Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
Vicenza
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 6:43 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Relying entirely on the price of oil being low is very risky, anything could happen between now and a time when PS because viable again. The A35K is a far safer bet, would be far more fuel efficient going to JFK, LHR and any Asian destinations they have, even with fuel prices being low it's still a huge amount of fuel saved. More future-proof and sets up a possibility of buying regular A35Ks, which could work well for them.

No, relying entirely on the low oil price and buying brand new 777LR aircraft would be risky. At the price Qantas would pay for the Delta 777LR fleet itwould take more than 10 years of record high oil prices until the A350 option became cheaper. There is no risk.



Precovid Jet-A fuel hit $600 per ton. It is now below $200 per ton. The 777LR will burn about 20t more fuel per flight. At the higher price and assuming one flight per day that is only $4.38 million per year in extra fuel. It would take 22 years until the extra fuel saved made the A350-1000ULR a cheaper option..


Are you seriously saying that oil is gong to remain at the current low prices for the next 22 years though? It seems to me that your arguments seem to be focused around this magical 'low oil price' syndrome now seemingly so common by members on this forum. With the production caps now in place, and the world slowly ramping back up, oil price will rise quite substantially in my opinion - not to $60-70 a barrel mind you, but substantially enough that arguments on low oil price/just keep using older aircraft thinking will gp out the window fairly quickly. It certainly won't take very long to consume the oil that is in currently in storage. Then what.....are you expecting it still to be $20-$30 a barrel??? As has been mentioned, your arguments are really all over the place trying to somehow 'prove' that everything you are putting forward it somehow definitive, yet are only speculation/assumption.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 7:23 pm

I feel like the only way the used DL 77Ls make sense at QF is they hold out for the 350NEO as their long-term flagship aircraft closer to 2030. The Ultrafan will probably make the 359 capable of PS routes with nearly 300 seats and significant savings on acquisition costs and future landing fees.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 10:57 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
QF won't be paying anywhere near list prices for the A35K, A $200m difference seems extremely pessimistic to me, especially considering the costs of the interior for each aircraft.

Did you stop reading? I said $100 million and used that in my calculations. Of course I know they wouldn't pay list but to buy a unique ULR model that no one else needs they will pay more per aircraft than any other A350-1000 operator. $100 million is actually very comservative.

MrHMSH wrote:
QF tend to hold onto aircraft for the long run, 22 years probably isn't unrealistic. Also, any increase in fuel prices would probably see the A35K win out in the end.

That assumed a record high fuel price that was 3 times todays price and a very conservative $100 million price difference. Stacking the deck in favor of the A350 and it still takes 22 years.

It would be very doubtful Qantas would pay under $250 million for each A350 considering the $366 million list price. The prices for used widebody aircraft will tank due to supply and demand. $50 million would not be unrealistic for the 777LR considering previous sales were under $80 million.

So a $150 million price difference is much more realistic. With fuel prices two and half todays price of $500 per ton using these numbers it would be 41 years until the A350 wins.

MrHMSH wrote:
Whereas the 77L would suffer more on the shorter routes as it has to carry its weight around. There would be an average of more than one flight per day if the aircraft are used on (say) HKG, SIN, SFO or wherever.
The 777LR is used on Los Angeles to Sydney and it operates this "short route" with close to maximum payload. It would carry 15t extra payload compared to the A350-1000 on this route. Thas is approx 30% more payload weight for a less than 20% fuel penalty. The 777LR actually burns less fuel per kg.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 11:14 pm

JohanTally wrote:
I feel like the only way the used DL 77Ls make sense at QF is they hold out for the 350NEO as their long-term flagship aircraft closer to 2030. The Ultrafan will probably make the 359 capable of PS routes with nearly 300 seats and significant savings on acquisition costs and future landing fees.

Spot on.

I already suggested this. If demand was still high and fuel prices still low then the 777LR could be kept once the A350NEO arrives. The 777LR would still have an advantage on any freight heavy routes over 6000nm. Jetstar could get them and fit them with their economy heavy cabin to make use of the payload weight. It could allow Melbourne to Los Angeles with 10ab 400+ passengers. The 787 could never do that route in Jetstar density.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2560
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Sun May 17, 2020 11:58 pm

The simple fact is QF just doesn't need the capacity. They have too much capacity now and are already allowing for this by retiring 747s, deferring 789s and long-term parking A380s. Demand will take years to come back to anything like 2019 levels; they have absolutely no interest in introducing a new type into their fleet. As has been said upthread, Sunrise may not even be required for 7 or 8 years.

This whole talk about using unwanted DL 77Ls is based on some fiction that QF would be interested; the 77L has been available for years and QF have never bit. The idea they would bother now when the 77L is a discontinued model and market demand is nil seems bizarre.
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
Ellofiend
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:13 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 12:14 am

How will CV-19 effect PS? This route is aimed at the biz traveller isn't it? Would the route still be viable considering the primary hits are to the leisure sector?
 
moa999
Posts: 965
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 12:21 am

Agree.
No way QF will buy any large longhaul aircraft in this environment. Remember also if fuel stays low, the economics of the A380 also improves dramatically.

Personally think that QF would be better taking on cheap narrowbodies - domestic is likely to rebound far quicker.

And I can't see fuel staying low forever.
Demand is slowly coming back, and at the moment the US shale players are being forced to close plants.
Once that's done the cartel will cut production and things will go back to prior levels.

At the moment there is nearly no international travel due to CV19. Who knows whether Business or Leisure will rebound first. Both are impacted by the economy, and many businesses may decide after months using video and teleconference that they don't need the same travel budget going forward
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2678
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 4:55 am

RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
QF won't be paying anywhere near list prices for the A35K, A $200m difference seems extremely pessimistic to me, especially considering the costs of the interior for each aircraft.

Did you stop reading? I said $100 million and used that in my calculations. Of course I know they wouldn't pay list but to buy a unique ULR model that no one else needs they will pay more per aircraft than any other A350-1000 operator. $100 million is actually very comservative.

MrHMSH wrote:
QF tend to hold onto aircraft for the long run, 22 years probably isn't unrealistic. Also, any increase in fuel prices would probably see the A35K win out in the end.

That assumed a record high fuel price that was 3 times todays price and a very conservative $100 million price difference. Stacking the deck in favor of the A350 and it still takes 22 years.

It would be very doubtful Qantas would pay under $250 million for each A350 considering the $366 million list price. The prices for used widebody aircraft will tank due to supply and demand. $50 million would not be unrealistic for the 777LR considering previous sales were under $80 million.

So a $150 million price difference is much more realistic. With fuel prices two and half todays price of $500 per ton using these numbers it would be 41 years until the A350 wins.

MrHMSH wrote:
Whereas the 77L would suffer more on the shorter routes as it has to carry its weight around. There would be an average of more than one flight per day if the aircraft are used on (say) HKG, SIN, SFO or wherever.
The 777LR is used on Los Angeles to Sydney and it operates this "short route" with close to maximum payload. It would carry 15t extra payload compared to the A350-1000 on this route. Thas is approx 30% more payload weight for a less than 20% fuel penalty. The 777LR actually burns less fuel per kg.


If the 77L burns less fuel per kilogram then shouldn't it be uber popular? Burning less fuel on LAX-SYD than a 25+ year newer design, even one specifically designed for the longest routes combined with a low price of fuel should mean airlines will be falling over themselves to buy it. I know the regular A35K wouldn't be able to take maximum payload, but surely the PS A35K should get very close? Also, have you factored in the balance of the A35K offering more revenue potential?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19180
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 8:03 am

tullamarine wrote:
This whole talk about using unwanted DL 77Ls is based on some fiction that QF would be interested; the 77L has been available for years and QF have never bit. The idea they would bother now when the 77L is a discontinued model and market demand is nil seems bizarre.


It is bizarre, along with all the fantasy planes we see in other threads.

The 77L has been in service for 14 years. Plenty long enough for QF to have chosen it to operate ULH flights. Likewise, I don't see QF suddenly deciding to buy DL's leftovers for their new flagship services.
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
enzo011
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 8:13 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Did you stop reading? I said $100 million and used that in my calculations. Of course I know they wouldn't pay list but to buy a unique ULR model that no one else needs they will pay more per aircraft than any other A350-1000 operator. $100 million is actually very comservative.



That assumed a record high fuel price that was 3 times todays price and a very conservative $100 million price difference. Stacking the deck in favor of the A350 and it still takes 22 years.

It would be very doubtful Qantas would pay under $250 million for each A350 considering the $366 million list price. The prices for used widebody aircraft will tank due to supply and demand. $50 million would not be unrealistic for the 777LR considering previous sales were under $80 million.

So a $150 million price difference is much more realistic. With fuel prices two and half todays price of $500 per ton using these numbers it would be 41 years until the A350 wins.



The 777LR is used on Los Angeles to Sydney and it operates this "short route" with close to maximum payload. It would carry 15t extra payload compared to the A350-1000 on this route. Thas is approx 30% more payload weight for a less than 20% fuel penalty. The 777LR actually burns less fuel per kg.



I could be wrong here, but the 77L is basically the A359R that was proposed by Airbus before the A359ULR, with the A359 using A35K gear and other strengthening to get to the A35K MTOW and fill the aircraft with fuel for long ranges. There is no magic formula, just have enough space and be able to lift the fuel to fly a very long way. The 77L has all the disadvantages that the current 77W has against the A35K, and it is shorter so offers less revenue potential.

As for the price QF will pay, who knows as we will not ever see the contract. I would think they could get great pricing if the A350 is the preferred aircraft for the airline for future orders as well, not just the PS flights.

And finally, the payload advantage is only an advantage if you are able to fill it with heavy things that pays for itself in the hold. Its the A380 arguments again. Yes it has the potential to carry a lot of cargo in weight, but what about space? If you fill the 77L with 285 people (DL config) and their bags, how much space do you have in the bottom for cargo?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 8:35 am

MrHMSH wrote:
If the 77L burns less fuel per kilogram then shouldn't it be uber popular? Burning less fuel on LAX-SYD than a 25+ year newer design, even one specifically designed for the longest routes combined with a low price of fuel should mean airlines will be falling over themselves to buy it. I know the regular A35K wouldn't be able to take maximum payload, but surely the PS A35K should get very close? Also, have you factored in the balance of the A35K offering more revenue potential?

The 777F is proof of its superior fuel burn per kg on long haul routes.

Passenger airlines simply do not have enough routes over 6000nm that also have cargo demand or routes over 8000nm that are passenger only. The 777LR becomes volume limited on most routes. Even if it is filled to maximum payload weight on a 6000nm route it only needs to take off at 315t. It is carrying around the structure to support the higher MTOW without using it.

The A350-1000 has to start reducing payload at only 6000nm. Once it hits 8000nm the payload it can carry is roughly halved. The 777LR can carry DOUBLE the payload weight at this range. It as this point where the 777LR holds the largest advantage.

Qantas has multiple routes where the 777LR has its peak advantage. Melbourne and Sydney are really tge only two cities that have multiple destinnations between 8000nm and 9000nm to take full advantage of the 777LR. With low fuel prices there is no disadvantages at all.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 9:24 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Qantas has multiple routes where the 777LR has its peak advantage. Melbourne and Sydney are really tge only two cities that have multiple destinnations between 8000nm and 9000nm to take full advantage of the 777LR. With low fuel prices there is no disadvantages at all.

Yet somehow the idiots in QF management have failed to see the potential of this aircraft and have failed to buy it, year in, year out. Just like NZ's useless management also failed to see its potential for the long-haul routes it wanted to start and instead waited for the 787. No wonder both carriers have had long periods of unprofitability. Hang on, there's something odd here. . .

Seriously, with the financial crisis that is covid-19, no airline is going to buy a completely new aircraft to start a completely new ULH route. Just ain't gonna happen. Why not focus on what QF might actually do - like re-establishing a Tasman network, possibly also services to other close-to covid-free destinations? I know it's not as sexy a discussion but at least it's the real world, not fantasyland.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2678
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 9:24 am

RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
If the 77L burns less fuel per kilogram then shouldn't it be uber popular? Burning less fuel on LAX-SYD than a 25+ year newer design, even one specifically designed for the longest routes combined with a low price of fuel should mean airlines will be falling over themselves to buy it. I know the regular A35K wouldn't be able to take maximum payload, but surely the PS A35K should get very close? Also, have you factored in the balance of the A35K offering more revenue potential?

The 777F is proof of its superior fuel burn per kg on long haul routes.

Passenger airlines simply do not have enough routes over 6000nm that also have cargo demand or routes over 8000nm that are passenger only. The 777LR becomes volume limited on most routes. Even if it is filled to maximum payload weight on a 6000nm route it only needs to take off at 315t. It is carrying around the structure to support the higher MTOW without using it.

The A350-1000 has to start reducing payload at only 6000nm. Once it hits 8000nm the payload it can carry is roughly halved. The 777LR can carry DOUBLE the payload weight at this range. It as this point where the 777LR holds the largest advantage.

Qantas has multiple routes where the 777LR has its peak advantage. Melbourne and Sydney are really tge only two cities that have multiple destinnations between 8000nm and 9000nm to take full advantage of the 777LR. With low fuel prices there is no disadvantages at all.


SYD-LAX is 6500nm, so I'm not sure the drop-off would be that steep, and also not sure that the payload advantage would compensate for the better revenue potential afforded by more space for passengers. If the A35K can take a full passenger load from MEL/SYD-LAX with room for some cargo it's the better option, but for Asia it will be able to fly a full payload easily.

If what you're saying is true then the 77L is such an utter home run that QF would be stupid to not do it as soon as demand returns. I still find it hard to believe that an older design which has not been popular is that much better than a much newer and lighter aircraft. The A35K's fuel burn advantage vs the 77W is over 20%, and the 77W is vastly more popular than the 77L as it's more efficient (per passenger at least).
 
Opus99
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 9:33 am

MrHMSH wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
If the 77L burns less fuel per kilogram then shouldn't it be uber popular? Burning less fuel on LAX-SYD than a 25+ year newer design, even one specifically designed for the longest routes combined with a low price of fuel should mean airlines will be falling over themselves to buy it. I know the regular A35K wouldn't be able to take maximum payload, but surely the PS A35K should get very close? Also, have you factored in the balance of the A35K offering more revenue potential?

The 777F is proof of its superior fuel burn per kg on long haul routes.

Passenger airlines simply do not have enough routes over 6000nm that also have cargo demand or routes over 8000nm that are passenger only. The 777LR becomes volume limited on most routes. Even if it is filled to maximum payload weight on a 6000nm route it only needs to take off at 315t. It is carrying around the structure to support the higher MTOW without using it.

The A350-1000 has to start reducing payload at only 6000nm. Once it hits 8000nm the payload it can carry is roughly halved. The 777LR can carry DOUBLE the payload weight at this range. It as this point where the 777LR holds the largest advantage.

Qantas has multiple routes where the 777LR has its peak advantage. Melbourne and Sydney are really tge only two cities that have multiple destinnations between 8000nm and 9000nm to take full advantage of the 777LR. With low fuel prices there is no disadvantages at all.


SYD-LAX is 6500nm, so I'm not sure the drop-off would be that steep, and also not sure that the payload advantage would compensate for the better revenue potential afforded by more space for passengers. If the A35K can take a full passenger load from MEL/SYD-LAX with room for some cargo it's the better option, but for Asia it will be able to fly a full payload easily.

If what you're saying is true then the 77L is such an utter home run that QF would be stupid to not do it as soon as demand returns. I still find it hard to believe that an older design which has not been popular is that much better than a much newer and lighter aircraft. The A35K's fuel burn advantage vs the 77W is over 20%, and the 77W is vastly more popular than the 77L as it's more efficient (per passenger at least).

I think this fuel burn is per seat. Because I’ve been extremely confused at Airbus’ 20% less fuel burn. Last fuel burn numbers we have for the A35K is 6.3t per hour and then the 77W at 7.5t per hour. That is not even 20% but there must be something I am missing though
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1543
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 12:26 pm

If QF wants a A350-1000-sized frame, why would they downsize to a 77L? They specifically chose 35K over 359.
 
mig17
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 1:30 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
If the 77L burns less fuel per kilogram then shouldn't it be uber popular? Burning less fuel on LAX-SYD than a 25+ year newer design, even one specifically designed for the longest routes combined with a low price of fuel should mean airlines will be falling over themselves to buy it. I know the regular A35K wouldn't be able to take maximum payload, but surely the PS A35K should get very close? Also, have you factored in the balance of the A35K offering more revenue potential?

The 777F is proof of its superior fuel burn per kg on long haul routes.

Passenger airlines simply do not have enough routes over 6000nm that also have cargo demand or routes over 8000nm that are passenger only. The 777LR becomes volume limited on most routes. Even if it is filled to maximum payload weight on a 6000nm route it only needs to take off at 315t. It is carrying around the structure to support the higher MTOW without using it.

The A350-1000 has to start reducing payload at only 6000nm. Once it hits 8000nm the payload it can carry is roughly halved. The 777LR can carry DOUBLE the payload weight at this range. It as this point where the 777LR holds the largest advantage.

Qantas has multiple routes where the 777LR has its peak advantage. Melbourne and Sydney are really tge only two cities that have multiple destinnations between 8000nm and 9000nm to take full advantage of the 777LR. With low fuel prices there is no disadvantages at all.


777-200LR :
- MTOW 347t
- MZFW 209t
- OEW ~145t
So max payload is caped at 64t

A35K :
- MTOW 319t
- MZFW 223t
- OEW ~150t
So max paylaod of 73t

On all flights until A35K have to start exchanging payload for fuel (<~6300nm), the A35K have a payload advantage of 9t, while being 15% larger, 10% lighter TOW and burning 20% less fuel.
On longer flights (>~6300nm), the paylaod advantage of A35K will decrease until it hit 0 (at ~7300nm) but the other advantage will still favor A35K.
On even longer flights (>~7300nm), 77L will have a growing payload advantage up to ~10t until it also begin to trade payload for fuel (at ~8000nm).
From there (>~8000nm) the 77L paylaod advantage will only reduce because it will trade paylaod for fuel faster than the A35K due to higer fuel burn. On a 9000nm sector, the paylaod difference would not exced 5t.

So no, the LR cannot carry double the K paylaod on 8000nm ! Even if it is for flights between 7500 and 8500nm that the 77L is "at it's best" against A35K.

On the financial side, yes it would cost ~100 to 150 million $ less per plane to buy used DL birds, but that doesn't take into acount the remaining lifespan of the frames. You will not be able to keep the used 777-200LR as long as you are going to keep the new A350-1000. Spreading the cost has to be taken into account to evaluate the return on invest rate. And we havent spoke of maintenance, navigation fees, landing fees, training cost, ... espacyaly if Qantas wants communality with a plane also capable of flying non ULH in their network or versatility in case ULH failed.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4336
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 2:28 pm

Before CORVID-19 it was generally agreed by analysts in various sectors that electric vehicles would be putting strong downwards on petroleum demand sometime between 2022 and 2027. I think that those numbers have moved to 2020 and 2025. At this time it is difficult to separate short term from long term trends - but ominous.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3657
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 4:13 pm

[quote="mig17"][/quote] Nice Analysis, I always like to visualise the whole P/R as a whole rather than the numbers in isolation and your post proves why.

The other piece that is being missed here is that the reason why the final decision was delayed was not really because off the unsure market conditions post COVID-19 but that QF like pretty much all other businesses right now are in a Cash preservation mode. the Cash Requirement for X 77Ls right now is greater than the cash Value of X A35K several months ago.Its a liquidity issue as much as anything, its no good having nice planes but the card is declined when you go to put fuel in them.

Fred
Image
 
VV
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 7:05 pm

In any case, the fact the Project Sunrise is postponed sine die is a good for Airbus that will be able to design, produce and certify whatever additional fuel tank that is needed for the A350-1000 to fly SYD-LHR.

Unless Qantas changes again their plan, which would not be a surprise after all.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3657
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 7:19 pm

VV wrote:
In any case, the fact the Project Sunrise is postponed sine die is a good for Airbus that will be able to design, produce and certify whatever additional fuel tank that is needed for the A350-1000 to fly SYD-LHR.
Unless it’s already designed of course and only needs the sign off for the cost to the relevant authorities for the certification process. All speculation of course and likely dependent of cash flow and already paid for resources.

VV wrote:
Unless Qantas changes again their plan, which would not be a surprise after all.

Absolutely, that’s the issue with the current situation, the future has become much more murky.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 9:20 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
If the 77L burns less fuel per kilogram then shouldn't it be uber popular? Burning less fuel on LAX-SYD than a 25+ year newer design, even one specifically designed for the longest routes combined with a low price of fuel should mean airlines will be falling over themselves to buy it. I know the regular A35K wouldn't be able to take maximum payload, but surely the PS A35K should get very close? Also, have you factored in the balance of the A35K offering more revenue potential?

The 777F is proof of its superior fuel burn per kg on long haul routes.

Passenger airlines simply do not have enough routes over 6000nm that also have cargo demand or routes over 8000nm that are passenger only. The 777LR becomes volume limited on most routes. Even if it is filled to maximum payload weight on a 6000nm route it only needs to take off at 315t. It is carrying around the structure to support the higher MTOW without using it.

The A350-1000 has to start reducing payload at only 6000nm. Once it hits 8000nm the payload it can carry is roughly halved. The 777LR can carry DOUBLE the payload weight at this range. It as this point where the 777LR holds the largest advantage.

Qantas has multiple routes where the 777LR has its peak advantage. Melbourne and Sydney are really tge only two cities that have multiple destinnations between 8000nm and 9000nm to take full advantage of the 777LR. With low fuel prices there is no disadvantages at all.


SYD-LAX is 6500nm, so I'm not sure the drop-off would be that steep, and also not sure that the payload advantage would compensate for the better revenue potential afforded by more space for passengers. If the A35K can take a full passenger load from MEL/SYD-LAX with room for some cargo it's the better option, but for Asia it will be able to fly a full payload easily.

If what you're saying is true then the 77L is such an utter home run that QF would be stupid to not do it as soon as demand returns. I still find it hard to believe that an older design which has not been popular is that much better than a much newer and lighter aircraft. The A35K's fuel burn advantage vs the 77W is over 20%, and the 77W is vastly more popular than the 77L as it's more efficient (per passenger at least).

The A35K has a max payload of just over 70t, and every indication shows the A35K is exceeding expectations for airlines. The A35K can take more revenue payload than a 77W on basically every 77W route, and the difference in max payloads is only around 3-4t between the two IIRC.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 11:12 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
If QF wants a A350-1000-sized frame, why would they downsize to a 77L? They specifically chose 35K over 359.

The A350-1000 was selected due to having longer range. Assuming no fuel limits and both being ULR models the A350-1000 can fly 500nm further with the same payload.

If the A350-900 was a quarter of the price of the A350-1000 Qantas would definitely have gone with the slightly smaller aircraft. The 777LR would be a quarter of the price.

mig17 wrote:
So no, the LR cannot carry double the K paylaod on 8000nm ! Even if it is for flights between 7500 and 8500nm that the 77L is "at it's best" against A35K.
You've just been caught by a mistake in the ACAPs. We noted this on the tech ops thread that the 777LR chart does not start at zero payload. You have to deduct from the top.

For example the 777LR flew 11,664nm great circle with 40 people onboard in 22-hour 42-minutes. The actual flight distance was 12,159nm. This is in the chart that is cropped. The A350 would have no chance of even flying this far. At this point the 777LR could carry infinite times the payload not just double.

The reason for this this is not magic. The 777LR is nearly 10t lighter than the A350-1000 due to it being 10metres shorter. The 777LR has a MTOW 28t higher. So with the same payload in both aircraft the 777LR can carry atleast 35t more fuel.

For instance the A350-1000 155t with 124t of fuel and 40t payload hits the MTOW of 319t. The 777LR can carry 35t more fuel or 159t or 29% more fuel. The 777LR engines do not burn 29% more fuel.

As someone stated the 777LR offers performance of the A350R which had the A350-900 fuselage length at the higher A350-1000 MTOW.


mig17 wrote:
On the financial side, yes it would cost ~100 to 150 million $ less per plane to buy used DL birds, but that doesn't take into acount the remaining lifespan of the frames. You will not be able to keep the used 777-200LR as long as you are going to keep the new A350-1000.

Aircraft life is messured on cycles. The number of cycles consumed by ultra long haul aircraft is extremely low. Less than one cycle per day. The 777LR could fly for nearly 100 years until its hits max cycles.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Mon May 18, 2020 11:23 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
The A35K has a max payload of just over 70t, and every indication shows the A35K is exceeding expectations for airlines. The A35K can take more revenue payload than a 77W on basically every 77W route, and the difference in max payloads is only around 3-4t between the two IIRC.

What has the 777-300ER got to do with this?

The 777LR can carry 40t of payload at the range (8400nm) where the 777-300ER can carry zero payload. There is not much revenue being made when an aircraft is empty.

This is like saying the 787-10 can carry more revenue payload than the 787-9 because it has a higher max payload. Could the 787-10 then do Perth to London? Of course not! I doubt the 787-10 could do that flight with 50 passengers.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Tue May 19, 2020 12:48 am

RJMAZ wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
The A35K has a max payload of just over 70t, and every indication shows the A35K is exceeding expectations for airlines. The A35K can take more revenue payload than a 77W on basically every 77W route, and the difference in max payloads is only around 3-4t between the two IIRC.

What has the 777-300ER got to do with this?

The 777LR can carry 40t of payload at the range (8400nm) where the 777-300ER can carry zero payload. There is not much revenue being made when an aircraft is empty.

This is like saying the 787-10 can carry more revenue payload than the 787-9 because it has a higher max payload. Could the 787-10 then do Perth to London? Of course not! I doubt the 787-10 could do that flight with 50 passengers.

I was just referring to the 77W being mentioned at the bottom of a post mentioning the K vs 77W fuel burn. And yes, the 77L can do things that no aircraft has ever been able to do, but it’s niche is so small, that’s why it didn’t get consideration. With all aux tanks Fully filled, it can carry 30+ tons of payload in quite sure.
 
mig17
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Tue May 19, 2020 2:17 am

RJMAZ wrote:
For instance the A350-1000 155t with 124t of fuel and 40t payload hits the MTOW of 319t. The 777LR can carry 35t more fuel or 159t or 29% more fuel. The 777LR engines do not burn 29% more.

The thing is they do ... You said it yourself in another post "A350, Sydney/London, 3/4 of 77L fuel." 1/4 is 25% ... I said 20% in my post. So yes the 77L takes off with 29% more fuel, but it burns it 20 to 25% faster. The extra 4% are the reason the 777 keeps max payload a little further, but then, it traded payload for range also 20 to 25% faster.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Tue May 19, 2020 6:12 am

RJMAZ wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
If QF wants a A350-1000-sized frame, why would they downsize to a 77L? They specifically chose 35K over 359.

The A350-1000 was selected due to having longer range. Assuming no fuel limits and both being ULR models the A350-1000 can fly 500nm further with the same payload.

If the A350-900 was a quarter of the price of the A350-1000 Qantas would definitely have gone with the slightly smaller aircraft. The 777LR would be a quarter of the price.

mig17 wrote:
So no, the LR cannot carry double the K paylaod on 8000nm ! Even if it is for flights between 7500 and 8500nm that the 77L is "at it's best" against A35K.
You've just been caught by a mistake in the ACAPs. We noted this on the tech ops thread that the 777LR chart does not start at zero payload. You have to deduct from the top.

For example the 777LR flew 11,664nm great circle with 40 people onboard in 22-hour 42-minutes. The actual flight distance was 12,159nm. This is in the chart that is cropped. The A350 would have no chance of even flying this far. At this point the 777LR could carry infinite times the payload not just double.

The reason for this this is not magic. The 777LR is nearly 10t lighter than the A350-1000 due to it being 10metres shorter. The 777LR has a MTOW 28t higher. So with the same payload in both aircraft the 777LR can carry atleast 35t more fuel.

For instance the A350-1000 155t with 124t of fuel and 40t payload hits the MTOW of 319t. The 777LR can carry 35t more fuel or 159t or 29% more fuel. The 777LR engines do not burn 29% more fuel.

As someone stated the 777LR offers performance of the A350R which had the A350-900 fuselage length at the higher A350-1000 MTOW.


Those numbers are not accurate A35K could have OEW under 150t depends on configuration but probably in premium cabim will be more. It also has to be aplied for 77L so your calculations are prrety useless. I suppose QS CEO know accurate what are those A/C capable and fuel prices wouldn`t stay low forever.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 11137
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Project Sunrise Approved - Pilot Agreement or Not

Tue May 19, 2020 8:29 am

Thread has drifted off topic and will be locked
Forum Moderator
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

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