smi0006 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

'This time it's different' is a punch line to people who have studied economic history.

Hogwash.

By that standard of thought, we would've stopped building jet aircraft every time a Comet crashed.

We've seen new-gen aircraft lessen hub-reliance for longhaul on at least three different occasions:

• In the '80s-'90s it was the 767/A330 over the Atlantic.
• In the '90s-'00s it was the 777/A340 over the Pacific.
• In the '10s it was the 787 doubling the work over both oceans, with routes like AUS/MSY/BNA finally receiving stable TATL service, and routes like Jinan/Kunming/Qingdao/Bengaluru getting TPAC.

Sure there've been setbacks in the form of recessions, pandemic outbreaks, war, etc.
But the trajectory has inerrantly and always resumed in the same direction: travel between any points, with 1 hub stop or less.

Having that record in mind, alongside decadal increases in fuel efficiency/conservation, leaves us with nearly zilch evidence to suggest that A350s won't have their turn, in the '20s, doing the same thing to the general market.

I’d also argue the Australian market is different globally - Australians are used to long distance travel, whether it is flying or driving - it’s a big country and we are far away from most of the planet. A 9hr SYD-MEL drive is short to us ( I struggle to get my UK mates to join me!), an 6hr flight to DPS from the east coast is short-haul. PS routes have strong social and economic connections, point of sale ex-AU will be strong. I can’t think of too many other markets with such dynamics. Will it be 8 times a day? No never, will it give QF a way to compete with ME3, and SQ on yield absolutely!

Yes, the Australian market is very different but you have to live here to fully appreciate it.

I lost count of the amount of times a.net wisdom said PER-LHR would never be profitable or never actually happen at all where as it makes total sense if you live in Perth and has gone on to be a money spinner for Qantas. But not everybody who visits Europe wants to go to London but would still like to avoid a ME flight change so, PER-FCO could also end up working long term if QF can work out some codeshares.

Could QF take some of the A35Ks that QR refused and modify them to Project Sunrise standards?

Looks like all of the first 12 will be dedicated to SYD/MEL-LHR/JFK, but QF is looking at getting more in the future to reach CDG, GIG etc…

UA857 wrote:

Could QF take some of the A35Ks that QR refused and modify them to Project Sunrise standards?

Probably not.

kriskim wrote:

Looks like all of the first 12 will be dedicated to SYD/MEL-LHR/JFK, but QF is looking at getting more in the future to reach CDG, GIG etc…

Why GIG and not GRU first instead?

BoeingVista wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Hogwash.

By that standard of thought, we would've stopped building jet aircraft every time a Comet crashed.

We've seen new-gen aircraft lessen hub-reliance for longhaul on at least three different occasions:

• In the '80s-'90s it was the 767/A330 over the Atlantic.
• In the '90s-'00s it was the 777/A340 over the Pacific.
• In the '10s it was the 787 doubling the work over both oceans, with routes like AUS/MSY/BNA finally receiving stable TATL service, and routes like Jinan/Kunming/Qingdao/Bengaluru getting TPAC.

Sure there've been setbacks in the form of recessions, pandemic outbreaks, war, etc.
But the trajectory has inerrantly and always resumed in the same direction: travel between any points, with 1 hub stop or less.

Having that record in mind, alongside decadal increases in fuel efficiency/conservation, leaves us with nearly zilch evidence to suggest that A350s won't have their turn, in the '20s, doing the same thing to the general market.

I’d also argue the Australian market is different globally - Australians are used to long distance travel, whether it is flying or driving - it’s a big country and we are far away from most of the planet. A 9hr SYD-MEL drive is short to us ( I struggle to get my UK mates to join me!), an 6hr flight to DPS from the east coast is short-haul. PS routes have strong social and economic connections, point of sale ex-AU will be strong. I can’t think of too many other markets with such dynamics. Will it be 8 times a day? No never, will it give QF a way to compete with ME3, and SQ on yield absolutely!

Yes, the Australian market is very different but you have to live here to fully appreciate it.

I lost count of the amount of times a.net wisdom said PER-LHR would never be profitable or never actually happen at all where as it makes total sense if you live in Perth and has gone on to be a money spinner for Qantas. But not everybody who visits Europe wants to go to London but would still like to avoid a ME flight change so, PER-FCO could also end up working long term if QF can work out some codeshares.

A heck of a lot of a.net indisputable wisdom has ended up with egg on its face.

Flights to Paris or maybe Frankfurt non stop from Sydney might work out very well too. I might not want to stay in either, but I’d have a simple fast train connection elsewhere.

tullamarine wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Could QF take some of the A35Ks that QR refused and modify them to Project Sunrise standards?

Probably not.

Why not?

Any thoughts on Dep/Arr times out of SYD to LHR and JFK and back? Would it daily? I read above the LHR and JFK would require 8 frames? Seems like a lot.

lesfalls wrote:

kriskim wrote:

Looks like all of the first 12 will be dedicated to SYD/MEL-LHR/JFK, but QF is looking at getting more in the future to reach CDG, GIG etc…

Why GIG and not GRU first instead?

While São Paulo is the larger business market overall, Rio de Jeneiro is the centre of the Brazilian oil and mining sector. There is a reasonably substantial amount of traffic between PER and GIG, and Australia is a bit of an oddity where GIG is the larger business market than GRU.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I get SYD-JFK, but whatvdemsnd would there be for a nonstop MEL-JFK flight? I could see MEL-LHR. I also expect way more than 12 frames if CDG is also included…as LHR and JFK will require at least 8 frames by themselves and MEL unless done twice weekly would also require another 4. (SYD-DFW could go to a B789.)

The plan for the A35Ks apparently is 238 seats across 4 classes (F6J52W40Y140). Might be there a denser version if there are options for A380 replacements?

I'd guess that QF will order regular A350-1000s or 900s with the conventional dense seating layouts if they are looking at A380 replacements down the line. But with the A380s not due for replacement till the late 2020s, it'll be a while off.

Is there any chance for a nonstop to GRU to come out of this?

cpd wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

I’d also argue the Australian market is different globally - Australians are used to long distance travel, whether it is flying or driving - it’s a big country and we are far away from most of the planet. A 9hr SYD-MEL drive is short to us ( I struggle to get my UK mates to join me!), an 6hr flight to DPS from the east coast is short-haul. PS routes have strong social and economic connections, point of sale ex-AU will be strong. I can’t think of too many other markets with such dynamics. Will it be 8 times a day? No never, will it give QF a way to compete with ME3, and SQ on yield absolutely!

Yes, the Australian market is very different but you have to live here to fully appreciate it.

I lost count of the amount of times a.net wisdom said PER-LHR would never be profitable or never actually happen at all where as it makes total sense if you live in Perth and has gone on to be a money spinner for Qantas. But not everybody who visits Europe wants to go to London but would still like to avoid a ME flight change so, PER-FCO could also end up working long term if QF can work out some codeshares.

A heck of a lot of a.net indisputable wisdom has ended up with egg on its face.

Flights to Paris or maybe Frankfurt non stop from Sydney might work out very well too. I might not want to stay in either, but I’d have a simple fast train connection elsewhere.

Agreed. Central Europe through either CDG or FRA leveraging European HSR makes total sense, southern European hub through FCO. I hate to call Joyce a visionary but he does seem to have an actual plan here.

I also see a bright future for A220's in Australia too, efficient enough and large enough to provide transport to regional cities taking an 8 hour drive down to a 90 minute flight with enough range to run a red eye PER-SYD.

Boeing been snoozing, it simply does not offer competitive products for ULR or 717 replacement.

RyanairGuru wrote:

UA857 wrote:

HKAusFlyer wrote:

Think Qantas will eventually exercise those 12 options that also replace their A380 fleet.

Alan Joyce said this will be the second step once they’ve got sufficient numbers from the first batch of -1000s to over-fly hubs like LAX.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... rise-a380s

For replacing the A380 why not go for a fleet of 12 777-9s? The 777-9 is closer in size to the A380 then the A350-1000 is and would be perfect for Qantas’s slot-constrained SYD hub. I’m sure Boeing could offer Qantas a good deal on some 777-9s that Qantas wouldn’t refuse.

There is structural inefficiency in 14 787 + 12 A350 + 9/12 779s, ~ 20 of 787 and A350 would be a lot cheaper, reducing duplication of parts, pilots, increased scheduling efficiency etc. Qantas are not a big airline, and their fleet is arguably too fragmented already.

More to the point, they don’t need a like-for-like A380 replacement. The type has always been too big for their needs beyond LHR and LAX. The former is going A350 and the latter will have traffic siphoned away onto direct flights to JFK and ORD (assuming it every happens), MEL-DFW, more capacity to SFO etc.

Wouldn’t the 779 have commonality with the 789? With the 738 fleet being replaced by A21Ns. Qantas will end up with an oddball 787 fleet. Ordering the 779 to replace the A380 would allow QF to have 2 widebody pilot pools the A330/A350 and the 787/779.

UA857 wrote:

For replacing the A380 why not go for a fleet of 12 777-9s? The 777-9 is closer in size to the A380 then the A350-1000 is and would be perfect for Qantas’s slot-constrained SYD hub. I’m sure Boeing could offer Qantas a good deal on some 777-9s that Qantas wouldn’t refuse.

I think by the time the A380 comes up for replacement a longer A350 (longer than the -1000) will be available.

UA857 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

UA857 wrote:

For replacing the A380 why not go for a fleet of 12 777-9s? The 777-9 is closer in size to the A380 then the A350-1000 is and would be perfect for Qantas’s slot-constrained SYD hub. I’m sure Boeing could offer Qantas a good deal on some 777-9s that Qantas wouldn’t refuse.

There is structural inefficiency in 14 787 + 12 A350 + 9/12 779s, ~ 20 of 787 and A350 would be a lot cheaper, reducing duplication of parts, pilots, increased scheduling efficiency etc. Qantas are not a big airline, and their fleet is arguably too fragmented already.

More to the point, they don’t need a like-for-like A380 replacement. The type has always been too big for their needs beyond LHR and LAX. The former is going A350 and the latter will have traffic siphoned away onto direct flights to JFK and ORD (assuming it every happens), MEL-DFW, more capacity to SFO etc.

Qantas will end up with an oddball 787 fleet.

If as an airline you have enough of them, it doesn't matter.

UA857 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

UA857 wrote:

For replacing the A380 why not go for a fleet of 12 777-9s? The 777-9 is closer in size to the A380 then the A350-1000 is and would be perfect for Qantas’s slot-constrained SYD hub. I’m sure Boeing could offer Qantas a good deal on some 777-9s that Qantas wouldn’t refuse.

There is structural inefficiency in 14 787 + 12 A350 + 9/12 779s, ~ 20 of 787 and A350 would be a lot cheaper, reducing duplication of parts, pilots, increased scheduling efficiency etc. Qantas are not a big airline, and their fleet is arguably too fragmented already.

More to the point, they don’t need a like-for-like A380 replacement. The type has always been too big for their needs beyond LHR and LAX. The former is going A350 and the latter will have traffic siphoned away onto direct flights to JFK and ORD (assuming it every happens), MEL-DFW, more capacity to SFO etc.

Wouldn’t the 779 have commonality with the 789? With the 738 fleet being replaced by A21Ns. Qantas will end up with an oddball 787 fleet. Ordering the 779 to replace the A380 would allow QF to have 2 widebody pilot pools the A330/A350 and the 787/779.

The 787-9 has commonality with the 787-8 in the group. Qantas Group will most likely end up operating ~40 of them, which isn't a massive fleet but not tiny either.

No need for the 777-9 for capacity or commonality. Between running a non-stop and one-stop flight to LHR/JFK, there's more than enough capacity to replace the A350.

BoeingVista wrote:

cpd wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Yes, the Australian market is very different but you have to live here to fully appreciate it.

I lost count of the amount of times a.net wisdom said PER-LHR would never be profitable or never actually happen at all where as it makes total sense if you live in Perth and has gone on to be a money spinner for Qantas. But not everybody who visits Europe wants to go to London but would still like to avoid a ME flight change so, PER-FCO could also end up working long term if QF can work out some codeshares.

A heck of a lot of a.net indisputable wisdom has ended up with egg on its face.

Flights to Paris or maybe Frankfurt non stop from Sydney might work out very well too. I might not want to stay in either, but I’d have a simple fast train connection elsewhere.

Agreed. Central Europe through either CDG or FRA leveraging European HSR makes total sense, southern European hub through FCO. I hate to call Joyce a visionary but he does seem to have an actual plan here.

I also see a bright future for A220's in Australia too, efficient enough and large enough to provide transport to regional cities taking an 8 hour drive down to a 90 minute flight with enough range to run a red eye PER-SYD.

Boeing been snoozing, it simply does not offer competitive products for ULR or 717 replacement.

Years ago I did go to Innsbruck, SYD DXB MUN then from Munich using the EC train down to Innsbruck. It wasn’t a super high speed train (probably 150km/h) but it was relatively easy and the Deutsche Bahn/ÖBB people are very helpful.

The hardest bit was the taxi in Innsbruck.

These ULR planes really offer a lot of options.

Im guessing the SYD-LHR times quoted are flying over Russia? Having to route further south would add another 45mins or so, not alot would add additional fuel costs but also erode some of the advantage of the non-stop flight.

seat1a wrote:

Any thoughts on Dep/Arr times out of SYD to LHR and JFK and back? Would it daily? I read above the LHR and JFK would require 8 frames? Seems like a lot.

I guess around a 10 am departure from SYD arriving around 6am, leaving LHR around 8am arriving SYD around 6pm

UA857 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

UA857 wrote:

For replacing the A380 why not go for a fleet of 12 777-9s? The 777-9 is closer in size to the A380 then the A350-1000 is and would be perfect for Qantas’s slot-constrained SYD hub. I’m sure Boeing could offer Qantas a good deal on some 777-9s that Qantas wouldn’t refuse.

There is structural inefficiency in 14 787 + 12 A350 + 9/12 779s, ~ 20 of 787 and A350 would be a lot cheaper, reducing duplication of parts, pilots, increased scheduling efficiency etc. Qantas are not a big airline, and their fleet is arguably too fragmented already.

More to the point, they don’t need a like-for-like A380 replacement. The type has always been too big for their needs beyond LHR and LAX. The former is going A350 and the latter will have traffic siphoned away onto direct flights to JFK and ORD (assuming it every happens), MEL-DFW, more capacity to SFO etc.

Wouldn’t the 779 have commonality with the 789? With the 738 fleet being replaced by A21Ns. Qantas will end up with an oddball 787 fleet. Ordering the 779 to replace the A380 would allow QF to have 2 widebody pilot pools the A330/A350 and the 787/779.

The A330s will likely be replaced by a combination of A321s and the 788s from Jetstar, with a top-up 789 order also likely. When all is said and done, QF will have 30+ 787s.

CASA may not permit combined 787/777 or 330/350 fleets, but as it is the 330 and 350 pilots would be separate until the A330 is retired as the 330 pilots maintain their legacy pay and conditions while the 350 pilots will have the same conditions as the 787 pilots.

UA857 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Could QF take some of the A35Ks that QR refused and modify them to Project Sunrise standards?

Probably not.

Why not?

The modifications for the ULR 1000 probably need to be built in from scratch and won't be easily incorporated into an existing airframe particularly as adding these features post-production would inevitably mean extra weight which is far from ideal in a ULR aircraft.

Personally, I think eventually Airbus and Qatar will kiss and make up. They both need each other so, providing there is some mutual face-saving, I still think the most likely end-customer of the parked QR birds is QR.

zeke wrote:

seat1a wrote:

Any thoughts on Dep/Arr times out of SYD to LHR and JFK and back? Would it daily? I read above the LHR and JFK would require 8 frames? Seems like a lot.

I guess around a 10 am departure from SYD arriving around 6am, leaving LHR around 8am arriving SYD around 6pm

I assume you mean 10 pm? 9 pm AEDT and 7 pm AEST would give a 6 am arrival, give or take half an hour.

Coming back your times are out a bit. To use round numbers, let’s assume 20 hours (it will probably be more like 19 eastbound). Leaving LHR at 10 am would give an arrival of 3 pm AEST and 5 pm AEDT.

None of the references talk about replacing the F100s, only the 717s and 737s, perhaps they will will outlive them all.....

RyanairGuru wrote:

CASA may not permit combined 787/777 or 330/350 fleets

They will be the same type rating

jrfspa320 wrote:

None of the references talk about replacing the F100s, only the 717s and 737s, perhaps they will will outlive them all.....

NWK seem to be moving towards an A320 fleet with Jetstar hand-me-downs. For any remote strips that can’t support the A320 then it would probably be more efficient to sub-contract that to Alliance who will probably fly the F100 for another 10 years.

RyanairGuru wrote:

NWK seem to be moving towards an A320 fleet with Jetstar hand-me-downs. For any remote strips that can’t support the A320 then it would probably be more efficient to sub-contract that to Alliance who will probably fly the F100 for another 10 years.

Network had A320s prior to QF taking them over, some of the oldest A320s that were still flying. I see them to continue to use them to larger centers.

I could see them eventually using the A220 for FIFO, they can carry return fuel out of PER, some of the sectors are very long. I knew some people flying F100s in WA they were saying how primitive the avionics on them were. I believe this was a factor in the Network flight below MDA into PBO late last year.

BoeingVista wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

UA857 wrote:

For replacing the A380 why not go for a fleet of 12 777-9s? The 777-9 is closer in size to the A380 then the A350-1000 is and would be perfect for Qantas’s slot-constrained SYD hub. I’m sure Boeing could offer Qantas a good deal on some 777-9s that Qantas wouldn’t refuse.

Why add 779s when you could just add more A350s? QF doesn't have to go for large, what they want to do is offer as many direct flights from Australian cities as possible, meaning fewer stops in MEL and SYD. For that, the A35K and 787 will be beneficial.

Yes, looks like Qantas are taking 12 options so thats their long range WB replacement for this generation done.

Yes, QF seems to have reverted to the B744 capacity class as it is now the right size. B777-9 would not be a good fit because QF has to invest a lot into the infrastructure as they have never operated any 777s before. With the A350-1000 already on board, it would be logical to just add a few more.

zeke wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

NWK seem to be moving towards an A320 fleet with Jetstar hand-me-downs. For any remote strips that can’t support the A320 then it would probably be more efficient to sub-contract that to Alliance who will probably fly the F100 for another 10 years.

Network had A320s prior to QF taking them over, some of the oldest A320s that were still flying. I see them to continue to use them to larger centers.

I could see them eventually using the A220 for FIFO, they can carry return fuel out of PER, some of the sectors are very long. I knew some people flying F100s in WA they were saying how primitive the avionics on them were. I believe this was a factor in the Network flight below MDA into PBO late last year.

I think your mistaken, Skywest had some old A320’s prior to VA taking them over. Network got old JQ A320’s and had already been acquired by QF for quite some time.

zeke wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

NWK seem to be moving towards an A320 fleet with Jetstar hand-me-downs. For any remote strips that can’t support the A320 then it would probably be more efficient to sub-contract that to Alliance who will probably fly the F100 for another 10 years.

Network had A320s prior to QF taking them over, some of the oldest A320s that were still flying. I see them to continue to use them to larger centers.

I could see them eventually using the A220 for FIFO, they can carry return fuel out of PER, some of the sectors are very long. I knew some people flying F100s in WA they were saying how primitive the avionics on them were. I believe this was a factor in the Network flight below MDA into PBO late last year.

Given low utilisation when operating FIFO services, newish A220s are probably unlikely. If hand-me-down A320s can't replace the F100s for whatever reason, then secondhand E75s or E90s are the most likely candidates. VA has gone with secondhand 73Gs as their chosen FIFO replacement and have probably sourced these at very favourable prices from lessors keen to rehome parked planes.

kriskim wrote:

zeke wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

NWK seem to be moving towards an A320 fleet with Jetstar hand-me-downs. For any remote strips that can’t support the A320 then it would probably be more efficient to sub-contract that to Alliance who will probably fly the F100 for another 10 years.

Network had A320s prior to QF taking them over, some of the oldest A320s that were still flying. I see them to continue to use them to larger centers.

I could see them eventually using the A220 for FIFO, they can carry return fuel out of PER, some of the sectors are very long. I knew some people flying F100s in WA they were saying how primitive the avionics on them were. I believe this was a factor in the Network flight below MDA into PBO late last year.

I think your mistaken, Skywest had some old A320’s prior to VA taking them over. Network got old JQ A320’s and had already been acquired by QF for quite some time.

IIRC, Skywest already had 1 A320 painted in Skywest livery with the 2nd one on the way prior to the VA takeover of Skywest.

kriskim wrote:

I think your mistaken, Skywest had some old A320’s prior to VA taking them over. Network got old JQ A320’s and had already been acquired by QF for quite some time.

I probably have is $$a about

flee wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Why add 779s when you could just add more A350s? QF doesn't have to go for large, what they want to do is offer as many direct flights from Australian cities as possible, meaning fewer stops in MEL and SYD. For that, the A35K and 787 will be beneficial.

Yes, looks like Qantas are taking 12 options so thats their long range WB replacement for this generation done.

Yes, QF seems to have reverted to the B744 capacity class as it is now the right size. B777-9 would not be a good fit because QF has to invest a lot into the infrastructure as they have never operated any 777s before. With the A350-1000 already on board, it would be logical to just add a few more.

The 777-9 has the same capacity as the 747-400.

UA857 wrote:

flee wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Yes, looks like Qantas are taking 12 options so thats their long range WB replacement for this generation done.

Yes, QF seems to have reverted to the B744 capacity class as it is now the right size. B777-9 would not be a good fit because QF has to invest a lot into the infrastructure as they have never operated any 777s before. With the A350-1000 already on board, it would be logical to just add a few more.

Would the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

Doesn't offer a lot that the A35K wouldn't, QF's strategy involves more point to point flights and fewer stopovers. The A35K offers full flexibility for any route QF wants to do.

MrHMSH wrote:

UA857 wrote:

flee wrote:

Yes, QF seems to have reverted to the B744 capacity class as it is now the right size. B777-9 would not be a good fit because QF has to invest a lot into the infrastructure as they have never operated any 777s before. With the A350-1000 already on board, it would be logical to just add a few more.

Would the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

Doesn't offer a lot that the A35K wouldn't, QF's strategy involves more point to point flights and fewer stopovers. The A35K offers full flexibility for any route QF wants to do.

And I very much doubt that the -1000 is the biggest A350 we will see.

RyanairGuru wrote:

UA857 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

[quote="UA857"%]

CASA may not permit combined 787/777 or 330/350 fleets, but as it is the 330 and 350 pilots would be separate until the A330 is retired as the 330 pilots maintain their legacy pay and conditions while the 350 pilots will have the same conditions as the 787 pilots.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

This is incorrect. The A330 and A350 will be flown as a single fleet at QF. There will be no A350 category, only A330, and what is being called “mixed fleet”.
The pilots currently on the A330 can elect to stay there if they choose, or move to mixed fleet and fly both. Mixed fleet brings with it a higher rate of pay and rotating seniority for trip allocation, so I’d expect that many senior pilots on the A330 will just stay there, as rotating could disadvantage them more in a lifestyle (and financial) sense, depending on how they like to bid, than the increased hourly rate will compensate them for.

The Mixed fleet agreement is a hybrid of the 787 and the original legacy contract, but attracts higher pay than just the A330, and the 787 in most Long range circumstances.

The 787 agreement is different again, and operates more like most other airlines around the world, as it’s a straight hourly rate with no add ons.

MrHMSH wrote:

UA857 wrote:

flee wrote:

Yes, QF seems to have reverted to the B744 capacity class as it is now the right size. B777-9 would not be a good fit because QF has to invest a lot into the infrastructure as they have never operated any 777s before. With the A350-1000 already on board, it would be logical to just add a few more.

Would the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

Doesn't offer a lot that the A35K wouldn't, QF's strategy involves more point to point flights and fewer stopovers. The A35K offers full flexibility for any route QF wants to do.

Wouldn’t the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

tullamarine wrote:

UA857 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Probably not.

Why not?

The modifications for the ULR 1000 probably need to be built in from scratch and won't be easily incorporated into an existing airframe particularly as adding these features post-production would inevitably mean extra weight which is far from ideal in a ULR aircraft.

While I do agree with this assessment, it's worth pointing out that it's still speculation.

All that's been answered today about the A35K that will perform the routes, is its configuration (238) and whether it will have supplementary tankage (yes.)

We still don't know the MTOW it will use (319 tonne, or higher?), nor do we know whether its auxiliary tankage would be integrated into the wingbox (a la A321XLR) or removable ACTs (a la A321LR).

......if the latter, then I don't see why any 319T+ A35K couldn't become a "Sunrise" aircraft. If the former, however, Then yeah.

________________________________
Also, would be interesting to see whether SQ decides to purchase any of thee aircraft. They wouldn't have to configure them as sparsely, and could then have a standard fleet for all of its N.American flights, thus allowing it to return the A359ULRs ('R.I.P.") back to "standard" specifications (a big selling point by Airbus), and just use the A35K-ULR as its default ULH aircraft.

LAX772LR wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Why not?

The modifications for the ULR 1000 probably need to be built in from scratch and won't be easily incorporated into an existing airframe particularly as adding these features post-production would inevitably mean extra weight which is far from ideal in a ULR aircraft.

While I do agree with this assessment, it's worth pointing out that it's still speculation.

All that's been answered today about the A35K that will perform the routes, is its configuration (238) and whether it will have supplementary tankage (yes.)

We still don't know the MTOW it will use (319 tonne, or higher?), nor do we know whether its auxiliary tankage would be integrated into the wingbox (a la A321XLR) or removable ACTs (a la A321LR).

......if the latter, then I don't see why any 319T+ A35K couldn't become a "Sunrise" aircraft. If the former, however, Then yeah.

________________________________
Also, would be interesting to see whether SQ decides to purchase any of thee aircraft. They wouldn't have to configure them as sparsely, and could then have a standard fleet for all of its N.American flights, thus allowing it to return the A359ULRs ('R.I.P.") back to "standard" specifications (a big selling point by Airbus), and just use the A35K-ULR as its default ULH aircraft.

I guess the concern for SQ would be whether there's enough demand, but maybe downgauging the one-stops would combat that. I have to imagine SQ is seriously considering them, on the face of it the A35K(ULR) looks very compelling for them. Though we can't be certain of the viability or economics, worth noting that SIN-MIA is only 28nm shorter than LHR-SYD, meaning every US city could be within range. And of course the A35K could carry and lift a lot more cargo.

UA857 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Would the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

Doesn't offer a lot that the A35K wouldn't, QF's strategy involves more point to point flights and fewer stopovers. The A35K offers full flexibility for any route QF wants to do.

Wouldn’t the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

The A380 won’t disappear that quickly. It can suffice for now to take big capacity when needed. From a customer point of view it is still a very comfortable plane as well, so it’s not like it is a noisy uncomfortable creaking heap.

777 is not going to wear the kangaroo livery for a very long time I suppose. The B787/A330/A350/A380 will be it for now. Then probably ending up with 330/350/787.

UA857 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Would the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

Doesn't offer a lot that the A35K wouldn't, QF's strategy involves more point to point flights and fewer stopovers. The A35K offers full flexibility for any route QF wants to do.

Wouldn’t the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

Sydney isn’t Heathrow. There are plenty of slots available outside of the 06:00 arrival window, and peak times of 06:00-08:00 and 17:00-19:00. Qantas can basically launch any route they like if they are slightly flexible with timing.

As has been said to you, Qantas are moving to a less distributed model with smaller aircraft flying to more destinations. The A380 is a holdover from an era when Qantas channeled everyone through LHR + LAX. Those days are gone, and the 787 and A350 replace the need for A380s (or 744s) in their fleet.

Whatsaptudo wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

UA857 wrote:

This is incorrect. The A330 and A350 will be flown as a single fleet at QF. There will be no A350 category, only A330, and what is being called “mixed fleet”.
The pilots currently on the A330 can elect to stay there if they choose, or move to mixed fleet and fly both. Mixed fleet brings with it a higher rate of pay and rotating seniority for trip allocation, so I’d expect that many senior pilots on the A330 will just stay there, as rotating could disadvantage them more in a lifestyle (and financial) sense, depending on how they like to bid, than the increased hourly rate will compensate them for.

The Mixed fleet agreement is a hybrid of the 787 and the original legacy contract, but attracts higher pay than just the A330, and the 787 in most Long range circumstances.

The 787 agreement is different again, and operates more like most other airlines around the world, as it’s a straight hourly rate with no add ons.

That’s really interesting, thanks for that insight

These direct flights are a game changer for passengers from/To Australia/Europe.

Having flown both 1 stop and non-stop flights to Europe, I never want to fly 1 stop again unless there is a specific need to stop somewhere on the way or I am travelling on a leisure holiday and have lots of spare time.

The most noticeable difference is for business travellers using business class. Get on the the flight, take off, do a bit of work/watch a movie or two, have a meal and go to sleep. Have a great sleep, wake up, have another meal then land in a few hours. Get off the plane feeling rested and ready to go. Not time needed to recover from the flight, you can hit the ground running.

The 787 are premium heavy but it was still very difficult to get premium seats on the flights. Lots of economy seats always available - but not premium seats. On the non-stop flights, the premium seats are well worth the extra.

cpd wrote:

UA857 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Doesn't offer a lot that the A35K wouldn't, QF's strategy involves more point to point flights and fewer stopovers. The A35K offers full flexibility for any route QF wants to do.

Wouldn’t the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

The A380 won’t disappear that quickly. It can suffice for now to take big capacity when needed. From a customer point of view it is still a very comfortable plane as well, so it’s not like it is a noisy uncomfortable creaking heap.

777 is not going to wear the kangaroo livery for a very long time I suppose. The B787/A330/A350/A380 will be it for now. Then probably ending up with 330/350/787.

RIP Qantas 777 - The Plane That Never Was

RyanairGuru wrote:

UA857 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Doesn't offer a lot that the A35K wouldn't, QF's strategy involves more point to point flights and fewer stopovers. The A35K offers full flexibility for any route QF wants to do.

Wouldn’t the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

Sydney isn’t Heathrow. There are plenty of slots available outside of the 06:00 arrival window, and peak times of 06:00-08:00 and 17:00-19:00. Qantas can basically launch any route they like if they are slightly flexible with timing.

As has been said to you, Qantas are moving to a less distributed model with smaller aircraft flying to more destinations. The A380 is a holdover from an era when Qantas channeled everyone through LHR + LAX. Those days are gone, and the 787 and A350 replace the need for A380s (or 744s) in their fleet.

Will QF eliminate LAX-JFK once SYD-JFK starts?

noviorbis77 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I can see BA topping up their A350-1000 fleet with 6-10 additionalz dedicated to longer flights from LHR and MAN.

I think it makes a big change for airli es tbey don't have to get dedicated ULH aircraft like the A345 and 772LR. A 318t A350-1000 will offer extra fevenue payload on any flight longer than 11, 12 hours.

Possibly.

Are they planning to dump the A380s?

No indication of that. https://simpleflying.com/british-airway ... september/

In total, there will be 238 total seats on each plane, which is the lowest number for any Airbus A350s currently in service. Those seats are spread between four classes of service -- first class, business class, premium economy and economy.

First class wil have a separate seat/bed. Basic economy will still have 33 inch pitch and there will be "Wellbeing Zones" with catering self service & space to stretch.


https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ ... index.html

UA857 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Wouldn’t the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

Sydney isn’t Heathrow. There are plenty of slots available outside of the 06:00 arrival window, and peak times of 06:00-08:00 and 17:00-19:00. Qantas can basically launch any route they like if they are slightly flexible with timing.

As has been said to you, Qantas are moving to a less distributed model with smaller aircraft flying to more destinations. The A380 is a holdover from an era when Qantas channeled everyone through LHR + LAX. Those days are gone, and the 787 and A350 replace the need for A380s (or 744s) in their fleet.

Will QF eliminate LAX-JFK once SYD-JFK starts?

Yes, they will though I don't think it has been scheduled to return post-pandemic as yet. Any residual LAX-JFK pax will be transferred onto AA as is currently happening.

Looking at Great Circle Mapper, SYD-LHR will need Russian airspace for optimum routings. That might not be available for decades.

Breathe wrote:

There's a live stream from a YouTuber here if anybody wants to watch it land:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LzS7YK-ZHE

Thank you for sharing.

UA857 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Wouldn’t the 777-9 be perfect for QF’s slot-constrained SYD hub?

Sydney isn’t Heathrow. There are plenty of slots available outside of the 06:00 arrival window, and peak times of 06:00-08:00 and 17:00-19:00. Qantas can basically launch any route they like if they are slightly flexible with timing.

As has been said to you, Qantas are moving to a less distributed model with smaller aircraft flying to more destinations. The A380 is a holdover from an era when Qantas channeled everyone through LHR + LAX. Those days are gone, and the 787 and A350 replace the need for A380s (or 744s) in their fleet.

Will QF eliminate LAX-JFK once SYD-JFK starts?

I can't imagine it would stay, that route is (was?) BNE-LAX-JFK, and unsurprisingly QF can't/couldn't book LAX-JFK tickets, though they can connect passengers from MEL and SYD onto that flight at LAX. Anyone from BNE will now transfer onto AA, SYD and maybe MEL get the nonstops so they can avoid LAX. PER, ADL and others will still go via SYD/MEL.