Bricktop wrote:Sorry, there's NFW I want to be on a plane that long. I'd need a stop for my sanity.
In coach yea that's a long one. In j class and up well for me that's heaven
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Bricktop wrote:Sorry, there's NFW I want to be on a plane that long. I'd need a stop for my sanity.
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!
Richard28 wrote:SonomaFlyer wrote:The business case might turn on the cargo needs for a given route
The cost of all the extra fuel to transport cargo would make it a low priority for a plane on such a route... I doubt it would even factor IMHO in fleet planning decisions.
cargo does not care if it one stops or two stops... price is the key determinator for cargo, ULH flights will not be cheap, so there would be little demand, especially with the numerous one stop options available for a fraction of the price.
Socrates17 wrote:I'm retired now, so time isn't a constraint as much as the desire to avoid peripheral vascular disease is.
downdata wrote:Then the CEO of QF is wrong.
Zkpilot wrote:It will save around 3 hours possibly 4. That is a significant time-saving. For someone in Business Class or Premium Economy they should be able to have a decent uninterrupted rest on this flight (compared to the other flights that usually mean one shorter flight and one longer one).
Yes it will be tough on crew - I imagine they will have 5 (2x Captains, 2x FO, 1x SO) pilots on board (the Captains and FO do half the flight and rest for the other half (plus rest by having the SO work the middle cruise portion). For the NYC flight they would probably just have an extra 2-3x cabin crew and allow them longer breaks while speeding up sign on (and having a hotel closer to the airport) so keep the duty time under 20 hours and would probably need some kind of dispensation from the FAAA (I'm guessing minimum 44+ hours slip time in NY).
For LHR however it probably wouldn't be feasible for a single cabin crew so they would have to have a double crew for that (probably reduced however eg say it was normally 12x cabin crew they might go for 20x cabin crew rather than 24x).
jagraham wrote:SYD to LHR is farther than SIN to EWR. Singapore Airlines will fly SIN to EWR with the A359ULR. But with 200 seats or less. The A359 serving SIN to SFO (7341 nm) has 253 seats https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Singa ... o=32&date=
If Mr. Joyce is serious about 300 seats, even in ULR form, the A359 will need a significant weight increase. Whereas the 778 starts with 360 seats for 8700 nm, so the question there is will removing 60 seats (15000 lb or so) allow enough fuel for the extra 500 nm? And will GE make its numbers at EIS?
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!
log0008 wrote:kriskim wrote:jfk777 wrote:Qantas seems fascinated by flying nonstop to London and JFK, why ? Flying nonstop to DFW from Melbourne and Brisbane should be the priority. JFK and ORD plus maybe Boston will happen when he A350ULR and 787-9 get their legs. Sydney to London with all the competition from the Cathay's, Singapore's and ME3 is a vanity project. So you get to LHR 3 hours sooner, big deal.
QF still has 4 more 787's still to have a home, with the first initial 8 787's being MEL based, I think MEL-DFW will be one of the new routes that we will see in 2019. I believe these plans for 778 and A350ULR are for long term future plans, QF will need to do its research now for the 747 replacement.
I still think we will see more 787s ordered as well. As we have said the 778 has a capacity reduction over the 744, this means routes such as South Africa could see a Melbourne service on the 787 to fill the gap.
airzona11 wrote:The routes while long are heavily traveled. QF can offer the N/S to steal some of the high yielding traffic that today is connecting. No doubt those on the Kangaroo route in F/J (Y) flying on other airlines, paying a premium to do so, would be consider the option. Same with all the 1 stop options to NYC.
They are already down gauging to 789s. QF is taking skimming the higher paying passengers and leaving the low yielding mass people moving to other airlines. With a perception and reality of a premium airline, that is a smart yield mgmt plan.
keesje wrote:I do not see Airbus invest in an aircraft that can fly SYD-LHR/JFK with a margin.
They'll offer the A359LR as specified for SQ, in combination with -1000s.
An ultimate ULH machine, an A350-1000 shrink; "A350-900ULR", with the bigger wing, engines, landing gear, MTOW, doesn't seem worth the investment.
Boeing778X wrote:The problem is that the A350-900ULR, while it has the range, may not have the payload or capacity QF may want.
It certainly doesn't have the pax capacity that's anywhere near QFs 744s.
This really does seem like the 777-8s order to lose.
reidar76 wrote:The A380 is also an ultra-long haul aircraft, actually has capabilities that is not that different from the 777-8/A350 ULH.
I would think an A380, with its somewhat oversized wings, would be excellent on these ultra-long haul routes where you need to carry massive amounts of fuel. A slight MTOW increase and maybe ACTs in the cargo bay, would probably do the trick. The A380 has enough space for people to move around a little bit and maybe have a little bit more comfortable seats. Comfort will be important on an UHL flight from SYD to LHR, as it would be close to a 21 or 22 hour flight, non-stop?
keesje wrote:airzona11 wrote:The routes while long are heavily traveled. QF can offer the N/S to steal some of the high yielding traffic that today is connecting. No doubt those on the Kangaroo route in F/J (Y) flying on other airlines, paying a premium to do so, would be consider the option. Same with all the 1 stop options to NYC.
They are already down gauging to 789s. QF is taking skimming the higher paying passengers and leaving the low yielding mass people moving to other airlines. With a perception and reality of a premium airline, that is a smart yield mgmt plan.
There are few network carriers not aiming at higher paying passengers, that's the problem. QF can not ask extra, apart from proud locals.
Boeing778X wrote:keesje wrote:I do not see Airbus invest in an aircraft that can fly SYD-LHR/JFK with a margin.
They'll offer the A359LR as specified for SQ, in combination with -1000s.
An ultimate ULH machine, an A350-1000 shrink; "A350-900ULR", with the bigger wing, engines, landing gear, MTOW, doesn't seem worth the investment.
The problem is that the A350-900ULR, while it has the range, may not have the payload or capacity QF may want.
It certainly doesn't have the pax capacity that's anywhere near QFs 744s.
This really does seem like the 777-8s order to lose.
Max Q wrote:The answer to economically serve SYD-LHR nonstop is to fly eastbound, or more correctly NE, greater distance but tailwinds all the way, stop in LHR then a non stop back to SYD you're eastbound around the world.
Boeing778X wrote:...would be exceptionally comfortable.
astuteman wrote:For what it's worth, I'm not going to be holding my breath for this "order" to materialise - the return from Aus to the UK is just too challenging IMO
astuteman wrote:In which case, for the stage length we're talking about, the 308t A359ULR might be capable of generating just as much revenue as the 350t 777-8X
Pellegrine wrote:A350-900ULR will have at least 350-500nm more range than the 777-8X per current spec.
LAX772LR wrote:astuteman wrote:In which case, for the stage length we're talking about, the 308t A359ULR might be capable of generating just as much revenue as the 350t 777-8X
What "308T A359ULR"...?
Airbus has made no public offer of anything over 280T for the A359ULR, same as the standard A359 will have circa 2020.
Even the original design with the A35K's wing/box/gear was only going to be 298T.Pellegrine wrote:A350-900ULR will have at least 350-500nm more range than the 777-8X per current spec.
No it won't. Especially not with 300pax on board. In fact, nowhere near it.
Granted, a 778 isn't doing SYD-LHR with that many pax either, but it'll haul more/longer than an A359ULR will, easily.
Pellegrine wrote:A350-900ULR will have at least 350-500nm more range than the 777-8X per current spec.LAX772LR wrote:No it won't. Especially not with 300pax on board. In fact, nowhere near it.
Granted, a 778 isn't doing SYD-LHR with that many pax either, but it'll haul more/longer than an A359ULR will, easily.Pellegrine wrote:Well, I did not say the 300 pax part.
LAX772LR wrote:Pellegrine wrote:A350-900ULR will have at least 350-500nm more range than the 777-8X per current spec.LAX772LR wrote:No it won't. Especially not with 300pax on board. In fact, nowhere near it.
Granted, a 778 isn't doing SYD-LHR with that many pax either, but it'll haul more/longer than an A359ULR will, easily.
I did, because it's the topic of the thread.
Read the OP if you want a refresher: QF wants an aircraft that can do this with up to 300pax.
The 778 isn't really that, and the A359ULR sure as hell isn't.
The former though, is the closest thing that the market is primed to offer for that, any time soon.... unless Airbus goes 600T+ on the A380, with a center tank. Good luck getting them to invest more in that frame though, especially for such a niche market.
Qantas management has been pressing both manufacturers to deliver its new ultra-long range planes certified to fly Sydney-London (17,000 kilometres) with and against directional winds and with a payload of at least 300 passengers.
"At the moment, Sydney-New York is probably OK but Sydney-London is hard for both aircraft," Mr Joyce said, though he remains confident the longer mission will ultimately be realised by the manufacturers' programs.
jagraham wrote:But that's going down from 253 seats to make 8291 nm (15354 km). The OP article says Qantas wants 300 seats for the 9200 nm (17039 km) SYD to LHR flight. That's over 900 nm more, and more seats.
One other thing to conisder - if they REALLY wanted to do this route today, they could get a 77L with ACTs. The charts say a 77L can do the 9200 nm leg carrying 60,000 lb payload with 2 ACTs, for 55000 gal (approx).
Revelation wrote: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!
And yet the CEO of QF sees a market for it, so there clearly are people with different opinions than yours.
LAX772LR wrote:Airbus has made no public offer of anything over 280T for the A359ULR, same as the standard A359 will have circa 2020.
IINM, even the original design with the A35K's wing/box/gear was only going to be 298T; so where's 308T coming from?.
DaveFly wrote:I too have vascular disease, specifically MTHFR. It never stops me from traveling, even very long haul.
bunumuring wrote:Hey guys,
Qantas knows what it's doing - this is definitely no vanity project and for anyone to suggest otherwise shows that they really don't understand the history and depth of thought behind Alan Joyce's, and thus Qantas', comments.
Qantas has seriously considered nonstops to London in the past, and the 777-200LR to fly them, but deferred due to the uncertainties of the market and the marginal ability of the plane to operate the route without crippling penalties. I for one remember the 'silver bullet' idea of an unpainted (to save weight) jointly-operated QF/BA 777-200LR subfleet flying nonstop SYD-LHR. That was years ago.
What has been new in the past year or so is the publicly expressed desire of QF to fly nonstop to JFK. Alan Joyce arguably doesn't make statements nor float ideas that don't have serious thought behind them. I remember certain a.netters who have posted here expressing doubt and derision about PER-LHR when that route was first floated a few years ago...
I believe that the demonstrable maturing of the Sydney-NYC market through the QF SYD-LAX-JFK flights coupled with the always strong SYD-XXX-LHR market has allowed a critical mass of potential ULH flying to emerge, making a small subfleet of ULH jets practical, along with all of the operational and systemic 'stuff' required... And I have absolutely no doubt that QF has the management, staff and culture to make this all of this work.
I absolutely would pay a premium to fly nonstop on these routes... And I know plenty of others who would as well.
And I only fly for leisure...
And I would be flying economy or perhaps if i am very very lucky, premium economy...
And a final word, I would just love QF to select the 777 over the A350... It just seems like destiny!
Cheers,
Bunumuring.
enzo011 wrote:Isn't the perceived wisdom that passengers pay for the cheapest tickets? They don't care about the plane as long as the ticket is cheap? If someone wants to go from SYD to LHR and the QF flight direct flight is more expensive than the one stop EK or QF flights, is the wisdom now that people will choose the more expensive option? It will be interesting to see what they need to charge for tickets on these flights as this will determine if it will be a success.
LAX772LR wrote:jagraham wrote:But that's going down from 253 seats to make 8291 nm (15354 km). The OP article says Qantas wants 300 seats for the 9200 nm (17039 km) SYD to LHR flight. That's over 900 nm more, and more seats.
One other thing to conisder - if they REALLY wanted to do this route today, they could get a 77L with ACTs. The charts say a 77L can do the 9200 nm leg carrying 60,000 lb payload with 2 ACTs, for 55000 gal (approx).
Here's the problem with that: SYD-LHR isn't "just" 9200nm.
You factor in headwinds, ATC paths, weather, diversion, reserves, etc and you're going to need somewhere between 10,000-10,300nm range to reliably make that work; which even a fully-tanked 77L cannot offer with a realistic profit-potential payload.
If it were that simple, QF could've ordered them nearly 17yrs ago.