Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Gemuser
Posts: 5079
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:37 pm

qf789 wrote:
Olddog wrote:
I guess that obviously that plane will need to be Easa and CASA certified. But will it need to be FAA certified? It could add several months to the process.....


QF wants to fly nonstop to JFK so yes it would need to be approved by the FAA

This old furphy keeps coming up! Unless there has been some big changes in the ICAO treaty & rules that I am not aware of a non US airline does NOT require FAA certification of the aircraft they operate into the USA as a international civil aviation service. As long as it is certified by CASA AND the aircraft is on the Australian [VH] register QF can operate into any ICAO country [unless a specific country has problems with the country of registration compling with ICAO requirements, hence black lists] none of which apply here.
CASA should not have a problem certifying the aircraft as an applicant can base the certification off either EASA OR FAA certification.

Gemuser
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:41 pm

P1aneMad wrote:
Hell hath no fury like an ex-employee scorned!

Well it’s been a tough one but I think you win the internet today.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
CraigAnderson
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:48 am

"Qantas plans to have more experienced pilots on board the world’s longest non-stop flights than on its current long-haul flights for the first 18 months as it evaluates fatigue, said sources with knowledge of the matter."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qant ... SKBN1YK0AU
 
VV
Posts: 1702
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:17 am

SanDiegoLover wrote:
VV wrote:
Yes, sorry for the mistake. It is indeed four years from now.

However, I stand by my opinion that the A350-1000 with all the required modifications for Project Sunrise would not be reeady for an entry into service in 2023.


WAIT! You just got shown that your entire “three years” premise is completely wrong, and that there is an entire extra year in the schedule, and yet you simply double down, shrug, ignore it, and claim it STILL isn’t enough time. Dude! Seriously, your cognitive dissonance is astounding. It’s sad really, that you are so married to your ideas that you refuse to adapt. SMDH!



In reality the clock for that aircraft will start in April 2020 if the Project Sunrise goes ahead.

And we need to wait until mid 2023 to check again my gut feel.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:40 am

VV wrote:
SanDiegoLover wrote:
VV wrote:
Yes, sorry for the mistake. It is indeed four years from now.

However, I stand by my opinion that the A350-1000 with all the required modifications for Project Sunrise would not be reeady for an entry into service in 2023.


WAIT! You just got shown that your entire “three years” premise is completely wrong, and that there is an entire extra year in the schedule, and yet you simply double down, shrug, ignore it, and claim it STILL isn’t enough time. Dude! Seriously, your cognitive dissonance is astounding. It’s sad really, that you are so married to your ideas that you refuse to adapt. SMDH!



In reality the clock for that aircraft will start in April 2020 if the Project Sunrise goes ahead.

And we need to wait until mid 2023 to check again my gut feel.

Standing by a gut feeling and then that gut feeling being shown to be correct does, in no way, validate your gut feeling being a good prediction method, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Your credibility on these things is low and will remain low whilst whilst you make comments like these.


Fred
Image
 
User avatar
BobMUC
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:59 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:18 am

VV wrote:
SanDiegoLover wrote:
VV wrote:
Yes, sorry for the mistake. It is indeed four years from now.

However, I stand by my opinion that the A350-1000 with all the required modifications for Project Sunrise would not be reeady for an entry into service in 2023.


WAIT! You just got shown that your entire “three years” premise is completely wrong, and that there is an entire extra year in the schedule, and yet you simply double down, shrug, ignore it, and claim it STILL isn’t enough time. Dude! Seriously, your cognitive dissonance is astounding. It’s sad really, that you are so married to your ideas that you refuse to adapt. SMDH!



In reality the clock for that aircraft will start in April 2020 if the Project Sunrise goes ahead.

And we need to wait until mid 2023 to check again my gut feel.


My feeling is, that the 2023 timeframe has not only a technical reason. I'm with most other posters, that Airbus does not need three or more years to get this done! I think there is a reason, that the QF press release has mentioned the following:
"Airbus has agreed to extend the deadline to confirm delivery slots from February 2020 to March 2020. This provides additional time to negotiate an industrial agreement without impacting the planned start date of Project Sunrise flights in the first half of calendar 2023.

You know the order book for the A350 and even for QF it is not possible to get delivery slots on short notice.
And in addition, starting flights for project sunrise in the first half of 2023 means first deliveries end of 2022 or very, very early in 2023, to have enough time to be ready on time.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23939
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:17 pm

Perhaps we can just table the "gut feeling" part of this thread?

CraigAnderson wrote:
"Qantas plans to have more experienced pilots on board the world’s longest non-stop flights than on its current long-haul flights for the first 18 months as it evaluates fatigue, said sources with knowledge of the matter."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qant ... SKBN1YK0AU

What I found interesting:

Adam Susz, a 737 captain and union negotiator for the Australian and International Pilots Association, said Qantas had tabled a draft proposal that had been deemed unacceptable by the union committee, in part because it introduced a lower pay scale for new second officers. But he said talks would resume in the new year.

I am pretty confident that we will get agreement in the end,” Susz told Reuters on Monday. “I don’t think the issues are insurmountable but there are a couple of elements to the Qantas proposal that we find extremely unpalatable and we will avoid those the best we can.”

Nice to see some optimism.

Interesting that QF used this opportunity to try to slip in lower pay for second officers.

Also:

Qantas has proposed the pilots on its A330 fleet, which fly mostly cross-country and Asian flights, also fly the ultra-long haul missions on the A350, since they can be licensed on both models.

Seems they are avoiding the presumably higher level of benefits enjoyed by the A380 pilots.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:25 pm

Could we please just discuss the topic without the personal comments
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14974
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:45 pm

CraigAnderson wrote:
"Qantas plans to have more experienced pilots on board the world’s longest non-stop flights than on its current long-haul flights for the first 18 months as it evaluates fatigue, said sources with knowledge of the matter."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qant ... SKBN1YK0AU



The article just says instead of the normal
1 Captain
1 First Officer
2 Second Officers

They will crew it for 18 months with
1 Captain
2 First Officer
1 Second Officers

Which is the same way CX does it on ULH.

Revelation wrote:
Seems they are avoiding the presumably higher level of benefits enjoyed by the A380 pilots.


I don’t read it that way at all, the A330 pilots would be type rated on the A350 already. Pilots from other fleets would need a larger training package.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4112
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:52 pm

zeke wrote:
They will crew it for 18 months with
1 Captain
2 First Officer
1 Second Officers

Which is the same way CX does it on ULH.


How would the roster look like for such a flight?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14974
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:55 pm

PW100 wrote:
zeke wrote:
They will crew it for 18 months with
1 Captain
2 First Officer
1 Second Officers

Which is the same way CX does it on ULH.


How would the roster look like for such a flight?


What do you mean ?

If you mean how I would split the rest up in flight

First 30 min to TOC everyone works
2.5 hrs rest for two pilots & 2 working
2.5 hrs rest fir two pilots & 2 working
6.25 hrs rest for two pilots & 2 working
6.25 hrs rest fir two pilots & 2 working
Last hour everyone working
Last edited by zeke on Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23939
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:02 pm

zeke wrote:
The article just says instead of the normal
1 Captain
1 First Officer
2 Second Officers

They will crew it for 18 months with
1 Captain
2 First Officer
1 Second Officers

Which is the same way CX does it on ULH.

Interesting there is so much focus on the number and pay rate of 2nd officers.

Maybe the use of 2nd officers is key to the "productivity gain" that mangement says they need?

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Seems they are avoiding the presumably higher level of benefits enjoyed by the A380 pilots.

I don’t read it that way at all, the A330 pilots would be type rated on the A350 already. Pilots from other fleets would need a larger training package.

Good point.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3669
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:04 pm

zeke wrote:
PW100 wrote:
zeke wrote:
They will crew it for 18 months with
1 Captain
2 First Officer
1 Second Officers

Which is the same way CX does it on ULH.


How would the roster look like for such a flight?


What do you mean ?


I think he means, how long a shift would each officer work and who in which seat etc during the flight.
come visit the south pacific
 
Vladex
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:05 pm

BobMUC wrote:
VV wrote:
SanDiegoLover wrote:

WAIT! You just got shown that your entire “three years” premise is completely wrong, and that there is an entire extra year in the schedule, and yet you simply double down, shrug, ignore it, and claim it STILL isn’t enough time. Dude! Seriously, your cognitive dissonance is astounding. It’s sad really, that you are so married to your ideas that you refuse to adapt. SMDH!



In reality the clock for that aircraft will start in April 2020 if the Project Sunrise goes ahead.

And we need to wait until mid 2023 to check again my gut feel.


My feeling is, that the 2023 timeframe has not only a technical reason. I'm with most other posters, that Airbus does not need three or more years to get this done! I think there is a reason, that the QF press release has mentioned the following:
"Airbus has agreed to extend the deadline to confirm delivery slots from February 2020 to March 2020. This provides additional time to negotiate an industrial agreement without impacting the planned start date of Project Sunrise flights in the first half of calendar 2023.

You know the order book for the A350 and even for QF it is not possible to get delivery slots on short notice.
And in addition, starting flights for project sunrise in the first half of 2023 means first deliveries end of 2022 or very, very early in 2023, to have enough time to be ready on time.


I have to comment on this, United just extended their 45 deliveries to 2027 which is almost like cancellation, Etihad is not accepting even their 5 deliveries, Cathay is losing passengers and money left and right. Qatar and Singapore only have 20 plus more frames to receive, few Chinese airlines are not receiving their frames. The logical question is who can stop Qantas from receiving a brand new A350 then?
A350 order book looks very weak and Airbus must have offered very wide spots. I'd hate to say that it may have been the deciding factor here as A350 is the best aircraft right now.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14974
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:09 pm

Vladex wrote:
A350 order book looks very weak and Airbus must have offered very wide spots. I'd hate to say that it may have been the deciding factor here as A350 is the best aircraft right now.


Any you think EK cancelling all those 77Xs doesn’t leave a hole either ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:15 pm

qf789 wrote:
Could we please just discuss the topic without the personal comments


My Bad, I shall no longer comment on the ridiculous poster but concentrate on the ridiculous posts instead :wink2:

Fred
Image
 
Vladex
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:25 pm

zeke wrote:
Vladex wrote:
A350 order book looks very weak and Airbus must have offered very wide spots. I'd hate to say that it may have been the deciding factor here as A350 is the best aircraft right now.


Any you think EK cancelling all those 77Xs doesn’t leave a hole either ?


EK cancelled maybe 24?

There is only EK and TK that are firm upcoming deliveries for A350 and many shaky orders mostly to lessors. This Qantas order is really badly needed one and it fits very well for both sides.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2160
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:36 pm

Vladex wrote:
zeke wrote:
Vladex wrote:
A350 order book looks very weak and Airbus must have offered very wide spots. I'd hate to say that it may have been the deciding factor here as A350 is the best aircraft right now.


Any you think EK cancelling all those 77Xs doesn’t leave a hole either ?


EK cancelled maybe 24?

There is only EK and TK that are firm upcoming deliveries for A350 and many shaky orders mostly to lessors. This Qantas order is really badly needed one and it fits very well for both sides.


There are a number of substantial orders from sizeable carriers that are only partly filled - AF has ~35 frames still to come, CX still has a dozen or so, OZ and DL each still have 10+ still coming, the IAG carriers still have 30ish among them coming, SQ nearly two dozen, and a bunch among the various Chinese carriers. Yes, there are not many large orders sitting out there completely still to come, but it's not like they're about to start churning out whitetails.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19037
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:44 pm

Vladex wrote:
EK cancelled maybe 24?


Boeing removed 35 from Emirates order.

Vladex wrote:
There is only EK and TK that are firm upcoming deliveries for A350 and many shaky orders mostly to lessors. This Qantas order is really badly needed one and it fits very well for both sides.


Really? BA, AF, DL, CX, SQ, JL, SU, VS... :sarcastic:

What does this nonsense have to do with QF selecting the A350 for PS?
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.
 
cat3appr50
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:06 pm

Based on my calcs for the (optimized) Proj. Sunrise route YSSY-EGLL, around 9,225 NM, for a selected flight date (and historical WX),with a typical route HW component:
The B777-8 can meet (and exceed) the original Project Sunrise 300 basis passengers. For the noted optimized route, the B777-8 can accommodate around 310 total passengers and around 1.2 T extra cargo , with no required increase to the existing max. fuel capacity and MTOW.

The A350-1000 can attain 300 maximum passengers (with no extra cargo) for this route only if the max. fuel capacity is increased to around 133 T, and the MTOW is increased to around 322 T.

The A350-1000 and B777-8 have very close fuel burn metrics in terms of Lbs Trip Fuel/NM-Passenger. But of course the final purchase (assuming QF continues these new routes plan) will be based on many other financial, etc. metrics as well.
 
miegapele
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:24 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:47 pm

Is there a schedule for final flight?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19037
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:49 pm

miegapele wrote:
Is there a schedule for final flight?


Final research flight? All three have been completed.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23939
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:47 pm

cat3appr50 wrote:
Based on my calcs for the (optimized) Proj. Sunrise route YSSY-EGLL, around 9,225 NM, for a selected flight date (and historical WX),with a typical route HW component:
The B777-8 can meet (and exceed) the original Project Sunrise 300 basis passengers. For the noted optimized route, the B777-8 can accommodate around 310 total passengers and around 1.2 T extra cargo , with no required increase to the existing max. fuel capacity and MTOW.

The A350-1000 can attain 300 maximum passengers (with no extra cargo) for this route only if the max. fuel capacity is increased to around 133 T, and the MTOW is increased to around 322 T.

The A350-1000 and B777-8 have very close fuel burn metrics in terms of Lbs Trip Fuel/NM-Passenger. But of course the final purchase (assuming QF continues these new routes plan) will be based on many other financial, etc. metrics as well.

Boeing has been eliminated, case closed.

It's another generation of 777 that QF kicked the tires on but walked away.

77X would have needed a compelling advantage to overcome the fact that Zeke pointed out, QF can staff the A350s with the same crews they already have operating the A330 with minor differences training.

Also the A350 family has other members that may be of interest to QF in the future on many different routes, whereas 777 is pretty much only suitable to long/heavy trunk routes.

QF made a decision that was best for its needs, and I'm expecting they will be successful with PS.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
miegapele
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:24 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:04 pm

scbriml wrote:

Final research flight? All three have been completed.

Really?, qantas says it's scheduled for Dec 17th, but can't find any departure times
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19037
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
QF made a decision that was best for its needs, and I'm expecting they will be successful with PS.


Hopefully! PER-LHR non-stop is pretty impressive. SYD-LHR non-stop will be astonishing.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19037
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:09 pm

miegapele wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Final research flight? All three have been completed.

Really?, qantas says it's scheduled for Dec 17th, but can't find any departure times


Yes, my bad. I had it in my head the Heathrow flight was the last one. :oops:
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.
 
tealnz
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:04 pm

cat3appr50 wrote:
Based on my calcs for the (optimized) Proj. Sunrise route YSSY-EGLL, around 9,225 NM, for a selected flight date (and historical WX),with a typical route HW component:
The B777-8 can meet (and exceed) the original Project Sunrise 300 basis passengers. For the noted optimized route, the B777-8 can accommodate around 310 total passengers and around 1.2 T extra cargo , with no required increase to the existing max. fuel capacity and MTOW.

The A350-1000 can attain 300 maximum passengers (with no extra cargo) for this route only if the max. fuel capacity is increased to around 133 T, and the MTOW is increased to around 322 T.

The A350-1000 and B777-8 have very close fuel burn metrics in terms of Lbs Trip Fuel/NM-Passenger. But of course the final purchase (assuming QF continues these new routes plan) will be based on many other financial, etc. metrics as well.

Unless my memory is deceiving me QF had let it be known that neither the 778 nor the A35K could carry full pax to London. But they could carry a commercially viable payload - implying they would just block seats in Y on that sector.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4112
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:58 pm

scbriml wrote:
Vladex wrote:
EK cancelled maybe 24?


Boeing removed 35 from Emirates order.


And of course the EY frames are very secure . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4112
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:04 pm

zeke wrote:
PW100 wrote:
zeke wrote:
They will crew it for 18 months with
1 Captain
2 First Officer
1 Second Officers

Which is the same way CX does it on ULH.


How would the roster look like for such a flight?


What do you mean ?
If you mean how I would split the rest up in flight

First 30 min to TOC everyone works
2.5 hrs rest for two pilots & 2 working
2.5 hrs rest fir two pilots & 2 working
6.25 hrs rest for two pilots & 2 working
6.25 hrs rest fir two pilots & 2 working
Last hour everyone working


That is pretty close to what I had in mind. I do wonder how the Captain and the Second Officer would be scheduled.
I assume that at all times 1 First Officer will be on duty, either with the Captain or with the Second Officer.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
moa999
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:06 pm

miegapele wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Final research flight? All three have been completed.

Really?, qantas says it's scheduled for Dec 17th, but can't find any departure times
VH-ZNK positioning to JFK now. Due in 1907 NY time.

Also reported that 380 VH-OQH, the 3rd refurb, will fly DRS-SYD today but I'm guessing with a SIN stop.
 
Vladex
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:57 pm

scbriml wrote:
Vladex wrote:
EK cancelled maybe 24?


Boeing removed 35 from Emirates order.

Vladex wrote:
There is only EK and TK that are firm upcoming deliveries for A350 and many shaky orders mostly to lessors. This Qantas order is really badly needed one and it fits very well for both sides.


Really? BA, AF, DL, CX, SQ, JL, SU, VS... :sarcastic:

What does this nonsense have to do with QF selecting the A350 for PS?

I said clean slate orders and I should add Aeroflot, thank you . I was responding to the notion that the delivery slots are somehow hard to find for Qantas in 2023 especially after United delay or cancellation.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14974
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:07 pm

PW100 wrote:
That is pretty close to what I had in mind. I do wonder how the Captain and the Second Officer would be scheduled.
I assume that at all times 1 First Officer will be on duty, either with the Captain or with the Second Officer.


I just schedule the rest periods that work best for me, and the second officer usually works the opposite schedule. While not on the flight deck all the time, the captain is always the person legally in command, even when in the bunk asleep.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Vladex
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:50 pm

PW100 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Vladex wrote:
EK cancelled maybe 24?


Boeing removed 35 from Emirates order.


And of course the EY frames are very secure . . .



Yes, being grounded in Bordeaux looking pretty. Of course , no one will steal them I am sure. I am not so sure about HK airlines orders and China Eastern or even future of Cathay now, South African is alwayts shaky as is LATAM. All of this to prove that these orders are as shaky as a snowflake and Qantas can pick their slots.
 
User avatar
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:52 pm

Vladex wrote:
BobMUC wrote:
VV wrote:


In reality the clock for that aircraft will start in April 2020 if the Project Sunrise goes ahead.

And we need to wait until mid 2023 to check again my gut feel.


My feeling is, that the 2023 timeframe has not only a technical reason. I'm with most other posters, that Airbus does not need three or more years to get this done! I think there is a reason, that the QF press release has mentioned the following:
"Airbus has agreed to extend the deadline to confirm delivery slots from February 2020 to March 2020. This provides additional time to negotiate an industrial agreement without impacting the planned start date of Project Sunrise flights in the first half of calendar 2023.

You know the order book for the A350 and even for QF it is not possible to get delivery slots on short notice.
And in addition, starting flights for project sunrise in the first half of 2023 means first deliveries end of 2022 or very, very early in 2023, to have enough time to be ready on time.


I have to comment on this, United just extended their 45 deliveries to 2027 which is almost like cancellation, Etihad is not accepting even their 5 deliveries, Cathay is losing passengers and money left and right. Qatar and Singapore only have 20 plus more frames to receive, few Chinese airlines are not receiving their frames. The logical question is who can stop Qantas from receiving a brand new A350 then?
A350 order book looks very weak and Airbus must have offered very wide spots. I'd hate to say that it may have been the deciding factor here as A350 is the best aircraft right now.


Those 5 Etihad A350's have been delivered to the airline (several customer acceptance flights have been performed in Toulouse) and are no Airbus property anymore. The airline put them in storage after delivery.

You can check Airbus delivery books and will notice that those aircraft have been delivered.
Good moaning!
 
benjjk
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:29 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:11 am

The third and final research flight, JFK-SYD, is underway, departing an hour later than planned at 2200 local (probably due to weather).
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:00 am

majano wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
After all this time, they now decide that they are going to test if the concept is even viable. Something wrong with their planning somewhere. If they decide it's not viable, do they just apologise to Boeing and Airbus for wasting their time?

I guess time will tell but my opinion is that this "Project Sunrise" is more of a show than an aircraft acquisition project. So, in / around / before December 2019, Qantas will decide / evaluate / comply with the "best and final offers" for the equipment, the business model, the regulatory requirements, pilot negotiations, scientific research, etc. etc? I may be proven wrong, but I feel like QF has just given themselves one-hundred-and-one escape routes from this farcical show.


That's what I think too.

In March 2020, QF may decide to dump the whole project and order more B787's to open more routes and "offer more flight options" rather than non-stop routings.
With Jetstar operating B787's, them operating B787's, they might as well standardise everything with B787's.
Maybe that's what these research flights are about in the first place.

RJMAZ said something about non-stop with the B787 I think.
If QF can get Boeing to raise their MTOW by 10%, it starts getting into the realm of possibilities.
The re could also be incentive for Boeing. If the B787-10 can get more MTOW, who would need an A359?

Giving Airbus the win, could mean as much as QF giving them a consolation prize for wasting time, energy and money for something that they're not going to purchase.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12888
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:13 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
If QF can get Boeing to raise their MTOW by 10%, it starts getting into the realm of possibilities.
The re could also be incentive for Boeing. If the B787-10 can get more MTOW, who would need an A359?.


probably airlines that don´t want to haul the 21% extra induced drag from 10% more TOW around ...you´d get an 787-10ULR that burns more fuel than the A359 unless they also do a lot of work into the wings, essentially designing new ones. So, everything but the fuse itself gets touched, since engines need to upscaling too ....

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:18 am

Forum Moderator
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:00 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
majano wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
After all this time, they now decide that they are going to test if the concept is even viable. Something wrong with their planning somewhere. If they decide it's not viable, do they just apologise to Boeing and Airbus for wasting their time?

I guess time will tell but my opinion is that this "Project Sunrise" is more of a show than an aircraft acquisition project. So, in / around / before December 2019, Qantas will decide / evaluate / comply with the "best and final offers" for the equipment, the business model, the regulatory requirements, pilot negotiations, scientific research, etc. etc? I may be proven wrong, but I feel like QF has just given themselves one-hundred-and-one escape routes from this farcical show.


That's what I think too.

In March 2020, QF may decide to dump the whole project and order more B787's to open more routes and "offer more flight options" rather than non-stop routings.
With Jetstar operating B787's, them operating B787's, they might as well standardise everything with B787's.
Maybe that's what these research flights are about in the first place.

RJMAZ said something about non-stop with the B787 I think.
If QF can get Boeing to raise their MTOW by 10%, it starts getting into the realm of possibilities.

10% MTOW increase?!?!?!?!???!!!!!
279.5t MTOW?!?!?!??!!!
Waterbomber2 wrote:
The re could also be incentive for Boeing. If the B787-10 can get more MTOW, who would need an A359?

For its lower fuel burn?
Waterbomber2 wrote:
Giving Airbus the win, could mean as much as QF giving them a consolation prize for wasting time, energy and money for something that they're not going to purchase.
or if you use Occam’s razor it could mean what it looks like it means,pending the other required projects being sorted the selected aircraft for flying sunrise routes will be an Airbus.

Does anyone think this thread should come come with a warning for the level of salt?

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:04 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
If QF can get Boeing to raise their MTOW by 10%, it starts getting into the realm of possibilities.
The re could also be incentive for Boeing. If the B787-10 can get more MTOW, who would need an A359?.


probably airlines that don´t want to haul the 21% extra induced drag from 10% more TOW around ...you´d get an 787-10ULR that burns more fuel than the A359 unless they also do a lot of work into the wings, essentially designing new ones. So, everything but the fuse itself gets touched, since engines need to upscaling too ....

best regards
Thomas


A certified MTOW is a measure with a lot of built-in margin, some of that margin could be traded for some compensating measures through a STC with a different maintenance program and operations manual: higher speed tyres, stronger brakes for a higher V1, engine pressure wash program, aircraft wash program, more rigourous maintenance program to check flap and spoiler angles to prevent unneeded protrusion and resulting drag, take-off without flaps, etc...
Add some fuel saving measures like a PIP, chevronned cowlings for straight ones,

One could also ask oneself, why not let it take a refuelling stop on SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR? What's the time loss? 1 hour perhaps? Still beats having to transfer. On the way back you fly direct.
I also wonder why QF doesn't do this with the A380. A fuel stop Westbound, East bound it should be able to make it non-stop in LR Cruise and with winglets and a more premium configuration.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19037
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:58 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Does anyone think this thread should come come with a warning for the level of salt?


Careful, you don’t want to be accused of being passive-aggressive! :wink2:
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.
 
tealnz
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:00 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
One could also ask oneself, why not let it take a refuelling stop on SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR? What's the time loss? 1 hour perhaps? Still beats having to transfer. On the way back you fly direct.
I also wonder why QF doesn't do this with the A380. A fuel stop Westbound, East bound it should be able to make it non-stop in LR Cruise and with winglets and a more premium configuration.

Maybe time to take the “I don’t believe in ULH” conversation to a separate thread in Travel, Polls and Preferences? It doesn’t seem to belong in a discussion of Project Sunrise, particularly now that QF has completed and announced an aircraft selection after a long and comprehensive technical and economic analysis.
 
Cerecl
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:14 am

Vladex wrote:
Yes, being grounded in Bordeaux looking pretty. Of course , no one will steal them I am sure. I am not so sure about HK airlines orders and China Eastern or even future of Cathay now, South African is alwayts shaky as is LATAM. All of this to prove that these orders are as shaky as a snowflake and Qantas can pick their slots.


I have a feeling that the comment about EY frame relates to its 777X family order which “currently remain on the books” rather than the A350 orders. In any event, I will give you HX but where on earth did you get the impression that MU's A350 order is insecure? You can probably just about bank on more A350 from MU given its widebody fleet is heavily Airbus based. CX only has a dozen more A350 to accept. SA is actually leasing A350 so has no impact on A350 backlog. LATAM also only has 12 left to be delivered and Delta is taking 14 from them.

All these is not to say A350 backlog doesn't have less secure orders but the original comment of A350 order book appears "very weak" is the only thing that is as shaky as a snowflake.
Fokker-100 SAAB 340 Q400 E190 717 737 738 763ER 787-8 772 77E 773 77W 747-400 747-400ER A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A359 A380
 
jagraham
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:53 am

Baldr wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Baldr wrote:

Again, just watch the video that I linked.

The narrator of the video (with an annoying voice) is claiming that the 777-8 will be flying significantly further than the A350-1000.

That says it all, really.


well, 1,240km is a pretty significant difference, 16,090 for the A35K vs. 17,330 for the 777-8. And yes, of course, the A35K could always get an ACT, just like the 777-8 could. I mean for crying out loud it's not like the A350-1000 is able to do this just with its wings and central tank. THAT would be a marvel. When the A350 NEO comes to pass, then that capability will exist.


An ULR version of the A350-1000 is fuel volume limited (i.e presumably the same max internal volume as the A350-900URL; or 165,000 litres), while the 777X was designed to hold more than enough volume internally in the wingbox for the -8X ULR version (i.e. 198,000 litres). Hence, the 777-9 is essentially "overwinged" with respect to internal volume in the wingbox (i.e. centre wingbox + 2 x outer wingboxes).

The 777-8 would obviously not need an ACT. Perhaps you're thinking about the 777-200LR which can be outfitted with 3 ACTs

Now, the 319 metric tonnes MTOW version of the A350-1000 appears to have a payload capability of around 10 metric tonnes at a range of 9500nm (17,594 km) -- and that's without an ACT. The 16,090 km range you were quoting, is for 366 passengers; or a payload of 34,770 kg (i.e. 95 kg per passenger + luggage). So, your assertion that the A350-1000 "only" has a range of 16,090 km is plainly wrong.

What is clear, however, is that Boeing designed the 777-8 and 777-9 similar to how they designed the 777-200LR and 777-300ER; B-Market (Boeing designation) for the 77W and 779; C-Market, or ULR for the 77L and 778. Hence, Boeing seem to have missed out on the point that the new light-weight, CFRP content of 50-plus-percent-by-weight wide-bodies has a much less steep range-payload curve, and that their lower empty weights are increasingly beneficial the longer you fly.

When the 777X programme was launched in 2013, Boeing probably never expected that both the B-Market Trent XWB-powered A350-900 and A350-1000 models would be able to quite easily be enhanced in such a way that they would be able to economically fly C-Market routes as well. In fact, Boeing and Randy Tinseth have repeatedly been talking down the A350-1000 and Trent XWB-97 engine (i.e. being "under-powered", not big enough etc.). Perhaps they thought that Airbus couldn't possibly deliver to spec. Likewise, it probably never occurred to them that Airbus could exceed the specifications. At the time, Randy Tinseth & Co. had long since been ridiculing the A340, while Richard Aboulafia & Co. had been praising the 777-300ER as the best aircraft ever. Hence, if one listened to both what was being said by Boeing paid shills and from that of U.S. based "analysts", Boeing always "under-promised" and "over-delivered" while Airbus only built "heavy" airframes. Cases in point: A320 was heavier than the 737NG; A340-600 was heavier than the 777-300ER and the A380 was heavier than the 747-8 -- and the "panelized" A350 was "much-less-advanced" than the 787.



The 77X was originally intended to be about 300t with 95K engines. Then Emirates weighed in, and the current variants came to pass.
Perhaps Boeing should go back and do the original 300t versions.

It should also be noted that 778 uncertainty is a big factor.

Finally, there is the question of just how many passengers a 319t A35K with one tank can fly SYD - LHR eastbound. The other routes are generally less challenging, but certainly at 319t the A35K will not carry 300 pax between SYD and LHR. How much of a cut from 300 pax will it be?
 
jagraham
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:58 am

Vladex wrote:
PW100 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Boeing removed 35 from Emirates order.


And of course the EY frames are very secure . . .



Yes, being grounded in Bordeaux looking pretty. Of course , no one will steal them I am sure. I am not so sure about HK airlines orders and China Eastern or even future of Cathay now, South African is alwayts shaky as is LATAM. All of this to prove that these orders are as shaky as a snowflake and Qantas can pick their slots.


LATAM orders are taken up by DL. What A350 version DL will take is still speculation, but DL deferred 13 of its own A359s and is now taking 14 of LATAM's A359s
 
yoyo777
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:06 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:18 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Giving Airbus the win, could mean as much as QF giving them a consolation prize for wasting time, energy and money for something that they're not going to purchase.


Agreed 100%. This is likely to be the case.
Last edited by yoyo777 on Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
yoyo777
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:06 pm

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:27 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
In March 2020, QF may decide to dump the whole project and order more B787's to open more routes and "offer more flight options" rather than non-stop routings.
With Jetstar operating B787's, them operating B787's, they might as well standardise everything with B787's.
Maybe that's what these research flights are about in the first place.

RJMAZ said something about non-stop with the B787 I think.
If QF can get Boeing to raise their MTOW by 10%, it starts getting into the realm of possibilities.
The re could also be incentive for Boeing. If the B787-10 can get more MTOW, who would need an A359?


I think Boeing is already working on 260t? You don't need a 10% increase on the 787-10. 260t MTOW should let 787-10 to match payload/range of standard 275t A350, with a less fuel burn. Also 260t should enable 787-9 to do PS with 200 or so passenger. I think a fleet of 260t 787-9 for PS, and 787-10 to replace 333 and 744 is the future of QF.
 
moa999
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:45 am

Lol.
If the 787 was anywhere close to meeting QFs objectives, don't you think Boeing would have offered it.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Qantas plans 3 Project Sunrise research flights in Q4 2019 using 787-9's, final decision on PS by end of 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:15 pm

yoyo777 wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
In March 2020, QF may decide to dump the whole project and order more B787's to open more routes and "offer more flight options" rather than non-stop routings.
With Jetstar operating B787's, them operating B787's, they might as well standardise everything with B787's.
Maybe that's what these research flights are about in the first place.

RJMAZ said something about non-stop with the B787 I think.
If QF can get Boeing to raise their MTOW by 10%, it starts getting into the realm of possibilities.
The re could also be incentive for Boeing. If the B787-10 can get more MTOW, who would need an A359?


I think Boeing is already working on 260t?

is this a question or a statement? I haven't seen much other than circular arguments on this site tracing back to users with multiple accounts. If you have any evidence please proceed to post it here.

yoyo777 wrote:
You don't need a 10% increase on the 787-10. 260t MTOW should let 787-10 to match payload/range of standard 275t A350, with a less fuel burn.


Lets start from the top. As it currently stands the A359 has a lower trip fuel burn for a like for like mission with the 787-10 (albeit only 1 or 2 %) but the A359 has a lower cabin area so pax capacity is generally lower and gives the 787-10 the opportunity to have a lower fuel burn per pax if the market is there. A standard 254t MTOW has a MZFW range of just over 4000nm whereas the A359 even in 275t format has a MZFW range of 5500nm+. As the weight increase you speak of would require additional distance to be flown at a heavy weight to take the benefit then it would not be unreasonable to assume a fuel burn of 6.5thr^-1 at cruise meaning a reasonable estimate of increased range of ~450nm meaning your new MZFW range would be in the order of 4600nm

So a no on both counts there.

yoyo777 wrote:

Also 260t should enable 787-9 to do PS with 200 or so passenger. I think a fleet of 260t 787-9 for PS, and 787-10 to replace 333 and 744 is the future of QF.


Data for QF9 shows that with a 21t payload (210pax) completed the ~8202nm still air trip PER-LHR using 91t of fuel. (TOW = 249 and a landing weight of 158t) this allows one to calculate a reasonable specific range factor through the Breguet range equation and subsequently feed that back in for determining (with a reasonbale degree of certainty) what would be required for the 9500nm for the sunrise routes. this figure comes out at ~275t.....

The payload you can expect for a 260t 787-9 on the sunrise route (assuming acts) is about 15.5t or about 155 people and using 106t of fuel.

Moyangmm, checklist787, USA777X, hifl1er seemed to have similar views, weird!

Do you have any reason/evidence to think this is the case or is it a kind of religious I want it to be true therefore I'll assume it is?

Fred
Image
 
Baldr
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:10 pm

Re: Updated: Qantas picks A350-1000 as preferred platform for Project Sunrise; Final decision due March 2020

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:28 pm

jagraham wrote:
Baldr wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

well, 1,240km is a pretty significant difference, 16,090 for the A35K vs. 17,330 for the 777-8. And yes, of course, the A35K could always get an ACT, just like the 777-8 could. I mean for crying out loud it's not like the A350-1000 is able to do this just with its wings and central tank. THAT would be a marvel. When the A350 NEO comes to pass, then that capability will exist.


An ULR version of the A350-1000 is fuel volume limited (i.e presumably the same max internal volume as the A350-900URL; or 165,000 litres), while the 777X was designed to hold more than enough volume internally in the wingbox for the -8X ULR version (i.e. 198,000 litres). Hence, the 777-9 is essentially "overwinged" with respect to internal volume in the wingbox (i.e. centre wingbox + 2 x outer wingboxes).

The 777-8 would obviously not need an ACT. Perhaps you're thinking about the 777-200LR which can be outfitted with 3 ACTs

Now, the 319 metric tonnes MTOW version of the A350-1000 appears to have a payload capability of around 10 metric tonnes at a range of 9500nm (17,594 km) -- and that's without an ACT. The 16,090 km range you were quoting, is for 366 passengers; or a payload of 34,770 kg (i.e. 95 kg per passenger + luggage). So, your assertion that the A350-1000 "only" has a range of 16,090 km is plainly wrong.

What is clear, however, is that Boeing designed the 777-8 and 777-9 similar to how they designed the 777-200LR and 777-300ER; B-Market (Boeing designation) for the 77W and 779; C-Market, or ULR for the 77L and 778. Hence, Boeing seem to have missed out on the point that the new light-weight, CFRP content of 50-plus-percent-by-weight wide-bodies has a much less steep range-payload curve, and that their lower empty weights are increasingly beneficial the longer you fly.

When the 777X programme was launched in 2013, Boeing probably never expected that both the B-Market Trent XWB-powered A350-900 and A350-1000 models would be able to quite easily be enhanced in such a way that they would be able to economically fly C-Market routes as well. In fact, Boeing and Randy Tinseth have repeatedly been talking down the A350-1000 and Trent XWB-97 engine (i.e. being "under-powered", not big enough etc.). Perhaps they thought that Airbus couldn't possibly deliver to spec. Likewise, it probably never occurred to them that Airbus could exceed the specifications. At the time, Randy Tinseth & Co. had long since been ridiculing the A340, while Richard Aboulafia & Co. had been praising the 777-300ER as the best aircraft ever. Hence, if one listened to both what was being said by Boeing paid shills and from that of U.S. based "analysts", Boeing always "under-promised" and "over-delivered" while Airbus only built "heavy" airframes. Cases in point: A320 was heavier than the 737NG; A340-600 was heavier than the 777-300ER and the A380 was heavier than the 747-8 -- and the "panelized" A350 was "much-less-advanced" than the 787.



The 77X was originally intended to be about 300t with 95K engines. Then Emirates weighed in, and the current variants came to pass.
Perhaps Boeing should go back and do the original 300t versions.

It should also be noted that 778 uncertainty is a big factor.

Finally, there is the question of just how many passengers a 319t A35K with one tank can fly SYD - LHR eastbound. The other routes are generally less challenging, but certainly at 319t the A35K will not carry 300 pax between SYD and LHR. How much of a cut from 300 pax will it be?


Please do re-read what I wrote:

Baldr said: Now, the 319 metric tonnes MTOW version of the A350-1000 appears to have a payload capability of around 10 metric tonnes at a range of 9500nm (17,594 km) -- and that's without an ACT. The 16,090 km range you were quoting, is for 366 passengers; or a payload of 34,770 kg (i.e. 95 kg per passenger + luggage). So, your assertion that the A350-1000 "only" has a range of 16,090 km is plainly wrong.


So at a range of 9,500 nm, the 319 metric tonne MTOW version of the A350-1000 appears to have a payload capability of around 10 metric tonnes -- and that's without an auxiliary fuel tank.

Of course, the A350-1000s flying the Project Sunrise routes will have a further increase in MTOW and an extra fuel tank. For example, if the MTOW is increased to 324 metric tonnes and the fuel capacity is increased by about 7000 litres to 172,000 litres (thanks to the extra fuel tank), the A350-1000 should be able to fly 10,000 nm (still-air) with a 10 (metric) tonnes payload.

However, we shouldn't focus solely on the ground distance of a great-circle route. In fact, aircraft seldom follow a great-circle route. The great-circle distance between Heathrow and Sydney (Kingsford Smith) is 9188 nm (17016 km). One should keep in mind that routings may avoid the shorter ground distance of a great-circle route to use tailwinds to save time and fuel, shortening the equivalent still-air distance. Typically, the longest flights measured by ground distance traveled are Singapore Airline’s flight 22 from Singapore to Newark. Both of these routes have the geometrically optimal great-circle route near the North Pole, but SQ regularly chooses to fly these routes over the Pacific Ocean (SIN-EWR) and the Atlantic Ocean (EWR-SIN) where the assistance of the jet stream is available to save flying time and fuel. Cathay Pacific, apparently, will sometimes choose ground routes of up to 15,000 km (8099 nm) for flights from Hong Kong (Chek Lap Kok) to JFK, instead of the 12,984 km (7,011 nmi) great-circle route, for the same reason. Perhaps Zeke could elaborate further on this.

One should also keep in mind that it’s the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) to Heathrow route that is the challenging one, and not the Heathrow to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) route. The direct distance Sydney-London is 9,188 nm the shortest way. On a windy day, this could extend to more than 10,000nm air distance when flying West.

There are several route options available for Qantas A350-1000s flying from Sydney to London. One option would be to fly north (north-east) from Sydney towards the Bering Strait; and then, either crossing the Arctic Ocean, or flying further south-east towards Greenland in order to pick up a tailwind from the polar jet stream; and then, flying within the jetstream all the way to LHR.

Great Circle Distance SYD-LHR and SYD-PVS-LHR
https://bit.ly/36LtzMI

Great Circle Distance PVS-LHR
https://bit.ly/2sxG8fM

Winter Winds: How Singapore Airlines’ New World’s Longest Flight is Saving Time (and Fuel) by Flying Farther
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/winter-winds-how-singapore-airlines-new-worlds-longest-flight-is-saving-time-and-fuel-by-flying-farther/

The Polar Jet Stream
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3864

-

As for your 777X data; I don't know where you've got them from, but they're clearly wrong.

The following data is from Jon Ostrower and FlightGlobal:

_________MTOW in kg (original)____Thrust in lbf (original)

777-8X________315,000______________88,000
777-8LX_______344,000______________99,500
777-9X________344,000______________99,500


Jon Ostrower, Flightglobal: The 407-passenger, 76.48m (250ft 11in) long 777-9X, a four-frame stretch of the 777-300ER, would likely lead the new family. It would be powered by two General Electric GE9X engines, each providing 99,500lb of thrust, and have a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 344t (759,000lb).

The smaller 353-seat, 69.55m 777-8X, a ten-frame stretch of the 777-200ER, would follow the -9X with a significantly derated 88,000lb GE9X engine and 315t MTOW. It would be a direct competitor to the A350-900 and promises similar cash and fuel economics improvements over its -200ER predecessor as the -9X will over the -300ER.

A possible third family member sharing the 777-8X's fuselage length, would create the 777-8LX, an ultra-long-range shrink of the 777-9X with common MTOW, providing a mission range of 9,480nm, 85nm longer than the 9,395nm offered by the 777-200LR it would replace.


https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-hom ... 76.article

-

Jon Ostrower, Flightglobal: The 777-8LX's fuselage would match that of a proposed -8X, now seen as a three-class 353-seat 4.46m (14ft 7in) stretch of the 777-200ER.

With common structural elements, the -8LX and the larger -9X would share a 344t (760,000lb) maximum takeoff weight (MTOW), allowing the smaller jet to carry additional fuel for the extended missions, with a common fuel tank capacity across the conceptual family.

Both the 777-8X and -9X concepts currently aim for an 14,800km (8,000nm) design range.

With a common engine to the 777-9X, the -8LX is conceptually powered by the General Electric GE9X with a 99,500lb thrust rating, while the -8X is understood to be significantly derated off the engine's baseline design with its lower MTOW.


https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-studies-ultra-long-range-777-8lx-concept/104017.article

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