zeke wrote:

ka wrote:

What I don't understand: QF does these test flights with latest generation a/c with higher cabin pressure, higher humidity, less (interior) noise, etc. to get approval from the unions and authorities to fly these kind of ULHs with latest generation a/c on a regular basis - and now they suddenly consider the 77L !? Something is not adding up here...

Brgds,
Ka.

Not really, the test flights were essentially marketing. The news got into the press worldwide.

Ferry flights for new aircraft are normally costs, by turning them into very public “research” flights they have turn them into tax deductions.

That's not the point (I know all of that)...
It is that they suddenly look at an a/c where fatigue for crews and pax is a much bigger problem than on a latest generation a/c.

Brgds,
Ka.

RyanairGuru wrote:

....
The 77L would only have a compelling business case if the capital cost was close to zero. That wasn't the case 10 years ago, but if Boeing were giving them away then that might change the cost analysis enough. I'm still doubtful though.

Let's see this differently.

Let us assume Boeing with a certain leasing company, say GECAS, collaborate to provide a lease for 777-200LR to Qantas for a relatively short term of five years.

Considering the possible commercial concession for last produced 777-200LR provided to the leasing company, it can offer a very compelling lease rate to Qantas.

Hence, since Qantas does not own the fleet it has very little financial risk exposure related to the lease. In addition it could a a lease below the normal market level.

Let us imagine the couple Boeing/GE provides some commercial concession concerning the engine maintenance. In addition GE can offer leased spare engines easily considering the size of the GE90-115B fleet.

At the end of the 777-200LR lease term, one can expect the 777-8 will be available.

All in all, the operation can be quite profitable for Qantas if they can manage to get the thing done. So all the discussion about this Project Sunrise is only to make some kind of free publicity.

Qantas now needs to get their act together and start the flights whenever the pilot agreement is reached.

The only thing that needs to be done is their internal stuff between the management and the pilots. That's it that's all.

ka wrote:

It is that they suddenly look at an a/c where fatigue for crews and pax is a much bigger problem than on a latest generation a/c.

Yeah, I wouldn't fancy listening to the "777 roar" for the duration of SYD-LHR without a break.

VV wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

....
The 77L would only have a compelling business case if the capital cost was close to zero. That wasn't the case 10 years ago, but if Boeing were giving them away then that might change the cost analysis enough. I'm still doubtful though.

Let's see this differently.

Let us assume Boeing with a certain leasing company, say GECAS, collaborate to provide a lease for 777-200LR to Qantas for a relatively short term of five years.

Considering the possible commercial concession for last produced 777-200LR provided to the leasing company, it can offer a very compelling lease rate to Qantas.

Hence, since Qantas does not own the fleet it has very little financial risk exposure related to the lease. In addition it could a a lease below the normal market level.

Let us imagine the couple Boeing/GE provides some commercial concession concerning the engine maintenance. In addition GE can offer leased spare engines easily considering the size of the GE90-115B fleet.

At the end of the 777-200LR lease term, one can expect the 777-8 will be available.

All in all, the operation can be quite profitable for Qantas if they can manage to get the thing done. So all the discussion about this Project Sunrise is only to make some kind of free publicity.

Qantas now needs to get their act together and start the flights whenever the pilot agreement is reached.

The only thing that needs to be done is their internal stuff between the management and the pilots. That's it that's all.

For an aircraft with a similar cost of building for Boeing it would have to make up an additional ~500k/month in fuel costs compared to the 7778x or A350-1000. Over a 5 year lease that is ~30million + that Boeing have pay extra for each jet. From what I can tell the sunrise jets will have incredibly high utilisation and that leads to higher capital and lower variable costs being desirable.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

seabosdca wrote:

Almost sounds as if he wants financial guarantees, not just performance guarantees, from the manufacturers.

The future of the project now looks to me like new-engine variants of the A350 and 787. That probably means no orders before 2022 or so and no EIS before the late 2020s.

Imagine if the 787 they had used for the flight had engines that used 10% less fuel - the aircraft likely could have carried another 20+ t of payload with the same fuel load it actually used, getting it to a perfectly reasonable passenger load for a 787-9.

at some point? too far is too damn Far! Qantas is seeking to nearly 2/3rds the way around the world and they want a deal on the airplane that would be a 'one off" type?
and how many of the type would they buy? It really doesn't make economic sense for either Boeing NOR Airbus to do that though I wouldn't doubt they won't at least try,

flipdewaf wrote:

VV wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

....
The 77L would only have a compelling business case if the capital cost was close to zero. That wasn't the case 10 years ago, but if Boeing were giving them away then that might change the cost analysis enough. I'm still doubtful though.

Let's see this differently.

Let us assume Boeing with a certain leasing company, say GECAS, collaborate to provide a lease for 777-200LR to Qantas for a relatively short term of five years.

Considering the possible commercial concession for last produced 777-200LR provided to the leasing company, it can offer a very compelling lease rate to Qantas.

Hence, since Qantas does not own the fleet it has very little financial risk exposure related to the lease. In addition it could a a lease below the normal market level.

Let us imagine the couple Boeing/GE provides some commercial concession concerning the engine maintenance. In addition GE can offer leased spare engines easily considering the size of the GE90-115B fleet.

At the end of the 777-200LR lease term, one can expect the 777-8 will be available.

All in all, the operation can be quite profitable for Qantas if they can manage to get the thing done. So all the discussion about this Project Sunrise is only to make some kind of free publicity.

Qantas now needs to get their act together and start the flights whenever the pilot agreement is reached.

The only thing that needs to be done is their internal stuff between the management and the pilots. That's it that's all.

For an aircraft with a similar cost of building for Boeing it would have to make up an additional ~500k/month in fuel costs compared to the 7778x or A350-1000. Over a 5 year lease that is ~30million + that Boeing have pay extra for each jet. From what I can tell the sunrise jets will have incredibly high utilisation and that leads to higher capital and lower variable costs being desirable.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope.

flipdewaf wrote:

VV wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

....
The 77L would only have a compelling business case if the capital cost was close to zero. That wasn't the case 10 years ago, but if Boeing were giving them away then that might change the cost analysis enough. I'm still doubtful though.

Let's see this differently.

Let us assume Boeing with a certain leasing company, say GECAS, collaborate to provide a lease for 777-200LR to Qantas for a relatively short term of five years.

Considering the possible commercial concession for last produced 777-200LR provided to the leasing company, it can offer a very compelling lease rate to Qantas.

Hence, since Qantas does not own the fleet it has very little financial risk exposure related to the lease. In addition it could a a lease below the normal market level.

Let us imagine the couple Boeing/GE provides some commercial concession concerning the engine maintenance. In addition GE can offer leased spare engines easily considering the size of the GE90-115B fleet.

At the end of the 777-200LR lease term, one can expect the 777-8 will be available.

All in all, the operation can be quite profitable for Qantas if they can manage to get the thing done. So all the discussion about this Project Sunrise is only to make some kind of free publicity.

Qantas now needs to get their act together and start the flights whenever the pilot agreement is reached.

The only thing that needs to be done is their internal stuff between the management and the pilots. That's it that's all.

For an aircraft with a similar cost of building for Boeing it would have to make up an additional ~500k/month in fuel costs compared to the 7778x or A350-1000. Over a 5 year lease that is ~30million + that Boeing have pay extra for each jet. From what I can tell the sunrise jets will have incredibly high utilisation and that leads to higher capital and lower variable costs being desirable.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spot on. New 77L @ 2020/21 is a terrible idea from any rational viewpoint.

VV wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

VV wrote:

Let's see this differently.

Let us assume Boeing with a certain leasing company, say GECAS, collaborate to provide a lease for 777-200LR to Qantas for a relatively short term of five years.

Considering the possible commercial concession for last produced 777-200LR provided to the leasing company, it can offer a very compelling lease rate to Qantas.

Hence, since Qantas does not own the fleet it has very little financial risk exposure related to the lease. In addition it could a a lease below the normal market level.

Let us imagine the couple Boeing/GE provides some commercial concession concerning the engine maintenance. In addition GE can offer leased spare engines easily considering the size of the GE90-115B fleet.

At the end of the 777-200LR lease term, one can expect the 777-8 will be available.

All in all, the operation can be quite profitable for Qantas if they can manage to get the thing done. So all the discussion about this Project Sunrise is only to make some kind of free publicity.

Qantas now needs to get their act together and start the flights whenever the pilot agreement is reached.

The only thing that needs to be done is their internal stuff between the management and the pilots. That's it that's all.

For an aircraft with a similar cost of building for Boeing it would have to make up an additional ~500k/month in fuel costs compared to the 7778x or A350-1000. Over a 5 year lease that is ~30million + that Boeing have pay extra for each jet. From what I can tell the sunrise jets will have incredibly high utilisation and that leads to higher capital and lower variable costs being desirable.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope.

Yep.

VV wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

VV wrote:

Let's see this differently.

Let us assume Boeing with a certain leasing company, say GECAS, collaborate to provide a lease for 777-200LR to Qantas for a relatively short term of five years.

Considering the possible commercial concession for last produced 777-200LR provided to the leasing company, it can offer a very compelling lease rate to Qantas.

Hence, since Qantas does not own the fleet it has very little financial risk exposure related to the lease. In addition it could a a lease below the normal market level.

Let us imagine the couple Boeing/GE provides some commercial concession concerning the engine maintenance. In addition GE can offer leased spare engines easily considering the size of the GE90-115B fleet.

At the end of the 777-200LR lease term, one can expect the 777-8 will be available.

All in all, the operation can be quite profitable for Qantas if they can manage to get the thing done. So all the discussion about this Project Sunrise is only to make some kind of free publicity.

Qantas now needs to get their act together and start the flights whenever the pilot agreement is reached.

The only thing that needs to be done is their internal stuff between the management and the pilots. That's it that's all.

For an aircraft with a similar cost of building for Boeing it would have to make up an additional ~500k/month in fuel costs compared to the 7778x or A350-1000. Over a 5 year lease that is ~30million + that Boeing have pay extra for each jet. From what I can tell the sunrise jets will have incredibly high utilisation and that leads to higher capital and lower variable costs being desirable.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope.

$600/ton fuel, 25-30t additional fuel for the trip, 30trips per month per jet.
~500k of fuel.

5years of lease is 60months.

That’s $30million extra fuel per aircraft over the 5 years. Waiting for the 778 is a much better option for Boeing, Qantas and Greta.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VV wrote:

Qantas now needs to get their act together and start the flights whenever the pilot agreement is reached.

The only thing that needs to be done is their internal stuff between the management and the pilots. That's it that's all.

Sorry - flat wrong!
They still need sign off from CASA for changes to the Ops manual to permit the operation [fatuge requirments]. That in turn depends on the three research flights results, which requires the reduction of the data and validation of the fatuge models. The third flight is next week, say a month for reduction and validation, the final submission to CASA seems likely to be in early Jan 2020. Until then they can't talk seriously with the unions involved. It seems likely that it will be Feb/March 2020 before a full announcement can be made.
As my dear Grandmother used to say "Hold Your Horses, it'll happen when the time is right"!

Gemuser

scbriml wrote:

ka wrote:

It is that they suddenly look at an a/c where fatigue for crews and pax is a much bigger problem than on a latest generation a/c.

Yeah, I wouldn't fancy listening to the "777 roar" for the duration of SYD-LHR without a break.

Good point, IMHO the B777 is the worst moden jet airliner for passenger exprience.

Gemuser

flipdewaf wrote:

77L will carry about the same load as the A351 (~28t) on the assumed 9500nm sunrise route syd-lhr.

How did you work that out?

With 3 ACT's filled the 777LR carries 162,626kg of fuel. That allows it to fly 9450nm at MTOW according to the second kink on the payload range chart.

We can then work out the payload by taking the MTOW subtracting the empty weight and the fuel load.

347,452kg -145,150 kg - 162,626kg

This gives a massive 39,676kg of payload. Now the premium heavy cabin would see a higher empty weight and with 2000kg combined weight of the ACTs bringing payload down to around 35t. This is much higher than the A350-1000.

Even with your estimate of 28t for the A350-1000 it would tank around 130t of fuel to do the trip.

28t with 130t of fuel versus 35t with 162t of fuel. That is exactly the same fuel burn per kg of payload.

The A350-1000 burns much less fuel per square metre of cabin area. But in terms of payload weight the 777LR is a beast.

VV wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

....
The 77L would only have a compelling business case if the capital cost was close to zero. That wasn't the case 10 years ago, but if Boeing were giving them away then that might change the cost analysis enough. I'm still doubtful though.

Let's see this differently.

Let us assume Boeing with a certain leasing company, say GECAS, collaborate to provide a lease for 777-200LR to Qantas for a relatively short term of five years.

Considering the possible commercial concession for last produced 777-200LR provided to the leasing company, it can offer a very compelling lease rate to Qantas.

Hence, since Qantas does not own the fleet it has very little financial risk exposure related to the lease. In addition it could a a lease below the normal market level.

Let us imagine the couple Boeing/GE provides some commercial concession concerning the engine maintenance. In addition GE can offer leased spare engines easily considering the size of the GE90-115B fleet.

At the end of the 777-200LR lease term, one can expect the 777-8 will be available.

All in all, the operation can be quite profitable for Qantas if they can manage to get the thing done. So all the discussion about this Project Sunrise is only to make some kind of free publicity.

Qantas now needs to get their act together and start the flights whenever the pilot agreement is reached.

The only thing that needs to be done is their internal stuff between the management and the pilots. That's it that's all.

In the alternate reality of Vero Venia, Boeing always seems to come out on top.

It was obvious as early as the launch of the 777 program, at the Dubai Air Show in 2013, that the 777–8 is an aircraft which wouldn’t have much orders out there because of its extremely high capability, curtailing the sales prospect, restricting it to the ultra long-haul market.

Operating empty weight estimates for the 777-8 are hovering around 168-170 tonnes. That’s up to 15 tonnes more than the OEW for the longer A350-1000, which helps to explain why the A350-1000 appears to be able to being operated economically in the medium-haul, long-haul and ultra long-haul markets. With only a marginally higher payload capability and with slightly smaller capacity than the A350-1000 on ultra-long-haul flights (i.e. shorter cabin), it would appear as if the 777-8 is not a viable value proposition for neither Boeing itself nor its customers.

In order to understand why the leadership at Boeing, as early as 2011, seem to have assured themselves that a (then) distantly conceived ultra-long-range -8LX* would not only be competitive with the A350-1000, but beat it as well, can only be explained by how they must have seriously underestimated from early on the performance capability of the A350-1000 and the continuous enhancements that Airbus has made on the design of the aircraft, from the programme launch in 2006, through initial production, EIS and operations.

* https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-homes-in-on-late-2012-launch-for-777-successo-369241/

Baldr wrote:

VV wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

....
The 77L would only have a compelling business case if the capital cost was close to zero. That wasn't the case 10 years ago, but if Boeing were giving them away then that might change the cost analysis enough. I'm still doubtful though.

Let's see this differently.

Let us assume Boeing with a certain leasing company, say GECAS, collaborate to provide a lease for 777-200LR to Qantas for a relatively short term of five years.

Considering the possible commercial concession for last produced 777-200LR provided to the leasing company, it can offer a very compelling lease rate to Qantas.

Hence, since Qantas does not own the fleet it has very little financial risk exposure related to the lease. In addition it could a a lease below the normal market level.

Let us imagine the couple Boeing/GE provides some commercial concession concerning the engine maintenance. In addition GE can offer leased spare engines easily considering the size of the GE90-115B fleet.

At the end of the 777-200LR lease term, one can expect the 777-8 will be available.

All in all, the operation can be quite profitable for Qantas if they can manage to get the thing done. So all the discussion about this Project Sunrise is only to make some kind of free publicity.

Qantas now needs to get their act together and start the flights whenever the pilot agreement is reached.

The only thing that needs to be done is their internal stuff between the management and the pilots. That's it that's all.

In the alternate reality of Vero Venia, Boeing always seems to come out on top.

It was obvious as early as the launch of the 777 program, at the Dubai Air Show in 2013, that the 777–8 is an aircraft which wouldn’t have much orders out there because of its extremely high capability, curtailing the sales prospect, restricting it to the ultra long-haul market.

Operating empty weight estimates for the 777-8 are hovering around 168-170 tonnes. That’s up to 15 tonnes more than the OEW for the longer A350-1000, which helps to explain why the A350-1000 appears to be able to being operated economically in the medium-haul, long-haul and ultra long-haul markets. With only a marginally higher payload capability and with slightly smaller capacity than the A350-1000 on ultra-long-haul flights (i.e. shorter cabin), it would appear as if the 777-8 is not a viable value proposition for neither Boeing itself nor its customers.

In order to understand why the leadership at Boeing, as early as 2011, seem to have assured themselves that a (then) distantly conceived ultra-long-range -8LX* would not only be competitive with the A350-1000, but beat it as well, can only be explained by how they must have seriously underestimated from early on the performance capability of the A350-1000 and the continuous enhancements that Airbus has made on the design of the aircraft, from the programme launch in 2006, through initial production, EIS and operations.

* https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-homes-in-on-late-2012-launch-for-777-successo-369241/

Thank you, you nailed it or should i say it is not productive in this thread to underestimate the A350?

RJMAZ wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

77L will carry about the same load as the A351 (~28t) on the assumed 9500nm sunrise route syd-lhr.

How did you work that out?

With 3 ACT's filled the 777LR carries 162,626kg of fuel. That allows it to fly 9450nm at MTOW according to the second kink on the payload range chart.

We can then work out the payload by taking the MTOW subtracting the empty weight and the fuel load.

347,452kg -145,150 kg - 162,626kg

This gives a massive 39,676kg of payload. Now the premium heavy cabin would see a higher empty weight and with 2000kg combined weight of the ACTs bringing payload down to around 35t. This is much higher than the A350-1000.

Even with your estimate of 28t for the A350-1000 it would tank around 130t of fuel to do the trip.

28t with 130t of fuel versus 35t with 162t of fuel. That is exactly the same fuel burn per kg of payload.

The A350-1000 burns much less fuel per square metre of cabin area. But in terms of payload weight the 777LR is a beast.

A350-1000:
MTOW - OWE - FUEL = available payload

319000kg-148900kg- 130000kg = 40100kg. Remarkably close to your figure.... go figure


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Qantas will order A350. There's little doubt about it.

But if they really want to fly those two very long routes Qantas needs something else

Now the question is absolutely not about the aircraft. Qantas needs to get their act together and clear whatever hurdle is to fly those routes.

If their effort today is to make a buzz around their airline then they have succeeded.
It is basically free publicity paid by Airbus and Boeing and other media outlets.

I am surprised about this "show" selection myself. However both manufacturers seem to play the game. What would be the ultimate aircraft order size by number for this exotic job at Qantas?

As someone else noted, there are 777-200LRs already available on the market. If this offer is in anyway serious, if Boeing just re-purchased the old planes and leased them to Qantas at a rate low enough to offset the fuel burn penalty, that would make more sense then building five new 777-200LRs for the job. It would also allow Boeing to offer frames years earlier, since some long-lead items on the 777-200LR likely span up to two years before final assembly.

Could the 779 fly SYD-LHR_SYD with a reduced seating configuration? How many seats could they operate assuming a premium configuration? I assume aux fuel tanks would be required.

georgiabill wrote:

Could the 779 fly SYD-LHR_SYD with a reduced seating configuration? How many seats could they operate assuming a premium configuration? I assume aux fuel tanks would be required.

It can do it with the standard fuel capacity, but it would take a huge hit based on the figures provided up-thread.

georgiabill wrote:

Could the 779 fly SYD-LHR_SYD with a reduced seating configuration? How many seats could they operate assuming a premium configuration? I assume aux fuel tanks would be required.

I did a rough estimate and the number would be between 200 to 250 depending a lot on what they put on the aircraft.

VV wrote:

georgiabill wrote:

Could the 779 fly SYD-LHR_SYD with a reduced seating configuration? How many seats could they operate assuming a premium configuration? I assume aux fuel tanks would be required.

I did a rough estimate and the number would be between 200 to 250 depending a lot on what they put on the aircraft.

Assuming it meets a spec of 184t OWE and a 414pax range of 7530nm then a simple breguet estimate to do 9500nm it would be Lansing at about 204t, so 4t of catering and hot towels, 5t of fuel and about 115 people.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VV wrote:

georgiabill wrote:

Could the 779 fly SYD-LHR_SYD with a reduced seating configuration? How many seats could they operate assuming a premium configuration? I assume aux fuel tanks would be required.

I did a rough estimate and the number would be between 200 to 250 depending a lot on what they put on the aircraft.

Assuming it meets a spec of 184t OWE and a 414pax range of 7530nm then a simple breguet estimate to do 9500nm it would be Lansing at about 204t, so 4t of catering and hot towels, 5t of fuel and about 115 people.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

VV wrote:

georgiabill wrote:

Could the 779 fly SYD-LHR_SYD with a reduced seating configuration? How many seats could they operate assuming a premium configuration? I assume aux fuel tanks would be required.

I did a rough estimate and the number would be between 200 to 250 depending a lot on what they put on the aircraft.

Assuming it meets a spec of 184t OWE and a 414pax range of 7530nm then a simple breguet estimate to do 9500nm it would be Lansing at about 204t, so 4t of catering and hot towels, 5t of fuel and about 115 people.
...

No. 200 people minimum.

VV wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

VV wrote:

I did a rough estimate and the number would be between 200 to 250 depending a lot on what they put on the aircraft.

Assuming it meets a spec of 184t OWE and a 414pax range of 7530nm then a simple breguet estimate to do 9500nm it would be Lansing at about 204t, so 4t of catering and hot towels, 5t of fuel and about 115 people.
...

No. 200 people minimum.

How did you arrive at that number?
You would have to expect a fuel flow of under 5t/hr for the last 2000nm of the flight to achieve that assuming that final reserves were the same as what Boeing assumes for its spec flight. QF require 70mins hold.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

VV wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Assuming it meets a spec of 184t OWE and a 414pax range of 7530nm then a simple breguet estimate to do 9500nm it would be Lansing at about 204t, so 4t of catering and hot towels, 5t of fuel and about 115 people.
...

No. 200 people minimum.

How did you arrive at that number?

Just believe me. If you do not want to do so then it is okay for me.

In any case I would not do the maths for you.

VV wrote:

In any case I would not do the maths for you.

flipdewaf at least does the maths for the figures he posts which is why people give it a bit more weight than those who just throw out a number (it does not help that many who do the latter appear to have certain agendas/narratives they wish to push).

If you've seen Boeing and/or QF simulation data and are under NDA, fine, but at least have the courtesy to note such.

777LR is a furphy. Joyce has been clear all along that Sunrise is central to QF's future long-haul strategy and its brand. Kicking off PS with a bunch of last-generation 777s – a model considered and rejected by a previous generation of QF management – sends all the wrong messages, even if they could get the numbers to add up. They would be better off using 779s with 100 seats blocked for London.

scbriml wrote:

ka wrote:

It is that they suddenly look at an a/c where fatigue for crews and pax is a much bigger problem than on a latest generation a/c.

Yeah, I wouldn't fancy listening to the "777 roar" for the duration of SYD-LHR without a break.

I sure remember those who reckoned people preferred noisier planes because they couldn’t hear other people. Or maybe it was they just didn’t prefer that particular type of quiet plane.

I’m still sceptical about this whole project, and even more so about the 777-200LR talk. I cannot see that happening unless Qantas somehow gets Boeing to fund it.

VV wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

VV wrote:

No. 200 people minimum.

How did you arrive at that number?

Just believe me. If you do not want to do so then it is okay for me.

In any case I would not do the maths for you.

Lol, you don’t have to do the maths for me. I am quite capable.

I tell you what. I’ll put down here the equations and assumptions I have used and then you can pick at it how’s that for generosity!!?!?

Number of pax = (MTOW/e^(MISSIONRANGE/(SPECRANGE/(LN(MTOW/(OWE+(SPECPAX*PAXWEIGHT) + LANDINGFUEL + SUNDRIES)))) - SUNDRIES - LANDINGFUEL- OWE)/PAXWEIGHT

MTOW = 350410kg
OWE = 184000kg
SPECPAX = 414kg
PAXWEIGHT =95kg
LANDINGFUEL = 5000kg
SUNDRIES = 3000kg
MISSIONRANGE =9500nm
SPECRANGE = 7525nm

I had missed the sundries in the previous calculation and this will show you that its about 162 pax...

Fred

PS. Note to self; Tapatalk is not good for trying to write equations.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

A350-1000:
MTOW - OWE - FUEL = available payload

319000kg-148900kg- 130000kg = 40100kg. Remarkably close to your figure.... go figure

You just said the A350-1000 could only carry 28t now it is carrying 40t.

I said around 130,000kg of fuel. I used that to make the A350-1000 look better as I would be accused of Boeing bias. For you to get 28t of payload for the A350-1000 then the fuel loaded must be closer to 140,000kg

A350 carries 28t of payload with 140t of fuel.
777LR carries 35t of payload with 162t of fuel.

A350-1000 = 200kg of payload per ton of fuel.
777LR = 216kg of payload per ton of fuel.

The 777LR burns 8% less fuel than the A350-1000.

The Boeing ACAP clearly shows the 777LR is capable of 35t payload to 9500nm.

RJMAZ wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A350-1000:
MTOW - OWE - FUEL = available payload

319000kg-148900kg- 130000kg = 40100kg. Remarkably close to your figure.... go figure

You just said the A350-1000 could only carry 28t now it is carrying 40t.

More of a demonstration that the equivalency between the frames. The extras that they have to carry to enable the flight to complete in a useful and reasonable way will be the same hence the 280 pax/ 28t useful (fare paying payload) . 280pax (77L) and 275 pax (A350-1000) have already been referenced in this thread.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

$600/ton fuel, 25-30t additional fuel for the trip, 30trips per month per jet.
~500k of fuel.

5years of lease is 60months.

That’s $30million extra fuel per aircraft over the 5 years. Waiting for the 778 is a much better option for Boeing, Qantas and Greta.

If the 777LR is $30 million cheaper to purchase that completely offsets the $30 million extra fuel bill.

The 777LR would easily be that much cheaper.

It seems that Qantas really made a huge deal about next generation aircraft plying the PS routes, so I highly doubt they’d do an about face and get a last gen aircraft as a stop gap.

The media here likes to make a big deal out of anything Qantas does or has happen so it could be a lot of bad PR for them.

scbriml wrote:

VV wrote:

Try again.

Enough with the vague pseudo-philosophical BS, put up or shut up.

Exactly.
If one doesn't know one should not write numbers.

RJMAZ wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

$600/ton fuel, 25-30t additional fuel for the trip, 30trips per month per jet.
~500k of fuel.

5years of lease is 60months.

That’s $30million extra fuel per aircraft over the 5 years. Waiting for the 778 is a much better option for Boeing, Qantas and Greta.

If the 777LR is $30 million cheaper to purchase that completely offsets the $30 million extra fuel bill.

The 777LR would easily be that much cheaper.

I wouldn't be surprised if an end-of-line 777LR is more like 40-50M cheaper at this point. The problem is whether Boeing or whoever finances it could justifiably do so at $500k/month cheaper lease payment to QF than 777x/A35K.

DexSwart wrote:

It seems that Qantas really made a huge deal about next generation aircraft plying the PS routes, so I highly doubt they’d do an about face and get a last gen aircraft as a stop gap.

The media here likes to make a big deal out of anything Qantas does or has happen so it could be a lot of bad PR for them.

I always thought PS was about the aircraft capable of operating ULR with a payload of 300+ passengers to make it feasible & not so much about next generation aircraft operating the routes. QR operate DOH-AKL utilising -200LR’s.
QF did put it out there to both Airbus & Boeing to come up with an aircraft capable to do it but if the -200LR is capable to do it today and they can get there hands on 8-12 frames at a dead cheap discounted rate why not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

DexSwart wrote:

It seems that Qantas really made a huge deal about next generation aircraft plying the PS routes, so I highly doubt they’d do an about face and get a last gen aircraft as a stop gap.

The media here likes to make a big deal out of anything Qantas does or has happen so it could be a lot of bad PR for them.

I always thought PS was about the aircraft capable of operating ULR with a payload of 300+ passengers to make it feasible & not so much about next generation aircraft operating the routes. QR operate DOH-AKL utilising -200LR’s.
QF did put it out there to both Airbus & Boeing to come up with an aircraft capable to do it but if the -200LR is capable to do it today and they can get there hands on 8-12 frames at a dead cheap discounted rate why not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMHO ONLY! Because tvhe B777 is a horriable aircraft from the passengers point of view!

Gemuser

VV wrote:

Exactly.
If one doesn't know one should not write numbers.

If you're going to question someone else's numbers you need some detail.
Otherwise you just sounds like a 14yo kid in a schoolyard argument.

Gemuser wrote:

EK413 wrote:

DexSwart wrote:

It seems that Qantas really made a huge deal about next generation aircraft plying the PS routes, so I highly doubt they’d do an about face and get a last gen aircraft as a stop gap.

The media here likes to make a big deal out of anything Qantas does or has happen so it could be a lot of bad PR for them.

I always thought PS was about the aircraft capable of operating ULR with a payload of 300+ passengers to make it feasible & not so much about next generation aircraft operating the routes. QR operate DOH-AKL utilising -200LR’s.
QF did put it out there to both Airbus & Boeing to come up with an aircraft capable to do it but if the -200LR is capable to do it today and they can get there hands on 8-12 frames at a dead cheap discounted rate why not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMHO ONLY! Because tvhe B777 is a horriable aircraft from the passengers point of view!

Gemuser

Horrible from passengers perspective (certainly not my perspective and travelled on the T7 many times) yet most successful twin ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Boeing and Qantas belong together in this long running joke they pulled on everyone here. So to sum it up, help me out, QF splashed headlines everywhere and pretended (or actually did) have Airbus running around trying to accommodate their "wild" ULR project no sleep request, and then in the end they want an old arse 777-200LR ?

ridiculous....

NWADTWE16 wrote:

Boeing and Qantas belong together in this long running joke they pulled on everyone here. So to sum it up, help me out, QF splashed headlines everywhere and pretended (or actually did) have Airbus running around trying to accommodate their "wild" ULR project no sleep request, and then in the end they want an old arse 777-200LR ?

ridiculous....

More than likely QF planned to order the B778/9 from the beginning, however to make Boeing sweat put the tender out for both to come up with an ULR aircraft. It’s no brainer if Boeing are offering B77L’s as an interim measure until the 778 is available really don’t see the problem. The launch of SYD/MEL-LHR & SYD-JFK goes ahead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

IMHO ONLY! Because tvhe B777 is a horriable aircraft from the passengers point of view!
Gemuser

Horrible from passengers perspective (certainly not my perspective and travelled on the T7 many times) yet most successful twin ever.

Then we will just have to agree to disagree! I too have trvelled on them many times [with the decline of the B747 it's getting hard to avoid them] and find them most uncomfortable,although not so horriable in 9 abreast configuration.

Gemuser

VV wrote:

scbriml wrote:

VV wrote:

Try again.

Enough with the vague pseudo-philosophical BS, put up or shut up.

Exactly.
If one doesn't know one should not write numbers.

And you haven’t written any numbers....

There’s no shame in not knowing, only shame in pretending to know when you don’t.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

moa999 wrote:

VV wrote:

Exactly.
If one doesn't know one should not write numbers.

If you're going to question someone else's numbers you need some detail.
Otherwise you just sounds like a 14yo kid in a schoolyard argument.

That is fine for me.
I really do not need anyone to believe me on this specific topic.

EK413 wrote:

NWADTWE16 wrote:

Boeing and Qantas belong together in this long running joke they pulled on everyone here. So to sum it up, help me out, QF splashed headlines everywhere and pretended (or actually did) have Airbus running around trying to accommodate their "wild" ULR project no sleep request, and then in the end they want an old arse 777-200LR ?

ridiculous....

More than likely QF planned to order the B778/9 from the beginning, however to make Boeing sweat put the tender out for both to come up with an ULR aircraft. It’s no brainer if Boeing are offering B77L’s as an interim measure until the 778 is available really don’t see the problem. The launch of SYD/MEL-LHR & SYD-JFK goes ahead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody wants a 777-8. I can see QF call it a day and ordering a fleet of off the shelf A350LR and -1000s. Proven, low risk, A350LR can be converted back if UK direct proves a bad idea after all.

Regardless of you guys math peeing contest, QF will have it figured out. Their choice of plane(s) will have fuel burn that will give them a profit.

I find their "test flights " are some would be or maybe really is ingenious.

These flights that they are considering... makes them look super duper concerned about the customer. Not that they don't, except they are tacking about an hour to the current longest scheduled flights. And, there about a half dozen planes that have the capability. Soo... there are already people who are willing to fly 18 or 19 hours in y class. Personally, I'm not getting on a plane that's pushing 20hrs flight time without it being a apt/resident set up, like what Etihad has. That's just me,

Anyway people will still choose the cheap seats.... tacking on another hr isn't going to make any real difference. Same goes for the pilots who will be getting 4 rostered. AND the FA'S will have their typical complement and will know how to manage their rest time as well.

So, what are these test flights really trying to accomplish?

VV wrote:

I really do not need anyone to believe me on this specific topic.

No risk of that.

timh4000 wrote:

Regardless of you guys math peeing contest, QF will have it figured out. Their choice of plane(s) will have fuel burn that will give them a profit.

I find their "test flights " are some would be or maybe really is ingenious.

These flights that they are considering... makes them look super duper concerned about the customer. Not that they don't, except they are tacking about an hour to the current longest scheduled flights. By And, there about a half dozen planes that have the capability. Soo... there are already people who are willing to fly 18 or 19 hours in y class. Personally, I'm not getting on a plane that's pushing 20hrs flight time without it being a apt/resident set up, like what Etihad has. That's just me,

Anyway people will still choose the cheap seats.... tacking on another hr isn't going to make any real difference. Same goes for the pilots who will be getting 4 rostered. AND the FA'S will have their typical complement and will know how to manage their rest time as well.

So, what are these test flights really trying to accomplish?

Regulatory approval. CASA will not approve 20 hour flights (with TOD pushing 22 hours) based on QF asserting that it's safe, because it is 'only' an hour or two longer than any other RPT flight in the world.

They require QF to do detailed fatigue modelling, based on established fatigue science and QF's own operations, and then validate that real-world flying produces the results that the model predicts.

This regulatory approach isn't unique to airline fatigue safety. Other fatigue regulated industries (long haul trucking, for example) have similar approval processes for shifts that push the accepted boundaries.

And, similar approaches are used in aircraft manufacturing - much of the testing done on new planes is to validate the models developed by the OEMs.

Of course, QF is *also* using the test flights as a great marketing tool. Two birds, one stone, and all that.