RJMAZ
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 9:32 am

Eyad89 wrote:
It doesn't matter if the fuselage is 1 meter or 20 meters as long as the circulating air is distributed over a longer distance

Actually it does.

Lets take two aircraft with a 60m wingspan.
Aircraft A has a 2m wide fuselage
Aircraft B has a 10m wide fuselage a reduced height oval.

Now each wing on aircraft A's is 29m long. Each wing on aircraft B is 25m long. The longer wing will clearly produce more lift and result in a better lift to drag ratio. Total span is not very important.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 10:02 am

How many crew members would be required for such a long flight?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13659
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat May 11, 2019 10:03 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The longer wing will clearly produce more lift and result in a better lift to drag ratio. Total span is not very important.


I’m learning more about aerodynamics in this thread that I have learned in the previous 3-4 decades. :roll:
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13659
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat May 11, 2019 10:05 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
How many crew members would be required for such a long flight?


Interesting question, neither the regulator or the AIPA have indicated the number of crew they will be happy with.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 10:57 am

RJMAZ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Using my data? We’re you in my house last night?

My model doesn’t work like that. It does it in reverse and tells you what your takeoff weight needs to be based on the mission requirements. It isn’t as linear as you might think because of the hold at the end etc.

Your table gave all the information i needed to calculate it very accurately.

You had two A350-1000 calculations with both 147T and 150T DOW weights. Fuel burns during the flight DOW and payload does not. So a DOW increase or payload increase gives the same result.

A 3,000kg payload increase I can then use your table to see that this resulted in your takeoff weight increasing by only 4,765kg. So that is 1,765kg of extra fuel to carry an extra 3000kg of payload.

As the takeoff weight increased in the A350-1000 63% of the weight can go towards extra payload and 37% must go toward fuel to maintain range. You can do a linear extrapolation providing it is only a small amount.

Your 777-8 numbers showed 10T of takeoff weight remained before hitting MTOW. So that would mean 6,300kg of extra payload and 3,700kg of fuel could be carried to fly the same distance at MTOW.

With 36,300kg of payload in the 777-8 it would have have a much lower fuel burn per kg of payload.

With your best case 157T DOW and 33,000kg of payload you are hitting the 316T MTOW on the right column. The 777-8 still wins on fuel burn per kg of payload.

Now if you increase the MTOW of the A350-1000 to 320T then that would allow 2,500kg of extra payload and 1,500kg of fuel to maintain range. That puts the total payload up to 35,500kg. This equals the fuel burn per kg of the 36,300kg 777-8.

So you used some linear interpolation between two reference points from the A350 data and then extended that data untill it reached the MTOW. If it’s linear then that would be right I’d guess and although I’m 100% sure it isn’t linear I don’t know how far off it would be. How did you do extend the data for the 778X? We’d need to know how they were differing particularly in the 70min ‘reserve’ phase of flight as this weight is as you say just like payload for the money making part of the flight.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 12:20 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
If it’s linear then that would be right I’d guess and although I’m 100% sure it isn’t linear I don’t know how far off it would be. How did you do extend the data for the 778X?

You know it won't be far off.

You've provided data for 310T and 315T takeoff weights for the A350-1000. We can see which numbers increased with that 5T so I can comfortably predict the numbers for the next 5T for a 320T MTOW. Accuracy would be within a few hundred kilogram using linear. It's not like i'm going from 200T to 300T here.

Again you provided the numbers for the 778 at 341T weight. I explained perfectly how I calculated 778 numbers at 351T weight.
 
B764er
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 12:54 pm

I say they are getting both the A350 & 777x.
 
musman9853
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

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

Sat May 11, 2019 1:48 pm

musman9853 wrote:
Interesting, so I'm assuming Qantas can't have it's pilots fly the route under the current contract then?


The 777/A350 are not in the contract, nor are such long sectors.[/quote]
great, thanks!
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 2:18 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
If it’s linear then that would be right I’d guess and although I’m 100% sure it isn’t linear I don’t know how far off it would be. How did you do extend the data for the 778X?

You know it won't be far off.

You've provided data for 310T and 315T takeoff weights for the A350-1000. We can see which numbers increased with that 5T so I can comfortably predict the numbers for the next 5T for a 320T MTOW. Accuracy would be within a few hundred kilogram using linear. It's not like i'm going from 200T to 300T here.

Again you provided the numbers for the 778 at 341T weight. I explained perfectly how I calculated 778 numbers at 351T weight.

So you effectively a ad a proportion of fuel per value of payload till you reach MTOW? (37:63) surely that means the A351 maintains its slight advantage until it gets to its MTOW then the 778 closes the gap quickly and then takes over pretty quick as it has a little more head room dependent on DOW values used.

Sorry if I get that wrong, reading and keeping track on phone it’s hard.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 4:11 pm

zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The longer wing will clearly produce more lift and result in a better lift to drag ratio. Total span is not very important.


I’m learning more about aerodynamics in this thread that I have learned in the previous 3-4 decades. :roll:

Yes, this thread is so much better with high quality content and little of the usual A vs B bashing....

Thanks to all the contributors who have made this a quality thread.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6822
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sat May 11, 2019 5:32 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:
It carried 30t of payload and burned more fuel in the model therefore it burned more fuel per kg carried. You want to compare like for like then put an extra 5t in each.

Take both aircraft up to their MTOW using your data and the 777-8 still burns much less fuel per kg of payload. Despite the slightly higher trip burn for the 777-8 the extra payload available is higher percentage wise.


Using my data? We’re you in my house last night?

My model doesn’t work like that. It does it in reverse and tells you what your takeoff weight needs to be based on the mission requirements. It isn’t as linear as you might think because of the hold at the end etc. I could run it with a 40t payload but where is the evidence this is what QF are looking at? Humans might be time sensitive 2-3hrs over 24hr period but there isn’t much cargo that is.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You raise a good question.
I wouldn't be surprised by the 777-8 sporting superior payload at extreme range
My understanding though is that the A350-1000 actually has the bigger cabin (going down this thought route raises the spectre of 10-abreast on the 777-8 for 20-odd hours of course).
Provided the A350-1000 can carry the pax payload QF want, it's revenue should be right up there with the 777-8.
And all these will be passengers paying premium for the non-stop.

Any surplus used for cargo is likely to be far less lucrative per kg - I can't think of a more expensive way of carrying a kg of cargo than non-stop for 9 300Nm.
I'm pushed to think of a case where the 3-4 hours saved will justify the extra cost.

And should this marginal payload advantage only exist on this very longest of routes and is not replicated on the other shorter ULH routes (for example - I don't know), can the larger plane really justify its extra trip cost.

QF planners I guess are the ones best placed to answer this

Rgds
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 5:52 pm

Interesting information. My takeaway from all the excellent information provided is that the fuel burn for both frames is very very close for the Project Sunrise mission. The 778 can carry a bit more payload which theoretically can translate into more revenue or fuel reserve. Qantas initially said they wanted an aircraft that could carry 300 pax. If true, then a premium heavy configuration would add more weight. I am not sure how this will factor into the final decision.

This could certainly go either way. I expect it will be a package deal (i.e.) multiple aircraft other than just the Project Sunrise birds. Since Qantas already flies the 787 that could tip the scales unless Airbus offers a deal on the A339 for Asian regional routes. I have no idea how this will go. However, both planes look very good. I don't think Qantas could go wrong picking either one.
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
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

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

Sat May 11, 2019 6:17 pm

astuteman wrote:
My understanding though is that the A350-1000 actually has the bigger cabin (going down this thought route raises the spectre of 10-abreast on the 777-8 for 20-odd hours of course).
Provided the A350-1000 can carry the pax payload QF want, it's revenue should be right up there with the 777-8.
And all these will be passengers paying premium for the non-stop.


If we look at the distance between door 1 and door 4, the part of the cabin we can install passenger seats, the A350-1000 cabin is 4.57 meters (15 feet) longer than the 777-8 cabin. Calculated based on door positions listed in the Airbus and Boeing ACAPS.

This would probably mean a higher share of lay-flat business seats on the A350 in order to utilize that extra space, compared to a 777-8 (assuming same payload in kg).

Thanks to flipdewaf and zeke for their contributions to this excellent tread.
 
tealnz
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 6:27 pm

astuteman wrote:
Understandably there is a huge focus on SYD-LHR as it is the "holy grail" of ULH flights.
My understanding is that Project Sunrise is about ULH non-stops to all sorts of destinations, not just SYD-LHR - it's actually a principle, not a sector
We seem to be missing a fundamental then in what might be the biggest single factor swaying the decision - which frame is best suited to the balance of those ULH routes, of which SYD-LHR is the longest.

:checkmark: This point is too often overlooked. Sure, QF need to be able to do SYD/MEL-LHR with a commercially viable payload (250ish in a 300-seater?) But those are just two sectors out of potentially more than a dozen. Joyce has talked publicly of three ports of origin (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane) in addition to Perth. And destinations including Chicago, New York, Paris, Frankfurt and Sao Paulo/Rio in addition to London. I think we also have to count Dallas in this list - by most standards SYD/MEL-DFW is ULH. Count two sectors for each city pair.

Even assuming some sectors are launched or maintained by the 789s (eg PER-LHR) and that some city pairs don't get non-stop service (most of the potential Brisbane pairs I would guess) you can easily arrive at 20 potential sectors (10 city pairs). AJ has also signalled that the Sunrise fleet will also be useable on some Asian routes.

So it's not hard to see why the math driving the airframe selection will be dominated by sectors significantly shorter than SYD-LHR. That doesn't help the Boeing bid: any advantage the 778 can offer at the outer edge of the payload/range chart stands to be offset by the greater efficiency of the 35K on the shorter sectors such as NYC and ORD, not to mention premium-heavy Asian routes.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26203
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 6:54 pm

astuteman wrote:
My understanding is that Project Sunrise is about ULH non-stops to all sorts of destinations, not just SYD-LHR - it's actually a principle, not a sector
We seem to be missing a fundamental then in what might be the biggest single factor swaying the decision - which frame is best suited to the balance of those ULH routes, of which SYD-LHR is the longest.


Excellent point.

SYD-LHR alone is just too edge-case to justify a dedicated airframe. SQ and the A340-500 are proof enough of that. QF is going to want to use the frame on multiple routes to justify a larger fleet and the benefits a larger fleet brings (in both good times and bad).

The 777-8 is very much a tailor-made solution for Emirates, who would launch a VLH/ULH market with the 777-200LR, grow it to a (at times, payload-restricted) 777-300ER and finally grow it to a payload-unrestricted A380-800. The 777-8 gives them a 777-300ER's payload with a 777-200LR's range, so they no longer need to worry about payload restrictions on VLH/ULH sectors.

I believe the A350-900 and/or A350-1000 will work better for the entire VLH/ULH network QF is likely to operate than the 777-8 will and they will definitely work better for the LH network.

And honestly, the 777-8 may never see first flight. Etihad is already (effectively) out and I would not at all be surprised if Qatar swapped their -8s for -9s: I'd honestly be more surprised if they didn't swap them out. That just leaves Emirates and if the 777-9 "over-performs" in flight testing to the level the 777-300ER does, I could easily see Emirates convert the lot, as well. And even if they didn't, would Boeing go forward for just 35 frames? Yes, I know everyone assumes there will be a 777-8 freighter, but the 777 freighter is still plenty popular and fuel costs are not as important to cargo operators both due to utilization and the ability to impose fuel surcharges.

Even if the 777-8 pencils out slightly better, that uncertainty could sway QF into choosing the A350.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

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

Sat May 11, 2019 6:59 pm

Stitch wrote:
astuteman wrote:
My understanding is that Project Sunrise is about ULH non-stops to all sorts of destinations, not just SYD-LHR - it's actually a principle, not a sector
We seem to be missing a fundamental then in what might be the biggest single factor swaying the decision - which frame is best suited to the balance of those ULH routes, of which SYD-LHR is the longest.


Excellent point.

SYD-LHR alone is just too edge-case to justify a dedicated airframe. SQ and the A340-500 are proof enough of that. QF is going to want to use the frame on multiple routes to justify a larger fleet and the benefits a larger fleet brings (in both good times and bad).

The 777-8 is very much a tailor-made solution for Emirates, who would launch a VLH/ULH market with the 777-200LR, grow it to a (at times, payload-restricted) 777-300ER and finally grow it to a payload-unrestricted A380-800. The 777-8 gives them a 777-300ER's payload with a 777-200LR's range, so they no longer need to worry about payload restrictions on VLH/ULH sectors.

I believe the A350-900 and/or A350-1000 will work better for the entire VLH/ULH network QF is likely to operate than the 777-8 will and they will definitely work better for the LH network.

And honestly, the 777-8 may never see first flight. Etihad is already (effectively) out and I would not at all be surprised if Qatar swapped their -8s for -9s: I'd honestly be more surprised if they didn't swap them out. That just leaves Emirates and if the 777-9 "over-performs" in flight testing to the level the 777-300ER does, I could easily see Emirates convert the lot, as well. And even if they didn't, would Boeing go forward for just 35 frames? Yes, I know everyone assumes there will be a 777-8 freighter, but the 777 freighter is still plenty popular and fuel costs are not as important to cargo operators both due to utilization and the ability to impose fuel surcharges.

Even if the 777-8 pencils out slightly better, that uncertainty could sway QF into choosing the A350.


Interesting theory but in such case, there would be a single 777X model. I think 777-8 would still stay.
Or if they actually give up 777-8, then 777-10 might come true...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26203
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 7:29 pm

ITSTours wrote:
Interesting theory but in such case, there would be a single 777X model. I think 777-8 would still stay. Or if they actually give up 777-8, then 777-10 might come true...


The 777X program should be quite successful with just a single model. It is already the third most-popular model in the family based on sales and it seems to be a more compelling 777-300ER replacement than I gave it initial credit for, so I think it could hit 500 frames, putting it in the #2 spot behind the 777-300ER and ahead of the 777-200ER.

I am skeptical about a 777-10. I have always felt the 777-9 needed all the capacity it could get to keep it above future HGW versions of the A350-1000 so if Boeing could have made it an 80m frame at launch, they would have. I see the 777-10 as a redux of the 767-400ER - a compromised platform that would find no real market. Boeing is just going to have to constantly iterate on improving the aerodynamics and reducing the basic weight with GE iterating on lowering the SFC of the GE9X to keep it competitive over time (as they did with the 777-300ER / GE90-115B).
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 8:01 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
Interesting information. My takeaway from all the excellent information provided is that the fuel burn for both frames is very very close for the Project Sunrise mission. The 778 can carry a bit more payload which theoretically can translate into more revenue or fuel reserve. Qantas initially said they wanted an aircraft that could carry 300 pax. If true, then a premium heavy configuration would add more weight. I am not sure how this will factor into the final decision.

This could certainly go either way. I expect it will be a package deal (i.e.) multiple aircraft other than just the Project Sunrise birds. Since Qantas already flies the 787 that could tip the scales unless Airbus offers a deal on the A339 for Asian regional routes. I have no idea how this will go. However, both planes look very good. I don't think Qantas could go wrong picking either one.


First of all, the above comparison is not fair.
Considering that the A350-1000 data is based on the A350 making the trip in 15 minutes less than the B778, it can do the same trip in the same amount of time with a lower cost index, with an additional minimum 1.25% less fuel burn but likely more than 2% compared to the reference cost index.
So there you have another 2.5 tons of fuel savings.

The moment that you reduce the cost index, you start saving fuel very quickly.

In addition, the data underestimates the trip fuel for both types. On this kind of ULH routes, you are going to burn a lot of fuel the first 12 hours of the trip until you can get your weight down and climb higher to a more "optimum" flight level.
The above numbers are not realistic.
An A359 on 12 hour missions doesn't get below 6 tons per hour average, so an A350-1000 with a higher MTOW on a 20 hour mission is going to burn a bit more than 6.6 tons per hour.

I would say a 140 tons ballpark for the A350-1000 and 150 tons ballpark for the B778 are more plausible unless you want to cruise with a very low cost index.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1326
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

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

Sat May 11, 2019 8:07 pm

ITSTours wrote:

Interesting theory but in such case, there would be a single 777X model. I think 777-8 would still stay.
Or if they actually give up 777-8, then 777-10 might come true...


Airbus dropped the 358, there is no reason to think Boeing would not do the same to the 778 if orders dried up or converted to the larger frame in the family
 
aryonoco
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

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

Sat May 11, 2019 11:58 pm

moa999 wrote:
BA (or VS) could well pick up the same aircraft as QF, but I doubt the losing manufacturer would go forward with the design without QF.



Which is why I think the winning manufacturer might swallow a bit of a development cost and tight margins on QF's order itself, because surely the same Project Sunrise aircraft can be marketed to other airlines. Though QF is a unique airline with a unique profile, I can see others, whether it be LH or VS or SQ being interested in such an aircraft. Project Sunrise itself might be only 8 aircrafts, but if say Airbus builds this A350-1000 ULH, I can easily see three of four dozen of them flying across the world in the next decade.
 
smartplane
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sun May 12, 2019 12:02 am

JerseyFlyer wrote:
ITSTours wrote:

Interesting theory but in such case, there would be a single 777X model. I think 777-8 would still stay.
Or if they actually give up 777-8, then 777-10 might come true...


Airbus dropped the 358, there is no reason to think Boeing would not do the same to the 778 if orders dried up or converted to the larger frame in the family

Dropping the 778 might allow Boeing to offer a second wing / landing gear option for the 787, and perhaps an -11, moving into 778 territory.

Profitability per air frame for the 787 family is many magnitudes greater than the 777X is ever likely to reach.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 12:16 am

flipdewaf wrote:
I’ve definitely thought about translating into something a bit faster. The problem I have is that it has grown somewhat ‘organically’ to where it is.


Yes I'm definitely familiar with how spreadsheets can grow from something small and benign into a a gigantic monstrosity! :D


Other people get paid for what I do for fun.

I get paid for what other people do for fun.


As someone who writes some open source code on the weekend that sometimes ends up being taken up and used by other people, I know what that feels like.
 
User avatar
kmz
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:55 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 1:41 am

Now one thing we haven't brought up yet is the window size: will it play a role for QF...?

Also i do enjoy nothing more than a window seat, i feel i am often the only one. Even more, people close shades just after take off.

Now project sun rise with big windows does make sense, especially for marketing!

But i really don't understand why boeing spend so much money increasing already big windows while everyone just stares at their screens....
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1635
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 2:38 am

smartplane wrote:
Dropping the 778 might allow Boeing to offer a second wing / landing gear option for the 787, and perhaps an -11, moving into 778 territory.

Profitability per air frame for the 787 family is many magnitudes greater than the 777X is ever likely to reach.



There is a possibility that while profitability of the 787 increases, that would be tempered by having a one family aircraft at the high end of the capacity range. If Boeing sees a slowing of demand for the 779 then it could mean that everything just about stays where they are. They are more profitable with the 787 but less than projected with the 777X.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 9:19 am

flipdewaf wrote:
So you effectively a ad a proportion of fuel per value of payload till you reach MTOW? (37:63) surely that means the A351 maintains its slight advantage until it gets to its MTOW then the 778 closes the gap quickly and then takes over pretty quick as it has a little more head room dependent on DOW values used.

That is 100% correct. The A350-1000 maintains advantage up to its MTOW. But the A350 will be oeperating at MTOW most of the year. There will be days where it will need to tank extra fuel and it will have to reduce payload. This is the point where the 777-8 has taken over with the best fuel burn per kg of payload.

That extra say 5T of capability of the 777-8 can be used for extra fuel. There will be lots of days where the flights need to tank an extra 2T of fuel, there will even be bad weather days where the flight needs to tank 4T of extra fuel. If the A350-1000 is maxed out on an average day then this results in blocked seats on a below average day. Blocked seats kill routes.

Also the 777-8 could always carry 2T of extra fuel reserve as weather can change midflight. The A350-1000 might have to divert for fuel 1 in every 100 flights. The 777-8 might have to divert for fuel 1 in every 300 flights. A diverted flight costs BIG money.

astuteman wrote:
Any surplus used for cargo is likely to be far less lucrative per kg - I can't think of a more expensive way of carrying a kg of cargo than non-stop for 9 300Nm.
I'm pushed to think of a case where the 3-4 hours saved will justify the extra cost.

Qantas could capture a lot of express freight that might be currently going through other carriers. So for most of the year that little bit of extra capability can earn some money.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13659
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun May 12, 2019 10:05 am

Lucky Qantas doesn’t need to pay for the higher cost of aircraft, crew, navigation charges, landing fees, maintenance etc which all higher with a larger/slower aircraft.

Every other airline has to factor this in apart from Qantas apparently.

There was another aircraft in recent history which had the capability to lift more payload than similar sized aircraft, industry went for the more flexible aircraft, not for the aircraft the lifted more payload.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 10:23 am

zeke wrote:
Lucky Qantas doesn’t need to pay for the higher cost of aircraft, crew, navigation charges, landing fees, maintenance etc which all higher with a larger/slower aircraft.

Qantas operate 787's which share a type rating with the 777. Pilot training would then be cheaper with the 777X. Rolls Royce has fairly poor reliability as of late so I'd put my money on the GE engines being much cheaper to maintain.

zeke wrote:
There was another aircraft in recent history which had the capability to lift more payload than similar sized aircraft, industry went for the more flexible aircraft, not for the aircraft the lifted more payload.

The sales are actually quite close.

Yes the A350-900 is slightly heavier and can lift more payload than the 787-9 which is similar in size. But the orders are like 700 vs 800 in favour of the 787-9.

This shows the heavier frame with slightly higher payload range can still sell well.

787-9 vs A350-900
A350-1000 vs 777-8

In both cases one is slightly heavier with slightly better payload range. I have seen you often argue to why the heavier A350-900 is better than the 787-9. That same argument can be used word for word to explain why the 777-8 would be better than the A350-1000
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 10:44 am

RJMAZ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
So you effectively a ad a proportion of fuel per value of payload till you reach MTOW? (37:63) surely that means the A351 maintains its slight advantage until it gets to its MTOW then the 778 closes the gap quickly and then takes over pretty quick as it has a little more head room dependent on DOW values used.

That is 100% correct. The A350-1000 maintains advantage up to its MTOW. But the A350 will be oeperating at MTOW most of the year. There will be days where it will need to tank extra fuel and it will have to reduce payload. This is the point where the 777-8 has taken over with the best fuel burn per kg of payload.

That extra say 5T of capability of the 777-8 can be used for extra fuel. There will be lots of days where the flights need to tank an extra 2T of fuel, there will even be bad weather days where the flight needs to tank 4T of extra fuel. If the A350-1000 is maxed out on an average day then this results in blocked seats on a below average day. Blocked seats kill routes.

Also the 777-8 could always carry 2T of extra fuel reserve as weather can change midflight. The A350-1000 might have to divert for fuel 1 in every 100 flights. The 777-8 might have to divert for fuel 1 in every 300 flights. A diverted flight costs BIG money.

astuteman wrote:
Any surplus used for cargo is likely to be far less lucrative per kg - I can't think of a more expensive way of carrying a kg of cargo than non-stop for 9 300Nm.
I'm pushed to think of a case where the 3-4 hours saved will justify the extra cost.

Qantas could capture a lot of express freight that might be currently going through other carriers. So for most of the year that little bit of extra capability can earn some money.

The flights were modelled with a 20kt head wind, I’m not sure what is reasonable for a flight like this but my assumption would be that it’s less important in terms of percentage increase in time/distance than a shorter flight due to a higher number of significantly different route options to take advantage/reduce disadvantage of the winds. I think it works out at 59kts consistent direct headwind it would make more sense to fly the opposite to the great circle route.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
moa999
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Qantas operate 787's which share a type rating with the 777. Pilot training would then be cheaper with the 777X.


Also operate a lot more 330s (28 in all) which have common ratings with the 350.
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en ... ining.html

And they will likely be considering retiring the first 332s at the time Sunrise aircraft begin deliveries.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13659
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun May 12, 2019 11:01 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Qantas operate 787's which share a type rating with the 777. Pilot training would then be cheaper with the 777X.


QF also have A330s, which is a common type rating with the A350. They also have A380s which can MFF with the A350.

Neither the A350 or 777 is on the pilot contract.

RJMAZ wrote:
Rolls Royce has fairly poor reliability as of late so I'd put my money on the GE engines being much cheaper to maintain.


Hogwash on the reliability, the Trent XWB is very reliable.

Show us the proof that the GE9X will be cheaper to maintain, otherwise retract the statement as being more made up hogwash.

zeke wrote:
Yes the A350-900 is slightly heavier and can lift more payload than the 787-9 which is similar in size. But the orders are like 700 vs 800 in favour of the 787-9.


I was actually referring to the A340-600 vs the 77W. The A340-600 would lift more payload than the 77W long haul, but more often than not airlines never fill aircraft up 100%.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ryanair01
Posts: 394
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:27 pm

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

Sun May 12, 2019 12:12 pm

I don't think payload volume is the driving factor, I think the question will be what yield per pound can they bank on?

The UK-Australia market is fairly unusual in lots of ways. One particular feature is when travelling such a long way it is expensive for passengers (and shippers) which means many people become unusually costs sensitive (even if they're not normally). So I suspect only a relatively small proportion of the market would pay a premium for non stop flights. Project Sunrise is about chasing the top end of yield.

There's a lot of history to QF's needs here. In short both BA and QF got badly hit by ME3 competition back in 747-400 days, because the ME3 (mainly Emirates) undercut on cost which is important for such a long trip, because 'cheap' is still 'a lot' of money to pay. BA and QF took different approaches of which BA's worked and QF's didn't.

BA went with a 300 seater premium heavy 777 solution and made money; QF went with the volume driven A380 and lost money for nearly a decade on LHR - which is hard to do (you can Google search these statements to check they're accurate, which they are). So when QF said they wanted a 300 seat LHR solution, but with the unique selling point of a non stop flight, it's not too hard to see where half their inspiration came from. The vast majority of people who fly between the UK and Australia make connecting flights via hubs because those 'connections' are usually cheaper, BA & QF's direct one stop flights are only a very small part of the market.

Project Sunrise is about chasing that top end market by offering a 'unique' quality point, a non stop flight. That cuts that BA/QF subgroup down even further. If QF think 300 seats works, but neither manufacturer can deliver that, the question becomes 'how much' will 'enough' people spend and can costs be kept low enough to make it pay.

As a 777 fan, unfortunately that in my view favours the A350 for three reasons:
1. The 777's strength is extra payload, which isn't QF's key driver. That extra payload comes at a cost in terms of crew/navigation etc etc and the market might not be big enough to sell that extra payload profitably.
2. The 777 costs more to buy (apparently, but who really knows what the deal might be?)
3. The A350-1000 has 3-4 times more aircraft on order, it is alive, well and performance (all be it not of this variant) can be judged. Not many people want the 777-8 with just 53 on order (of which the EY proportion looks unlikely to fly). Unfortunately not many people would be shocked if the 777-8 never flew or ended up being the unwanted A340-500 of Boeing's programme.

Each one of those points creates extra risk. QF would be wise to de-risk Project Sunrise, which is already pretty risky, as far as they can.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17067
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sun May 12, 2019 12:32 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Qantas operate 787's which share a type rating with the 777. Pilot training would then be cheaper with the 777X.


This is a pointless argument - QF also operates A330s and A380s, so pilot training costs will be a wash.

RJMAZ wrote:
Rolls Royce has fairly poor reliability as of late so I'd put my money on the GE engines being much cheaper to maintain.


Another non-argument - the Trent XWB has been very reliable and GE9X maintenance costs are so far unknown.
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.
 
tomcat
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 12:54 pm

ITSTours wrote:
Stitch wrote:
astuteman wrote:
My understanding is that Project Sunrise is about ULH non-stops to all sorts of destinations, not just SYD-LHR - it's actually a principle, not a sector
We seem to be missing a fundamental then in what might be the biggest single factor swaying the decision - which frame is best suited to the balance of those ULH routes, of which SYD-LHR is the longest.


Excellent point.

SYD-LHR alone is just too edge-case to justify a dedicated airframe. SQ and the A340-500 are proof enough of that. QF is going to want to use the frame on multiple routes to justify a larger fleet and the benefits a larger fleet brings (in both good times and bad).

The 777-8 is very much a tailor-made solution for Emirates, who would launch a VLH/ULH market with the 777-200LR, grow it to a (at times, payload-restricted) 777-300ER and finally grow it to a payload-unrestricted A380-800. The 777-8 gives them a 777-300ER's payload with a 777-200LR's range, so they no longer need to worry about payload restrictions on VLH/ULH sectors.

I believe the A350-900 and/or A350-1000 will work better for the entire VLH/ULH network QF is likely to operate than the 777-8 will and they will definitely work better for the LH network.

And honestly, the 777-8 may never see first flight. Etihad is already (effectively) out and I would not at all be surprised if Qatar swapped their -8s for -9s: I'd honestly be more surprised if they didn't swap them out. That just leaves Emirates and if the 777-9 "over-performs" in flight testing to the level the 777-300ER does, I could easily see Emirates convert the lot, as well. And even if they didn't, would Boeing go forward for just 35 frames? Yes, I know everyone assumes there will be a 777-8 freighter, but the 777 freighter is still plenty popular and fuel costs are not as important to cargo operators both due to utilization and the ability to impose fuel surcharges.

Even if the 777-8 pencils out slightly better, that uncertainty could sway QF into choosing the A350.


Interesting theory but in such case, there would be a single 777X model. I think 777-8 would still stay.
Or if they actually give up 777-8, then 777-10 might come true...


Before considering that the 777-8 might never be built, I would consider that it will most probably be offered as a freighter at some point. This alone could justify the existence of the -8. In absence of -8F, it would mean that Boeing would rely on the -200LRF for the decades to come in this market segment. I don't believe that it will be the case as they are unlikely to take the risk to loose this market segment to Airbus.

About the frame selection for the Project Sunrise, it is also possible that the Boeing proposal would come as a -8 and -9 combo. The -8 would cover the extreme ULH sectors, out of reach of the -9, while the remaining sectors would go to the -9. This scenario depends on the actual requirements of QF going forward: do they still see a need for a VLA in their fleet?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun May 12, 2019 1:04 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
What are thorniresistors? What is qubit plasma flow?
I don't know how those relate to aerodynamics, would like to learn.

I think they are a bit like turbo encabulators.

but they work via vogon entanglement and spin sharing. ( why you need sets of two :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 437
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 2:30 pm

Stitch wrote:

I believe the A350-900 and/or A350-1000 will work better for the entire VLH/ULH network QF is likely to operate than the 777-8 will and they will definitely work better for the LH network.

And honestly, the 777-8 may never see first flight. Etihad is already (effectively) out and I would not at all be surprised if Qatar swapped their -8s for -9s: I'd honestly be more surprised if they didn't swap them out. That just leaves Emirates and if the 777-9 "over-performs" in flight testing to the level the 777-300ER does, I could easily see Emirates convert the lot, as well. And even if they didn't, would Boeing go forward for just 35 frames? Yes, I know everyone assumes there will be a 777-8 freighter, but the 777 freighter is still plenty popular and fuel costs are not as important to cargo operators both due to utilization and the ability to impose fuel surcharges.

Even if the 777-8 pencils out slightly better, that uncertainty could sway QF into choosing the A350.

If QF chooses the A350 for Project Sunrise, then I wouldn't be surprised if the A350-1000 comes back into play for EK for its ULH routes. If the A350 can do (almost) the payload of the 777-8 more economically, then maybe an A350-900/-1000 and 777-9 fleet at the upper end would also work out well.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13659
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun May 12, 2019 3:41 pm

WIederling wrote:
but they work via vogon entanglement and spin sharing. ( why you need sets of two :-)


One each polarised for the Northern and Southern Hemisphere.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 3:56 pm

zeke wrote:
Show us the proof that the GE9X will be cheaper to maintain, otherwise retract the statement as being more made up hogwash.
You are the one that brought up maintainance cost in the first place, that the A350 will be cheaper. Then you ask me to provide proof.

How about you provide proof. All of the Rolls Royce engine failures does not help your argument. An Iberia Airbus A350 had an engine failure with an XWB engine..

zeke wrote:
I was actually referring to the A340-600 vs the 77W. The A340-600 would lift more payload than the 77W long haul, but more often than not airlines never fill aircraft up 100%.

Quad versus twin? You are really are really grasping at straws here..

I just can't believe how hipocritical you are. You always say the A350-900 is better than the 787-9 because it can lift more, that the extra weight of the A350 is not an issue because it has a bigger wing. All of this applies to the 777X.

Now you say the lighter plane with the smaller wing is better. I'm sure I am not the only one that can detect a heavy bias.
 
EChid
Posts: 524
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:00 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 3:59 pm

Ryanair01 wrote:
I don't think payload volume is the driving factor, I think the question will be what yield per pound can they bank on?

The UK-Australia market is fairly unusual in lots of ways. One particular feature is when travelling such a long way it is expensive for passengers (and shippers) which means many people become unusually costs sensitive (even if they're not normally). So I suspect only a relatively small proportion of the market would pay a premium for non stop flights. Project Sunrise is about chasing the top end of yield.

There's a lot of history to QF's needs here. In short both BA and QF got badly hit by ME3 competition back in 747-400 days, because the ME3 (mainly Emirates) undercut on cost which is important for such a long trip, because 'cheap' is still 'a lot' of money to pay. BA and QF took different approaches of which BA's worked and QF's didn't.

BA went with a 300 seater premium heavy 777 solution and made money; QF went with the volume driven A380 and lost money for nearly a decade on LHR - which is hard to do (you can Google search these statements to check they're accurate, which they are). So when QF said they wanted a 300 seat LHR solution, but with the unique selling point of a non stop flight, it's not too hard to see where half their inspiration came from. The vast majority of people who fly between the UK and Australia make connecting flights via hubs because those 'connections' are usually cheaper, BA & QF's direct one stop flights are only a very small part of the market.

Project Sunrise is about chasing that top end market by offering a 'unique' quality point, a non stop flight. That cuts that BA/QF subgroup down even further. If QF think 300 seats works, but neither manufacturer can deliver that, the question becomes 'how much' will 'enough' people spend and can costs be kept low enough to make it pay.

As a 777 fan, unfortunately that in my view favours the A350 for three reasons:
1. The 777's strength is extra payload, which isn't QF's key driver. That extra payload comes at a cost in terms of crew/navigation etc etc and the market might not be big enough to sell that extra payload profitably.
2. The 777 costs more to buy (apparently, but who really knows what the deal might be?)
3. The A350-1000 has 3-4 times more aircraft on order, it is alive, well and performance (all be it not of this variant) can be judged. Not many people want the 777-8 with just 53 on order (of which the EY proportion looks unlikely to fly). Unfortunately not many people would be shocked if the 777-8 never flew or ended up being the unwanted A340-500 of Boeing's programme.

Each one of those points creates extra risk. QF would be wise to de-risk Project Sunrise, which is already pretty risky, as far as they can.

4. QF wants multifunctionality out of their fleet, so it needs to also be economical on shorter routes. Here, again, the 350 would win out.

As for the 'losing money for a decade' I did a Google search and was unable to find indication of this. Can you provide a link? Qantas masterfully aligned themselves with EK, which as far as I know helped to control capacity on the route. If the A380 was the cause of a lack of profit on the LHR route, would they not have just operated something else? They still had plenty of 747s at the time, and could have flipped the route to a 787 stopping in SIN if the aircraft was the cause. Something doesn't quite seem right there...

Also, I don't actually think that people on this route ARE that money sensitive. There are no LCCs or ULCCs operating the route (unless you switch to Jetstar or Scoot in SIN, which is quite rare). High costs are expected by even the economy flier. Most Australians don't expect to make it to Europe for much less than $2,000 AUD. Business Class is almost always well north of $6000 AUD, even for the less competitive airlines (Malaysia, Garuda, etc.). As well, Australians are routinely more aware of airlines they like and stopover airports they like (SIN, HKG, not so much for DXB, AUH, etc.), so they'll be more selective if the price only varies by a certain amount. I would say this is a much less price sensitive market than many others, especially TATL.
2018: DRW-PER-HKG-ICN-MEL-AVV-BNE-OOL-SYD-YYZ-YYZ-YUL-YVR-PDX-SEA-SFO-PEK-KIX-CDG-IST-NRT-HND-BKK-FAT; AC J-TK J-OZ F-DL F-TG J/F-NH J/F-CX J-VA J
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26203
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sun May 12, 2019 4:10 pm

tomcat wrote:
Before considering that the 777-8 might never be built, I would consider that it will most probably be offered as a freighter at some point. This alone could justify the existence of the -8.


The bulk of engineering work on the -9 is probably done by now with the frame in production and preparing to enter flight-test. Considering the -8's EIS is 2021/2022, a fair bit of the engineering work has likely been done for it, as well, so Boeing could forgo production while still being in a position to restart it, later. We saw this with the 777-200LR, whose development and EIS was halted for a number of years due to lack of interest / insufficient orders. So Boeing could continue engineering the freighter and should market conditions warrant it, launch it and put it into production.



tomcat wrote:
In absence of -8F, it would mean that Boeing would rely on the -200LRF for the decades to come in this market segment. I don't believe that it will be the case as they are unlikely to take the risk to loose this market segment to Airbus.


One thing to consider is the total market and time to market conditions. 777 Freighter operators are unlikely to swap out relatively young frames in favor of an A350 Freighter because the fuel savings the A350 would offer would be countered by low-utilization, higher capital costs, training costs and ancillary costs (spares and such). By the time Airbus is ready to put an A350 Freighter into production (based on production slot availability, if nothing else), the market might already have been "committed" to the 777 Freighter for the long term.

And the above conditions also apply to a 777X Freighter, as well. So that could influence Boeing's decision on when to cut over from the 777 Freighter to the 777X Freighter.


tomcat wrote:
About the frame selection for the Project Sunrise, it is also possible that the Boeing proposal would come as a -8 and -9 combo. The -8 would cover the extreme ULH sectors, out of reach of the -9, while the remaining sectors would go to the -9. This scenario depends on the actual requirements of QF going forward: do they still see a need for a VLA in their fleet?


I fully expect Boeing is pitching both models of the 777X as I fully expect Airbus is pitching both models of the A350. :yes:




NeBaNi wrote:
If QF chooses the A350 for Project Sunrise, then I wouldn't be surprised if the A350-1000 comes back into play for EK for its ULH routes. If the A350 can do (almost) the payload of the 777-8 more economically, then maybe an A350-900/-1000 and 777-9 fleet at the upper end would also work out well.


I want to say this will be a "winner take all" competition (so all-A350 or all-777X) due to the smaller size of QF's long-haul fleet compared to carriers who have dual-sourced the A350 and 777X, but this could indeed be a possible outcome. :yes:
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13659
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun May 12, 2019 5:06 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
You are the one that brought up maintainance cost in the first place, that the A350 will be cheaper. Then you ask me to provide proof.


How about you provide proof.


I said larger and slower aircraft cost more to maintain. A slower aircraft takes longer to do each sector, therefore the cost for each sector is higher as maintenance is based upon flight time and cycles.

Basics of this are outlined here

http://aircraftmonitor.com/uploads/1/5/ ... s___v1.pdf

I asked you to provide proof of your claim that the GE9X will be cheaper to maintain. Time for you to put up or shut up with your unfounded claims !!!!!

RJMAZ wrote:
All of the Rolls Royce engine failures does not help your argument. An Iberia Airbus A350 had an engine failure with an XWB engine..


Where are all these engine failures on the A350 ?

You found a single event where the crew of an A350-900 with Trent XWB-84 engines in cruise at FL410 received an EGT overheat caution, shut the engine down and diverted to BOS. That however is not the same engine type as on the A350-1000.

The Trent XWB has been the most reliable large civil aero engine to enter service in the last decade.

Been more reliable than the new engines on the 737, A320, 787, A380, 748.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13659
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun May 12, 2019 5:25 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Quad versus twin? You are really are really grasping at straws here..

I just can't believe how hipocritical you are. You always say the A350-900 is better than the 787-9 because it can lift more, that the extra weight of the A350 is not an issue because it has a bigger wing. All of this applies to the 777X.

Now you say the lighter plane with the smaller wing is better. I'm sure I am not the only one that can detect a heavy bias.


It doesn’t matter if your comparing quads and twins, the A340-600 would carry more payload further than the 77W, problem was airlines could not see themselves using that extra payload all the time. But the metric you are using in terms of payload and fuel burnt was in the A340s favour, but ONLY when 100% full. The A340 was cheaper to purchase.

This does not hold true for the A350-900 vs the 787-9. The A350-900 is the aircraft better optimised for long haul flights, the 787-9 is better for shorter sectors. The the A350-900 does not need to be 100% full to compete with the 787-9, and still performs well when it is misused between long haul sectors. The 777-8 will not perform as well as an A350-1000 when it’s being misused.

It does not let you off the hook for your unfounded claims that the 777-8 is cheaper per kg than the A350-1000, you deliberately left out the purchase price, maintainability, navigation charges, landing fees, crew costs, all of which will be higher.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 8274
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

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

Sun May 12, 2019 6:21 pm

EChid wrote:
Ryanair01 wrote:
I don't think payload volume is the driving factor, I think the question will be what yield per pound can they bank on?

The UK-Australia market is fairly unusual in lots of ways. One particular feature is when travelling such a long way it is expensive for passengers (and shippers) which means many people become unusually costs sensitive (even if they're not normally). So I suspect only a relatively small proportion of the market would pay a premium for non stop flights. Project Sunrise is about chasing the top end of yield.

There's a lot of history to QF's needs here. In short both BA and QF got badly hit by ME3 competition back in 747-400 days, because the ME3 (mainly Emirates) undercut on cost which is important for such a long trip, because 'cheap' is still 'a lot' of money to pay. BA and QF took different approaches of which BA's worked and QF's didn't.

BA went with a 300 seater premium heavy 777 solution and made money; QF went with the volume driven A380 and lost money for nearly a decade on LHR - which is hard to do (you can Google search these statements to check they're accurate, which they are). So when QF said they wanted a 300 seat LHR solution, but with the unique selling point of a non stop flight, it's not too hard to see where half their inspiration came from. The vast majority of people who fly between the UK and Australia make connecting flights via hubs because those 'connections' are usually cheaper, BA & QF's direct one stop flights are only a very small part of the market.

Project Sunrise is about chasing that top end market by offering a 'unique' quality point, a non stop flight. That cuts that BA/QF subgroup down even further. If QF think 300 seats works, but neither manufacturer can deliver that, the question becomes 'how much' will 'enough' people spend and can costs be kept low enough to make it pay.

As a 777 fan, unfortunately that in my view favours the A350 for three reasons:
1. The 777's strength is extra payload, which isn't QF's key driver. That extra payload comes at a cost in terms of crew/navigation etc etc and the market might not be big enough to sell that extra payload profitably.
2. The 777 costs more to buy (apparently, but who really knows what the deal might be?)
3. The A350-1000 has 3-4 times more aircraft on order, it is alive, well and performance (all be it not of this variant) can be judged. Not many people want the 777-8 with just 53 on order (of which the EY proportion looks unlikely to fly). Unfortunately not many people would be shocked if the 777-8 never flew or ended up being the unwanted A340-500 of Boeing's programme.

Each one of those points creates extra risk. QF would be wise to de-risk Project Sunrise, which is already pretty risky, as far as they can.

4. QF wants multifunctionality out of their fleet, so it needs to also be economical on shorter routes. Here, again, the 350 would win out.

As for the 'losing money for a decade' I did a Google search and was unable to find indication of this. Can you provide a link? Qantas masterfully aligned themselves with EK, which as far as I know helped to control capacity on the route. If the A380 was the cause of a lack of profit on the LHR route, would they not have just operated something else? They still had plenty of 747s at the time, and could have flipped the route to a 787 stopping in SIN if the aircraft was the cause. Something doesn't quite seem right there...

Also, I don't actually think that people on this route ARE that money sensitive. There are no LCCs or ULCCs operating the route (unless you switch to Jetstar or Scoot in SIN, which is quite rare). High costs are expected by even the economy flier. Most Australians don't expect to make it to Europe for much less than $2,000 AUD. Business Class is almost always well north of $6000 AUD, even for the less competitive airlines (Malaysia, Garuda, etc.). As well, Australians are routinely more aware of airlines they like and stopover airports they like (SIN, HKG, not so much for DXB, AUH, etc.), so they'll be more selective if the price only varies by a certain amount. I would say this is a much less price sensitive market than many others, especially TATL.


Refer to the following regarding QF profits or lack of them on London, since PER-LHR started LHR has returned to profitability for the first time since 2010

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... nish-year/

As to why they didn't change it to a 747 or 787, the 787 has only been in the fleet for just over 18 months and the 747 while offering about 120 seats less than the A388, fuel costs would have still been high. On top all of this Australia to Europe has a lot of competition on it, when you break it down QF competes with BA, EK, QR, EY, AI, UL, SQ, MH, TG, MK, SA, CX, BI, GA, VN, PR, CI, BR, KE, OZ, JL, NH, MU, CZ, CA, HU, all of which fly to an airport in LON. Operating a non stop flight, as PER-LHR has demonstrated creates its own demand as it eliminates the stopover. Sure passengers pay extra for premium seating but economy pricing has not shown much difference.

As pointed above pricing between Australia and Europe is not really that price sensitive, most would budget around $2000 for economy and $6000 for business. On PER-LHR with QF you would pay at east $10000 return for business and have seen it up over $15000, economy has been around $1800-$2200 but it does go higher during peak periods. Even with the higher prices QF have indicated they could go double daily on PER-LHR if they had the frames which they don't at this point in time and by the time SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR are launched PER-LHR is likely to see the 777X or A350ULR as well. Also I would add (based on the daily numbers I see working at PER airport) the trend over the past year has seen passenger movements swing away from a transit in the Middle East and back towards the likes of SIN, HKG, BKK and KUL, I would go as far to say EK has lost their way and QR is now the dominant ME carrier out of PER. Whether a similar thing happens on SYD and MEL to LHR who knows.

Another thing that favors the non-stops is with us here in Australia being isolated from the rest of the world travelling to the US and Europe takes a good day of travel, if that can be minimised by cutting out a stopover and saving 2 or more hours there will be some that will appeal to that. There are approximately 13 million that are a QFF in Australia and to fill non-stop services on PER-LHR, SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR for a year would be just over 300,000 a year each way so there is definitely a market there for ULR non-stops. When PER-LHR started it was reported that LHR accounts for 30% of all traffic from PER to Europe, I suspect it is even higher from MEL and SYD
Forum Moderator
 
smartplane
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sun May 12, 2019 8:13 pm

zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
You are the one that brought up maintainance cost in the first place, that the A350 will be cheaper. Then you ask me to provide proof.


I said larger and slower aircraft cost more to maintain. A slower aircraft takes longer to do each sector, therefore the cost for each sector is higher as maintenance is based upon flight time and cycles.

Basics of this are outlined here

http://aircraftmonitor.com/uploads/1/5/ ... s___v1.pdf

I asked you to provide proof of your claim that the GE9X will be cheaper to maintain. Time for you to put up or shut up with your unfounded claims !!!!!

RJMAZ wrote:
All of the Rolls Royce engine failures does not help your argument. An Iberia Airbus A350 had an engine failure with an XWB engine..


Where are all these engine failures on the A350 ?

You found a single event where the crew of an A350-900 with Trent XWB-84 engines in cruise at FL410 received an EGT overheat caution, shut the engine down and diverted to BOS. That however is not the same engine type as on the A350-1000.

The Trent XWB has been the most reliable large civil aero engine to enter service in the last decade.

Been more reliable than the new engines on the 737, A320, 787, A380, 748.

One indication of confidence, is RR offer up to 15 years fixed price (adjusted for agreed inflation markers) cost of ownership on the XWB, while GE will fix 5+5+5 (fix 5, re-price, fix 5, etc). GE were promising to go longer and seem to have pulled back (presumably longer fixed price contracts make the business less attractive to buyers).

Some posters would claim RR confidence is mis-placed based on other models, but.............. Guaranteed cradle to grave cost of ownership is very attractive for owners and operators, especially if PiP's are included.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 583
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

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

Mon May 13, 2019 12:40 am

RJMAZ wrote:


I just can't believe how hipocritical you are. You always say the A350-900 is better than the 787-9 because it can lift more, that the extra weight of the A350 is not an issue because it has a bigger wing. All of this applies to the 777X.

Now you say the lighter plane with the smaller wing is better. I'm sure I am not the only one that can detect a heavy bias.


No plane is better than the others, it’s all down to how and where they will be used.

Anyways, 789 vs A359 isn’t the same as A35K vs 778.

Even though A359 is heavier than 789, A359 has a lower span loading and wing loading. A359 is only slightly heavier while its wings are considerably longer and bigger. That’s why A359 has a lower induced drag than 789. 789 generates less parasitic drag of course.

Now, 778 is heavier than A35K, but A35K still has a lower wing loading and a lower span loading. 778 is considerably heavier and its longer wingspan and bigger wing area didn’t compensate for the difference the way A359 did with 789. Here, A35K is the one with less induced drag and parasitic drag.

Having said that, 778’s ability to fly further with more payload does not seem to have made it the clear winner of the sunshine project, but it still could win it of course (they are still the favorites IMO). I think this comes down to the fact that QF brought down their intended size over this route to less than 300 pax. Otherwise, I don’t see A35K capable of competing at all.

There’s a good reason why only 2 airlines have 778 on order 7 years after its launch, only A338 has done worse.
 
tealnz
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Mon May 13, 2019 12:49 am

Eyad89 wrote:
Having said that, 778’s ability to fly further with more payload does not seem to have made it the clear winner of the sunshine project, but it still could win it of course (they are still the favorites IMO). I think this comes down to the fact that QF brought down their intended size over this route to less than 300 pax. Otherwise, I don’t see A35K capable of competing at all.

QF settling for less than 300 pax on SYD-LHR doesn't seem to me a big deal. They clearly want an aircraft that can be configured for 300 (3-class or 4-class) and will have the range for full pax on most routes. They're not going to lose any sleep over having to block up to ~50 seats in Y on SYD/MEL-LHR – those are just a couple of sectors out of maybe 20 different long haul sectors they will eventually fly with the Sunrise fleet.
 
EChid
Posts: 524
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:00 am

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

Mon May 13, 2019 3:13 am

tealnz wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
Having said that, 778’s ability to fly further with more payload does not seem to have made it the clear winner of the sunshine project, but it still could win it of course (they are still the favorites IMO). I think this comes down to the fact that QF brought down their intended size over this route to less than 300 pax. Otherwise, I don’t see A35K capable of competing at all.

QF settling for less than 300 pax on SYD-LHR doesn't seem to me a big deal. They clearly want an aircraft that can be configured for 300 (3-class or 4-class) and will have the range for full pax on most routes. They're not going to lose any sleep over having to block up to ~50 seats in Y on SYD/MEL-LHR – those are just a couple of sectors out of maybe 20 different long haul sectors they will eventually fly with the Sunrise fleet.

It's a big deal in the sense that, before that, the requirement for a higher number would have put the A35K squarely out of the running. So, the issue is not that the potential candidates were too big, but that one was too small. Now they are both feasible. It might also be a big deal to QF. They may have done it simply so that Airbus could compete, or they may have done it because they assessed the market (and their needs in the rest of the network) and figured out that that was as much as it could bear for a flight that long. Don't know.
2018: DRW-PER-HKG-ICN-MEL-AVV-BNE-OOL-SYD-YYZ-YYZ-YUL-YVR-PDX-SEA-SFO-PEK-KIX-CDG-IST-NRT-HND-BKK-FAT; AC J-TK J-OZ F-DL F-TG J/F-NH J/F-CX J-VA J
 
tealnz
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Mon May 13, 2019 3:33 am

I think the difference will be one of capability rather than capacity – the 35K is roughly 77W size, right? Let’s assume the two contenders have different strengths. The 35K should have lower trip costs, probably better economics on all but the longest sectors. Does a theoretical payload advantage for the 778 on the London sectors offset the lower costs of the Airbus? We’ll see what QF conclude. But it’s easy enough to see why QF wanted both OEMs in the competition.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Mon May 13, 2019 3:33 am

Eyad89 wrote:
Anyways, 789 vs A359 isn’t the same as A35K vs 778.

Even though A359 is heavier than 789, A359 has a lower span loading and wing loadOing. A359 is only slightly heavier while its wings are considerably longer and bigger. That’s why A359 has a lower induced drag than 789. 789 generates less parasitic drag of course.

Now, 778 is heavier than A35K, but A35K still has a lower wing loading and a lower span loading. 778 is considerably heavier and its longer wingspan and bigger wing area didn’t compensate for the difference the way A359 did with 789. Here, A35K is the one with less induced drag and parasitic drag.

It is the same.

The A350-900 MTOW is 10% heavier than the 787-9 (280T vs 254T). The A350-900 has 7.5% more span (64.75m 60.12m)

The 777-8 MTOW is 11% heavier than the A358-1000 (351T vs 316T). The 777-8 has 9.5% more span (71.8m vs 64.75m)

Now this clearly shows you are wrong. The 777-8 wing is clearly big enough to carry the extra mass.

Any argument saying the A350-900 is better than the 787-9 can be also used to explain why the 777-8 is better than the A350-1000.

Any argument saying the 787-9 is better than the A350-900 can be used to explain why the A350-1000 is better than the 777-8.

Yet the Airbus guys will say the A350 is better in all situations. They will say the A350-900 lifts more payload further than the 787 and that trip fuel burn is not important. Yet when they compare the A350 to the 777X they suddenly say trip burn is the most important and that lifting more payload is not important.

The A350-900 and 787-9 both sell well and they both have pros and cons. Likewise the 777-8 and the A350-1000 they both have pros and cons. People are making it out like the 777-8 has no advantages at all over the A350-1000.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

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

Mon May 13, 2019 4:35 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
Anyways, 789 vs A359 isn’t the same as A35K vs 778.

Even though A359 is heavier than 789, A359 has a lower span loading and wing loadOing. A359 is only slightly heavier while its wings are considerably longer and bigger. That’s why A359 has a lower induced drag than 789. 789 generates less parasitic drag of course.

Now, 778 is heavier than A35K, but A35K still has a lower wing loading and a lower span loading. 778 is considerably heavier and its longer wingspan and bigger wing area didn’t compensate for the difference the way A359 did with 789. Here, A35K is the one with less induced drag and parasitic drag.

It is the same.

The A350-900 MTOW is 10% heavier than the 787-9 (280T vs 254T). The A350-900 has 7.5% more span (64.75m 60.12m)

The 777-8 MTOW is 11% heavier than the A358-1000 (351T vs 316T). The 777-8 has 9.5% more span (71.8m vs 64.75m)

Now this clearly shows you are wrong. The 777-8 wing is clearly big enough to carry the extra mass.

Any argument saying the A350-900 is better than the 787-9 can be also used to explain why the 777-8 is better than the A350-1000.

Any argument saying the 787-9 is better than the A350-900 can be used to explain why the A350-1000 is better than the 777-8.

Yet the Airbus guys will say the A350 is better in all situations. They will say the A350-900 lifts more payload further than the 787 and that trip fuel burn is not important. Yet when they compare the A350 to the 777X they suddenly say trip burn is the most important and that lifting more payload is not important.

The A350-900 and 787-9 both sell well and they both have pros and cons. Likewise the 777-8 and the A350-1000 they both have pros and cons. People are making it out like the 777-8 has no advantages at all over the A350-1000.



I think you nailed it. A great summary of those that employ constantly shifting arguments that always, always end up favoring only one side. :D

Both the 778 and A 351 are very close in terms of fuel burn and payload. It will be interesting to see which plane Qantas picks. I see this as almost identical to the A359 and 789 competition. One frame is lighter, has better fuel burn, and is less costly ( 789). One is heavier, burns more fuel, but can carry more payload and is optimized better for ULH missions (A 359).

Hello 778 vs A 351. The exact same dynamic. May the best plane win.
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
 
Kikko19
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

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

Mon May 13, 2019 4:42 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
Anyways, 789 vs A359 isn’t the same as A35K vs 778.

Even though A359 is heavier than 789, A359 has a lower span loading and wing loadOing. A359 is only slightly heavier while its wings are considerably longer and bigger. That’s why A359 has a lower induced drag than 789. 789 generates less parasitic drag of course.

Now, 778 is heavier than A35K, but A35K still has a lower wing loading and a lower span loading. 778 is considerably heavier and its longer wingspan and bigger wing area didn’t compensate for the difference the way A359 did with 789. Here, A35K is the one with less induced drag and parasitic drag.

It is the same.

The A350-900 MTOW is 10% heavier than the 787-9 (280T vs 254T). The A350-900 has 7.5% more span (64.75m 60.12m)

The 777-8 MTOW is 11% heavier than the A358-1000 (351T vs 316T). The 777-8 has 9.5% more span (71.8m vs 64.75m)

Now this clearly shows you are wrong. The 777-8 wing is clearly big enough to carry the extra mass.

Any argument saying the A350-900 is better than the 787-9 can be also used to explain why the 777-8 is better than the A350-1000.

Any argument saying the 787-9 is better than the A350-900 can be used to explain why the A350-1000 is better than the 777-8.

Yet the Airbus guys will say the A350 is better in all situations. They will say the A350-900 lifts more payload further than the 787 and that trip fuel burn is not important. Yet when they compare the A350 to the 777X they suddenly say trip burn is the most important and that lifting more payload is not important.

The A350-900 and 787-9 both sell well and they both have pros and cons. Likewise the 777-8 and the A350-1000 they both have pros and cons. People are making it out like the 777-8 has no advantages at all over the A350-1000.



I think you nailed it. A great summary of those that employ constantly shifting arguments that always, always end up favoring only one side. :D

Both the 778 and A 351 are very close in terms of fuel burn and payload. It will be interesting to see which plane Qantas picks. I see this as almost identical to the A359 and 789 competition. One frame is lighter, has better fuel burn, and is less costly ( 789). One is heavier, burns more fuel, but can carry more payload and is optimized better for ULH missions (A 359).

Hello 778 vs A 351. The exact same dynamic. May the best plane win.


doesn't the fact that the 77x is an old frame with new engine instead make it like the a339 vs the 789?

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