My models say:
Assuming that DOW is 188t and then adding payload on top of that (payload = food or people or cows or iphones or whatever you like)
Standard weight B779x will do sunrise with 18t payload using about 140t of fuel
360t 779X will take about 24t the distance using about 143t of fuel.
in both cases the 70mins fuel requirement is about 5t.
That’s pointing to a still borne 777-8
Maybe for routes other than project sunrise.
But its not Qantas' choice if boeing build it, that's Boeings and they also need to make the numbers work.
With crew plus catering 18t would be around 140 paying passengers. Flipdewaf model is for an average weather day.
It's for a 20kt headwind giving a still air range of 9691nm, average day weather for the QF9 is 7kts headwind I believe and for QF10 is 13kts tailwind. QF have stated they would need up to 9500nm to take account of the weather for year round performance, its worth noting that maximum antipodal distance is 10800nm and the longer the sector the better chance you have of finding a favorable path.
There may be days where tail winds could allow 180 passengers but then there will also be days where headwinds only 100 passengers. Changing his fuel burn rate by 1% could result in plus or minus 20 passengers. Fuel burn is unknown.
The real key to that though is predicting it, QF aren't selling many seats during a fire sale 24hrs before the flight dispatches because the weather looks good.
Also if the 777-9 can do the route with 18t then the 777-8 which should be 15t lighter will be carrying more than 33t of payload. 33t allows for a standard Qantas density cabin and no block seats on bad weather days.
Thats certainly the benefit on the long journeys but most (like 99%) can be predicted over a year.
It will even allow a container or two of express cargo most of the year.
I can't think of any cargo outside of the self loading type that is 3hrs sensitive and the reality of sending things air cargo is that there is probably more fluff than that in the system anyway. My experience sending long distance via a ship is 'some weeks' door to door and sending long distance via air freight is 'Some days' door to door. If you want to save 3hrs on your shipping time then you are better off waving a big stick at your customs broker and making sure that your consignment labeling is correct.
That is about as commercially viable as you can get.
The 777-8 will be burning roughly 40% less fuel per ton of payload carried. By far the lowest fuel burn ler unit of payload weight of any potential option.
I would agree that is the case on the ULH routes that we are talking about for sunrise but it depends if it is better for QF to simply abuse and under-utilise the aircraft on the long routes and have it performing better on the shorter routes should they want it to become a larger part of their fleet. The real question comes in if Boeing does push the MTOW up to 360t pushing the 779X up to 8knm range for full pax and bags and realistically then the advantage of the 778X is only on routes above that distance. Below 8knm the 779X would carry more payload below this level due to its high max payload capability.
At 360t MTOW its less about weather QF want it but weather other players want it and then will Boeing even make it...If you were running one of the ME3 and you could help cut the legs out from under project sunrise by cancelling a jet that that only carries additional revenue payload over the 779X beyond 8knm?http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=8000nm%40 ... 0x360&PM=*
at 360T MTOW the 778 is dead...Roll on the 7710X.