KarelXWB wrote:

According the earlier reports, the westbound leg will be limited at 280 seats.

I think this is about right but only if an eastbound trans-polar route is flown . Something better than ~ 500k winds on the tail are needed. One of the problems flying westbound is the extra over the GC distance that the airways call for. Across China it is close to 400nm. No such limitations trans-polar.

Assuming QF does go SYDLHR non-stop whatever aircraft is chosen this will take the cream of the high yield F, J and if applicable Y+ and Y pax. This will surely have a negative effect on the yield and pax numbers on the one-stop SYDLHR flight, especially in F and J. Do QF expect to fill these with pax from other airlines or growth? I would think this will be difficult if not impossible, in which case the aircraft flying one stop will need to be in a different configuration or perhaps a different aircraft altogether. Perhaps A.Net's Aussie members see this differently, I don't see quite the same problem should they fly SYDJFK non-stop. Another angle could be that QF takes the cream of BA's SYDLHR pax and makes LHRSINSYD for BA unviable.

cv990Coronado wrote:

Assuming QF does go SYDLHR non-stop whatever aircraft is chosen this will take the cream of the high yield F, J and if applicable Y+ and Y pax. This will surely have a negative effect on the yield and pax numbers on the one-stop SYDLHR flight, especially in F and J.

If growth projections of 3 to 4% annually materialise, I think these issues will take care of themselves.

BoeingVista wrote:

Polot wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Airbus makes the claim that it is increasing the range of the A350ULR, its not old news at all this is very new news, a respected local correspondant who usually has the inside track on Qantas news says that any A350-900 will be able to be upgraded to ULR standard.

It is hard to tell if that is actually new news or the author misunderstanding the known fact that the A359ULR can easily be converted back to A359 "standard specifications" (which is different than a normal A359 being able to be easily upgraded to a A350ULR after it leaves the factory).

The potential bump to 9700nm is new news to all of us here. I agree that we cannot tell the level of standardisation with a "standard: 2019 spec -900 but this person does generaly post acurate well sourced articles.

The 9700nm range is news, however the conversion is not, if we talk about 359ULR that SQ bought. the difference between ULR and non ULR models is in wing tanks and 280t MTOW witch was introduced with ULR, so I presume that the conversion is in blocking off those tanks. But this variant, when launched, had a range of 8700nm. So where did A found another 1k nm??

The thing is back when 350xwb was launched airbus proposed a 359R version, with 3510 wing/box, MLG, engines, and wing tanks as in this URL variant. So this plane would be capable of 9700nm but A would have to develop this variant first. Uneconomical unless developing it side by side with 359F

BoeingVista wrote:

Polot wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Airbus makes the claim that it is increasing the range of the A350ULR, its not old news at all this is very new news, a respected local correspondant who usually has the inside track on Qantas news says that any A350-900 will be able to be upgraded to ULR standard.

It is hard to tell if that is actually new news or the author misunderstanding the known fact that the A359ULR can easily be converted back to A359 "standard specifications" (which is different than a normal A359 being able to be easily upgraded to a A350ULR after it leaves the factory).

The potential bump to 9700nm is new news to all of us here. I agree that we cannot tell the level of standardisation with a "standard: 2019 spec -900 but this person does generaly post acurate well sourced articles.

A few posters have clarified earlier in the thread, the 9700nm spec was the proposed 359R (i.e. with 35K wings and gear). That has not been offered as far as I'm aware. The current 359LR on offer is the same one presented to SQ @ 8700nm range.

Polot wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Airbus makes the claim that it is increasing the range of the A350ULR, its not old news at all this is very new news, a respected local correspondant who usually has the inside track on Qantas news says that any A350-900 will be able to be upgraded to ULR standard.

It is hard to tell if that is actually new news or the author misunderstanding the known fact that the A359ULR can easily be converted back to A359 "standard specifications" (which is different than a normal A359 being able to be easily upgraded to a A350ULR after it leaves the factory).

The physical differences between an A350-900 and A350-900ULR appears to be modifications to the fuel tank inerting and venting system. There are also modifications to the fuel control system software and sensors to allow more of the existing fuel tank volume in the wings to be used (by up to 24,000 liters compared to a baseline A350-900).

I am assuming these fuel tank inerting and venting system modifications add weight to the system, so would Airbus want to make them standard on all new-builds after a certain production block (guessing at SQ's first A350-900ULR)? I only see a benefit of doing so if the A350-900 is fuel-volume limited at or beyond the 280,000kg TOW Weight Variant and therefore would need to be able to increase usable fuel volume for future, higher Weight Variants. And then only if customers at that Weight Variant were actually hitting the fuel volume limit and therefore could not carry desired payload as far as they would like.

Stitch wrote:

Polot wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Airbus makes the claim that it is increasing the range of the A350ULR, its not old news at all this is very new news, a respected local correspondant who usually has the inside track on Qantas news says that any A350-900 will be able to be upgraded to ULR standard.

It is hard to tell if that is actually new news or the author misunderstanding the known fact that the A359ULR can easily be converted back to A359 "standard specifications" (which is different than a normal A359 being able to be easily upgraded to a A350ULR after it leaves the factory).

The physical differences between an A350-900 and A350-900ULR appears to be modifications to the fuel tank inerting and venting system. There are also modifications to the fuel control system software and sensors to allow more of the existing fuel tank volume in the wings to be used (by up to 24,000 liters compared to a baseline A350-900).

There is also reinforced main landing gear but that may be related to the increase in MTOW and thus on the standard 280T A359 (the Airbus slide I saw that on was not clear).

waly777 wrote:

A few posters have clarified earlier in the thread, the 9700nm spec was the proposed 359R (i.e. with 35K wings and gear). That has not been offered as far as I'm aware. The current 359LR on offer is the same one presented to SQ @ 8700nm range.

Well, the reports say that Airbus have offered 9700nm to Qantas and Airbus now mention 9700nm as being the ULR range of the A350XWB on their website so something has changed.

BoeingVista wrote:

waly777 wrote:

A few posters have clarified earlier in the thread, the 9700nm spec was the proposed 359R (i.e. with 35K wings and gear). That has not been offered as far as I'm aware. The current 359LR on offer is the same one presented to SQ @ 8700nm range.

Well, the reports say that Airbus have offered 9700nm to Qantas and Airbus now mention 9700nm as being the ULR range of the A350XWB on their website so something has changed.

Hmm i can only see 9700nm in the reports but nothing directly from Airbus and nothing on the Airbus website. I saw it on Wiki, however this was quoting one of the reports. Could you please show a link from Airbus?

It would frankly be interesting to see what changed to enable the 359 gain 1000nm in range with the same MTOW (max offered is still 280T.

waly777 wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

waly777 wrote:

It would frankly be interesting to see what changed to enable the 359 gain 1000nm in range with the same MTOW (max offered is still 280T.

That is what sparked all our posts today and I, personally, can't get my head around it. It's worse than the 251t MTOW A330neo thing from a view weeks ago. At least that came from Leahy.
My guess is, that we get nothing specific before Paris in June.

waly777 wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

waly777 wrote:

A few posters have clarified earlier in the thread, the 9700nm spec was the proposed 359R (i.e. with 35K wings and gear). That has not been offered as far as I'm aware. The current 359LR on offer is the same one presented to SQ @ 8700nm range.

Well, the reports say that Airbus have offered 9700nm to Qantas and Airbus now mention 9700nm as being the ULR range of the A350XWB on their website so something has changed.

Hmm i can only see 9700nm in the reports but nothing directly from Airbus and nothing on the Airbus website. I saw it on Wiki, however this was quoting one of the reports. Could you please show a link from Airbus?

It would frankly be interesting to see what changed to enable the 359 gain 1000nm in range with the same MTOW (max offered is still 280T.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/ ... xwbfamily/ Scroll down to just below the cabin photo, I've no idea if this refers to Singapore ULR or A350J Wingbox ULR.

Turnhouse1 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Well, the reports say that Airbus have offered 9700nm to Qantas and Airbus now mention 9700nm as being the ULR range of the A350XWB on their website so something has changed.

Hmm i can only see 9700nm in the reports but nothing directly from Airbus and nothing on the Airbus website. I saw it on Wiki, however this was quoting one of the reports. Could you please show a link from Airbus?

It would frankly be interesting to see what changed to enable the 359 gain 1000nm in range with the same MTOW (max offered is still 280T.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/ ... xwbfamily/ Scroll down to just below the cabin photo, I've no idea if this refers to Singapore ULR or A350J Wingbox ULR.

Thanks, it does indeed say 9700nm. I wonder what changed and what config they would be referring to for that sort of distance if the MTOW hasn't changed.

waly777 wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

Hmm i can only see 9700nm in the reports but nothing directly from Airbus and nothing on the Airbus website. I saw it on Wiki, however this was quoting one of the reports. Could you please show a link from Airbus?

It would frankly be interesting to see what changed to enable the 359 gain 1000nm in range with the same MTOW (max offered is still 280T.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/ ... xwbfamily/ Scroll down to just below the cabin photo, I've no idea if this refers to Singapore ULR or A350J Wingbox ULR.

Thanks, it does indeed say 9700nm. I wonder what changed and what config they would be referring to for that sort of distance if the MTOW hasn't changed.

Yes thats the reference, but no not it does not give us any clues to the actual configuration, we are all interested to find out what has changed

As Airbus have added the information to their website we have to take it seriously. I don't see how you magic up 1000nm of range either but thats the claim that they are making.

Gemuser wrote:

Lentini2001 wrote:

The CEO of QF indeed who has probably never flown Y or even J in his life and see's everything from his first class suite...

Unless he is flying to LHR, DXB or LAX he is flying business. He also spent many years as CEO of JQ and was frequently seen on their services, only Y.
You don't actually think airline CEOs make these decisions on their own, do you? The airline has many professionals who's job it is to determine such things and I bet they have much better information about both aircraft and the market than anybody on this site, of course they can still make mistakes, after all they are only human.

Gemuser

And... my point is the CEO is the one seeing the numbers that would tell him whether or not the route is viable or not. Yes, he could be spreading hype, but the link above ( http://www.reuters.com/article/us-qanta ... SKBN1772X3 ) shows that others agree about the numbers.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
Based on the quoted articles above, and some speculation among 'interested persons', I have a feeling that Airbus has gained the edge in this contest: possibly in conjunction with the 'settling' of the infamous deferred 8 x A380 order and the upcoming 737 replacement order.

Do you have any facts and data supporting the idea that QAN would have to leave some thing on the table should they not take the remaining 8 airplanes or is it another a.net myth. I think a lot of stuff happened when the initial delivery delays occurred including refund of deposits but short of being an AB contracts person I don't think either of us can prove it one way or the other.

BoeingVista wrote:

waly777 wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/ ... xwbfamily/ Scroll down to just below the cabin photo, I've no idea if this refers to Singapore ULR or A350J Wingbox ULR.

Thanks, it does indeed say 9700nm. I wonder what changed and what config they would be referring to for that sort of distance if the MTOW hasn't changed.

Yes thats the reference, but no not it does not give us any clues to the actual configuration, we are all interested to find out what has changed

As Airbus have added the information to their website we have to take it seriously. I don't see how you magic up 1000nm of range either but thats the claim that they are making.

Maybe they mean an ACJ version of the A350?

waly777 wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

waly777 wrote:

A few posters have clarified earlier in the thread, the 9700nm spec was the proposed 359R (i.e. with 35K wings and gear). That has not been offered as far as I'm aware. The current 359LR on offer is the same one presented to SQ @ 8700nm range.

Well, the reports say that Airbus have offered 9700nm to Qantas and Airbus now mention 9700nm as being the ULR range of the A350XWB on their website so something has changed.

Hmm i can only see 9700nm in the reports but nothing directly from Airbus and nothing on the Airbus website. I saw it on Wiki, however this was quoting one of the reports. Could you please show a link from Airbus?

It would frankly be interesting to see what changed to enable the 359 gain 1000nm in range with the same MTOW (max offered is still 280T.

That planes isn't going to have the payload or capacity QF wants at all! 9700nm is exceptional, and everything points to it being low density.

Revelation wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

Lentini2001 wrote:

The CEO of QF indeed who has probably never flown Y or even J in his life and see's everything from his first class suite...

Unless he is flying to LHR, DXB or LAX he is flying business. He also spent many years as CEO of JQ and was frequently seen on their services, only Y.
You don't actually think airline CEOs make these decisions on their own, do you? The airline has many professionals who's job it is to determine such things and I bet they have much better information about both aircraft and the market than anybody on this site, of course they can still make mistakes, after all they are only human.

Gemuser

And... my point is the CEO is the one seeing the numbers that would tell him whether or not the route is viable or not. Yes, he could be spreading hype, but the link above ( http://www.reuters.com/article/us-qanta ... SKBN1772X3 ) shows that others agree about the numbers.

From where I sit the Reuters piece was a news article for the sake of having a news article. It had many similarities to previous articles in Australia, so I suppose it is simply a rehash of what has already been said. It just had a greater emphasis of the A350 9700nm range option, which at this stage is not properly qualified.

If we consider for QANTAS to even consider the A350 in the first instance, it would require a range of 9600nm, there would have been back ground conversations about the aeroplane prior to this and all previous news articles on the subject.

I would go as far to say the article is factually incorrect. The Airbus web site states the A350XWB, not the A350-900ULR can be "configured....to operate.......ultra-long haul routes (up to 9,700nm)........" As such, this plane could actually be based upon the 800 model, not the 900ULR!

Time will tell!

Flightglobal has confirmed the 9700nm range which is achieved by increasing fuel capacity by 17%

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

chiki wrote:

Flightglobal has confirmed the 9700nm range which is achieved by increasing fuel capacity by 17%

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

Well, it confirms the A350ULR has not actually changed since it was announced, the ULR was always to have increased fuel capacity. 9700nm is just Airbus's "formal" range for the plane. The question of what payload Airbus is assuming for that range still remains.

So a 11.5% increase in range needs a 17% increase on fuel, and after reserves are accounted for it's probably 23% more used fuel.

The plane needs additional fuel to carry the weight of the increased fuel capacity.

30 seat more for the B778 is a very big help in the decision......no doubt that Boeing will win this order

¿We will see this order in Paris Air show?

KarelXWB wrote:

The plane needs additional fuel to carry the weight of the increased fuel capacity.

The -900 has a center tank capacity of 80,947 liters, the -1000 has a center tank capacity of 109,244 liters. They have identical wing tank capacities (29,555 liters per side). The main difference between the -900 and -1000 center tank capacity has to do with the high level shut-offs. If they are talking 15% capacity increase over the -900 to the -900ULR they have not even come close the maximum capacity available in the space.

The standard -900 will happily do 8400 nm in 17 hrs burning 100 tonnes in the process, getting two more hours out of the -900 would seem relatively straightforward to me. I suspect the real limit will be pavement gear limit on MTOW.

I don't see QF ordering any A350 model, QF as a group have too much investment in the 787 for a small sub fleet of A350s.

I tend to agree that the 777 has the inside track here; commonality between the 777 and 787 (and to a certain extent, with the 738) helps a great deal, along with the 30 seat advantage, mentioned above.

zeke wrote:

The -900 has a center tank capacity of 80,947 liters, the -1000 has a center tank capacity of 109,244 liters. They have identical wing tank capacities (29,555 liters per side). The main difference between the -900 and -1000 center tank capacity has to do with the high level shut-offs. If they are talking 15% capacity increase over the -900 to the -900ULR they have not even come close the maximum capacity available in the space.

The standard -900 will happily do 8400 nm in 17 hrs burning 100 tonnes in the process, getting two more hours out of the -900 would seem relatively straightforward to me. I suspect the real limit will be pavement gear limit on MTOW.

It's clear that the A350 is MTOW limited.

If Airbus would further increase fuel capacity without increasing MTOW, the payload would go down and may become uneconomical. While the -900 probably hits a gear limit at 280t, I wouldn't be surprised to see a MTOW bump on the -1000. The A350-1000 should have room to grow to 318t or so.

I don't see QF ordering any A350 model, QF as a group have too much investment in the 787 for a small sub fleet of A350s.

If QF wants to open non-stop routes like MEL-LHR, they'll end up with a small sub fleet anyway. Be it A350s or 778s.

kaitak wrote:

I tend to agree that the 777 has the inside track here; commonality between the 777 and 787 (and to a certain extent, with the 738) helps a great deal, along with the 30 seat advantage, mentioned above.

The A350 shares commonality between the A330 and A380 fleets.

sassiciai wrote:

What's the point of such a non-stop flight?

Anyone on such a flight (including both crews) would arrive at destination in no state to do much other than stumble and mumble about and go to bed, not sit down at a meeting table and negotiate future business contracts!

The operational costs would be horrible

A 2 or 3-hour stop somewhere to refuel and replenish will not impact overall journey time, and will save vast sums of money, and most people's sanity!

IMHO, a very silly idea for very little/no benefit!

There are already 16-17 hour nonstop flights and people do just fine. Adding another hour or two isn't going to make much of a difference. But adding a stop makes you MUCH less competitive. Nowadays most stops involve getting off the plane, clearing security, ect - it's a hassle. And keep in mind, not all of the traffic will be point to point. Some people will already have connections on either end, so for them it would be a 2 connection trip, very unpleasant.

kaitak wrote:

commonality between the 777 and 787 (and to a certain extent, with the 738) helps a great deal

That'll barely even be noticed, much less be a determinative factor.

The type of commonality that really saves airlines $$$, is parts/spares/mtx commonality. Greatly simplifies both inventory and labor complexity and costs.

Cockpit commonality barely amounts to anything compared to that, unless you're routinely shifting pilots between one aircraft and the other (which won't be happening at all between either of them and 737, and likely won't be happening much between 777 and 787 either due to pay scale).

KarelXWB wrote:

kaitak wrote:

I tend to agree that the 777 has the inside track here; commonality between the 777 and 787 (and to a certain extent, with the 738) helps a great deal, along with the 30 seat advantage, mentioned above.

The A350 shares commonality between the A330 and A380 fleets.

A330s are on their way out replaced by 787s. A380s could be replaced by the 779X ie. this order

LamboAston wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

kaitak wrote:

I tend to agree that the 777 has the inside track here; commonality between the 777 and 787 (and to a certain extent, with the 738) helps a great deal, along with the 30 seat advantage, mentioned above.

The A350 shares commonality between the A330 and A380 fleets.

A330s are on their way out replaced by 787s. A380s could be replaced by the 779X ie. this order

Thing is Qantas said they wanted to maintain half half Airbus/Boeing, wouldn't that fleet combo throw the whole idea out the window ?

zeke wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

The plane needs additional fuel to carry the weight of the increased fuel capacity.

The -900 has a center tank capacity of 80,947 liters, the -1000 has a center tank capacity of 109,244 liters. They have identical wing tank capacities (29,555 liters per side). The main difference between the -900 and -1000 center tank capacity has to do with the high level shut-offs. If they are talking 15% capacity increase over the -900 to the -900ULR they have not even come close the maximum capacity available in the space.

The standard -900 will happily do 8400 nm in 17 hrs burning 100 tonnes in the process, getting two more hours out of the -900 would seem relatively straightforward to me. I suspect the real limit will be pavement gear limit on MTOW.

I don't see QF ordering any A350 model, QF as a group have too much investment in the 787 for a small sub fleet of A350s.

Airbus could decide to "merge" the -1000 wing/gear/engines into an A350-900XLR. However the market for such aircraft proved small and unsuccessful.
Aircraft like the 787-9 and A350-900ULH further narrowed the opportunity for such projects. Possible technically, but economically unfeasible.



If QF orders A350s, regular A350-1000 seem much more feasible for their route network.

keesje wrote:

Airbus could decide to "merge" the -1000 wing/gear/engines into an A350-900XLR.

That was the original (concept) plan back when the A350 was launched. It was referred to as the A350-900R in Airbus materials at the time.

keesje wrote:

However the market for such aircraft proved small and unsuccessful.

Which is probably why they went with what they did with the A350-900ULR, instead.

Kinda wondering why they didn't put the triple-bogie gear on the A359 to begin with.

What's the weight difference between it, and the current gear? Anyone?

I guess the A359ULR would be used on non-stop flights from Sydney to London-Heathrow or New York-JFK, whereas the 777-8 will most likely replace the remaining 747-400ER.

precure787 wrote:

I guess the A359ULR would be used on non-stop flights from Sydney to London-Heathrow or New York-JFK, whereas the 777-8 will most likely replace the remaining 747-400ER.

The 777-8 will be used for SYD - LHR/JFK, AND would replace the 747-400ERs.

Boeing778X wrote:

precure787 wrote:

I guess the A359ULR would be used on non-stop flights from Sydney to London-Heathrow or New York-JFK, whereas the 777-8 will most likely replace the remaining 747-400ER.

The 777-8 will be used for SYD - LHR/JFK, AND would replace the 747-400ERs.

Agreed & only reason any A350 would materialise or emerge is due to the deferred A380 frames which could easily be swapped for A320NEO's to replace the B738 fleet.

EK413

I'm one of those that would rather just stay on the plane and get the trip over with, than lose a bunch of hours with a stop over. Airports suck...even the nice ones. By the 7th or 8th hour on an aircraft, I'm mostly numb but I've gotten into the rhythm of the trip. It is not the least restful to have lose a bunch of time and have to hang around an airport.

When you stop, the clock stops ticking. You are literally not making progress. Those precious spare minutes and hours you have allotted for your journey are being eaten up by being parked in itinerary purgatory.

One imagines that Qantas has done its research very throughly indeed as this will be a very expensive decision indeed.It will change the way their whole long distance operation works.
One can therefore only assume that the vast majority of their pax have said they would prefer to shave a few hours off their journey times versus the ability to stretch their legs.
I now there are people here who really wish to break up their long distance flight.And that's all well and good ;the price will be cheaper too).But as stated this is a commercial decision by Qantas and will have been fully researched first.

I think I read somewhere that the Air India to USA flights were going non stop successfully recently.Perhaps there is now a trend?Certainly these ULR modern twins can do it economically which is a new development really.But the halving of the price of the fuel is the thing that's really changed the maths I would have thought.
Many people are saying that the $50 barrel oil is here for ever (or lower according to Goldman Sachs).Wouldnt know myself but there does seem to be a long term glut of the stuff.As One Sheik once said 'the Stone Age didn't finish cos they ran out of stones'! So perhaps it will be with oil.
Cars are going electric,grids are moving to Wind turbines,gas and solar it's only aircraft that really require very high energy density fuels.So perhaps they are right and we can look forward to decades of cheap non stop flying!

LamboAston wrote:

A330s are on their way out replaced by 787s. A380s could be replaced by the 779X ie. this order

That's just hypothetical.

Qantas hasn't outlined A330 replacement plans. The first batch of 787s will be used to open new routes, that's all we know.

The A380s will undergo cabin refurbishment and are here to stay until 2030 or so. At least that's what Alan Joyce said last year.

In other words, the 777/787 commonality argument applies to the Airbus fleet as well. Adding a few A350s should not be an issue.

That was not a quote, unlike the other items in that article.

qf789 wrote:

QF plans to replace A330's with 787's

Qantas' long-term plan is for the Boeing 787 to replace not only the ageing and fuel-thirsty Boeing 747 jumbo jets but also its international and domestic Airbus A330 fleet.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-wou ... heir-worth

It's a long-term plan. Qantas doesn't yet have a detailed replacement plan and the 787s for the job haven't been ordered yet. So the A330s are here to stay for another 10 years or so, the A350s can be delivered much sooner and share commonalty with the A330.

qf789 wrote:

As stated above 787's will replace the A330's

He just stated the obvious that at some stage they will replace the 747 and A330, he did not specify 787s. Since then Qantas has said it will keep 11 747s for a while, the ones that were due for retirement in 15/16 did not go. They now look like retiring 5 by 2019.

What prompted this thread was "The question is: do the remaining [747s] get replaced by 787s or do they get replaced by 777-8s or A350s?" Mr Joyce said.

Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/transport/a ... z4glO1DPv4

Like I said above my view is they have too much invested into the 787 as a group to seriously consider the A350, i think it is just a way to keep Boeings pencil sharp. There is a huge fuel burn increase going to the 77X over the 787/A350. I think the play is to get Boeing to reduce the 77X purchase price to counter that.

There are many types of one stop flight and many 'classes' of passenger.Its important to distinguish which ones we are talking about.Indeed the same person can be 2 types -I know I am one of them!
If you are first/business even Premium you are far less 'price elastic' for most you are not 'price elastic' at all as you are not paying for the flight anyway!
If (say) you are flying business class with your flat bed fantastic food,great entertainment and privacy then non stop is the way to go.I would (and have) choose it every time.
But on holidays travelling economy with my family I would not just stop ( refuel or make a connection) I would turn it into a part of the holiday whether this be Singapore/kl/Dubai etc and indeed have.Spending the money saved on 48 hours wherever.

Far more importantly however is the fact that Qantas will have researched all these peramiters to death.Just a Singapore will have done before them.Clearly the answer is a big yes.The only question is 'how big'.
A 359url will take 250 pax in the right balance of classes.The 778 will take more 270? But drink more fuel.Thats for them to decide -except- I don't think that will be the deciding factor in the slightest....

For Qantas the days of the 744 and 380 are coming to an end - no not tomorrow but as sure as night follows day this move to non stop will hasten it.
So the 'total' order will all be about choosing the 350-1000/1100 or the 779/10.This is where IMHO Boeing have the upper hand.But again it all depends what their volume projections are going forwards and that's the one thing they will never let leak out as it gives away the answer to A or B.
But make no mistake this is going to be one hell of a fight! Look forward to it!