tommy1808
Posts: 11841
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:39 pm

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


Which would require an ACT to put the fuel somewhere, so 147~148 pax....

yoyo777 wrote:
260t MTOW should let 787-10 to match payload/range of standard 275t A350, with a less fuel burn.


That would be a neat trick considering the A359 burning less fuel than the 787-10, even if it's just a little, and those extra 6t of the runway won't make things better. The closer the 787 weight gets to the A359 weight, that way higher aspect ratio pays off.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Vladex
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

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

Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:23 pm

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


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

All these is not to say A350 backlog doesn't have less secure orders but the original comment of A350 order book appears "very weak" is the only thing that is as shaky as a snowflake.


I meant Hainan airlines which has stored 3 A350 for now not China Eastern , then Etihad with soon enough 5 stored for no good reason and just now all HKA has all been repossessed and stored. Cathay and Qatar are accepting their frames but are bleeding money like a sieve because of the big and retractable political problems outside their power and they are the biggest customers. It maybe a matter of time before they stop growing and start storing and discarding their frames. American and Hawaiian have cancelled their orders and so has United effectively. Emirates took their order unwillingly due to A380 cancellation by Airbus and even with Qantas order, A350 has to jump through hoops and hurdles to win a token order and I am a fan of A350 the best airplane in the sky.
 
jagraham
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:09 pm

Baldr wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Baldr wrote:

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


Please do re-read what I wrote:

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


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

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


If 9500nm is barely enough for the goose, it's barely enough for the gander.
At 9500nm, you're saying the A35J at 319t will carry 10t. Which is clearly not enough. And leaves no room to put in an aux tank.
So MTOW has to grow. Both for the aux tank and for the pax load.

As for the 77X, I noted that it started out much lighter. Yes Ostower quotes 315t, not 300t. But there are a lot of numbers out there. I don't have time for that rathole; suffice it to say that the original plan was for the 778 at least to be light as or lighter than a comparable A35J. Before Emirates had their say.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3298
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:13 pm

jagraham wrote:
Baldr wrote:
jagraham wrote:


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

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

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


Please do re-read what I wrote:

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


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

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


If 9500nm is barely enough for the goose, it's barely enough for the gander.
At 9500nm, you're saying the A35J at 319t will carry 10t. Which is clearly not enough. And leaves no room to put in an aux tank.
So MTOW has to grow. Both for the aux tank and for the pax load.

It has a 10t payload capability because it is fuel volume limited not MTOW limited. If you add the aux tank you can then raise the achievable TOW as high as the structural MTOW, allowing both an increase in fuel and payload. My understanding is you need an act and about 3t more MTOW available.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Baldr
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:10 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 12:24 am

jagraham wrote:
Baldr wrote:
jagraham wrote:


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

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

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


Please do re-read what I wrote:

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


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

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


If 9500nm is barely enough for the goose, it's barely enough for the gander.
At 9500nm, you're saying the A35J at 319t will carry 10t. Which is clearly not enough. And leaves no room to put in an aux tank.
So MTOW has to grow. Both for the aux tank and for the pax load.

As for the 77X, I noted that it started out much lighter. Yes Ostower quotes 315t, not 300t. But there are a lot of numbers out there. I don't have time for that rathole; suffice it to say that the original plan was for the 778 at least to be light as or lighter than a comparable A35J. Before Emirates had their say.


In order for the current 319 metric tonnes MTOW version of the A350-1000 to fly 9,500 nm (still-air), it cannot take-off at MTOW.

This is similar, BTW, to the 787-9 flying west on the 8646 nm (great-circle) route JFK-SYD. On the first Project Sunrise test flight, the Qantas 787-9 took-off with 101 metric tonnes of fuel – the max fuel capacity of the 787-9. Thus, QF7879 departed JFK with a weight of "only" 233 metric tonnes; or 21 metric tonnes less than the MTOW. The payload on the flight was just 49 passengers ( < 5000 kg). The small amount of people on board allowed for the extra endurance of the aircraft. When the aircraft landed in Sydney only six tonnes of fuel remained in the tanks, which is equal to about an hour and 15 minutes of flight time.

Now, as Fred just pointed, the A350-1000 is fuel volume limited. The Project Sunrise version of the A350-1000 will take off at the slightly higher MTOW and, therefore, it needs more fuel volume outside the wingbox (i.e. the fuel tanks are inside the centre wingbox (wing-carry-through-structure) and inner and outer wingboxes).

Please do keep in mind that the 319 metric tonnes MTOW version of the A350-1000 has about a 3 percent larger wing area than the 777-300ER (i.e. per Airbus Gross Definition: 464.4 m2 vs. 450 m2) and a 10 percent lower MTOW (i.e. 319,000 kg vs. 351.533 kg) -- and both aircraft have two triple-axle main landing gear bogies. Therefore, a slight increase of the MTOW of the A350-1000 from 319 metric tonnes to 322-324 metric tonnes should be a relatively easy undertaking when considering the fact that the A350-1000 also has better-than-expected take-off performance and that the Trent XWB-97 engine should be good for a couple of extra thousand pounds of thrust.

Aviation Week: Revealing the outcome of recently completed flight tests, Airbus says the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB97-powered aircraft is meeting or beating performance targets. Empty weight is on specification at 129,000 kg (284,000 lb.), while noise is slightly better than expected with a 16.5 EPNdB (effective perceived noise in decibels) margin to ICAO Chapter 4 standards, allowing the aircraft to meet the stringent QC0.5/1 rules for nighttime operations at London Heathrow – a global yardstick for noise-sensitive arrivals and departures.

In recent testing the aircraft also showed better-than-expected airfield performance, with the ability to take off at more than 5.3 tonnes higher weights in hot weather conditions, 7.2 tonnes greater weights than forecast out of obstacle limited runways and 3.8 tonnes better out of high altitude airfields.


https://aviationweek.com/shownews/singapore-airshow/airbus-debuts-a350-1000-singapore-airshow

-

jagraham said: As for the 77X, I noted that it started out much lighter. Yes Ostower quotes 315t, not 300t. But there are a lot of numbers out there. I don't have time for that rathole; suffice it to say that the original plan was for the 778 at least to be light as or lighter than a comparable A35J. Before Emirates had their say.


I'm sorry, but there was never any chance whatsoever that the original 777-8X could be as light as the A350-1000. The 777X wing, for example, is around 20 percent larger in area than that of the wing of the 777-300ER (i.e. 540 m2 per Airbus Gross Definition), and significantly heavier than the A350 wing. Even though the 777-8 fuselage is slightly shorter than the A350-1000 fuselage, it's also significantly heavier. Add heavier engines, larger horizontal stabilisers etc. and it's no surprise really that the empty weight of the 777-8 is projected to be some 15 tonnes greater than the empty weight of the A350-1000 -- that is if the 777-8 will ever see the light of day.
 
yoyo777
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:06 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:50 am

tommy1808 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
The payload you can expect for a 260t 787-9 on the sunrise route (assuming acts) is about 15.5t or about 155 people and using 106t of fuel.


Which would require an ACT to put the fuel somewhere, so 147~148 pax....



Even proposed 319t A350-1000 with ACT can only put 190-200 pax. Around 150 pax on a 260t 787-9 is much more cost effective than a super heavy 319t A350-1000 with 200 pax.
 
yoyo777
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:06 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:52 am

moa999 wrote:
Lol.
If the 787 was anywhere close to meeting QFs objectives, don't you think Boeing would have offered it.


QF simply won't launch PS in 2020. Do you really think a 319t super large plane full of fuel and merely 200 or so pax can make the business case? When QF is ready, may around 2025, 787 would definitely be in the game. If QF wants to play safe, it should go with 260t 787-9, otherwise, by around 2025, 777X will be ready.
 
jagraham
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:05 am

flipdewaf wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Baldr wrote:

Please do re-read what I wrote:



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

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


If 9500nm is barely enough for the goose, it's barely enough for the gander.
At 9500nm, you're saying the A35J at 319t will carry 10t. Which is clearly not enough. And leaves no room to put in an aux tank.
So MTOW has to grow. Both for the aux tank and for the pax load.

It has a 10t payload capability because it is fuel volume limited not MTOW limited. If you add the aux tank you can then raise the achievable TOW as high as the structural MTOW, allowing both an increase in fuel and payload. My understanding is you need an act and about 3t more MTOW available.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My question is, what does an ACT and 3t more MTOW get you in payload / range? I am truly interested, but getting from 10t to even 25t is a lot over that range (as an example, the 789 gets 25t+ LHR - PER, but by the time it gets to SYD, the payload is 5 to 7 t).
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4261
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Qantas plans to operate 3 Project Sunrise research flights by end of 2019

Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:11 am

ITSTours wrote:
So this doesn't mean they're going to use 787-9 for the Sunrise; they are going to conduct a PaxEx research.

The 787-9 was a study OF the Long range effects on Pax and Crews on a nearly 20Hr Block to Block flight on Passengers and Crew from SYD- NYC, They would have to know the effects on Cockpit and Cabin Crews to staff the flight correctly as it's going to be the longest single commercial flight attempted, if I am not mistaken. My own Personal longest flight was 17.1 hours in a P-3C and I was wasted for 2 Days after havng flown it. And we weren't transiting anywhere! It was out of Moffett Field and return to Moffett Field.
 
foxtrotbravo21
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 2:52 am

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:58 am

Whether its the A350 or 787, it should not really matter so seriously as in the first place the passenger load will never be above 200 passengers even though Qantas wanted a much higher passenger load and secondly the sunrise project would only require 8 to a maximum of 12 planes only and doubt that AB or B will specifically make drastic design changes and specifications for these 12 planes.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2492
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:06 am

yoyo777 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
That would be a neat trick considering the A359 burning less fuel than the 787-10, even if it's just a little, and those extra 6t of the runway won't make things better. The closer the 787 weight gets to the A359 weight, that way higher aspect ratio pays off.


Even the newest A350-900 burns around 6t per hour where 787-10 burns about 5.4t. There are plenty of reports on this forum. Please read them before posting.


1. Weren't those figures for the 789?
2. Do they account for any differences at shorter or longer ranges?

While I can in no way demonstrate it, from the Tech Ops thread it seems that the A359 and 789 were pretty damn close at the extreme edges of range, maybe even advantage A359. If that is the case, how on Earth would the larger and heavier 78X burn the same/less amount of fuel as the smaller sibling with the exact same aerodynamics?
 
tealnz
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 6:53 am

yoyo777 wrote:
QF simply won't launch PS in 2020. Do you really think a 319t super large plane full of fuel and merely 200 or so pax can make the business case? When QF is ready, may around 2025, 787 would definitely be in the game. If QF wants to play safe, it should go with 260t 787-9, otherwise, by around 2025, 777X will be ready.

So Qantas are misleading media, public and investors when they say the OEMs are offering aircraft that can do SYD-LON with a commercially viable payload? When they say they have satisfactory technical bids from both manufacturers? You’re suggesting that even with regulator approval and a crew contract deal they still won’t be able to take a launch decision in 2020?

A remarkable number of posters on here seem, for no obvious reason, unwilling to take Joyce’s statements on PS at face value.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11841
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:02 am

yoyo777 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
The payload you can expect for a 260t 787-9 on the sunrise route (assuming acts) is about 15.5t or about 155 people and using 106t of fuel.


Which would require an ACT to put the fuel somewhere, so 147~148 pax....



Even proposed 319t A350-1000 with ACT can only put 190-200 pax. Around 150 pax on a 260t 787-9 is much more cost effective than a super heavy 319t A350-1000 with 200 pax.


Nope, the A351 with 200 passengers is going to be more efficient, and quite obviously so, as it comes in at 1595Kg/Pax vs. the 150 seat 787-9 coming in at 1733Kg/Pax. That is almost 9% heavier and has no shot at being more efficient. And of course it won´t have just 200 passengers, more like 250 or so before it runs out of space. You are working from the flawed assumption that the A351 runs out of lift, it dosn´t, it runs out of fuel volume.

While your 260t MTOW 787-9 would need to depart with 260t TOW; the "super heavy" 319t A351 would depart with 311~312t (155t OEW +137t fuel (165000l + 9600l) ACT +20t Pax), and even the 319t Version has hence enough lift for 260 ~270 passengers, the 321t version adds 20 to that.

260t 150 seat 787-10: 1733kg/pax
312t 200 seat A351: 1560 Kg/pax (-10%)
321t 250 seat A351: 1284 Kg&pax (-25%)
321t 270 seat A351: 1188 Kg/ pax (-31%)

Your 260t 787-9 will be between 35 and 45% heavier per passenger.

MrHMSH wrote:
yoyo777 wrote:
Even the newest A350-900 burns around 6t per hour where 787-10 burns about 5.4t. There are plenty of reports on this forum. Please read them before posting.


1. Weren't those figures for the 789?
2. Do they account for any differences at shorter or longer ranges?

While I can in no way demonstrate it, from the Tech Ops thread it seems that the A359 and 789 were pretty damn close at the extreme edges of range, maybe even advantage A359. If that is the case, how on Earth would the larger and heavier 78X burn the same/less amount of fuel as the smaller sibling with the exact same aerodynamics?


:checkmark:
They where for the 787-9 and even if they where for the -10, it could not take the shorter legs into account considering how much shorter its range is.....

And even if it was true, yoyo777 is trying to make an efficiency argument, and "the 10% bigger aircraft burns 10% more fuel" doesn´t really make one......

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Milesdependent
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2001 5:27 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:14 am

Given the very niche nature of these new flights, I wonder if they might pull out a wild contingency plan (like ground the whole fleet was) if they cannot agree with unions. What’s to stop Qantas creating a brand new sub-airline for these PS flights and crewing them with a different workforce? Like Australian Airlines or Jetstar - but a premium focused brand that everyone knows is qantas. Australia Sunrise Airlines or whatever. The launch flights would get so much media attention worldwide that every man and his dog would know it was actually qantas. I get the existing unions would strike etc but Joyce has shown what he does with that. Crazy yes, but is it possible?
 
tealnz
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:15 am

foxtrotbravo21 wrote:
Whether its the A350 or 787, it should not really matter so seriously as in the first place the passenger load will never be above 200 passengers even though Qantas wanted a much higher passenger load and secondly the sunrise project would only require 8 to a maximum of 12 planes only and doubt that AB or B will specifically make drastic design changes and specifications for these 12 planes.

No evidence either OEM was looking at drastic changes to design or spec.

Meanwhile QF have been clear that the Sunrise aircraft would be used for a variety of routes, including Asian routes that are definitely not ULH. We should expect an eventual fleet of at least 20+. An attractive blue-chip order for either OEM.
 
yoyo777
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:06 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:15 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Nope, the A351 with 200 passengers is going to be more efficient, and quite obviously so, as it comes in at 1595Kg/Pax vs. the 150 seat 787-9 coming in at 1733Kg/Pax. That is almost 9% heavier and has no shot at being more efficient. And of course it won´t have just 200 passengers, more like 250 or so before it runs out of space. You are working from the flawed assumption that the A351 runs out of lift, it dosn´t, it runs out of fuel volume.

While your 260t MTOW 787-9 would need to depart with 260t TOW; the "super heavy" 319t A351 would depart with 311~312t (155t OEW +137t fuel (165000l + 9600l) ACT +20t Pax), and even the 319t Version has hence enough lift for 260 ~270 passengers, the 321t version adds 20 to that.

260t 150 seat 787-10: 1733kg/pax
312t 200 seat A351: 1560 Kg/pax (-10%)
321t 250 seat A351: 1284 Kg&pax (-25%)
321t 270 seat A351: 1188 Kg/ pax (-31%)

Your 260t 787-9 will be between 35 and 45% heavier per passenger.


Where do you get the 137t fuel for A350-1000? A350-1000 needs full 319t MTOW to be able to lift 200 pax for PS missions. Also the weight should be larger than 155t considering ACTs required.

No 319t version can't lift 260, it at best can do 190-200 pax.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11841
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:40 am

yoyo777 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Nope, the A351 with 200 passengers is going to be more efficient, and quite obviously so, as it comes in at 1595Kg/Pax vs. the 150 seat 787-9 coming in at 1733Kg/Pax. That is almost 9% heavier and has no shot at being more efficient. And of course it won´t have just 200 passengers, more like 250 or so before it runs out of space. You are working from the flawed assumption that the A351 runs out of lift, it dosn´t, it runs out of fuel volume.

While your 260t MTOW 787-9 would need to depart with 260t TOW; the "super heavy" 319t A351 would depart with 311~312t (155t OEW +137t fuel (165000l + 9600l) ACT +20t Pax), and even the 319t Version has hence enough lift for 260 ~270 passengers, the 321t version adds 20 to that.

260t 150 seat 787-10: 1733kg/pax
312t 200 seat A351: 1560 Kg/pax (-10%)
321t 250 seat A351: 1284 Kg&pax (-25%)
321t 270 seat A351: 1188 Kg/ pax (-31%)

Your 260t 787-9 will be between 35 and 45% heavier per passenger.


Where do you get the 137t fuel for A350-1000?


the posting says where it comes from

tommy1808 wrote:
[165000l + 9600l)


A350-1000 needs full 319t MTOW to be able to lift 200 pax for PS missions.


obviously not, as there is a 7t delta between what it weighs and its MTOW. You can not load an A351 to 319t with just 200 pax and no cargo.

Also the weight should be larger than 155t considering ACTs required.


those 800 Kg where included.

No 319t version can't lift 260, it at best can do 190-200 pax.


It can, very obviously so, but it is nice to see that you agree that even a 200 Pax A351 would blow the 260t 787-9 out of the water efficiency wise.
Unless you can find a statement from Qantas that they decided to scale the project down to 200 pax, you are very, very obviously wrong with your assessment.

They are not placing tons of lead in the cargo hold just to make you right.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Scotron12
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:53 am

I keep reading about a 260T B787-9. Where is it? Are Boeing now offering this version?? And did they offer it to QF for Project Sunrise?

Cheers
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18261
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:21 am

Scotron12 wrote:
I keep reading about a 260T B787-9. Where is it? Are Boeing now offering this version?? And did they offer it to QF for Project Sunrise?

Cheers


It doesn’t exist. It’s the construct of some posters based on a rumour last year when Boeing won the Air New Zealand 787 sale. No real evidence just some fluffy words in a PR. Since then we’ve had Paris and Dubai air shows and not a peep out of Boeing. Yet those same posters continue to create mythical planes based on this MTOW.

Now it may be that Boeing is working on an MTOW increase for the 787, but AFAIK they haven’t said an official word about it.
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.
 
olle
Posts: 1489
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:54 am

As I remember 787 is pretty much maxed out without major costly improvements.

I believe that both Airbus and Boeing waits for next generation engines in 5-6 years time.

But perhaps Boeing see that 778 is between the rock the hard place and needs to do this improvements now.
 
xwb565
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 12:43 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
While your 260t MTOW 787-9 would need to depart with 260t TOW; the "super heavy" 319t A351 would depart with 311~312t (155t OEW +137t fuel (165000l + 9600l) ACT +20t Pax), and even the 319t Version has hence enough lift for 260 ~270 passengers, the 321t version adds 20 to that.


At least one a35k customer has a basic aircraft weight of approx 147t. DOW will be far less than 155t even for the heaviest crew and catering configuration.
 
CHRISBA35X
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 12:43 pm

I have noticed a distinct cooling in enthusiasm for Project Sunrise from a certain section of posters on this site since the Airbus was selected. They were all over it as a very exciting final frontier in aviation pioneering, the cutting edge of technology etc.

But now suddenly there's no business case and the A35J cant carry the loads to make it profitable, so it will likely fail and was really a silly PR exercise anyway.

What changed, I wonder?
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4065
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 12:49 pm

CHRISBA35X wrote:
I have noticed a distinct cooling in enthusiasm for Project Sunrise from a certain section of posters on this site since the Airbus was selected. They were all over it as a very exciting final frontier in aviation pioneering, the cutting edge of technology etc.

But now suddenly there's no business case and the A35J cant carry the loads to make it profitable, so it will likely fail and was really a silly PR exercise anyway.

What changed, I wonder?

Easy. QF picked the wrong plane :-/
:duck: :duck: :duck:
 
yoyo777
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:06 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:08 pm

CHRISBA35X wrote:
I have noticed a distinct cooling in enthusiasm for Project Sunrise from a certain section of posters on this site since the Airbus was selected. They were all over it as a very exciting final frontier in aviation pioneering, the cutting edge of technology etc.

But now suddenly there's no business case and the A35J cant carry the loads to make it profitable, so it will likely fail and was really a silly PR exercise anyway.

What changed, I wonder?


If all this were not a silly PR exercise, then QF would just pick whichever plane that works best for them and order it. AJ was really good at put together this PS farce. He successfully wasted our time. At least Airbus got something: a good PR and zero order, congratulation to Airbus.
 
yoyo777
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:06 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:12 pm

N14AZ wrote:
CHRISBA35X wrote:
I have noticed a distinct cooling in enthusiasm for Project Sunrise from a certain section of posters on this site since the Airbus was selected. They were all over it as a very exciting final frontier in aviation pioneering, the cutting edge of technology etc.

But now suddenly there's no business case and the A35J cant carry the loads to make it profitable, so it will likely fail and was really a silly PR exercise anyway.

What changed, I wonder?

Easy. QF picked the wrong plane :-/
:duck: :duck: :duck:


Well, they didn't pick any plane. How many orders have they placed for PS?

If QF were serious at launching PS at all, they will order a plane that can do the job, not something needs ACT+MTOW bump to haul < 200 passenger.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18261
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:14 pm

CHRISBA35X wrote:
What changed, I wonder?


I could take a guess. :wink2:

N14AZ wrote:
Easy. QF picked the wrong plane :-/


Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18261
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:24 pm

yoyo777 wrote:
Well, they didn't pick any plane.


To deny that Qantas has made their choice of which plane will operate PS flights (assuming it goes ahead) is to have one's head buried firmly in the sand.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-sunrise/
After detailed evaluation of the Boeing 777X and Airbus A350, Qantas has selected the A350-1000 as the preferred aircraft if Sunrise proceeds.
...
No orders have been placed but Qantas will work closely with Airbus to prepare contract terms for up to 12 aircraft ahead of a final decision by the Qantas Board.

Airbus has agreed to extend the deadline to confirm delivery slots from February 2020 to March 2020. This provides additional time to negotiate an industrial agreement without impacting the planned start date of Project Sunrise flights in the first half of calendar 2023.
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
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:47 pm

Even if QF fails to proceed with Sunrise, their selection of the Airbus offering will have grabbed the attention of every other airline competing 778/9 against 359/10.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11841
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:05 pm

yoyo777 wrote:
[
If QF were serious at launching PS at all, they will order a plane that can do the job, not something needs ACT+MTOW bump to haul < 200 passenger.


and yet you still couldn´t come up with any explanation why it could only carry less than 200 pax and keep ignoring that fuel, aircraft and 200 pax a nowhere near 319t.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Kindanew
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 11:07 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:15 pm

yoyo777 wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
Even if QF fails to proceed with Sunrise, their selection of the Airbus offering will have grabbed the attention of every other airline competing 778/9 against 359/10.


777X is still in a better position than the A350-1000, with 309 firm order vs 176. 777X has twice as many orders as 350-1000.


And the A350-900 has 783 firm orders. I’m sure Airbus isn’t losing sleep over it.
Last edited by Kindanew on Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4065
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:26 pm

yoyo777 wrote:
777X is still in a better position than the A350-1000, with 309 firm order vs 176. 777X has twice as many orders as 350-1000.

So you are comparing the figures of the 777X, i.e. combined 778 + 779orders, with the numbers of the 350-1000-version only. Interesting :scratchchin:
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18261
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:48 pm

N14AZ wrote:
yoyo777 wrote:
777X is still in a better position than the A350-1000, with 309 firm order vs 176. 777X has twice as many orders as 350-1000.

So you are comparing the figures of the 777X, i.e. combined 778 + 779orders, with the numbers of the 350-1000-version only. Interesting :scratchchin:


Of course! The comparison wouldn't work otherwise, would it?
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.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11841
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:56 pm

yoyo777 wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
Even if QF fails to proceed with Sunrise, their selection of the Airbus offering will have grabbed the attention of every other airline competing 778/9 against 359/10.


777X is still in a better position than the A350-1000, with 309 firm order vs 176. 777X has twice as many orders as 350-1000.


Yeah. With a shrinking backlog, the next 15 from Ethiad are on the chopping block..... not bad for a variant vs. pretty much completely new aircraft with a 10 Billion+ price tag. So those firm 305 will be firm 286 soon.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3298
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 6:03 pm

yoyo777 wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
CHRISBA35X wrote:
I have noticed a distinct cooling in enthusiasm for Project Sunrise from a certain section of posters on this site since the Airbus was selected. They were all over it as a very exciting final frontier in aviation pioneering, the cutting edge of technology etc.

But now suddenly there's no business case and the A35J cant carry the loads to make it profitable, so it will likely fail and was really a silly PR exercise anyway.

What changed, I wonder?

Easy. QF picked the wrong plane :-/
:duck: :duck: :duck:


Well, they didn't pick any plane. How many orders have they placed for PS?

If QF were serious at launching PS at all, they will order a plane that can do the job, not something needs ACT+MTOW bump to haul < 200 passenger.


Never mind Yoyo, you’ll fit in here:
https://verovenia.wordpress.com

They don’t need evidence either...

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
marcelh
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 6:05 pm

yoyo777 wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
CHRISBA35X wrote:
I have noticed a distinct cooling in enthusiasm for Project Sunrise from a certain section of posters on this site since the Airbus was selected. They were all over it as a very exciting final frontier in aviation pioneering, the cutting edge of technology etc.

But now suddenly there's no business case and the A35J cant carry the loads to make it profitable, so it will likely fail and was really a silly PR exercise anyway.

What changed, I wonder?

Easy. QF picked the wrong plane :-/
:duck: :duck: :duck:


Well, they didn't pick any plane. How many orders have they placed for PS?

If QF were serious at launching PS at all, they will order a plane that can do the job, not something needs ACT+MTOW bump to haul < 200 passenger.

Sour grapes?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4062
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:39 pm

jagraham wrote:
Vladex wrote:
PW100 wrote:
And of course the EY frames are very secure . . .

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

LATAM orders are taken up by DL. What A350 version DL will take is still speculation, but DL deferred 13 of its own A359s and is now taking 14 of LATAM's A359s


Uhm . . . , we were referring to 777X . . . . :

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

Boeing removed 35 from Emirates order.

And of course the EY frames are very secure . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 10:32 pm

zeke wrote:
yoyo777 wrote:
I don't deny it. It is obvious that the premise, PS goes ahead, is very likely to be false given the news release. Of course you can say whichever they have "picked", this is called "vacuous truth" in math.


It would be a criminal offence under the Australian corporations law for QF And their directors personally to deliberately engage investors the way it has with PS with a premeditated intention not go ahead with it.


Not if they can blame it on the pilots, on the OEMs for not meeting the required financial terms for it to make sense, on regulators for not approving a pilot rest scheme that is borderline, on airports for not granting the required time slots, on passengers for not paying enough, etc...

Remember, the A350-1000 is the preferred platform, not per se the financially affordable platform.

In a progressively shady landscape with LOIs, MOUS, preliminary orders, firm orders with loose conversion/deferral/cancellation rights, firm firm orders, firm firm firm orders, what we have here is not even an LOI.

QF just invented the EPI, the Expression of Possible Interest, the least firm expression of interest.

Airbus didn't even react. If I were them, I would be really unhappy with QF: they had plenty of time to get their pilot and other issues sorted, they should have done that before issuing a RFP to the OEM's. A sales campaign costs tons of energy and takes up resources that could have been used for other, bigger campaigns.
 
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 10:34 pm

CHRISBA35X wrote:
I have noticed a distinct cooling in enthusiasm for Project Sunrise from a certain section of posters on this site since the Airbus was selected. They were all over it as a very exciting final frontier in aviation pioneering, the cutting edge of technology etc.

But now suddenly there's no business case and the A35J cant carry the loads to make it profitable, so it will likely fail and was really a silly PR exercise anyway.

What changed, I wonder?


Some people always believed ultra long haul was Boeing territory.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3298
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 10:45 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
zeke wrote:
yoyo777 wrote:
I don't deny it. It is obvious that the premise, PS goes ahead, is very likely to be false given the news release. Of course you can say whichever they have "picked", this is called "vacuous truth" in math.


It would be a criminal offence under the Australian corporations law for QF And their directors personally to deliberately engage investors the way it has with PS with a premeditated intention not go ahead with it.


Not if they can blame it on the pilots, on the OEMs for not meeting the required financial terms for it to make sense, on regulators for not approving a pilot rest scheme that is borderline, on airports for not granting the required time slots, on passengers for not paying enough, etc...

Remember, the A350-1000 is the preferred platform, not per se the financially affordable platform.

In a progressively shady landscape with LOIs, MOUS, preliminary orders, firm orders with loose conversion/deferral/cancellation rights, firm firm orders, firm firm firm orders, what we have here is not even an LOI.

QF just invented the EPI, the Expression of Possible Interest, the least firm expression of interest.

Airbus didn't even react. If I were them, I would be really unhappy with QF: they had plenty of time to get their pilot and other issues sorted, they should have done that before issuing a RFP to the OEM's. A sales campaign costs tons of energy and takes up resources that could have been used for other, bigger campaigns.

Or they are telling the truth and you wishful thinking would be to take the ball home than let the other boys win.

Occam’s razor, if you can explain it without making up extra detail then don’t make up extra detail.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
NTLDaz
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:56 am

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:10 pm

Quite frankly I couldn't care less about which manufacturer will fly the PS flights. I don't get fanboys- it's not as if it's a footy team. An aircraft is a machine like a bicycle is a machine.

What excites me is being able to get on a plane in Sydney and step off in London or New York. It's truly amazing.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14601
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:40 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Not if they can blame it on the pilots, on the OEMs for not meeting the required financial terms for it to make sense, on regulators for not approving a pilot rest scheme that is borderline, on airports for not granting the required time slots, on passengers for not paying enough, etc...
.


Any of those reasons would only be legal if they did not have the premeditated intention not to go ahead with PS. What is being suggested before was they never had any intention of going ahead with this.

At this stage one has to assume that PS is going ahead.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
moa999
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

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

Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:47 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Remember, the A350-1000 is the preferred platform, not per se the financially affordable platform.

They had plenty of time to get their pilot and other issues sorted, they should have done that before issuing a RFP to the OEM's.


The plane is chosen on basis of lots of reasons. Cost, passenger capacity, freight capacity, operating cost, range.
If financials were the only reason, Qantas would have 1000 Dash 8s.

I'm sure both Boeing and Airbus were aware of the pilot situation, and it's somewhat iterative. The 350 and 777 are different sizes so typically different rates, and the number ordered would be subject to range and price.

Some of the pilot forums are an interesting read. Demands for 6 crew, or multiple day slips. Suggestions that this is a ploy by Qantas to retire the A380s early and get rid of the expensive pilots (ignoring the current refurb or the fact they are owned aircraft)
 
Yinrenao2001
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:55 am

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

Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:08 am

one thing I find interesting here , from the latest posts , the topic we discuss actually transfer to "Can a 787 with 260T MTOW fit with this job?" and " Why not QANTAS choose Boeing?! they have made a serious mistake to choose a unfit Airbus model ! "
I have the feeling that when A350 borned, some of those 777 fans dislike it at all , I understand this common sense, but here we may need to be objective , avoid some of those subjective factors influence our thinking.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:26 am

Yinrenao2001 wrote:
one thing I find interesting here , from the latest posts , the topic we discuss actually transfer to "Can a 787 with 260T MTOW fit with this job?" and " Why not QANTAS choose Boeing?! they have made a serious mistake to choose a unfit Airbus model ! "
I have the feeling that when A350 borned, some of those 777 fans dislike it at all , I understand this common sense, but here we may need to be objective , avoid some of those subjective factors influence our thinking.


Well, I would rather see the A380 on this route, not the B787, B778 nor A35K.
But ultimately, I see QF blowing it all off and going with a B789 plan and I think that this is what these 3 flights are really about. Take off from LHR to SYD with MTOW and see how much fuel will be remaining to know how much payload they can squeeze out, and what upgrades, if any, they want to see from Boeing.
Boeing is most likely to make these upgrades anyway for the B787-10.
You don't need to fly LHR-SYD or JFK-SYD to do a crew and pax fatigue study, you can do PAE-SYD and stretch it to 20+ hours... just saying.

Plus if you look at the current B789 flying PER-LHR, it's not really premium-premium configured.
I think that LHR-SYD could use 60-70 J seats all the way up to L3/R3, then an economy cabin, more than half W with 60 seats, less then half Y with 40 seats or entirely Y in 8-abreast.
180-190 seats instead of the current 236 seats will squeeze out another hour of range, sufficient to run LHR-SYD, but not quite SYD-LHR.
A little MTOW bump and a more premium configuration and the B789 could do it.

Again, I'm not for this, but I can feel that that is what's cooking at QF HQ.
Last edited by Waterbomber2 on Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
cpd
Posts: 6135
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

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

Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:27 am

Yinrenao2001 wrote:
one thing I find interesting here , from the latest posts , the topic we discuss actually transfer to "Can a 787 with 260T MTOW fit with this job?" and " Why not QANTAS choose Boeing?! they have made a serious mistake to choose a unfit Airbus model ! "
I have the feeling that when A350 borned, some of those 777 fans dislike it at all , I understand this common sense, but here we may need to be objective , avoid some of those subjective factors influence our thinking.


But one thing you’ve missed, this is a fan forum, not a serious technical one so the majority here are commenting with their emotional opinion (with a few exceptions).

If QF chose Boeing then fifty percent would be angry, if they choose Airbus then the Boeing fans are screaming murder.
 
moa999
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

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

Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:08 am

[quote="Waterbomber2]
But ultimately, I see QF blowing it all off and going with a B789 plan and I think that this is what these 3 flights are really about.

you can do PAE-SYD and stretch it to 20+ hours... just saying.

Plus if you look at the current B789 flying PER-LHR, it's not really premium-premium configured.

Again, I'm not for this, but I can feel that that is what's cooking at QF HQ.[/quote]

If the 787 was in the mix don't you think Boeing would have offered it. As well as doubts about the range - carrying capacity is important into LHR and JFK where QF has limited slots.

Why not just do SYD-SYD and fly in circles for 20 hours. Undoubtedly there was some media component to the routes chosen.

I suspect QF knows it's demand/yield equation pretty well. There simply isn't the demand for an all-premium aircraft.

QF reduced the number of premium seats in its A380s in its first reconfig (albeit is now slightly increasing again with the more space efficient suites and adding for Premium Y)
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:44 am

moa999 wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
But ultimately, I see QF blowing it all off and going with a B789 plan and I think that this is what these 3 flights are really about.

you can do PAE-SYD and stretch it to 20+ hours... just saying.

Plus if you look at the current B789 flying PER-LHR, it's not really premium-premium configured.

Again, I'm not for this, but I can feel that that is what's cooking at QF HQ.


If the 787 was in the mix don't you think Boeing would have offered it. As well as doubts about the range - carrying capacity is important into LHR and JFK where QF has limited slots.

Why not just do SYD-SYD and fly in circles for 20 hours. Undoubtedly there was some media component to the routes chosen.

I suspect QF knows it's demand/yield equation pretty well. There simply isn't the demand for an all-premium aircraft.

QF reduced the number of premium seats in its A380s in its first reconfig (albeit is now slightly increasing again with the more space efficient suites and adding for Premium Y)


-Well, who's to say that Boeing didn't offer them exactly that? "Alan, are you sure that you don't want to rethink this with B787's?"
-If you think about it, it doesn't make any sense to study the fatigue factor on LHR-SYD when the limiting factor is in the opposite direction with up to 3 additional hours of cruising time and totally different light patterns. IMO this was a payload-range test with real-life winds and factors.
-A 180-190 seats B789 is still far from all-premium. JL makes a similar configuration work on several long haul routes.
-The QF A380's just have too many F/J seats. Like many A380 operators, they chose too premium configurations for their A380's. J/F remain a niche, a bigger aircraft can't magically expand a niche, that's something an operator needs to earn through their offering. I remind you that if QF replace both MEL-LHR and SYD-LHR that were previously flown by A380's, the 60-70 J seats on a supposed B789 would still be a significant downgrade in premium capacity compared to the A380.

In theory, QF could also get additional slots at LHR and go with a "frequency over capacity" strategy. This is very popular nowadays, although IMO, this is not a very profitable strategy. It looks nice on paper, but only works within certain parameters.
This is IMO what QF HQ are thinking about right now.

Again, I'm not fond of this B787 strategy because QF is going to lose market share in a developping market and this is a risk for profitability but also overall relevance, which in the mid term could become a risk for survivability rather than mere profitability.
If you lose relevance, you can get overwhelmed by competition and you get a situation like OS is experiencing in VIE, or AI/9W are experiencing in India, or AZ in Italy, where you are no longer a carrier of choice and can only shrink and shrink.
Shrinking into profitability is not a long term strategy that works well in aviation, especially when the broader market will be growing for the foreseeable future.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

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

Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:27 am

NTLDaz wrote:
Quite frankly I couldn't care less about which manufacturer will fly the PS flights. I don't get fanboys- it's not as if it's a footy team. An aircraft is a machine like a bicycle is a machine.
.


Oh you haven't been to bicycle forums, have you?! There are probably more flamewars there than between BA and AB fans here :-D

Plenty of people also don't understand why anyone gives a toss about football. It is a money generating business after all, where (usually) 11 grown men chase around the same ball. A friend of mine once said he doesn't understand why they can't give each team a ball so they stop fighting over it?
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

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

Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:48 am

I’m still convinced the whole Project Sunrise is a pipe dream for Qantas. I predict a new generation of supersonics linked networks will render Sunrise useless. It’s a niche market and already requires a premium. Why not spend a little more for half the travel time? I know I speak blasphemy to the masses.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

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

Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:49 am

Reddevil556 wrote:
I’m still convinced the whole Project Sunrise is a pipe dream for Qantas. I predict a new generation of supersonics with linked networks will render Sunrise useless. It’s a niche market and already requires a premium. Why not spend a little more for half the travel time? I know I speak blasphemy to the masses.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2

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