Boeing placed an interesting set of advertisements in today's (18 July 2005) Sydney Morning Herald on consecutive pages of the business section:

"Broadway Hits, Nonstop." - Photo of Times Square
"Roman Holidays, Nonstop." - Photo of the Colosseum
"Chicago Blues, Nonstop." - Photo of a saxaphone player

"From Sydney, the Possibilities are Non-Stop.

The new Boeing 777-200LR Worldliner has made a special stop in Sydney to give airlines a close-up look at the world's longest-range commerical airplane. Now, in addition to the 777's passenger preferred comfort and outstanding performance, the Worldliner expands the possibilities for nonstop travel to and from Sydney, and around the world. More convenience, more choice, more opportunity. Nonstop, all the way."

- Photo of the 777-200LR in flight against a blue sky.

I was out there this afternoon and had a great time walking around and inside the aircraft, I even got to sit in the cockpit and lay down in the above crew rest area. There were a number of QANTAS people checking the aircraft out so I didn't get a chance to really talk to any of the Boeing people for any length of time.

Your right, the whole theme of the exhibit was to showcase the long range. Even the sign at the car parking had a world map with LHR-SYD and SYD-JFK displayed.

Well I remember that when the 777-300ER came through AKL, the local paper (NZ Herald) had a big advert in it. I hope that there will be one tomorrow or Wednesday!

Sunrise had their Weather guy, Grant Denyer, doing all his reports from the aircraft. It was great PR for Boeing and Qantas too. Now if only they order it and I or my employer can afford the fare...

No claim of london nonstop then. hmm.

Zonky,

Unfortunately i wasn't there by one of my colleagues spoke to an analyst who was at their briefing prior to the media, and I have spoken very briefly with two of the reporters.

Lars Andersen, the head of the 777 program, said categorically that the jet cannot do Sydney-LHR non-stop. He said there was nowhere to put any more of the fuel that would necessary for the flight, and that using higher rated engines would not help for that reason. He said Boeing would could continue to monitor the possibility, but left the media in no doubt that this jet will not do Sydney-London and in all likelihood, cannot be made to do it with a commercial load.

However this should not ruin the day so to speak. The media is convinced that Qantas has decided to place a large order for the 777-300ER and for members of the 787 family, running into very significant numbers, and that it may decide on the basis of the long range and endurance tests later this year, to convert to some -200LRs if the business case can be made.

Andersen was pressed as to where the line between the relative merits of the -300ER and -200LR might be found and he suggested flights of about 16 hours duration. He said there would be a significant cost advantage using the larger rather than smaller jet over most routes, but maintained the Boeing prediction that it will sell 200 of the passenger and 200 of the freighter versions of the -200LR in the next 20 years.

The issue for Qantas now is what other US cities will really benefit from the -200LR. It is useless for passengers from Brisbane or Melbourne to fly to Sydney for example to do a non-stop to say Dallas (ugh!!!) to connect to AA when they can fly non-stop to LAX from their own cities and have heaps of connecting flights.

Even NYC is a worry in this regard. AA have multiple connections to New yOrk from LA in the same terminal used by Qantas and Qantas has multiple flights into LA from three Australian cities plus Auckland.

But the -300ER and at least two versions of the 787, the -3 and one of the longer range models look certain.

One reporter pointed out that Boeing is only offering range greater than the A345 as an option, which no one has yet ordered per the auxiliary tanks in the very rear of the rear cargo hold. However it looks like being a 200 passenger jet in an SQ type layout but 8 abreast in economy, with 12 super fancy first class suites as well.

I asked if Boeing had anything to say about the QF order rumours and one guy said Boeing was doing an academy award winning act of pretending it hadn't been given the nod.

Antares

Quote: Antares reply 5 Lars Andersen, the head of the 777 program, said categorically that the jet cannot do Sydney-LHR non-stop. He said there was nowhere to put any more of the fuel that would necessary for the flight, and that using higher rated engines would not help for that reason. He said Boeing would could continue to monitor the possibility, but left the media in no doubt that this jet will not do Sydney-London and in all likelihood, cannot be made to do it with a commercial load.

Obviously not the impression or message that the Channel 9 reporter got. 9 has just shown the story on the 6 o'clock news (6:30 in country NSW) and reported and I quote Will do something that the A380 will not do and that is fly SYD-LHR non-stop".

The visit also marks an anniversary of Kingsford Smith Airport (sorry I didn't catch how many years) which makes it the oldest commercial airport in the world. (somehow I don't think that sounds right either) oh well, it was the same reporter I guess.

Quoting Tbanger (Reply 6): Will do something that the A380 will not do and that is fly SYD-LHR non-stop".

I saw the same news item and I could swear he said LHR-SYD...

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 7): I could swear he said LHR-SYD...

He did say it.

And SYD is 85 today.

Boeing has on their orders page that an un-named airline has ordered 5x B777s. Could this be QF?

Quoting Antares (Reply 5): The issue for Qantas now is what other US cities will really benefit from the -200LR. It is useless for passengers from Brisbane or Melbourne to fly to Sydney for example to do a non-stop to say Dallas (ugh!!!) to connect to AA when they can fly non-stop to LAX from their own cities and have heaps of connecting flights. Even NYC is a worry in this regard. AA have multiple connections to New yOrk from LA in the same terminal used by Qantas and Qantas has multiple flights into LA from three Australian cities plus Auckland.

These are indeed problems for ultra long haul aircraft where a carrier doesn't have a single point of origin i.e Singapore, Dubai. etc

Invariable there are other options for connecting doemstics which dilute the advantage of the ULH aircraft.

Fairly comprehensive article from 'The Australian' (July 8th.) here. 60-aircraft November order predicted:-

"THE long-haul market for mid-size aircraft, seating between 220 and 280 passengers, has become the latest battleground between Europe's Airbus Industrie and Boeing, with them trading claims at last month's Paris Air Show.

"The stakes are staggering - 3500 aircraft worth $560 billion at list prices over 20 years.

"And the next round in the billion dollar stakes is being fought out in Sydney, with Qantas expected to order 40 of the jets by November to replace its 767 fleet, along with 20 larger 300-365 seat aircraft to replace 747-400s not being replaced by the A380.

"Qantas is now evaluating what it terms a "hub-busting" aircraft options to open up new routes such as Sydney-Dallas and even offer the ultimate non-stop from London-Sydney, plus a replacement for the 767 for regional and domestic routes.

"Boeing is touting its 777/787 combo and Airbus is now pushing its A350 along with the four-engine A340-600/500 and a decision is expected by November.

"On July 17, Boeing will fly its latest version of the 777 - the 777-200LR - into Sydney to show Qantas officials.

"Boeing claims the 777-200LR will be able to satisfy a long held Qantas dream of operating London - Sydney non-stop with a full load of passengers and will demonstrate that capability later this year."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au.../0,5744,15856225%255E23349,00.html

Quoting Antares (Reply 5): Lars Andersen, the head of the 777 program, said categorically that the jet cannot do Sydney-LHR non-stop.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11): Boeing claims the 777-200LR will be able to satisfy a long held Qantas dream of operating London - Sydney non-stop with a full load of passengers

Hmm, left hand meet the right hand.   

Scbriml, you were quoting 'The Australian', not me  

In any case, the statements don't conflict. Because of the prevailing winds, the 777-200LR could do London-Sydney all right. It's going the other way that might require a refuelling stop in Perth or Darwin.

Couldn;t the A380 be fitted a bit lighter and do LHR-SYD non stop with around the same load as their current 744's?

Quoting Wunala (Reply 8): And SYD is 85 today.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY SYDNEY KINGSFORD SMITH INTERNATIONAL!!!!

85 today. Here's to 85 more!

QFF

Could someone please fill me in on where Qantas would fly any 777-300ERs that it may buy?

Is it that the 787s would replace the 767s and 777s replace 747-400s?

I can understand purchasing new planes to replace the 767-300s, but do the 747-400s need replacing already?

Will QF end up getting rid of all its 747s?

Quoting Zonky (Reply 4): No claim of london nonstop then. hmm.

With GNSS... Hmmmmm.... Gotta get away from current nav systems, get a power tweak and a whole new world will open up.

[Edited 2005-07-18 14:25:41]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 17): With GNSS... Hmmmmm.... Gotta get away from current nav systems

Could you please clarify how GNSS (e.g. GPS) would affect this. I don't quite get it, and I'd hazard a guess I'm not the only one...

V/F

Antares,

blow me down, but I agree with your above assessment. 773ER/783/788-9 looks like a real possibility at QF. I don't think they are ready to commit to the 772LR yet,it will be included in the 777 options.

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 18): Could you please clarify how GNSS (e.g. GPS) would affect this. I don't quite get it, and I'd hazard a guess I'm not the only one...

Much of the range is lost to ground based waypoints. New satellites providing global coverage will enable direct worldwide routes by 2012, if all goes well.

>> One reporter pointed out that Boeing is only offering range greater than the A345 as an option, which no one has yet ordered per the auxiliary tanks in the very rear of the rear cargo hold.

Not true, the 772LR "detanked" should match the range of the A345.

>> No claim of london nonstop then. hmm.

It will be a difficult claim for Boeing to make, and I would expect them to make such a claim with the utmost degree of caution. The SYD-LHR route is likely to be the holy grail for the 772LR, and it would be very disadvantageous to Boeing to claim the aircraft was capable of the route now, then fail on the promise.

The 772LR appears to be showing positive numbers in certification testing, but I expect Boeing to completly finish all testing before saying anything for certain.

>> Couldn;t the A380 be fitted a bit lighter and do LHR-SYD non stop with around the same load as their current 744's?

The payload/range Z-chart drops-off too quickly.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20): Much of the range is lost to ground based waypoints. New satellites providing global coverage will enable direct worldwide routes by 2012, if all goes well.

But this advantage is wasted when considering ETOPS restrictions, isn't it? If not please correct me, I would love to know more.

Quoting The Australian: "And the next round in the billion dollar stakes is being fought out in Sydney, with Qantas expected to order 40 of the jets by November to replace its 767 fleet, along with 20 larger 300-365 seat aircraft to replace 747-400s not being replaced by the A380."

Sorry to sidetrack this conversation, but could I seek a clarification? The news article claims that QF is expected to order 20 300-365 seat aircraft to replace the 747-400s not covered by the A380 order. According to the FI Airliner Survey of 12-18 April 2005, QF is said to have 6 747-300s in its fleet. Are they still in passenger service? If so, wouldn't the order in this category cover these aircraft as well? Sorry if this has been discussed before. Thanks.

-N60659

Quoting N60659 (Reply 23): Sorry to sidetrack this conversation, but could I seek a clarification? The news article claims that QF is expected to order 20 300-365 seat aircraft to replace the 747-400s not covered by the A380 order. According to the FI Airliner Survey of 12-18 April 2005, QF is said to have 6 747-300s in its fleet. Are they still in passenger service? If so, wouldn't the order in this category cover these aircraft as well? Sorry if this has been discussed before. Thanks. -N60659

The QF 743s are likely the first aircraft to be replaced with 773ERs, if this order proceeds as projected.

I agree with the above analysis, I think that QF is going to place an order for the 773ER along with options for the 772LR......QF will proceed with the 772LR if, and only if, Boeing can make the requisite guaranties to QF concerning the aircraft's ability to operate LHR-SYD nonstop year round with a suitable payload. Until the 772LR completes is flight testing and until Boeing has further opportunities to work the numbers, it is not going guaranty LHR-SYD and Boeing certainly does not want to disappoint QF. Lets be honest, this LHR-SYD nonstop thing is a very new issue that came into play only when it was discovered that the 772LR was exceeding its performance expections - up until recently, the word was that the 772LR would absolutely not be capable of LHR-SYD roundtrip yearround with a economic payload.

On the other hand, the possibility does exist that QF may go with a limited number of 772LRs even if LHR-SYD is not feasible.....DFW-SYD has been talked about for years and years so that QF can tie into AA's megahub at DFW, SYD-JFK nonstop is a sexy route although I dont know if there is adequate demand....but wouldnt the 772LR also be an ideal aircraft for "thinner" longhauls, such as BNE-LAX, MEL-SFO, or other potential routes?......on another thread, there was an outstanding analysis that confirmed that the 772LR is more economical than the 772ER on routes in excess of 7000 miles.

The 787 order is interesting, in various versions in can assume many roles in the QF fleet, everything from domestic Australian runs (787-3) to thin longhaul routes within Asia and even beyond (787-8/9).

Of course, the next question is if QF places a large 777/787 order, how will that affect the future of the A330 in the QF fleet? Will QF keep the A330s and fly them side-by-side the new Boeings, or will the A330s become unnecessary? There have been many rumors that QF was having trouble intergrating the A330s into their fleet and they were not well suited for the shorthaul domestic runs that QF originally had in mind for the A332s - let me make this clear, I an not being anti-Airbus, it just seemed that the A330s were not a great match for the missions that QF had in mind. Maybe this has changed in recent months, but this is going to be an interesting consideration.

Not only is this a big and very important order for Boeing and QF, it is a very interesting one that raises so many fascinating issues.

Quoting Avalon (Reply 16): Could someone please fill me in on where Qantas would fly any 777-300ERs that it may buy?

5 x 773's seems like a perfect replacement for the ageing 747-300's. Of which 5 are still in service.

Will be interesting to see if they can get slots for 2006 dleivery given that the A380 was delayed.

Quoting ANstar (Reply 25): Will be interesting to see if they can get slots for 2006 dleivery given that the A380 was delayed.

maybe AC's old slots can go to QF.

Given that AC's plane were going to be delivered late 2006 (4th quarter if I can recall) this would give them some time also to get assimilated with a new kind of plane..

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 24): DFW-SYD has been talked about for years and years so that QF can tie into AA's megahub at DFW

As you say, Dutchjet, lots of scope for speculation. Qantas currently hand over most of their passengers to American anyway, at LAX; including people like me, who are New York bound. Taking that section of their trade on to DFW would gain them a lot more seat-miles (in an aeroplane that is more economical anyway); and American wouldn't object, they would still get their share of the onward flights - maybe on more profitable runs.

NAV20,

DFW is not an attractive alternative to LAX from a consumer point of view. It is such a stuffed up airport, and you loose the benefit of connections where you back track rather than forward track. As long as most of the Qantas flights to America arrive in LAX, the most sensible and useful and frequent onward connections will be from that airport, with no back tracking.

It is essential that the merits of a non-stop flight to anywhere in the US not be compromised by the need to change planes in Sydney for those passengers who already have non-stops to LA, meaning Brisbane and Melbourne and of course Auckland, if we embrace our trans Tasman brothers so to speak...

However I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years (if the world behaves itself) that Qantas does find a business case for a -200LR into other parts of America, and it really would be lovely if that could be made to include New York City.

But I think it more likely the immediate initative with the -300ER would be non-stop to Melbourne from LAX, because with poyaload considerations taken into account, that jet is probably even better for the route than the 744-ER. Another city pair that might work for the -300ER is Vancouver, even though premium traffic is thin.

The -200LR could do LAX from Perth too. If only there was a bit more life in the business market between both destinations. You wonder whether or not it mightn't be better to use the -200LR on such a route in a single class Australian format, although I'm not pushing that, as there are a host of economic reasons as to why you'd reserve the -200LR for premium routes.

A tech stop for the -200LR in Australia really doesn't make sense on the SYD-LHR route because you skew the fuel consumption by not more evenly dividing the distance, and you are adding so much more time because of the greater distance flown compared to over China that the whole exercise is pointless.

The big nasty in all of this is what might befall Qantas in terms of viability, notwithstanding the big improvements of recent years. I'd go along with the snetiment in business circles, well some of them, that Qantas isn't prosecuting its reform agenda with enough vigour, and that there is management hiatus gripping the outfit now that we know Dixon is going early and that Gregg and Borghetti have been told they won't succeed him.

Antares

Quoting Antares (Reply 28): The -200LR could do LAX from Perth too.

Whoa, tiger! What if Midway is closed?

Quoting Antares (Reply 28): A tech stop for the -200LR in Australia really doesn't make sense on the SYD-LHR route because you skew the fuel consumption by not more evenly dividing the distance, and you are adding so much more time because of the greater distance flown compared to over China that the whole exercise is pointless.

I see that the entire discussion on the benefits of overflying China have evaporated all ready.  

In a recent thread the general consensus seemed to be that no one wanted to fly for more than 12 hours at a time. Regular passengers on the London Aust route always seem to appreciate an intermediate stop over, to prevent deep vein thrombosis, shower etc.

I also wonder at the attitude (and long term health) of flight/cabin crew after 20 something hours. Reminds me of the police academy movies and the guy with a gun saying something like "put that tray table up now mister"!

QFA001,

I wonder about the alternates too. What is the latest? At times you get the impression that the USG is trying to offload the entire support budget for some of these outposts onto the airlines.

Personally I'm moderately optimistic about China generating very good airline traffic to Australia and New Zealand. My guess is that we will see a lot of -300ERs in Shanghai within five years in Qantas colours, plus A333s from secondary airports pending their roll over or withdrawal or whatever, and within 10 years, it will perforce be A380 or Mystery Big Boeing territory.

Antares

Quoting Antares (Reply 31): I wonder about the alternates too. What is the latest? At times you get the impression that the USG is trying to offload the entire support budget for some of these outposts onto the airlines.

It's been a few months since I heard anything. So, I'm afraid that I'm not a good source for the latest.   However, have you ever known a time when the US Gov't didn't get what it wants?  

Quoting Antares (Reply 31): Personally I'm moderately optimistic about China generating very good airline traffic to Australia and New Zealand. My guess is that we will see a lot of -300ERs in Shanghai within five years in Qantas colours, plus A333s from secondary airports pending their roll over or withdrawal or whatever, and within 10 years, it will perforce be A380 or Mystery Big Boeing territory.

Reading you fiver -- PVG. But if QF gets the rights to do something like PVG-LHR, then wouldn't QF do A380 sooner rather than later to PVG?

Quoting Antares (Reply 31): Personally I'm moderately optimistic about China generating very good airline traffic to Australia and New Zealand.

Lets hope that Air NZ use their 787's for this purpose. It's a booming market and I'm sure they are looking at it.

Quoting Antares (Reply 31): Personally I'm moderately optimistic about China generating very good airline traffic to Australia and New Zealand.

I think China will generate very good traffic - both leisure and business and from both directions. China is kicking off as a boom tourist attraction for Aussies and with the new ADS agreement Oz and NZ are both mega tourist attractions for the Chinese. Not to mention VFR tourism from both sides with a huge Chinese overseas population in Oz and a growing one in NZ. This is before we even look at huge business travel on both sides.

Be interesting to see if any airline will deploy the A380 on China-Aus. QF to LHR via PVG or PEK would be rather logical. Might also be interesting to see if QF, NZ or the Chinese airlines would start Aussie routes from cities other than PEK, PVG or CAN - IMHO these smaller regional centres are exactly where 777s could come into its own.

QFA001,

Your right about the A380s I'm sure, provided Qantas gets them as soon as it likes. I have a gut feeling that this is not a six month delay they are talking about but something more significant.

In my opinion (which is definitely an unfashionable minority view on this forum) the business case for the A380 is compelling, however if Airbus screws it up Boeing may well pounce with a totally new VLA. Everyone can make a dog, witness the 764, but if you make a really big dog you are going to be in a helluva mess very quickly.

Antares

I disagree with everyone here as I see a big financial bubble at an unprecedented level.

there is a worldwide real estate bubble, coupled with MASSIVE United States debt, both personal and govt.

People say "the world doesn't revolve around the United States"..while thats certainly true, the United States is still the "engine of growth" for the world..hence, a "U.S.-centric" world (in the words of Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanely)

we also see multiple bubbles in other areas also..such as commodities, etc.

to finalise it, we see a majour flattening of the yield curve and closing in on an inverted yield curve, which would most probably lead to a recession..

when all is said and done and we have a synchronised global recession, then those A380's aren't going to be fillin' up all too much..its the air carriers who are nimble and quick to react who are going to come out in good shape...

anyway, enough of the doom and gloom   

hopefully it will all end happily and QF picks up some nice -300ER's...  

QF are launching A33's to BJS from JAN, isn't this the end of the flight envelope for this aircraft.

Perhaps PER-LAX could be ideal for the 7772LR and have the service follow on from a LHR-PER service. That way no need to reposition any aircraft. Just a thought, any how I guess QF would have looked at their "hub busting" opportunities with regards to the possibilities of the aircraft.

Quoting Hawker (Reply 30): In a recent thread the general consensus seemed to be that no one wanted to fly for more than 12 hours at a time.

I see that we both live in Melbourne, Hawker. If you've flown from here to the States you'll know that MEL-LAX involves flying time of 14 hours anyway. I do that trip (en route to New York) fairly frequently, - and also go to Heathrow occasionally. In both cases I find that total journey time to Heathrow or Kennedy, in the best conditions, is at least 21 hours - more sometimes.

One of the snags is that it isn't just the time you spend on the ground - the delay starts when the descent begins, and ends when you've climbed back to height again. Therefore a stop at LAX or Changi accounts for around four of the 21 hours. By contrast, an aeroplane that could overfly LAX at full speed would be landing at Kennedy less than three hours later.

Personally, therefore, if the chance ever comes, I'll settle for a nonstop flight to NYC any time. There isn't all THAT much difference between 14 hours and 17  

Especially since Boeing seem to have given the interior of the Triple Seven a lot of thought. Not just 'mood lighting' etc., but also a vital inch or two added to both seat width and seat pitch.

Quoting Aussie747 (Reply 37): Perhaps PER-LAX could be ideal for the 7772LR and have the service follow on from a LHR-PER service.

A stop at Perth would cut the onward time to Heathrow to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14 hours - again, tolerable by Aussie standards. I reckon I'd prefer that, if it is ever offered. One disadvantage of the current Singapore stop is that it breaks the journey in the middle - unless you're VERY organised, you tend not to get properly settled down to sleep on either leg.

NAV20,

I'd check the flight times again. Boeing says the trip from Sydney to JFK/ERW would take 18 hours 20 minutes, I neglected to ask the people who were at the Sydney briefing if that was eastbound or westbound, but I suspect the latter.

It takes me around 13 hours 15 minutes to get from Sydney to LAX, and the timetables show 13 hours 25 minutes I think, so even adjusting for the lost time in descent and so forth it may not work out quite that well. To even pass over the middle of LAX and NYC in three hours seems to require transonic cruise. since the Great Circle Mapper puts them at 2475 miles apart.

A mate who used to be a Qantas captain claims that the Perth-Heathrow times would be between 16 and 18 hours depending on conditions and reasonable assumptions about air corridors.

I agree the stop at Singapore and Bangkok can be tedious, but the timetable for most carriers puts it at between 70-90 minutes. Barely enough time to go to the lounge, run through the Blackberry menu and send abusive emails to everyone who has sent 4MB files to my mail box and turned it into a smoking crater, and then return to a state of semi-coma, whether induced by video, alcohol or a combination of both.

It will be interesting to see if Qantas can persuade itself to do the Perth-London route not so much to make oodles of money but to deflate Emirates. Could well be that the strategic value of the service far outweights the rather modest profits it might reasonaby be expected to make.

Antares

Quoting Antares (Reply 39): I'd check the flight times again. Boeing says the trip from Sydney to JFK/ERW would take 18 hours 20 minutes, I neglected to ask the people who were at the Sydney briefing if that was eastbound or westbound, but I suspect the latter.

Nay, eastbound SYD-JFK.

A direct SYD-JFK B772LR service could chop 2:10 hrs from SYD-LAX-JFK service (using QF107 B744 as the datum).

Quoting Antares (Reply 39): I agree the stop at Singapore and Bangkok can be tedious, but the timetable for most carriers puts it at between 70-90 minutes.

IMHO, airport lounges are nice, but usually no better than the seat on the airplane and sometimes worse. So, I am very much in favour of direct services. I don't know why anyone would want to be in transit longer than they need to be. Life is too short, surely?

I'd certainly take a non-stop anywhere.

The only lounges where I seriously enjoyed lounging around was VS but at Gatwick some years back...what an odd, surreal place...and The Wing at Hong Kong, something about the Long Bar and The Spa I suppose.

Oh and the long gone BA Oasis just off Heathrow....sigh!

Antares