude towards ETOPS. CASA is now becoming more liberal in that area which opens up more options for such a plane especially as the 747 fleet is being withdrawn. If the A350-1000 could do the ULR missions without ACTs, it would be a a very flexible frame for them as it could handle both ULR and non-ULR missions, trading fuel weight for payload weight on non-ULR and vice-versa on ULR. However, if they do need ACTs (especially multiple ones), that will likely impact the flexibility as I believe removal and installation is not a "quick change". So they would either have a mix of non-ULR and ULR each assigned to certain stage lengths or they would take a payload volume hit on the LR on shorter missions due to the presence of the ACTs.

That being said, if QF chooses the 777X family, they are effectively in the same boat flexibility-wise as having a mix of A35K and A35KLR frames since the 778 would primarily (if not exclusively) be used for ULR missions and the 777-9 on non-ULR. The 777-9 would be able to more closely match the 747-400 family passenger capacities, however, and would offer growth capability over the A350-1000.



Posed differently, if QF is truly ok with the 789 at 236 pax doing PER - LHR (7829 nm), how many 300 pax aircraft do they need? Right now they have 12 A380s, 10 744s, 10 A333s, and 6 789s. In addition to 18 A332s. If we assume the A380s stay, the 744s become 779s, that leaves the 10 A333s to be replaced with something seating 300 pax. Unless QF thinks that they can take more kangaroo route travelers away from EK with nonstops ..
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26346
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:32 pm

jagraham wrote:
Posed differently, if QF is truly ok with the 789 at 236 pax doing PER - LHR (7829 nm), how many 300 pax aircraft do they need? Right now they have 12 A380s, 10 744s, 10 A333s, and 6 789s. In addition to 18 A332s. If we assume the A380s stay, the 744s become 779s, that leaves the 10 A333s to be replaced with something seating 300 pax.


The most logical replacement for the A330-300 would be the 787-10 as it would hold more passengers and leverage the Group's existing 787-8 and 787-9 fleets.
 
jagraham
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:13 pm

I'm wondering how many Project Sunrise planes are needed when the 789 does PER - LHR everyday with a little cargo, on under 34000 gallons. Even though only 236 seats (I wonder how much of that is the desire to be premium heavy versus a need to save weight?). Not many routes are longer than PER - LHR.

As for the A333 replacement, I agree that the 78J is the best thing among new aircraft for what QF uses them for. But QF could do an AC and get some off-lease A333s at a much lower acquisition cost.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1035
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:40 am

LAX772LR wrote:
In fact, their original ULH proposal was an A359 with the A35K gear and wingbox (basically, an A35K shrunk to A359 length) that would've had an initial MTOW offering of 298T (later increased to 308T) and a range of approx 10,500nm.


What a monster of a plane that would have been. An AKL-LHR machine right there. :box:
 
moyangmm
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:36 am

Erebus wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
In fact, their original ULH proposal was an A359 with the A35K gear and wingbox (basically, an A35K shrunk to A359 length) that would've had an initial MTOW offering of 298T (later increased to 308T) and a range of approx 10,500nm.


What a monster of a plane that would have been. An AKL-LHR machine right there. :box:


I think the reason that A didn't eventually make it is that it would be a very niche plane like A340-500.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12422
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:52 am

Erebus wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
In fact, their original ULH proposal was an A359 with the A35K gear and wingbox (basically, an A35K shrunk to A359 length) that would've had an initial MTOW offering of 298T (later increased to 308T) and a range of approx 10,500nm.

What a monster of a plane that would have been. An AKL-LHR machine right there.

Indeed. The advertised range for the current A359ULR is about 700nm shorter than that.

The difference is that the original A359R would've been able to hit that range at typical loads and possibly even some cargo; however the current A359ULR gets that range by carrying about 100seats less what a "normal" A359 load would have, and swapping the payload weight for fuel.

Wish they would've made it... I was sorta holding out hope that this RFP would've gotten them to reconsider, but apparently they see the value in using the A35K frame as it is, without shrinking it to -900 proportions.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
cpd
Posts: 5993
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:10 am

The only problem with a plane of such long range is that people might not want to fly so far non stop. Something like a small bar or lounge area would be a necessity. Same with slightly more spacious seats that also recline a bit more.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12422
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:31 am

cpd wrote:
The only problem with a plane of such long range is that people might not want to fly so far non stop.

People are still repeating this in 2018? :roll:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:00 am

I think that rather than shouting to eachother whether QF will buy A35JULR or B778LR, we should be debating whether QF will have enough of a kangaroo route market left by 2023 when the project sunrise aircraft will be delivered.
The ME3 are constantly upgauging and more and more well-positioned Asian carriers are offering the route.
In 5 years there may not be much of a market left for QF, no matter how convenient the flight is.
So by then, perhaps even an A359 could be too much aircraft for the route.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12422
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:21 am

Waterbomber wrote:
whether QF will have enough of a kangaroo route market left by 2023 when the project sunrise aircraft will be delivered.
The ME3 are constantly upgauging and more and more well-positioned Asian carriers are offering the route.

You're basically describing the reasons that they WANT this such flight in the first place.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:08 am

Does anyone have a view on how these developments may affect any New Zealand decisions?

Clearly both aircraft could fly from Auckland to New York considering what has been said by Qantas.However that's not (quite) true of Auckland-London -but not far off.
I agree above that's it's about time people stopped saying 'nobody wants to fly these distances non stop',clearly they do and are doing.Particulary -but not exclusively in the more premium configurations.
Air New Zealand have stated their desires on the matter.Will they even 'package up' a deal with their neighbors?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6943
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:20 am

Waterbomber wrote:
I think that rather than shouting to eachother whether QF will buy A35JULR or B778LR, we should be debating whether QF will have enough of a kangaroo route market left by 2023 when the project sunrise aircraft will be delivered.
The ME3 are constantly upgauging and more and more well-positioned Asian carriers are offering the route.
In 5 years there may not be much of a market left for QF, no matter how convenient the flight is.
So by then, perhaps even an A359 could be too much aircraft for the route.



You have gone from saying they should configure an A380 with 350 seats a while back which may have been considered given its understood they only sell 355 DFW-SYD with 130 blocked seats, except LHR-SYD is at least 3 hrs longer than DFW-SYD and a 350 seat A380 would fall well short, to saying they might not be able to fill less than 300 on a 778 or A350, I’m not sure I follow.

Think yield in this case, it’s not about market share, the market itself is huge, QF are never going to be an airline that has probably even 10% market share on this route given how many carriers offer 1 stop options.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4988
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:21 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Waterbomber wrote:
whether QF will have enough of a kangaroo route market left by 2023 when the project sunrise aircraft will be delivered.
The ME3 are constantly upgauging and more and more well-positioned Asian carriers are offering the route.

You're basically describing the reasons that they WANT this such flight in the first place.

It's ALSO why the capacity being diverted from SIN/DXB, for connections to Europe, by the non stop from PER & future Project Sunrise capacity diversions from SYD & MEL [& BNE?] will most likely be made up by EK under the JV.

While QF is conservative and often slow to move, they are NOT stupid and know the Kangaroo route better than anybody else [except maybe BA]. The EK joint venture was in recognition of the facts Waterbomber mentioned and the ULH non stops are the next steps IF the technology has REALLY caught up with requirement. Lets ALL hope it has regardless of who supplies the hardware, otherwise QF is in deep sh*t again!

Gemuser
 
cpd
Posts: 5993
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:17 am

LAX772LR wrote:
cpd wrote:
The only problem with a plane of such long range is that people might not want to fly so far non stop.

People are still repeating this in 2018? :roll:

What exactly is your problem. You always do that, and you do that to everyone!

Av-geeks might love the idea of ultra long haul flying, but it's not that popular among everyone. I can find you a lot of people who don't like it.

Flying 14 hours is long enough in one plane. Even in business class, there is a point where you want to get off that plane. Long haul flying 12-14 hours or so is normal for me, then maybe another 6-7 hours on another plane. Getting off that plane and having a hotel stop over before getting on the next flight was excellent. I was flying business class, with my own money. I also get to go do some things in Dubai while I'm there.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:41 am

Cpd
Sorry he is right.Long distance point to point flights are now a proven commercial reality.He is NOT saying or even implying it's for everyone.Its simply a new -and more expensive- alternative to the one stopper.
If you had included the word 'some' before people then I doubt you would have got a reaction.
In fact the only thing that is new is that over time the distances involved in non stoppers are getting ever longer.There is no 'event horizon ' where suddenly nobody wants to fly non stop you know.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:30 am

jagraham wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
jagraham"255t wrote:
MZFW is for the 779. 50 more passengers.


Where does Boeing say they are taking structure out of the -8 compared to the -9? It is just shorter, hence wing and wing box have the same limitation.
The -9 is also only 3 rows longer than the 300, not five, and that would be 30 passengers, 3t.
Keep in mind you said there is no need to lift more than the 77W.

Looking at the 77L vs 77W, MZFW for 77L is 209106 kg, 77W is 237682 kg. There is no reason to believe Boeing will do any different on the 77X models. Also, 77W seating for the defined configuration is 9 abreast in coach, whereas 77x is 10 abreast. This is how the seating increases so much without a comparable increase in length.



And yes you can extend the wings (when I say carbon fiber is better in tension, it can be up to 10x better by weight depending upon the particulars),


And if wings only knew tension, that would be awesome. Unfortunately different parts of the wing are in tension, other in compression, and more unfortunately that reverses between flight and ground.

While the tension reverses on the ground, the wings outside of the engine pylons are not holding weight. Also carbon fiber properly done is equal to up to 2x better than Al in compression. Not as much of an advantage as in tension, but not a disadvantage either.


get the higher aspect ratio and the resulting fuel savings, pick up some lift, and stop.


When you pick up lift from the extended wing, you are already moving lift out.

Because 20 to 30 tons more OEW hurts bad on 20+ hour flights. Yes moving the lift outboard is better, but at some point not better enough to offset the weight gain. Which is the exact point you are making when you say the A35J is better because (according to Airbus marketing) it is 15 to 20 tons lighter. Boeing would be stupid to add that much OEW when they don't have to.


If it safes you more fuel to have those OEW increasing, fuel saving changes compared to than not having them safes fuel by lower weight, it makes still absolute sense to go the high OEW route.

Therefore either the OEW goes a lot and there is massive fuel savings OR there are no massive fuel savings to be had so OEW doesn't go up.


Best regards
Thomas


With respect to analysis, the 778 is 4m shorter than a 77W. Fuselage weight will be 8t less before any improvements. The engines cause a 3t increase; outside of the wings, the net change should be a 2t reduction relative to a 77W. So where is this 20 or more tons of weight going?


I'm happy to see we agree a meter of 777 fuselage probably weighs around 2 tonnes. Now we have to discuss 777-9 OEW. And why it is not 185-187t, down from it's original 190t, as many sources say.

Airbus used that 777-9x OEW 190t years back in their propaganda.. it would be great if we can simply debunk that with Boeing data!

https://goo.gl/images/CUiwbK
Last edited by keesje on Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
waly777
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:36 am

cpd wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
cpd wrote:
The only problem with a plane of such long range is that people might not want to fly so far non stop.

People are still repeating this in 2018? :roll:

What exactly is your problem. You always do that, and you do that to everyone!

Av-geeks might love the idea of ultra long haul flying, but it's not that popular among everyone. I can find you a lot of people who don't like it.

Flying 14 hours is long enough in one plane. Even in business class, there is a point where you want to get off that plane. Long haul flying 12-14 hours or so is normal for me, then maybe another 6-7 hours on another plane. Getting off that plane and having a hotel stop over before getting on the next flight was excellent. I was flying business class, with my own money. I also get to go do some things in Dubai while I'm there.


But yet, ULH has been doing quite well this decade and with the number of those growing, not shrinking. QF has obviously done their research and can see there is a substantial market of people willing to pay a premium to do non stop vs 1 stop with PER-LHR being an excellent test case.

The Aussies and Kiwis need to do long haul for most of their international journeys anyway and quite a number of them on this forum as well as others I've met elsewhere prefer a non stop if they can afford it. I personally could not sit that long in a plane except for a 1 time try, but neither you nor I are the target market here.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
waly777
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:39 am

keesje wrote:
jagraham wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Where does Boeing say they are taking structure out of the -8 compared to the -9? It is just shorter, hence wing and wing box have the same limitation.
The -9 is also only 3 rows longer than the 300, not five, and that would be 30 passengers, 3t.
Keep in mind you said there is no need to lift more than the 77W.






And if wings only knew tension, that would be awesome. Unfortunately different parts of the wing are in tension, other in compression, and more unfortunately that reverses between flight and ground.





When you pick up lift from the extended wing, you are already moving lift out.



If it safes you more fuel to have those OEW increasing, fuel saving changes compared to than not having them safes fuel by lower weight, it makes still absolute sense to go the high OEW route.



Best regards
Thomas


With respect to analysis, the 778 is 4m shorter than a 77W. Fuselage weight will be 8t less before any improvements. The engines cause a 3t increase; outside of the wings, the net change should be a 2t reduction relative to a 77W. So where is this 20 or more tons of weight going?


I'm happy to see you agree a a meter of 777 fuselage probably weighs around 2 tonnes. Now we have to discuss 777-9 OEW. And why it is not 185-187t, down from it's 190t, as many sources say.

Airbus used that 777-9x OEW 190t years back in their propaganda.. it would be great if we can simply debunk that with Boeing data!

https://goo.gl/images/CUiwbK


I assume you wouldn't take A350 or A380 OEW data from a Boeing slide as fact, you would dismiss it. So why would you do the opposite as fact? Knowing full well that competition always bloat the others figures with worse case scenarios to make their products look better in comparison.....
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10802
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:49 am

waly777 wrote:
keesje wrote:
jagraham wrote:

With respect to analysis, the 778 is 4m shorter than a 77W. Fuselage weight will be 8t less before any improvements. The engines cause a 3t increase; outside of the wings, the net change should be a 2t reduction relative to a 77W. So where is this 20 or more tons of weight going?


I'm happy to see you agree a a meter of 777 fuselage probably weighs around 2 tonnes. Now we have to discuss 777-9 OEW. And why it is not 185-187t, down from it's 190t, as many sources say.

Airbus used that 777-9x OEW 190t years back in their propaganda.. it would be great if we can simply debunk that with Boeing data!

https://goo.gl/images/CUiwbK


I assume you wouldn't take A350 or A380 OEW data from a Boeing slide as fact, you would dismiss it. So why would you do the opposite as fact? Knowing full well that competition always bloat the others figures with worse case scenarios to make their products look better in comparison.....


Because they make sense considering the known MZFW I'd say. 185t gives 70t payload. Boeing doesn't boast it has more payload than the 77W.
Hence 185t makes sense, significantly less does not.

Best regards
Thomas

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:18 pm

waly777 wrote:
keesje wrote:
jagraham wrote:

With respect to analysis, the 778 is 4m shorter than a 77W. Fuselage weight will be 8t less before any improvements. The engines cause a 3t increase; outside of the wings, the net change should be a 2t reduction relative to a 77W. So where is this 20 or more tons of weight going?


I'm happy to see you agree a a meter of 777 fuselage probably weighs around 2 tonnes. Now we have to discuss 777-9 OEW. And why it is not 185-187t, down from it's 190t, as many sources say.

Airbus used that 777-9x OEW 190t years back in their propaganda.. it would be great if we can simply debunk that with Boeing data!

https://goo.gl/images/CUiwbK


I assume you wouldn't take A350 or A380 OEW data from a Boeing slide as fact, you would dismiss it. So why would you do the opposite as fact? Knowing full well that competition always bloat the others figures with worse case scenarios to make their products look better in comparison.....


Oh, that's unfair. I've been providing other sources several times : https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1402165&start=150#p20696747

What I'm waiting for is the first credible sources, calculation, anything, showing us OEW of the 777-9 is more around 175t and 777-8 will be at 158t or so.

It seems I will be waiting for a very long time.. why folks try to discredit, generalize, change topic, anything, to get away from the 777X being heavy.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
cpd
Posts: 5993
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:09 pm

waly777 wrote:
cpd wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
People are still repeating this in 2018? :roll:

What exactly is your problem. You always do that, and you do that to everyone!

Av-geeks might love the idea of ultra long haul flying, but it's not that popular among everyone. I can find you a lot of people who don't like it.

Flying 14 hours is long enough in one plane. Even in business class, there is a point where you want to get off that plane. Long haul flying 12-14 hours or so is normal for me, then maybe another 6-7 hours on another plane. Getting off that plane and having a hotel stop over before getting on the next flight was excellent. I was flying business class, with my own money. I also get to go do some things in Dubai while I'm there.


But yet, ULH has been doing quite well this decade and with the number of those growing, not shrinking. QF has obviously done their research and can see there is a substantial market of people willing to pay a premium to do non stop vs 1 stop with PER-LHR being an excellent test case.

The Aussies and Kiwis need to do long haul for most of their international journeys anyway and quite a number of them on this forum as well as others I've met elsewhere prefer a non stop if they can afford it. I personally could not sit that long in a plane except for a 1 time try, but neither you nor I are the target market here.


I'm Australian. I can afford the non stop flying but since I'm in Sydney the current non-stop is irrelevant. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of ULH flying, but there has to be a trade off. Economy seating should be a bit more spacious, a bit more recline, a bit more leg room and importantly, softer padding on the seats.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3833
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:28 pm

ODwyerPW wrote:
I will say this... If the 778 loses this one, then it's a freighter only bird. I don't see allot of 200ER replacements/upgauging going the 778's way now that Airbus and Boeing have the 787 and A350 families.


I agree. The 777X was basically designed for exactly this mission. If the 777x loses this RFP then I think Boeing has a very serious problem on its hands,

Stitch wrote:
With respect, why does it have to be a "must win"? Unless QF plans to launch ULH operations across the globe, this order is said to be for what, 8-12 frames tops? Okay, that is 15% of the current order book (and that is said to be not iron-clad with Etihad's current financials), but even at best this is going to push the 778 to around 65 frames which is barely more than the 777-200LR managed.


Because Boeing designed and optimised the 777X for ULH operations. That is the aircraft's 'bread and butter' if you will. On non ULH flights the A350 and 787 crush the 777X on CASM. If it can't win orders for the ULH segment (and Qantas' Project is the 'big daddy' of ULH projects, where the 777X's advantages will be maximised as compared to the A350) then the project as a whole doesn't have a bright future. Qantas might be only intending to order a maximum of ~16 aircraft, but those orders are badly needed, with much of the 777X's orderbook in doubt as it is.


ewt340 wrote:
At this point, B778 looks more and more like A338neo don't you think?

True, but at least the A338neo is a more mainstream sized/priced aircraft in terms of future sales prospects. Theoretically at least.

redroo wrote:
The A380s days are numbered at qantas. The A380s are not loved by QF and they have publicly said it is cheaper to operate two 787s than one A380.


I should hope so, considering that the 787-9s take half the passengers and the aircraft is a generation newer.

Eyad89 wrote:
I wonder why didn’t Airbus get the A359-ULR the same set of wheels as the A35K, that would’ve been a real ULR version. They must have thought about it at least ..


They did consider it, but it was deemed unnecessary in the end. The A359's gear truck is lighter, obviously, so might as well stick to it meets the pavement loading requriements.

Stitch wrote:
Compared to the 777-8, yes. But the Qantas Group (QF+JQ) has a decent fleet of 787s that can handle those roles already and they continue to add to it. They also traditionally have not had a role for a long-haul plane sized around the A350-900 and they are now adding the 787-9 for that role so the A350-900 might be seen as superfluous since it's capacity and range advantage over the 787-9 is not very pronounced, especially for a carrier like QF.

Well, playing to everyone's strengths, ideally you'd have the 787-9 serving SYD/MEL/BNE to Asia and the A350-900 doing PER-LHR and SYD/MEL/BNE-LAX/SFO/YVR/DFW/ORD/SCL/JNB and then the A350-1000ULRs doing SYD-LHR/JFK/GRU. For Australia to Asia routes the 787-10 would be very, very good though.

The irony of QF having historically not had any 787-9/A350-900 sized aircraft in their fleet then suddenly potentially getting two types, would not be lost on me. :D


Stitch wrote:
The most logical replacement for the A330-300 would be the 787-10 as it would hold more passengers and leverage the Group's existing 787-8 and 787-9 fleets.


The A330-900 leverages the group's existing A330 infrastructure.


parapente wrote:
Does anyone have a view on how these developments may affect any New Zealand decisions?

Clearly both aircraft could fly from Auckland to New York considering what has been said by Qantas.However that's not (quite) true of Auckland-London -but not far off.
I agree above that's it's about time people stopped saying 'nobody wants to fly these distances non stop',clearly they do and are doing.Particulary -but not exclusively in the more premium configurations.
Air New Zealand have stated their desires on the matter.Will they even 'package up' a deal with their neighbors?


Air New Zealand's ambitions have been much more modest. Routes like AKL-ORD/NYC are just a logical extension of their existing expansion. There has never been any serious talk of a direct AKL-LHR service - other than to generate some media buzz. Both situations are similar with the OEM who wins the OFP being the likely provider of future, larger long haul aircraft. With Air New Zealand's RFP, the aircraft's "bread and butter" missions will be the 10-14 hour long haul services that the existing 77Es operate (with some Tasman/Pacific routes thrown in between).

keesje wrote:
It seems I will be waiting for a very long time.. why folks try to discredit, generalize, change topic, anything, to get away from the 777X being heavy.


Indeed. The gymnastics played by others here on this issue are interesting. At the end of the day Boeing made their bed; they decided to optimise the 777X for ULH flying and that has its costs (added weight). It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will be fascinating to see a final OEW figure for both the 777X aircraft.
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4715
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:42 pm

cpd wrote:
Av-geeks might love the idea of ultra long haul flying, but it's not that popular among everyone. I can find you a lot of people who don't like it.

Flying 14 hours is long enough in one plane. Even in business class, there is a point where you want to get off that plane. Long haul flying 12-14 hours or so is normal for me, then maybe another 6-7 hours on another plane. Getting off that plane and having a hotel stop over before getting on the next flight was excellent. I was flying business class, with my own money. I also get to go do some things in Dubai while I'm there.


Sure, a lot of people don't love ultra long haul, yet a lot of people do.

I've flown the 18 hours between Doha and Auckland twice with Qatar going to and from Sydney. In business class, ultra long haul is mighty fine. Movies, food, sleep - it's very fine indeed. Now in Economy I'd probably want to shoot myself, but in business it is divine.

There will always be people who don't like it, just as there will be people who do like it. Either way, making mention of the fact that "not everyone likes it" is a bit superfluous, isn't it?
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 30

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