SKAirbus wrote:

It's been widely discussed that the A350 is able to slot more economically into airlines' normal operations than the 778 which is heavier. For example it would allow QF to use it on both SYD-LHR and SYD-HKG without much of a hit costwise. The same could be said of BA who could use it on JFK-LHR and then on to SYD. Exciting times ahead!

What sort of flight path does JFK-SYD take? The mind boggles.

Opus99 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

K, then I'll come out and say it: laying the groundwork for a split order?

Instead of savings through commonality, revenue from the variant most adept at a respective operation?

They could probably get the 778 at an absolute steal, seeing as they'd likely be saving that model's very existence. Acquisition can play into it as well.




No one cares, you're not what they're after with that.

If there is a split, i think it will be with the 778/779 especially if the payload restriction on the 350 is excessive on SYD/MEL - LHR. On the other hand the CBA network wide might work better for the 350

I doubt there would be a 777/350 split for the fleet size QF wants. Economies of scale quickly goes down the drain...

The way it’s looking, Boeing is offering a 777-9 that is enhanced with tanks that allow it go up to 18,000KM or whatever is necessary. And then deliver the -8 when it’s ready and the -9 is so large that even when the payload is significantly reduced from maximum capacity it is still a large enough payload. We will see

with a spec range of ~7500nm and the required range for SYD-LHR of ~9500nm then realistically the jet would have a capacity of around 200pax to make the journey. I believe the tanks are big enough already for this. There was talk about Boosting the MTOW up to 360t (more a.net conjecture than anything I think) but in that instance the 779X might be able to take 250pax but that would leave the -8 unlikely to ever be launched.

Fred

LAX772LR wrote:

waly777 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Instead of savings through commonality, revenue from the variant most adept at a respective operation?

I doubt there would be a 777/350 split for the fleet size QF wants. Economies of scale quickly goes down the drain...

That's what I'm getting at: you're stating the conventional "wisdom," but there's a possibility it might not be the case if (1) the most capable or efficient aircraft is tasked to the most difficult or economically-challenging op, or (2) if their unit count exceeds what's assumed to be the low numbers needed here.

Worth considering also for a split are two other things. . .

Particularly in the 350's case, it is not unlikely that a plane with that capability and relative fuel efficiency can be tasked also to open up new city pairs. QF marketing/planning would know best, but it is not as though there are no low-hanging fruit, so to speak, available here. As well, this also reduces dependencies on OW, JV's codeshares, etc.

In the 779's case, though it is best suited for the ULH ends of QF's network (assuming the probable MTOW bumps), a large enough fleet will also serve as a realistic and eventual A380 replacement. More range, lower cost, still a decent amount of capacity, just with slightly more pricing power. . .




In either case (which are interchangeable; I have just mentioned the most ideal of these), it would point to a larger order than what is being speculated about for Project Sunrise. QF absolutely do have the flexibility to head in this direction if it seems optimal.

Given the flight stage lengths, and the MX investments at LAX & elsewhere downline, the cost of a split order --perhaps along the line of 13/13 or so-- would not be nearly as catastrophic or difficult to manage as a.net pundits would like them to be.

Crew pooling would not be a factor either, given the already significant needs of a ULH network.


I would say that this is not at all an unrealistic possibility.

CHRISBA35X wrote:

SKAirbus wrote:

It's been widely discussed that the A350 is able to slot more economically into airlines' normal operations than the 778 which is heavier. For example it would allow QF to use it on both SYD-LHR and SYD-HKG without much of a hit costwise. The same could be said of BA who could use it on JFK-LHR and then on to SYD. Exciting times ahead!

What sort of flight path does JFK-SYD take? The mind boggles.

If QANTAS are looking for a jet to fly into Asia, the 787-10 should be at the top of the list.

QANTAS's institutional shareholders have previously raised their concerns about QANTAS not following through with the 787 order.

For me an A350-1000 would overly complicate the QANTAS International fleet. Can you imagine the costs of flying three relatively small fleet types (787-9, A350-1000 and A380-800) into Asia.

From a financial perspective a 787-9/10 & A380-800 for Asia would be the most logical.

But Qantas doesn't need aircraft for Asia right now.
First 4 332s and the 10 333s are all 2002-05 deliveries.

Current priority is Sunrise.
Then they'll focus on the domestic shorthaul fleet which hasn't had a new plane in 5 years.
Then consider Asia and A380 replacements.

moa999 wrote:

But Qantas doesn't need aircraft for Asia right now.
First 4 332s and the 10 333s are all 2002-05 deliveries.

Current priority is Sunrise.
Then they'll focus on the domestic shorthaul fleet which hasn't had a new plane in 5 years.
Then consider Asia and A380 replacements.

Yeah that's right. People are also forgetting the 36 A321XLRs that have been recently ordered, that is way too much for Jetstar alone.

They will only need a few larger aircraft for the few larger Asian flights, but I think that will be mostly handled by the Sunrise and a380s.

I don't see a 787-10 order anytime soon as firstly they ordered a bunch of A321XLRs, which does a similar job but will be better on thinner routes (which qantas seemed to be more focused on since the dreamliner came into service) and the other fact that they have only accepted 787s from Everett which is not possible with the 787-10.

A350/77X split order - no way

Qantas could take 779 as interim solution and after 778 deliver it can relocate it to other routes where will be more ecconomical. Except US east coast and europe can by covered by 787.

Cheers

travelhound wrote:

CHRISBA35X wrote:

SKAirbus wrote:

It's been widely discussed that the A350 is able to slot more economically into airlines' normal operations than the 778 which is heavier. For example it would allow QF to use it on both SYD-LHR and SYD-HKG without much of a hit costwise. The same could be said of BA who could use it on JFK-LHR and then on to SYD. Exciting times ahead!

What sort of flight path does JFK-SYD take? The mind boggles.

If QANTAS are looking for a jet to fly into Asia, the 787-10 should be at the top of the list.

QANTAS's institutional shareholders have previously raised their concerns about QANTAS not following through with the 787 order.

For me an A350-1000 would overly complicate the QANTAS International fleet. Can you imagine the costs of flying three relatively small fleet types (787-9, A350-1000 and A380-800) into Asia.

From a financial perspective a 787-9/10 & A380-800 for Asia would be the most logical.

If you don't want to put a useful load in the belly then the 787-10 is what you'd want. My sense is that that isn't what the Asian market requires.
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=4000nm%40 ... 0x360&PM=*

Fred

Pcoder wrote:

I don't see a 787-10 order anytime soon as firstly they ordered a bunch of A321XLRs, which does a similar job but will be better on thinner routes (which qantas seemed to be more focused on since the dreamliner came into service) and the other fact that they have only accepted 787s from Everett which is not possible with the 787-10.

Is this a publicly stated fact? Is there a quote somewhere? QANTAS did accept two of Jetstars 787-8's that were built in Charleston so I'm not sure it is necessarily true.

What about a code 2 789 for PS with much rumoured enhancements, supported by a 78J order to replace 744 - so you have 789 / 78J plus A380? This would mean the aircraft would fly premium heavy and just pax and bags plus a little between JFK and SYD. And at other times it could carry cargo and serve premium markets alongside other times when QF schedules a less premium heavy aircraft. Could even be 8 abreast in Y. With the much touted MTOW boost could this be sufficient? Has anybody done an analysis on this?

Is QF really going to be so desirable to Boeing as to tempt them to launch the 778? With QR / EY reviewing orders, and EK alike, I see the 778 as dead in the water. Not sure about 779 prospects either with the apparant loss of interest by some airlines. The beauty about the A35K is that it is light and an adaptation of a model that QF can use on multiple routes and there is clear ongoing demand for the plane and resale value to boot. This has to be attractive if the plane can move the desired load.

The 779 seems a lot of metal for the job IMHO. But I guess its still in the game and QF could buy two sub-variants if Boeing is on to customize to PS. Will sure be interesting to see how this unfolds.

flipdewaf wrote:

travelhound wrote:

CHRISBA35X wrote:

What sort of flight path does JFK-SYD take? The mind boggles.

If QANTAS are looking for a jet to fly into Asia, the 787-10 should be at the top of the list.

QANTAS's institutional shareholders have previously raised their concerns about QANTAS not following through with the 787 order.

For me an A350-1000 would overly complicate the QANTAS International fleet. Can you imagine the costs of flying three relatively small fleet types (787-9, A350-1000 and A380-800) into Asia.

From a financial perspective a 787-9/10 & A380-800 for Asia would be the most logical.

If you don't want to put a useful load in the belly then the 787-10 is what you'd want. My sense is that that isn't what the Asian market requires.
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=4000nm%40 ... 0x360&PM=*

Fred

Unless jayunited's blowing smoke up everyone's rear, the 787-10 has more than usable payload to replace the many, many A330s QF is flying on Asian routes right now.

jayunited wrote:

That is not true at all. Take for example today's 5/29/2019 UA85 TLV-EWR flight the MTOG for the 78X is 560,000 today's TOG was 559,235. Now before you said I told you so lets take a look at what is on that aircraft. First and foremost the aircraft went out full with 318 passengers and 326 bags and 26,089 pounds of cargo. Lets break it all down the OEW is 300,563 the weight of all 318 passengers is 60,903, the weight of their 326 bags is 9780 pounds and there was 26,089 pounds of cargo add those number together we get a ZFW of 397,335 out of a MXFW of 425,000. The cleared fuel was 161,900 so when you add the cleared fuel to the ZFW you get a TOG of 559,235.

The block time for UA85 is 11 hours 9 minutes,

This of course doesn't necessarily mean a QF Airbus widebody order is out of the picture...

moa999 wrote:

But Qantas doesn't need aircraft for Asia right now.
First 4 332s and the 10 333s are all 2002-05 deliveries.

Current priority is Sunrise.
Then they'll focus on the domestic shorthaul fleet which hasn't had a new plane in 5 years.
Then consider Asia and A380 replacements.

Why not the A350 for Asia routes? Both SQ and CX do so..and the 1st 3 for BA are serving DXB..YYZ and TLV...routes that are well under 14-15hrs.

flipdewaf wrote:

travelhound wrote:

CHRISBA35X wrote:

What sort of flight path does JFK-SYD take? The mind boggles.

If QANTAS are looking for a jet to fly into Asia, the 787-10 should be at the top of the list.

QANTAS's institutional shareholders have previously raised their concerns about QANTAS not following through with the 787 order.

For me an A350-1000 would overly complicate the QANTAS International fleet. Can you imagine the costs of flying three relatively small fleet types (787-9, A350-1000 and A380-800) into Asia.

From a financial perspective a 787-9/10 & A380-800 for Asia would be the most logical.

If you don't want to put a useful load in the belly then the 787-10 is what you'd want. My sense is that that isn't what the Asian market requires.
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=4000nm%40 ... 0x360&PM=*

Fred

Note that is the max payload range, not “useful load” range. It’s not all that much different than the A330s QF happily flies around Asia.

flipdewaf wrote:

travelhound wrote:

CHRISBA35X wrote:

What sort of flight path does JFK-SYD take? The mind boggles.

If QANTAS are looking for a jet to fly into Asia, the 787-10 should be at the top of the list.

QANTAS's institutional shareholders have previously raised their concerns about QANTAS not following through with the 787 order.

For me an A350-1000 would overly complicate the QANTAS International fleet. Can you imagine the costs of flying three relatively small fleet types (787-9, A350-1000 and A380-800) into Asia.

From a financial perspective a 787-9/10 & A380-800 for Asia would be the most logical.

If you don't want to put a useful load in the belly then the 787-10 is what you'd want. My sense is that that isn't what the Asian market requires.
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=4000nm%40 ... 0x360&PM=*

Fred

You'd have to fill up the cargo bay with lead for the 787-10 to be limited to 4000nm.

When did this thread become about the 787?

travelhound wrote:

If QANTAS are looking for a jet to fly into Asia, the 787-10 should be at the top of the list.

QANTAS's institutional shareholders have previously raised their concerns about QANTAS not following through with the 787 order.

For me an A350-1000 would overly complicate the QANTAS International fleet. Can you imagine the costs of flying three relatively small fleet types (787-9, A350-1000 and A380-800) into Asia.

From a financial perspective a 787-9/10 & A380-800 for Asia would be the most logical.

So, I agree that the 787-10 is a really good aircraft for high-passenger routes in the 7 to 11 hour range, so of course it could be very useful for QF and for a lot of other airlines in Asia-Pacific.

Having said that, Oz to Asia is a very large universe of routes with quite different capacity, cargo ability, and premium seat requirements. I suppose QF will want to get rid of the A380s in the medium term. The A330s would probably follow suit. So in this scenario, a trifecta of A321XLRs for thinner routes, 789s for a large chunk of routes, and standard A350-1000s (assuming that QF selects the A350-1000ULR for Sunrise) for routes with heavy pax and cargo demand, would be a good way of serving Asian markets.

On the other hand, if Boeing takes the Sunrise contract, then maybe the Asia aircraft combo could be A321XLR, 789 and 78K, or A321XLR, 789 and standard 779s.

Just my two cents.

I think we are reading too much into the A321XLR order. These aircraft could be used by QF to open up new Asia routes out of Cairns, Perth and Darwin and more generally route expansion for the Jetstar entities.

If we read into the Bloomberg article, we can deduce the economics of the 778 is preferable for the long distant routes because of its increased payload, whereas the A350-1000 would be a more flexible aircraft as it could also be used to fly into Asia.

If we consider QF have already committed to the 787 family, a Asia specific specified 787-10 (seat counts, MTOW) would probably have superior economics to a XLR A350-1000, I suspect the A35J could be an aircraft stuck in the middle of no where!

If QF are going to make these extra long haul flights work, they will need to choose the aircraft with the best economics. Considering the size of the potential market, I suspect that will be the 777X range of aircraft.

FWIW I have no idea what Qantas will end up purchasing. I am sure they will buy what is best for the portfolio of routes they are assessing against.

It interesting that I can go through this thread and for almost all regular posters know which way they will want it to go.

Are we all just fanboys?

StTim wrote:

FWIW I have no idea what Qantas will end up purchasing. I am sure they will buy what is best for the portfolio of routes they are assessing against.

It interesting that I can go through this thread and for almost all regular posters know which way they will want it to go.

Are we all just fanboys?

I have an Airbus preference but I can see why this could go either way and wouldn’t really be fussed either way.

My biggest frustration is that I live in the UK and I’m about to start a program of works with an Australian organisation that will require travelling. Unfortunately for me it’ll only last 3 years....

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

travelhound wrote:

If QF are going to make these extra long haul flights work, they will need to choose the aircraft with the best economics. Considering the size of the potential market, I suspect that will be the 777X range of aircraft.

That's certainly a possibility, but we need to keep certain things in mind. A post-PS Qantas will have two specific subsets of premium routes:

1. The Project Sunrise Routes
(Provisionally, I will say these will be MEL/SYD - JFK/LHR, and SYD - CDG/FRA)

2. The Pacific Trunk Routes
(These are SYD/MEL - HKG/HND/LAX/SFO/SIN)

All of these routes do/will have First Class demand as well as substantial business and premium economy demand. The reason that I am not putting the DFW flights into these categories is that DFW is mostly connecting traffic, and the A380 flies that route because its the only jet QF have (at the moment) capable of servicing it... when PS is operational, I suspect DFW will be downgraded to 787-9s from Sydney and perhaps Brisbane.

Now that's out of the way, let's get to the analysis.

At least in theory, the 777-8 looks ideal for route subset 1, and the 777-9 looks ideal for route subset 2. But the problems here are that the number of 777-8s required would probably be quite low (thus increasing costs for QF), and the 777-8 has been delayed.

So either QF delays Project Sunrise and goes all 777-8 (which is Too Much Plane for the Pacific Trunk Routes unless QF need/want that cargo capacity) OR QF temporarily runs PS flights with a very lightly loaded 777-9s, perhaps until the 777-8 becomes available. Which would require a sweet incentive package from Boeing.

The A350-1000 may simply be the more efficient solution for QF. Its roughly the size of the 777-8, but would have better economics (and still quite a bit of useful cargo capacity if QF need/want that) on the Pacific Trunk Routes. And if it allows a single fleet, that could save a lot of money for QF. Whilst its true that the A350-1000 in QF's config would be pretty low capacity (I'm thinking 270-280 seats, with about 81 to 85 of those being First/Business/Premium), the lower capacity would likely mean increased yields and possibly higher frequencies on certain routes.

Not only that but the A350-1000 isn't dealing with the delays the 777X is.

If Airbus can do relatively simple customizations (more fuel/extra MTOW) to get the A350-1000's performance up to the level Qantas requires presuming a low-density cabin, the A350 seems like the more streamlined, lower-risk option, and in addition isn't subject to delays. Its also consistent with the reality of fragmentation.

The A350-1000 may simply be the more efficient solution for QF. Its roughly the size of the 777-8, but would have better economics (and still quite a bit of useful cargo capacity if QF need/want that) on the Pacific Trunk Routes. And if it allows a single fleet, that could save a lot of money for QF. Whilst its true that the A350-1000 in QF's config would be pretty low capacity (I'm thinking 270-280 seats, with about 81 to 85 of those being First/Business/Premium), the lower capacity would likely mean increased yields and possibly higher frequencies on certain routes.

QANTAS currently fly A330-300 aircraft with 297 seats on the Asian routes. If we assume a 787-10 configured specifically for the Asian market would have similar seating capacity (but with the inclusion of premium economy) to the A330-300, the A350-1000 configured for XLR flights would probably not be able to compete.

If we consider Cathay Pacific as a direct competitor to QANTAS in the Asian market, QANTAS would need to install approximately 334 seats to compete with Cathay Pacific's A350-1000's. A 270 seat configured aircraft would represent a reduction of approximately 18%!

I think we also have to remember the Asian market is very dynamic. Where QF could fill 1st class seats on Asian trunk routes from Sydney, this would probably be a difficult task for flights out of Brisbane and Perth.

I can't see a situation where QF would be willing to compromise the Asian market with a sub-optimal plane configured for a fundamentally different market. Unless QF make a wholesale commitment to the A350 (to serve Asia and XLR routes), the 787 seems to be the better option for Asia and as a consequence the 777 for extra long range routes.

........but, I have been wrong before!

travelhound wrote:

The A350-1000 may simply be the more efficient solution for QF. Its roughly the size of the 777-8, but would have better economics (and still quite a bit of useful cargo capacity if QF need/want that) on the Pacific Trunk Routes. And if it allows a single fleet, that could save a lot of money for QF. Whilst its true that the A350-1000 in QF's config would be pretty low capacity (I'm thinking 270-280 seats, with about 81 to 85 of those being First/Business/Premium), the lower capacity would likely mean increased yields and possibly higher frequencies on certain routes.

QANTAS currently fly A330-300 aircraft with 297 seats on the Asian routes. If we assume a 787-10 configured specifically for the Asian market would have similar seating capacity (but with the inclusion of premium economy) to the A330-300, the A350-1000 configured for XLR flights would probably not be able to compete.

If we consider Cathay Pacific as a direct competitor to QANTAS in the Asian market, QANTAS would need to install approximately 334 seats to compete with Cathay Pacific's A350-1000's. A 270 seat configured aircraft would represent a reduction of approximately 18%!

I think we also have to remember the Asian market is very dynamic. Where QF could fill 1st class seats on Asian trunk routes from Sydney, this would probably be a difficult task for flights out of Brisbane and Perth.

I can't see a situation where QF would be willing to compromise the Asian market with a sub-optimal plane configured for a fundamentally different market. Unless QF make a wholesale commitment to the A350 (to serve Asia and XLR routes), the 787 seems to be the better option for Asia and as a consequence the 777 for extra long range routes.

........but, I have been wrong before!

I certainly agree that the 787-10 is a fantastic jet for Asian routes, but remember Qantas only have 10 A330-300s... most of their A330s are the A330-200.

I agree Qantas won't be able to fill First Class seats out of Perth or Brisbane... but I've actually made the presumption that QF will only be flying A350s out of Sydney and Melbourne (their two hubs with First Class demand and First Class lounges).

Qantas are not chasing market share. They're chasing yield. This favors smaller jets at higher frequencies... a condition exacerbated by the fact QF have multiple geographically-dispersed hubs.

When they get around to replacing A330s, I think they'll use regionally-configured 787-9s, and/or A321neoLR/XLRs, or perhaps the MoM jet when it gets developed. Or some mix of all three.

Don't get me wrong... the 787-10 will have fantastic operating economics to Asia. But that jet seems mostly geared towards the Asian trunk routes ex. SYD and MEL... so HKG, HND and SIN. It could be too big for flights out of Brisbane and it is almost certainly too big for flights out of Perth.

So even if the expense of an additional type (the 787-10) is negligible (which it might be, given how common it is with the -9s QF already has), it might be better for QF to use the Project Sunrise/Very Big Jet With First Class in it, on those routes instead.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

travelhound wrote:

The A350-1000 may simply be the more efficient solution for QF. Its roughly the size of the 777-8, but would have better economics (and still quite a bit of useful cargo capacity if QF need/want that) on the Pacific Trunk Routes. And if it allows a single fleet, that could save a lot of money for QF. Whilst its true that the A350-1000 in QF's config would be pretty low capacity (I'm thinking 270-280 seats, with about 81 to 85 of those being First/Business/Premium), the lower capacity would likely mean increased yields and possibly higher frequencies on certain routes.

QANTAS currently fly A330-300 aircraft with 297 seats on the Asian routes. If we assume a 787-10 configured specifically for the Asian market would have similar seating capacity (but with the inclusion of premium economy) to the A330-300, the A350-1000 configured for XLR flights would probably not be able to compete.

If we consider Cathay Pacific as a direct competitor to QANTAS in the Asian market, QANTAS would need to install approximately 334 seats to compete with Cathay Pacific's A350-1000's. A 270 seat configured aircraft would represent a reduction of approximately 18%!

I think we also have to remember the Asian market is very dynamic. Where QF could fill 1st class seats on Asian trunk routes from Sydney, this would probably be a difficult task for flights out of Brisbane and Perth.

I can't see a situation where QF would be willing to compromise the Asian market with a sub-optimal plane configured for a fundamentally different market. Unless QF make a wholesale commitment to the A350 (to serve Asia and XLR routes), the 787 seems to be the better option for Asia and as a consequence the 777 for extra long range routes.

........but, I have been wrong before!

I certainly agree that the 787-10 is a fantastic jet for Asian routes, but remember Qantas only have 10 A330-300s... most of their A330s are the A330-200.

I agree Qantas won't be able to fill First Class seats out of Perth or Brisbane... but I've actually made the presumption that QF will only be flying A350s out of Sydney and Melbourne (their two hubs with First Class demand and First Class lounges).

Qantas are not chasing market share. They're chasing yield. This favors smaller jets at higher frequencies... a condition exacerbated by the fact QF have multiple geographically-dispersed hubs.

When they get around to replacing A330s, I think they'll use regionally-configured 787-9s, and/or A321neoLR/XLRs, or perhaps the MoM jet when it gets developed. Or some mix of all three.

Don't get me wrong... the 787-10 will have fantastic operating economics to Asia. But that jet seems mostly geared towards the Asian trunk routes ex. SYD and MEL... so HKG, HND and SIN. It could be too big for flights out of Brisbane and it is almost certainly too big for flights out of Perth.

So even if the expense of an additional type (the 787-10) is negligible (which it might be, given how common it is with the -9s QF already has), it might be better for QF to use the Project Sunrise/Very Big Jet With First Class in it, on those routes instead.

Spot on.. QF can not be compared to CX or even BA, it's Business model is shifting to be more like the US3, running LH flights out of multiple hubs. While the 778 might carry more payload on the London route, it would be an expensive one trick pony, as the gap between it's regional economics vs the A350 would be a far bigger than the advantage it would have on ULR.. The 787 will make up the bulk on the regional flying but it appears QF would like some versatility in the SR fleet. Maybe Boeing can give QF a 787/777 deal they can't refuse but I believe this order leans AB.

LAX772LR wrote:

travelhound wrote:

Can you imagine the costs of flying three relatively small fleet types (787-9, A350-1000 and A380-800) into Asia.

...ask SQ. A relatively small long-ranged airline that flies 787s, A350s, and A380s to/from Asia.

Mrakula wrote:

A350/77X split order - no way

Based on what, other than speculation about undefined savings derived from commonality that no one here could possibly know at this specific point in time.

Here is 2014 press release about how they are going from 11 different types to 7. Since AJ is still running the company, I'd imagine there isn't any change from this policy.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... -update-2/

Certainly rationale not to have one of everything for Qantas.

But there will always be a transition period. Whatever is chosen for Sunrise will certainly inform the replacement of the 10 333s (probably in 5-7 years) and the 12 A380s (10-12) and both A and B can fulfil the roles.

The younger international configured 332s probably shift back to domestic, particularly if the MOM doesn't happen.

LAX772LR wrote:

travelhound wrote:

Can you imagine the costs of flying three relatively small fleet types (787-9, A350-1000 and A380-800) into Asia.

...ask SQ. A relatively small long-ranged airline that flies 787s, A350s, and A380s to/from Asia.

SQ has a total of 67 A350s (60 + 7 ULR) on order + in-service , that alone is more planes than the entire combined widebody fleet of QF, in terms of widebody fleets they aren't small unless compared to say ME3/US3.

travelhound wrote:

CHRISBA35X wrote:

SKAirbus wrote:

It's been widely discussed that the A350 is able to slot more economically into airlines' normal operations than the 778 which is heavier. For example it would allow QF to use it on both SYD-LHR and SYD-HKG without much of a hit costwise. The same could be said of BA who could use it on JFK-LHR and then on to SYD. Exciting times ahead!

What sort of flight path does JFK-SYD take? The mind boggles.

If QANTAS are looking for a jet to fly into Asia, the 787-10 should be at the top of the list.

QANTAS's institutional shareholders have previously raised their concerns about QANTAS not following through with the 787 order.

For me an A350-1000 would overly complicate the QANTAS International fleet. Can you imagine the costs of flying three relatively small fleet types (787-9, A350-1000 and A380-800) into Asia.

From a financial perspective a 787-9/10 & A380-800 for Asia would be the most logical.

I think you forgot how A380 could possibly be retired few short years after the new model arrived. Be it B777X or A350.

We know the economic of A380 doesn't really stuck up. With many airlines starting to retiring them early. They would ended up with only 2 widebodies type instead of 3.

Well, Alan Joyce may push the order into next year so
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-qanta ... KKBN1XP0AL

Will ULR pay its way?

Is there sufficient demand for direct flights across this distance for passengers to pay the extra for flying fuel to fly fuel to burn? (and that loop continues!)

-- Take say LHR-SYD. What would the demand on a daily direct flight be? What would be the price beyond which passengers would take a stopover?
-- Now, compare that to LHR-DBX-SYD. What would the demand on a daily flight be (considering that additional passengers pivoting from DBX in other directions will push demand and yield up)? What would be the price beyond which passengers would not fly?

I'm not convinced ULR adds up with the current gen of aircraft. Maybe 20 years too early.

I was gonna demonstrate with Breguet, but thats overly simplistic.

Fig 5.2 & 5.3 of this demonstrate better than any forum post ever could:

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Sch ... rzlaff.pdf

LHR-SYD is ~17000km. Not hard to see what is happening to fuel burn per passenger carried at that range.

LAX772LR wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

...ask SQ. A relatively small long-ranged airline that flies 787s, A350s, and A380s to/from Asia.

SQ has a total of 67 A350s (60 + 7 ULR) on order + in-service , that alone is more planes than the entire combined widebody fleet of QF, in terms of widebody fleets they aren't small unless compared to say ME3/US3.

And yet they're dwarfed in total fleet (there's nothing special about widebodies per se) by essentially every major network airline in N.America and Europe.

Again, relatively small long-ranged airline. Similar (no one said exact same) operational concerns.

I'd counter by saying that it's easier to justify operating different aircraft types if there's sufficient numbers of each to achieve critical mass & economies of scale in terms of MX/certifications/training etc. It's much easier to justify integrating a dedicated sub-fleet if it's 40 frames instead of 5.

Not to mention that SQ has close to 4x the international RPK of QF anyways.

Amiga500 wrote:

Will ULR pay its way?

Is there sufficient demand for direct flights across this distance for passengers to pay the extra for flying fuel to fly fuel to burn? (and that loop continues!)

-- Take say LHR-SYD. What would the demand on a daily direct flight be? What would be the price beyond which passengers would take a stopover?
-- Now, compare that to LHR-DBX-SYD. What would the demand on a daily flight be (considering that additional passengers pivoting from DBX in other directions will push demand and yield up)? What would be the price beyond which passengers would not fly?

I'm not convinced ULR adds up with the current gen of aircraft. Maybe 20 years too early.

I was gonna demonstrate with Breguet, but thats overly simplistic.

Fig 5.2 & 5.3 of this demonstrate better than any forum post ever could:

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Sch ... rzlaff.pdf

LHR-SYD is ~17000km. Not hard to see what is happening to fuel burn per passenger carried at that range.

I'm in two minds about it to be honest with you. I think the business case is there for business travellers who can demand non-stop now if they have to fly to Aus from Europe or vice versa - if there are time savings to be had then they'll take them and companies will likely be fine to pay a premium. How much contract/regular business traveller demand there is between Europe and Aus and vice versa is the point of debate here. My impression is there isn't that much, and that the US, China, Taiwan, Singapore and Japan are all more important markets for Aus I suspect, certainly for the commodities, energy, pharma, insurance and financial markets which tend to be the big hitters for pan-Aus trade. But I do think there probably is sufficient to do one flight a day - QF will have seriously looked at it, and if they want to do it then there will be enough demand for it for sure. If PER works non-stop then there should be little doubt SYD/MEL would even more so.

Its the non-business travellers that I struggle with.

My impression (and this is only a semi-educated guess) is that much of the Aus-UK/EU traffic is leisure and personal travel and that yields in Y are poor and have been for a long time. See BA/VS and others - they were unable or unwilling to play in a market where the competitors were able to offer LHR-SYD-LHR or whatever for under a thousand pounds. That's not covering costs. Yields in Y+ are better as its very long way and those that are not quite so price conscious are happy to pay twice the Y fare for a Y+ seat - certainly that is the bracket I sit in.

My point is that while the business travellers are able and willing to pay more to go non-stop, would the leisure travellers behave the same? Would I, as someone who flies to Aus twice a year, shell out a premium to go non-stop as opposed to breaking the journey up via DXB/AUH/DOH/KUL/BKK/HKG/ICN? its basically 24 hours travelling even non-stop and I like the opportunity to get off, have a shower, go to the toilet and walk around a bit. Would I pay more to not have these things? Is that three or four hours more travelling worth it? I'm not sure.

I guess it comes down to what kind of premium they are asking for. If its 10% more then sure, why not. If its 40% more then no way.

I suspect the non-stop itself doesn't sell it unless there's a comfort factor too. I'd happily pay a premium if I knew I would get more room, more width, a superior soft product and a comfier seat AND it was faster. Not sure I'd pay it if there was no advantage but the non-stop thing.

Opus99 wrote:

Well, Alan Joyce may push the order into next year so
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-qanta ... KKBN1XP0AL

To be honest, a few hour break on Changi or Kuala Lumpur never bothered me. Specially when you have lounge / shower / quick meal access.

I assume Alan Joyce was self paid, anonimously sitting 54B with Shane next to him, to really get the fullest customer value experience.

Amiga500 wrote:

Will ULR pay its way?

Is there sufficient demand for direct flights across this distance for passengers to pay the extra for flying fuel to fly fuel to burn? (and that loop continues!)

-- Take say LHR-SYD. What would the demand on a daily direct flight be? What would be the price beyond which passengers would take a stopover?
-- Now, compare that to LHR-DBX-SYD. What would the demand on a daily flight be (considering that additional passengers pivoting from DBX in other directions will push demand and yield up)? What would be the price beyond which passengers would not fly?

I'm not convinced ULR adds up with the current gen of aircraft. Maybe 20 years too early.

I was gonna demonstrate with Breguet, but thats overly simplistic.

Fig 5.2 & 5.3 of this demonstrate better than any forum post ever could:

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Sch ... rzlaff.pdf

LHR-SYD is ~17000km. Not hard to see what is happening to fuel burn per passenger carried at that range.

If one does a breguet and load in the spec figures for an A350-1000 (36.5t load on a 150t OWE out to 8700nm) and assume that you have 5t in the tanks when landing you can easily derive what I would call a range factor, effectively VL/DSFC * constant. This can then be fed back in to a rearranged Breguet to allow you to calculate (with a margin of error of course) the fuel use on a trip.

When one applies the distance required for SYD-LHR (often stated to be 9500nm for reliable missions) then it can be sen that the payload accetable for around 275pax with a fuel use of 127t.

If we split the trip in to two segments and stop in HKG we get segment lengths of 3980nm and 5209nm but we will call these 4115nm and 5385nm respectively to give the same scaling factor as the 9500nm over the actual LHR-SYD length.

The fuel uses for these segments given the same payload are.
SYD-HKG - 40.8t
HKG-LHR - 58.8

Giving a total of 99.6tons

The increase in fuel use in ~27t for going direct.
a total increase in fuel costs of up to ~$16000
My previous figure of 5k is incorrect.

BA15 stops over for ~1.5hrs at sin this is a good representation of how long an aircraft has to stop over for. at about $6000/hr asset costs (1million per month) giving $9000 extra
2 pilots not being paid $200/hr is $600 saving.
Aircraft handling at changi shows about $3857 for the handling of a 319t A350.
Airbridge use costs of $226
Passenger fees $9 each - $2475

Total price for not making the stop - net gain of $168
I have not factored in the cost of additional engine, frame or gear cycles as I don't know where to get access to that information.

I do realise that it would be possible to use a differently optimised frame and get a different result but it certainly is food for thought with regards the assumptions of ULR flights.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Will ULR pay its way?

Is there sufficient demand for direct flights across this distance for passengers to pay the extra for flying fuel to fly fuel to burn? (and that loop continues!)

-- Take say LHR-SYD. What would the demand on a daily direct flight be? What would be the price beyond which passengers would take a stopover?
-- Now, compare that to LHR-DBX-SYD. What would the demand on a daily flight be (considering that additional passengers pivoting from DBX in other directions will push demand and yield up)? What would be the price beyond which passengers would not fly?

I'm not convinced ULR adds up with the current gen of aircraft. Maybe 20 years too early.

I was gonna demonstrate with Breguet, but thats overly simplistic.

Fig 5.2 & 5.3 of this demonstrate better than any forum post ever could:

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Sch ... rzlaff.pdf

LHR-SYD is ~17000km. Not hard to see what is happening to fuel burn per passenger carried at that range.

If one does a breguet and load in the spec figures for an A350-1000 (36.5t load on a 150t OWE out to 8700nm) and assume that you have 5t in the tanks when landing you can easily derive what I would call a range factor, effectively VL/DSFC * constant. This can then be fed back in to a rearranged Breguet to allow you to calculate (with a margin of error of course) the fuel use on a trip.

When one applies the distance required for SYD-LHR (often stated to be 9500nm for reliable missions) then it can be sen that the payload accetable for around 275pax with a fuel use of 127t.

If we split the trip in to two segments and stop in HKG we get segment lengths of 3980nm and 5209nm but we will call these 4115nm and 5385nm respectively to give the same scaling factor as the 9500nm over the actual LHR-SYD length.

The fuel uses for these segments given the same payload are.
SYD-HKG - 40.8t
HKG-LHR - 58.8

Giving a total of 99.6tons

The increase in fuel use in ~27t for going direct.
a total increase in fuel costs of up to ~$16000
My previous figure of 5k is incorrect.

BA15 stops over for ~1.5hrs at sin this is a good representation of how long an aircraft has to stop over for. at about $6000/hr asset costs (1million per month) giving $9000 extra
2 pilots not being paid $200/hr is $600 saving.
Aircraft handling at changi shows about $3857 for the handling of a 319t A350.
Airbridge use costs of $226
Passenger fees $9 each - $2475

Total price for not making the stop - net gain of $168
I have not factored in the cost of additional engine, frame or gear cycles as I don't know where to get access to that information.

I do realise that it would be possible to use a differently optimised frame and get a different result but it certainly is food for thought with regards the assumptions of ULR flights.

Fred

KUL, SIN and HKG are cargo hubs, there is revenue potential if you make a stop.

keesje wrote:

KUL, SIN and HKG are cargo hubs, there is revenue potential if you make a stop.

Thats a fair point but would assume that one wouldn't stop serving that destination all together.

I Have looked that the additional Fuel required to carry payload and:
Total fuel to take full payload(73t) with the stop 147 (85+62)
Total Fuel to go nonstop with 275pax = 127t
Total Fuel to go one stop (HKG) with one stop = 100t (59+41)

I'm not sure what the going rate for air freight is.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

Total price for not making the stop - net gain of $168
I have not factored in the cost of additional engine, frame or gear cycles as I don't know where to get access to that information.
I do realise that it would be possible to use a differently optimised frame and get a different result but it certainly is food for thought with regards the assumptions of ULR flights.

Fred

Ahh, good thinking. I never even consider those.

flipdewaf wrote:

keesje wrote:

KUL, SIN and HKG are cargo hubs, there is revenue potential if you make a stop.

Thats a fair point but would assume that one wouldn't stop serving that destination all together.

I Have looked that the additional Fuel required to carry payload and:
Total fuel to take full payload(73t) with the stop 147 (85+62)
Total Fuel to go nonstop with 275pax = 127t
Total Fuel to go one stop (HKG) with one stop = 100t (59+41)

I'm not sure what the going rate for air freight is.

Fred

Yield would be about US$1.50 per kg according to IATA
Total fuel to take full payload(73t) with the stop 147 (85+62) ===> 20 tonnes*$800 /tonne=$16000 more for fuel, $68,000 more yield for the 45.5 tonnes [email protected]$1500/tonne