quick look into payload/range seems to show that you get 35t ( down from 83t payload over 8800nm with full tanks. ( for WV000@560t MTOW? )
600t MTOW is not a "too fantastic" number.

Stitch wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

So making those direct flights is only a matter of convincing Airbus to deliver the deferred A380's with sufficient range for non-stop service.

Well the current A380-800's fuel tank volume allows for up to 254,000kg of fuel to be tanked. I don't know what ZFW for QF's A380's are on those missions, but at MZFW, there is only 208,000kg available for fuel with the highest Weight Variant (WV008 at 577,000kg MRW).

I've heard the current gear is good for the nearside of 640,000kg, during testing she took off at a TOW of 596,500kg and landed at a MLW of 590,000kg and the RTO was done at 575,000kg. The A380-800 currently has 16 brakes on 20 main wheels and the 590,000kg freighter variant would have had 20 brakes. So I expect Airbus could increase MRW/TOW to 602,000kg/600,000kg which would allow 233,000kg to be loaded (still below her current tankage).

Honestly, I've never understood why Airbus planned a center fuel tank on the A380-800F. At MZFW the freighter could only tank 190,000kg which is 75% of the wing tank volume and 50% of the available fuel volume with said tank. Even with nothing but Express Freight, she'd still hit MTOW at 80% wing tank capacity.

Supposedly the center tank would have extended the A380-800R's design range 1000nm, but A380's (nor any other commercial frame) generally fly with only passengers and their bags. At real-world ZFWs, I don't see how an A380 would ever fill her wing tanks, much less a center tank.

I think that we can both agree that MZFW ie, max. payload isn't the right metric for this operation.
The parameters are flying a decent payload with as much fuel as possible.
You take the OEW for a light configuration, add 35-40 tons of payload to reach ZFW and then it's a matter of how much fuel still fits in before it starts dripping out of the vent tanks or hits MTOW.
Burning about 12 tons an hour on average, you can see that 254 tons of fuel doesn't cut it, so it needs a bit more, but not much more for a +/-20 hour flight. So it's a matter of squeezing a bit more PIP juice out of the good ol' Trents and putting a bit more food into the belly of the Beast. Sure, add winglets while you're at it.
This is doable.

Waterbomber wrote:

You take the OEW for a light configuration, add 35-40 tons of payload to reach ZFW and then it's a matter of how much fuel still fits in before it starts dripping out of the vent tanks or hits MTOW.

But putting 35-40 metric tons of payload on an A380 - an airframe designed to haul up to 85 tons of payload per the old Airbus ACAPs - seems pretty counter-productive. That's a 777-300ER's design payload and sure, a 77W won't fly non-stop between SYD and LHR at design payload (or probably any payload), but this is why QF and Company aren't doing the mission non-stop, instead breaking it up into a one-stop to allow them to haul a fair bit more than 35-40 tons on each sector and also burning a fair bit less than 288 tons (the amount of fuel an A380 could haul with the center tank) across both.

Whilst the ULH A380 idea has some merit, it doesn’t solve the problem of what aircraft will qantas use when the A380s are retired. They are not loved within QF and are seen by many as a mistake. Alan himself has said he would have purchased something else.

Qantas’ days of flying jumbos everywhere are history. Their future is smaller aircraft, flying nonstop from the Australian capital cities to where Australian want to go. The answer lies in the 777, 787 or A350.

That's why it's relevant to discuss this CEO himself and his competences.
Of course he can't see the A380 in this mission, but the problem is not in the A380 but his vision.

Let's look at the alternatives.
The B778 will probably have a OEW around 160 tons, the MTOW at 350 tons, so 190 tons usable.
At 7.5 tons an hour fuel burn, the B778 will burn 150 tons of trip fuel on a 20 hour journey. Add 15 tons for contingency and ETOPS reserves.(let's leave aside fuel tank capacity for now).
So you are left with 25 tons of payload or 250 pax, and for every minute of trip time beyond the 20 hours, you can bump one pax.
If winds and routing bring the journey time to 21 hours, you can be happy to carry 190 pax.
So supposing that Boeing doesn't cancel the B778 and they can deliver them from 2022, they will barely be capable of carrying 200 pax reliably on 20+ hour routes. In comparison, an upgraded A380 could carry 100% more while burning 55% more fuel and 10% higher capital cost.
To give this example an even more dramatic twist, in the above math I have left out the fact that the B778 won't even have the fuel tank capacity to fly the 20 hours with reserves and contingency, so it needs ACT's, which add OEW.
This scenario is way worse than the A380-ULR concept. In addition, the A388 cruises faster, saving 30 minutes of trip time and fuel.

Now let's look at the A359ULR. With an OEW of 140tons and MTOW of 280 tons, so a useful load of 140 tons.
Burning fuel about 6.5 tons an hour on these ULR's, it wouldn't be able to carry any payload over a 20 hour journey.
SQ's going to run the A359-ULR at 170 pax to JFK and that route is 2 hours shorter. So forget about it.

Stitch wrote:

It's clear 18-22 hour missions are few and far between which is why neither Airbus nor Boeing have ever looked interested in spending a significant amount of money developing a frame optimized for them.

The A340-200, A340-500, 777-200LR, 777-8 and 747-400ER all were relatively low-cost derivatives of existing designs. Airbus would not have developed the A340-500 without the A340-600 nor Boeing the 777-200LR/777-8 without the 777-300ER/777-9. And the A350-900ULR exists because Airbus had the TOW and the fuel volume overhead built into the frame.

Airbus is not going to develop an A350-900R based on the A350-1000's components. If they could not have done an A350-900ULR, SQ probably would have looked at the 777-8X for the role - and frankly, I expect they would have dismissed it as too large, heavy and expensive. They then either would have chosen the 787-9 (with payload restrictions) as UA have done for Los Angeles or gone with an A350-900 (also with payload restrictions) and used LAX as the tech-stop for continuing service to New York or just handed off the passengers for UA to take onwards.

I have to be honest.

I really struggle to see a 280t A350LR doing the SYD-LHR mission with the payloads needed.
If that were the case, it would make the 350t 777-8's life hard IMO.

So I think it is premature to write off the A350-1000 based A350 ULR at 308t or so.
Yes it means developing a derivative, but it's no different to the three you describe above - the A340-500, the 777-200LR, and indeed the 777-8 itself.

Rgds

Stitch wrote:

But putting 35-40 metric tons of payload on an A380 - an airframe designed to haul up to 85 tons of payload per the old Airbus ACAPs - seems pretty counter-productive. That's a 777-300ER's design payload and sure, a 77W won't fly non-stop between SYD and LHR at design payload (or probably any payload),

Where is the difference. All the ULH frames have "microscopic" payloads. Scaling effects would advantage the A380 to go the distance with proportionally more payload than a smaller frame. ( IMU why the A350ULR is quite a step forward. it has long range _against_ the scaling effects.)

astuteman wrote:

So I think it is premature to write off the A350-1000 based A350 ULR at 308t or so.

Here's hoping.

In addition to QF, likes of DL, UA, QR, AI, and even SQ might find it quite useful; but even more so, it could form the base of an amazing future freighter as well.

Australian Business Traveller interview with Iain Grant, Airbus VP for Pacific region, 30 November:

“We are very excited about the Sydney-London project," Grant says. "We are heavily involved with all of the teams (at Qantas). We are bringing in our A350-900ULR which is going to do the Sydney-London mission and we are very comfortable with that, and we will continue to work with them to meet their requirements."

As far as I know Leeham haven't backed away from their May numbers: ~230 pax on the Sydney-London leg for the A359ULR, 305 for the B778. That's the extreme case. The gap would be narrower eastbound from London and of course on some of the other routes QF are targeting for the new fleet from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane: New York, Chicago, Sao Paulo and presumably Dallas. SQ are flying their standard A350s with 253 seats. If Leeham's numbers are roughly right why wouldn't QF do the same and just block seats westbound to London?

As explained above, the current B778 doesn't have the capabilities that QF needs and the A359ULR even less so.

According to Flightglobal, Boeing is looking at options to make a B778 variant that would meet the required specs:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-443860/

Boeing’s 777X chief project engineer Michael Teal adds that it is looking at ways to achieve additional range from the -8, which is nominally set at 8,700m based on a 352-tonne maximum take-off weight.

“If you look at the exact airplane that we have on paper today - which is not a firm configuration - it falls short of all of their desires, but exceeds many of their desires,” he says.

One option is to increase the MTOW of the aircraft, which would allow it to carry more fuel in the enlarged wing. Teal says however that this would mean some trade-off in the aircraft’s available payload.

“We’ve got to work with them to find what that range balance is,” he adds.

Qantas threw down the gauntlet to Airbus and Boeing in August asking them for an aircraft that would be able to operate nonstop from Australia’s east coast to Europe and the US west coast with a full passenger load.

Airbus is expected to pitch its A350-90ULR to meet the mission requirements, but is also likely to require some modifications to meet Qantas’s needs.

Waterbomber wrote:

Airbus is expected to pitch its A350-90ULR to meet the mission requirements, but is also likely to require some modifications to meet Qantas’s needs.

This is where it gets REALLY interesting.

Since the SQ-type A359ULR is already leveraged as hell, in terms of payload/fuel ratio... what else can they really do, other than go for the original A359R, which then gives them far more to work with?

I'm not asking rhetorically-- genuinely curious.

777-10 will be 360 t so why 777-8 can't go all the way to this mark ?

Aviaponcho wrote:

777-10 will be 360 t so why 777-8 can't go all the way to this mark ?

AFAIK both the 777-9 and the 777-8 will have an MTOW of 351.5 t.

Airbus could do a A350-900 with the wings and the MLG of the A350-1000 and go for a MTOW of 308t or higher.

Boeing would have to do something for there MLG on the 777-8 to up the MTOW. Could they do a center MLG?

For both part of a solution would be, to be able to cut fuel burn still more.

mjoelnir wrote:

Aviaponcho wrote:

777-10 will be 360 t so why 777-8 can't go all the way to this mark ?

AFAIK both the 777-9 and the 777-8 will have an MTOW of 351.5 t.

BOEING is showing airport operators since 12 months a 777-10 at 360 t (MRW) (and more than 80 m). No secret here...
So can flow in the smaller planes

A359ULR
MTOW = 316,000kg
OWE = 143,000kg (155t OWE for A351 less just under 2t/m, please correct if this is wrong.
250pax = 25,000kg
Available for fuel =148,000kg

A351 goes 8400nm with 316t MTOW (this is from memory so again please correct if you have better numbers) with 366 pax meaning each ton of fuel get it 67 miles.

With 148t of fuel it would go ~10knm.

Fanciful stuff here but exciting, the question is can the tail manage 97k thrust at A359 length.

Fred

Waterbomber wrote:

As explained above, the current B778 doesn't have the capabilities that QF needs and the A359ULR even less so.

According to Flightglobal, Boeing is looking at options to make a B778 variant that would meet the required specs:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-443860/

Boeing’s 777X chief project engineer Michael Teal adds that it is looking at ways to achieve additional range from the -8, which is nominally set at 8,700m based on a 352-tonne maximum take-off weight.

“If you look at the exact airplane that we have on paper today - which is not a firm configuration - it falls short of all of their desires, but exceeds many of their desires,” he says.

One option is to increase the MTOW of the aircraft, which would allow it to carry more fuel in the enlarged wing. Teal says however that this would mean some trade-off in the aircraft’s available payload.

“We’ve got to work with them to find what that range balance is,” he adds.

Qantas threw down the gauntlet to Airbus and Boeing in August asking them for an aircraft that would be able to operate nonstop from Australia’s east coast to Europe and the US west coast with a full passenger load.

Airbus is expected to pitch its A350-90ULR to meet the mission requirements, but is also likely to require some modifications to meet Qantas’s needs.

Boeing basically confirms what Leeham published in early 2017: even the 777-8 cannot fly 300 pax year around. Especially the westbound leg would suffer a payload hit.

And as Boeing points out:

One option is to increase the MTOW of the aircraft, which would allow it to carry more fuel in the enlarged wing. Teal says however that this would mean some trade-off in the aircraft’s available payload.

“We’ve got to work with them to find what that range balance is,” he adds.

That reads like QF will have to make a trade-off and accept there is no airplane available that fully fits all requirements.

LAX772LR wrote:

Since the SQ-type A359ULR is already leveraged as hell, in terms of payload/fuel ratio... what else can they really do, other than go for the original A359R, which then gives them far more to work with?

I'm not asking rhetorically-- genuinely curious.

How might A. improve the A350 to meet Q.s requirements:
1. Aerodynamic improvements. A new winglet is in development saving 1.4% apparently.
2. PIP's. SIA's A350's deliver in 2018. The trent XWB EP1 delivers Q4 2019 - an extra 1%. A. will be badgering RR for an EP2 3 years later, I'm sure. If that can deliver the traditional 0.5%/year, happy days.
3. A weight reduction program. The A350-1000 is quite different from the -900 - A. describe it as Composite Airframe Mk2 - it affects right down to the way the fuselage frames are manufactured. Accelerating back-feeding these improvements into the -900 may be something the do.
4. The usual mtow improvements based on in service experience and analysis. There's 4 years between SIA's first delvery and when Qantas wants it.

I don't know how much of that is assumed in Leehams analysis, say. But if they can turn 230 pax into 260, things get interesting. Qantas gets a smaller airframe with commensurate lower trip costs, potentially opening up more non-stop routes. Airbus get's to make improvements to it's core product line.

Lastly, not sure how leveraged the SIA ULR will be. Is it at the limits of its payload range?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... us-437060/

Singapore Airlines had indicated a range of 8,700nm but Airbus claims this was based on the length of the Singapore-New York route on which it intended to deploy the aircraft.

Airbus says that this figure has been "incorrectly assumed" to be the limiting range of the twinjet, which will be delivered to Singapore Airlines from next year.

Waterbomber wrote:

As explained above, the current B778 doesn't have the capabilities that QF needs and the A359ULR even less so.

According to Flightglobal, Boeing is looking at options to make a B778 variant that would meet the required specs:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-443860/

Boeing’s 777X chief project engineer Michael Teal....

“If you look at the exact airplane that we have on paper today - which is not a firm configuration - it falls short of all of their desires, but exceeds many of their desires,” he says.

The guy contradicts himself in the same sentence. He should be a politician.

Armodeen wrote:

The guy contradicts himself in the same sentence. He should be a politician.

What Mr. Teal is saying that if QF has, say, eight desires, the 777-8 falls short of meeting all eight, but it exceeds, say, five. The goal now is to try and meet/exceed as many of those eight desires as they can.

If Mr. Teal had said the 777-8 falls short of any of their desires, than yes, their would have been a contradiction.

Stitch wrote:

What Mr. Teal is saying that if QF has, say, eight desires, the 777-8 falls short of meeting all eight, but it exceeds, say, five.

How can they both fall short and exceed five of those eight desires at the same time?

qf002 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

What Mr. Teal is saying that if QF has, say, eight desires, the 777-8 falls short of meeting all eight, but it exceeds, say, five.

How can they both fall short and exceed five of those eight desires at the same time?

They fall short of meeting all eight together (as a combined aggregate), while still meeting many of them individually.

For example, if I desire to fly a 777-200LR between GRU and DXB with 231 passengers in less than 14 hours, I can do that. If I also desire it to burn 6500kg an hour on average, well it cannot (it burns around 7200kg an hour). I have met three of the four desires ("many"), but not all of them together (as I have not met the fuel burn desire).

The sentence makes sense to me as is, but perhaps Mr. Teal could have made his comment clearer by stating "it falls short of meeting all of their desires, but it does exceed many of their desires".

qf002 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

What Mr. Teal is saying that if QF has, say, eight desires, the 777-8 falls short of meeting all eight, but it exceeds, say, five.

How can they both fall short and exceed five of those eight desires at the same time?

To continue using the numbers given as an example, he is saying that it falls short of meeting all eight desires, because it only meets five. Those five that it does meet, it exceeds the desires. Yes it is a bit clumsily worded.

V/F

qf002 wrote:

How can they both fall short and exceed five of those eight desires at the same time?

It's a clumsy turn of phrase. Would it be clearer if he'd said "The 777-8 doesn't meet all of their requirements, but it exceeds many of them."?

I guess I hang around engineers too much, because what he said was perfectly clear to me.

Yes, reading it differently it does make sense to me now.

The aircraft doesn’t meet every one of QF’s requirements but excels in the areas where it does.

qf002 wrote:

Yes, reading it differently it does make sense to me now.

The aircraft doesn’t meet every one of QF’s requirements but excels in the areas where it does.

Right, but keep in mind those of us in engineering have the 80/20 rule, 80% of the requirements only take 20% of the time to meet, the remaining 20% take 80% of the time...

The "long pole in the tent" is the range requirement, I think it's safe to presume.

QF knows that no plane is going to give it exactly what it wants (non stop to London, with a full load whilst squirrel sipping fuel). They’re working with the OEMs to get the A350 or the 777 as close as possible to meeting most of their wants.

If they can get a plane that can do London with close to a full load, year round they will be happy. If they have to block a few seats like the DFW they will be fine with that.

But I think the key is that it needs to be able to do both LHR SYD and SYD LHR year round, non stop with an occasional refuel.

The next biggest requirement IMHO is the number of seats. It needs to be bigger than the 789 config they have. This is where the a350, amazing and beautiful as it is, falls short. The 778 gives them the flexibility of flying ultra long OR flying long and bulk (LAX, HKG, NRT).

The 777-8 is clearly too large for this mission, which calls for 300 seats, not 365. On the other hand a 772 length 777X would be perfect for this mission and should be able to meet all Qantas requirements without MTOW increases or a central bogey. It would also have superior CASM because its not carrying around all the extra structural weight. This should be a no brainer.

redroo wrote:

But I think the key is that it needs to be able to do both LHR SYD and SYD LHR year round, non stop with an occasional refuel.

The next biggest requirement IMHO is the number of seats. It needs to be bigger than the 789 config they have. This is where the a350, amazing and beautiful as it is, falls short. The 778 gives them the flexibility of flying ultra long OR flying long and bulk (LAX, HKG, NRT).

Agree with the first objective, but I would have thought that CASM would be the second driver for QF, over and above capacity alone, pointless of course having the capacity if it cannot make a profit. It will be interesting to see how a bigger capacity, heavier 777-8X compares CASM wise with the smaller, lower capacity A359ULR.

This of course is where the conversation is interesting, as if QF is adamant on capacity requirements then it would appear this compeititon swings back to Boeings court.

Other factors I would think would be up front capital costs, project risks (not ending up with a redundant airframe, future oil price rises), product flexibility (to fit in with other non LHR Ultra Long Haul routes), and potentially the bigger fleet picture (i.e. if Regular A359/A35K/777-9X appear in their future fleet plans for commonality of pilots, crew, parts etc).

SCAT15F wrote:

The 777-8 is clearly too large for this mission, which calls for 300 seats, not 365. On the other hand a 772 length 777X would be perfect for this mission and should be able to meet all Qantas requirements without MTOW increases or a central bogey. It would also have superior CASM because its not carrying around all the extra structural weight. This should be a no brainer.

The 365 figure for the 777-8 is a two-class figure. If you apply the relative difference in two-class and three-class capacity of the 777-9, you end up with a three-class 777-8 of approximately (349 777-9 2-class / 414 777-9 3-class ) * 365 777-8 2-class = 308 supposed 777-8 3-class . Take a few more out for a premium economy section and you're right at the target, give or take a few.

manicottiK wrote:

SCAT15F wrote:

The 777-8 is clearly too large for this mission, which calls for 300 seats, not 365. On the other hand a 772 length 777X would be perfect for this mission and should be able to meet all Qantas requirements without MTOW increases or a central bogey. It would also have superior CASM because its not carrying around all the extra structural weight. This should be a no brainer.

The 365 figure for the 777-8 is a two-class figure. If you apply the relative difference in two-class and three-class capacity of the 777-9, you end up with a three-class 777-8 of approximately (349 777-9 2-class / 414 777-9 3-class ) * 365 777-8 2-class = 308 supposed 777-8 3-class . Take a few more out for a premium economy section and you're right at the target, give or take a few.

And for a premium route, they would no doubt be able to command premium revenue for the premium cabins.

Would AA/BA have JV on these routes? QF/BA/AA combined reasonably could fill SYD-JFK/LHR n/s.

Revelation wrote:

I guess I hang around engineers too much, because what he said was perfectly clear to me.

Im an accountant and economist and it made clear sense to me too.

airzona11 wrote:

manicottiK wrote:

SCAT15F wrote:

The 777-8 is clearly too large for this mission, which calls for 300 seats, not 365. On the other hand a 772 length 777X would be perfect for this mission and should be able to meet all Qantas requirements without MTOW increases or a central bogey. It would also have superior CASM because its not carrying around all the extra structural weight. This should be a no brainer.

The 365 figure for the 777-8 is a two-class figure. If you apply the relative difference in two-class and three-class capacity of the 777-9, you end up with a three-class 777-8 of approximately (349 777-9 2-class / 414 777-9 3-class ) * 365 777-8 2-class = 308 supposed 777-8 3-class . Take a few more out for a premium economy section and you're right at the target, give or take a few.

And for a premium route, they would no doubt be able to command premium revenue for the premium cabins.

Would AA/BA have JV on these routes? QF/BA/AA combined reasonably could fill SYD-JFK/LHR n/s.

They undoubtedly could assuming you mean BA on LHR & AA on JFK. Both BA & AA on both could probably be done but I doubt it would be worth it.

Gemuser

BaconButty wrote:

Lastly, not sure how leveraged the SIA ULR will be. Is it at the limits of its payload range?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... us-437060/

Singapore Airlines had indicated a range of 8,700nm but Airbus claims this was based on the length of the Singapore-New York route on which it intended to deploy the aircraft.

Airbus says that this figure has been "incorrectly assumed" to be the limiting range of the twinjet, which will be delivered to Singapore Airlines from next year.

That statement's not in the context that you seem to be thinking. It was Airbus rebutting the media's assumption that the A359ULR was limited to 8700nm because SQ had labeled it as such for their expectant config + payloads.

Airbus contended that an A359ULR could achieve more than 900nm additional range with a viable payload, but never outlined just what that viable payload is.

Regardless, one would doubt that it's anywhere near what QF would want for this route at this point, less the competition would be over before it started.

Waterbomber wrote:

As explained above, the current B778 doesn't have the capabilities that QF needs and the A359ULR even less so.

According to Flightglobal, Boeing is looking at options to make a B778 variant that would meet the required specs:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-443860/

Boeing’s 777X chief project engineer Michael Teal adds that it is looking at ways to achieve additional range from the -8, which is nominally set at 8,700m based on a 352-tonne maximum take-off weight.

“If you look at the exact airplane that we have on paper today - which is not a firm configuration - it falls short of all of their desires, but exceeds many of their desires,” he says.

One option is to increase the MTOW of the aircraft, which would allow it to carry more fuel in the enlarged wing. Teal says however that this would mean some trade-off in the aircraft’s available payload.

“We’ve got to work with them to find what that range balance is,” he adds.

Qantas threw down the gauntlet to Airbus and Boeing in August asking them for an aircraft that would be able to operate nonstop from Australia’s east coast to Europe and the US west coast with a full passenger load.

Airbus is expected to pitch its A350-90ULR to meet the mission requirements, but is also likely to require some modifications to meet Qantas’s needs.

Is Joyce being realistic. The ultra long range he is asking for will require either a huge MTOW or a reduction in load. The more fuel carried the more fuel that has to be carried to get that range. Can either Boeing or Airbus give him what he wants for what is a niche market. Boeing only ever sold six 774ER and that was to meet QANTAS' requirements.

RickNRoll wrote:

Is Joyce being realistic. The ultra long range he is asking for will require either a huge MTOW or a reduction in load. The more fuel carried the more fuel that has to be carried to get that range. Can either Boeing or Airbus give him what he wants for what is a niche market. Boeing only ever sold six 774ER and that was to meet QANTAS' requirements.

Depends on what you mean by "realistic". Is it "realistic" for what his company needs for its future? Undoubtedly!
Is it "realistic" for what Airbus & Boeing can deliver? Not his problem! A & Bs problem.
Can it be done? Undoubtedly!
Can A or B do it a price that both they and QF would be satisfied? Good question, who currently knows what the answer is? Lets just wait & see what A and/or B come up with.

Gemuser

I could actually see Qantas choosing to go to the 747-8i to replace their 744s. Similar size and range and more efficient.

If Boeing have an advantage in this contest, the most important imo, is that the 778 is still to be built, so if Boeing decide to give them their range, they can incorporate the changes in a more cost effective and comprehensive manner than Airbus.

I also can't help thinking what Qantas will want next. They finally got a 787 that can do 17 and a half hours plus reserves, with 230 pax, (at 254T, fantastic really), so now they want 300 out of Sydney direct to LHR, and when (if) they get that, what's next? QF have never been satisfied with available payload range. They asked Boeing to produce a shortened longer range 707 and got it, they asked for an ER version of the 744, and got it, and my guess is they will get a higher MTOW 778 out of Boeing.

Ruscoe

Ruscoe wrote:

If Boeing have an advantage in this contest, the most important imo, is that the 778 is still to be built, so if Boeing decide to give them their range, they can incorporate the changes in a more cost effective and comprehensive manner than Airbus.

I also can't help thinking what Qantas will want next. They finally got a 787 that can do 17 and a half hours plus reserves, with 230 pax, (at 254T, fantastic really), so now they want 300 out of Sydney direct to LHR, and when (if) they get that, what's next? QF have never been satisfied with available payload range. They asked Boeing to produce a shortened longer range 707 and got it, they asked for an ER version of the 744, and got it, and my guess is they will get a higher MTOW 778 out of Boeing.

Ruscoe

My thoughts as well. They will get what they want and it will be from Boeing.

You all seem to have talked yourselves into thinking the 778 is the right aircraft for this mission. I think it is too big. The nonstop is going to be a highly premium product, requiring premium pricing in both J and W to succeed, and the smaller plane will make it easier to drive that pricing. The 359ULR is what the doctor ordered.

Avaitor wrote:

I could actually see Qantas choosing to go to the 747-8i to replace their 744s. Similar size and range and more efficient.

The trouble is that by the time that replacement will happen, Boeing will have a newer plane, exactly the size of the 744, that is vastly more efficient than a 748.

Avaitor wrote:

I could actually see Qantas choosing to go to the 747-8i to replace their 744s. Similar size and range and more efficient.

To my knowledge Qantas keeps the 400ERs around for two reasons: Range and ETOPS requirements for Joburg and South America. Capacity is not that important to them.

RickNRoll wrote:

Is Joyce being realistic. The ultra long range he is asking for will require either a huge MTOW or a reduction in load. The more fuel carried the more fuel that has to be carried to get that range. Can either Boeing or Airbus give him what he wants for what is a niche market. Boeing only ever sold six 774ER and that was to meet QANTAS' requirements.

Times change, markets evolve, technology advances. Recycling the same arguments, as a reflex, doesn't always apply.

Just think of what we've seen since the turn of the century:
17yrs ago, there was only one airline operating a scheduled 16hr flight-- SA, and they could only do it eastbound.

Now? There's tons of such routes on a dozen airlines, and many are reportedly quite lucrative.

There's little reason to believe that, a decade from now, 18hr+ flights won't be sustainably operated by multiple carriers.

speedbird52 wrote:

Avaitor wrote:

I could actually see Qantas choosing to go to the 747-8i to replace their 744s. Similar size and range and more efficient.

To my knowledge Qantas keeps the 400ERs around for two reasons: Range and ETOPS requirements for Joburg and South America. Capacity is not that important to them.

Not really, they are only 14-15 years old, QF will hang on to them for another 5-7 years or until the end of their economic lives. They currently have nothing on order to replace them. ETOPS and range is a past thing now however capacity is important to them for the current routes they fly Like HND/HKG/SFO. JNB and SCL can only be flown by 744’s or A380’s that have the required range in the current fleet.

Revelation wrote:

The "long pole in the tent" is the range requirement, I think it's safe to presume.

payload isn't either.

payload @ range is the isssue I'd guess.
it is this popular "limited bed cover" thing. which ever way you pull it. you can cover most but not all.

PS: I had to read that "requirements not met but requirements met" sentence twice to give it some logic format.
" we cover all requirements individually but not all together" ...

I think that Airbus shouldn't pitch a version of the A359 at all. Airbus has no trouble selling the A350, they need to sell A380's.
If I were Airbus, I would politely show QF that it's not viable to run a 20 hour ULH with minimal payload.
Even with good yields, operating a B778 becomes very risky and the margins will be small. Think seasonality, ups and downs of the economy, etc... It looks good on paper, but in reality QF will be stuck with an operation that they spend a lot of money to build (ie purchasing purpose-built aircraft) and that they won't be able to sustain.
Also, this route will eat into the demand for their one-stop A380 flights. So what are they going to do? Get rid of the A380's and replace them with 2 B778's? That would cost them 2 B778's and an A380 in capital cost.

I think that Airbus just needs to remind them that they have A380 orders waiting to be delivered. If I were Airbus I wouldn't even bid for this small daydream of a concept. The A351 is the better aircraft for QF's Asian routes, so if they want to go all Boeing because the CEO is a Boeing fan, I wouldn't bid on it and let Boeing show them the numbers. Once the CEO goes to the board to tell them that Airbus isn't bidding and Boeing is asking a lot of money because the planes will be purpose-made, while they will retain no residual value because no else needs such planes, it will be back to business as usual.

I'm not even sure that the B778 makes sense for Boeing to build, given slow sales. EY is unlikely to take them up and QR, who knows. This plane is what the A358 and A338 are for Airbus and the B783 used to be for Boeing. It's a nice concept that helps pep up the general sales of a new type, until you need to invest money to certify it and you just don't see the merit of it anymore.

Waterbomber wrote:

I think that Airbus shouldn't pitch a version of the A359 at all. Airbus has no trouble selling the A350, they need to sell A380's.
If I were Airbus, I would politely show QF that it's not viable to run a 20 hour ULH with minimal payload.
Even with good yields, operating a B778 becomes very risky and the margins will be small. Think seasonality, ups and downs of the economy, etc... It looks good on paper, but in reality QF will be stuck with an operation that they spend a lot of money to build (ie purchasing purpose-built aircraft) and that they won't be able to sustain.
Also, this route will eat into the demand for their one-stop A380 flights. So what are they going to do? Get rid of the A380's and replace them with 2 B778's? That would cost them 2 B778's and an A380 in capital cost.

I think that Airbus just needs to remind them that they have A380 orders waiting to be delivered. If I were Airbus I wouldn't even bid for this small daydream of a concept. The A351 is the better aircraft for QF's Asian routes, so if they want to go all Boeing because the CEO is a Boeing fan, I wouldn't bid on it and let Boeing show them the numbers. Once the CEO goes to the board to tell them that Airbus isn't bidding and Boeing is asking a lot of money because the planes will be purpose-made, while they will retain no residual value because no else needs such planes, it will be back to business as usual.

I'm not even sure that the B778 makes sense for Boeing to build, given slow sales. EY is unlikely to take them up and QR, who knows. This plane is what the A358 and A338 are for Airbus and the B783 used to be for Boeing. It's a nice concept that helps pep up the general sales of a new type, until you need to invest money to certify it and you just don't see the merit of it anymore.

I believe you underestimate QF. They know how to do their homework. I believe that if it is doable, QF will do it, either with AB or Boeing. I just believe the relationship QF has with Boeing, and what Boeing has done for QF in the past, then, if it is doable, it will be with Boeing. Yes, I am a QF fan, and I believe QF with Joyce at the helm will walk away from this requirement if they are unable to get what they want.

@ Waterbomber....

Let's look at the alternatives.
The B778 will probably have a OEW around 160 tons, the MTOW at 350 tons, so 190 tons usable.
At 7.5 tons an hour fuel burn, the B778 will burn 150 tons of trip fuel on a 20 hour journey. Add 15 tons for contingency and ETOPS reserves.(let's leave aside fuel tank capacity for now).
So you are left with 25 tons of payload or 250 pax, and for every minute of trip time beyond the 20 hours, you can bump one pax.

Take 7-8 tonnes off with respect to reserves and you are closer to a payload. They won’t be any further than 207 mins on any part of the route, which from an ETOPS perspective is most restrictive across the Indian Ocean.
So far more likely to have a 300+ pax payload in a less dense config.
Bear in mind most ETOPs plans these days are optimised to remove the need for additional ETOPs fuel as well as having statistical contingency fuel (not 5%,3% or 20min) based on the history of the route with wx and delays etc.

emiratesdriver wrote:

@ Waterbomber....

Let's look at the alternatives.
The B778 will probably have a OEW around 160 tons, the MTOW at 350 tons, so 190 tons usable.
At 7.5 tons an hour fuel burn, the B778 will burn 150 tons of trip fuel on a 20 hour journey. Add 15 tons for contingency and ETOPS reserves.(let's leave aside fuel tank capacity for now).
So you are left with 25 tons of payload or 250 pax, and for every minute of trip time beyond the 20 hours, you can bump one pax.

Take 7-8 tonnes off with respect to reserves and you are closer to a payload. They won’t be any further than 207 mins on any part of the route, which from an ETOPS perspective is most restrictive across the Indian Ocean.
So far more likely to have a 300+ pax payload in a less dense config.
Bear in mind most ETOPs plans these days are optimised to remove the need for additional ETOPs fuel as well as having statistical contingency fuel (not 5%,3% or 20min) based on the history of the route with wx and delays etc.

So what, you're going to fly with 15-7= 8 tons of fuel as reserves and contingency?
Final reserve + diversion and holding is already more than 8 tons. Believe me, it doesn't get rosier than I already made it.
1 hour of contingency is probably needed just for potential holding at LHR.

Waterbomber, when I flew the 777 into LHR, contingency, our alternate and final reserve was usually about 6.5 tonnes, I’m imagining a similar sized aircraft with a 10% fuel burn delta will be about the same or a bit less.
Don’t forget about the redispatch option with flight planning as this means you can arrive with even less contingency onboard, heck even now on the 380 the flight I operated the other day into LHR had joining the hold at Biggin with 9 tonnes.