tealnz wrote:

Leeham's Part 3 article comes up with a different conclusion: "An A350R would have the performance of Boeing’s 777-8X in terms of range and payload capability and it would beat it on fuel efficiency per aircraft and seat mile." Leeham estimate an empty weight 7t higher than a regular A359. Main difference would be smaller size than a 778: 35 fewer passengers by Leeham's estimate. If Airbus decided to offer an A359R (a big if - the 359ULR is clearly their preferred offering and it's hard to see them investing in the shrink without commitments from multiple customers) it would be highly competitive against the 778 for Joyce's ULH 300 seat requirement.

Leeham is an interesting site, but they've also never done an analysis between a Boeing and airbus aircraft and said anything but that the airbus is essentially superior.

sierra3tango wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/06/london-sydney-non-stop-flights-real-possibility-within-five/

Seems as if they're seriously examining SYD / LHR non stop with a 20% premium from 2022

778 & 359ULR in the frame to operate

Predicated on fuel price

Would have thought, if it comes to pass, that BA would either have to follow or give up the route

Interesting article. Seems to me that they are still highly interested.

In terms of payload, fleet commonality and, frankly, what it replaces (the 744ER), the 777-8 seems to have the edge. Not only are these planes to do SYD/MEL-LHR, but routes like SYD-JFK and maybe even SYD-DFW as well, and I suspect 8-12x could be ordered.

9-abreast economy seems like a way to go as well, and in the 777X, that will be decently comfortable.

Boeing778X wrote:

9-abreast economy seems like a way to go as well, and in the 777X, that will be decently comfortable.

There is no way any airline will go to 9 abreast with the 777X, I can't see a reason why. Beside, Qantas is already 9 abreast on the 787-9.

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.

Qantas is still going to have to do a Sydney and Melbourne daily to LHR via Dubai, Singapore or some other city. Qantas owns 4 slots at LHR, how many flights to the UK are the going to have with the two current ones and the Perth 787 coming next year ? So far I count 3. How many people are going to pay a premium to fly Qantas Business Class( nonstop unlikely to have First Class) against the ME3, CX and SQ superb J classes ? Few, is the nonstop really worth it or should we just wait 10 more years until a new plane does it.

It is because it is the one thing QF can do that differentiates itself from the competition. Only QF (or BA) could offer SYD <> LHR non-stop. Fly SQ/CX/EK/TG/MH/the Chinese etc and you have to stop.

The strategy of emphasising fewer stops worked -very effectively - for QF in the late 1980s/early 1990s when the Kangaroo route went from two stops to one stop. Non-stop is the next logical progression, in a route that has evolved since the 1930s.

https://youtu.be/Kz2GS5aG4C4

AsiaTravel wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

9-abreast economy seems like a way to go as well, and in the 777X, that will be decently comfortable.

There is no way any airline will go to 9 abreast with the 777X, I can't see a reason why. Beside, Qantas is already 9 abreast on the 787-9.

9-abreast Y equals a weight decrease. SYD-LHR isn't exactly a short hop.

Boeing778X wrote:

AsiaTravel wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

9-abreast economy seems like a way to go as well, and in the 777X, that will be decently comfortable.

There is no way any airline will go to 9 abreast with the 777X, I can't see a reason why. Beside, Qantas is already 9 abreast on the 787-9.

9-abreast Y equals a weight decrease. SYD-LHR isn't exactly a short hop.

Yes for sure, but if they want to use their 777X on shorter flight then they are better off just blocking seats on ULH and have that extra revenue available on flight like SYD-LAX/SFO/HND...

texl1649 wrote:

tealnz wrote:

Leeham's Part 3 article comes up with a different conclusion: "An A350R would have the performance of Boeing’s 777-8X in terms of range and payload capability and it would beat it on fuel efficiency per aircraft and seat mile." Leeham estimate an empty weight 7t higher than a regular A359. Main difference would be smaller size than a 778: 35 fewer passengers by Leeham's estimate. If Airbus decided to offer an A359R (a big if - the 359ULR is clearly their preferred offering and it's hard to see them investing in the shrink without commitments from multiple customers) it would be highly competitive against the 778 for Joyce's ULH 300 seat requirement.

Leeham is an interesting site, but they've also never done an analysis between a Boeing and airbus aircraft and said anything but that the airbus is essentially superior.

Agreed. I used to enjoy reading it, but its just gotten predictably Airbus-slanted. While Boeing certainly has some issues, some serious, Leeham loves to run articles trashing Boeing or acting like the sky is falling. Here they are comparing a speculative plane (with no information from Airbus) and concluding it is already better than one offered by Boeing.

texl1649 wrote:

tealnz wrote:

Leeham's Part 3 article comes up with a different conclusion: "An A350R would have the performance of Boeing’s 777-8X in terms of range and payload capability and it would beat it on fuel efficiency per aircraft and seat mile." Leeham estimate an empty weight 7t higher than a regular A359. Main difference would be smaller size than a 778: 35 fewer passengers by Leeham's estimate. If Airbus decided to offer an A359R (a big if - the 359ULR is clearly their preferred offering and it's hard to see them investing in the shrink without commitments from multiple customers) it would be highly competitive against the 778 for Joyce's ULH 300 seat requirement.

Leeham is an interesting site, but they've also never done an analysis between a Boeing and airbus aircraft and said anything but that the airbus is essentially superior.

I don't think I have seen a single pro Boeing analysis from these guys, not trying to be a hater or fanboy but I'm just stating what I'm seeing.

planespotter20 wrote:

I get bored on a 10-hour flight... imagine one twice the length. Once you get on the plane the crew would come around and hand everyone a bottle of NyQuil. By half way, everyone is handed gun and a bullet.

Maybe instead of having a large Y cabin they fill the rear with a larger opening where you can roam around, mingle, and focus on not dying.

And still have a smaller Y cabin towards the front.

I flew JFK-TPE which is 74% of the Great Circle distance of SYD-LHR, in EVA's wonderful Business Class...I had a few drinks, ate, watched some movies, passed out and woke up somewhere around Okhotsk, Russia...if that were SYD-LHR, I would have woken up HALF-WAY!

In hind-sight, that was a tough flight because I only had a week in Taipei and I wanted to maximize it. I was definitely a bit beat up a bit more than on other flights where I had layovers.

If I had been going for business, maybe I would have drank less...but the couple hour savings of going JFK-TPE instead of EWR-SFO-TPE....I dunno...

They need to do serious Voice of the Customer analysis of people that fly DXB-AKL, AKL-SFO, EWR-BOM, and other long-hauls whether those Business HVFs (and there are HVFs in coach too whose companies won't pay for Business Class but may see the advantage of non-stops) to see if this is worth it.

For me, I'd have to say I would book a non-stop on the way home to see my family as fast as possible - and my company would let me book Business Non-Stop, but I would book the 1-stop on the way there to be a bit more "ready to go"

I feel that the A350 with a less-dense configuration would be a smaller risk, but then again very specialized and expensive cargo can make you money. Look at Lufthansa's operations, but Germany is special.

AsiaTravel wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

AsiaTravel wrote:

There is no way any airline will go to 9 abreast with the 777X, I can't see a reason why. Beside, Qantas is already 9 abreast on the 787-9.

9-abreast Y equals a weight decrease. SYD-LHR isn't exactly a short hop.

Yes for sure, but if they want to use their 777X on shorter flight then they are better off just blocking seats on ULH and have that extra revenue available on flight like SYD-LAX/SFO/HND...

I don't think they have much desire to run the 777X/A350LR on shorter flights except for maybe one or two routes to increase fleet utilization (like SQ's SIN-CGK with the A345s). That is what the 789s and A380s are for.

texl1649 wrote:

Leeham is an interesting site, but they've also never done an analysis between a Boeing and airbus aircraft and said anything but that the airbus is essentially superior.

To be fair, Leeham's analysis of the 773ER & 777X vs the A380 came out in favor of the Boeing airplanes.

StTim wrote:

Re the Leeham article both frames are actually paper planes at this point so it is speculation. Overall more balanced than say Aspire or Teal group but agree a leaning towards Airbus.

Leeham is perfectly capable of defending their analysis of any airplane model. The fact is they use a propriety modelling program which lets the chips fall where they may. How accurate is it. Probably within a ( very) few percentage points . The important point is that it treats all airplanes the same . If it is out a bit on a Boeing it is out the same on an Airbus.

It is because it is the one thing QF can do that differentiates itself from the competition. Only QF (or BA) could offer SYD <> LHR non-stop. Fly SQ/CX/EK/TG/MH/the Chinese etc and you have to stop.

In theory, if SQ felt it was too big a loss of business, they could gift VA LHR slots and it could also participate in the route on a non-stop basis. VA are looking to replace its A330s and 77Ws with either A350s or 787s in the next 5 years or so. Maybe the potential to one day fly to LHR may mean the flexibility of the A350 is an advantage over the 787.

Boeing778X wrote:

AsiaTravel wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

9-abreast economy seems like a way to go as well, and in the 777X, that will be decently comfortable.

There is no way any airline will go to 9 abreast with the 777X, I can't see a reason why. Beside, Qantas is already 9 abreast on the 787-9.

9-abreast Y equals a weight decrease. SYD-LHR isn't exactly a short hop.

Wishful thinking. Airlines are not charities. And this is Qantas we are talking about. They put 9 abreast on the 789 for a 17+hr route and called it

very luxurious

.

777-8 it shall be

folks do these long flights because they're easier and less obnoxious than having a layover. is it awful? yes. but you just flew around the planet in less than a day. it's good enough.

777-8 in a less dense and higher J configuration should work. As for SYD-JFK, JFK is already a cargo destination for Qantas, contracted to Atlas Air with planes based at each end. The flight could simply e no cargo westbound (use AA cargo to LAX).

As for the 789...can one do 9 abreast with a 17.5 inch seat? That said, some seats will likely be blocked in Y.

astuteman wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Cant decide whether some of the claims in this article are new revelations, or just supposition/bunk.

I mean, the A359ULR supposedly gained 1000nm range somehow, and we've heard barely a peep from other/official sources?

My suspicion is that the article mistakenly believes this to be exactly the same aircraft as the SQ A359LR, whereas I believe that a 9 700Nm A359 ULR (with the emphasis on the "U) would have to be a shrink of the 308t A350-1000, complete with triple wheel MLG. It should be good for that quoted range at least.

Ahhh, that would make sense.

And also answers whether or not we should take this (sloppy) article seriously.

Wasn't Quantas talking about starting a direct to ORD with the 789? I remember reading it somewhere...

Also I feel like if they put economy in the 778/a359ULR then they should spoil the sh*t out of every seat. Free wifi, USB, AC Power, AVOD, Noise Cancelling Headphones, the whole nine yards...

Also make the mingling area that separates the premium and coach cabins. Just have a space for people to be social, have a bar, some seating, just a beautiful area to mingle and burn some time.

texl1649 wrote:

tealnz wrote:

Leeham's Part 3 article comes up with a different conclusion: "An A350R would have the performance of Boeing’s 777-8X in terms of range and payload capability and it would beat it on fuel efficiency per aircraft and seat mile." Leeham estimate an empty weight 7t higher than a regular A359. Main difference would be smaller size than a 778: 35 fewer passengers by Leeham's estimate. If Airbus decided to offer an A359R (a big if - the 359ULR is clearly their preferred offering and it's hard to see them investing in the shrink without commitments from multiple customers) it would be highly competitive against the 778 for Joyce's ULH 300 seat requirement.

Leeham is an interesting site, but they've also never done an analysis between a Boeing and airbus aircraft and said anything but that the airbus is essentially superior.

Yea... There analysis doesn't track for when Boeing sells well. But it is interesting work. Somehow they fixate on certain criteria instead of the system approach. Oh well..

I could see either. It would have to be a shrunk A350-1000 and not the SQ A359LR to compete. That changes costs.


Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

It would have to be a shrunk A350-1000 and not the SQ A359LR to compete.

And IINM, they've made no indication of wanting to return to the A35K-shrink for an ULH platform, unless I've missed it.

But then again, since only SQ has bought the current A359ULR, perhaps they'll reconsider?

planespotter20 wrote:

Also make the mingling area that separates the premium and coach cabins. Just have a space for people to be social, have a bar, some seating, just a beautiful area to mingle and burn some time.

I think they need this sort of area in part of the cargo space . But I am not sure how much weight they could allow for it.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

As for the 789...can one do 9 abreast with a 17.5 inch seat? That said, some seats will likely be blocked in Y.

Granted it wouldn't surprise me that if QF launched SYD-LHR nonstop PER-LHR goes the way of the dodo.

I wonder if we will all have to wait until 2025 for the RR UltraFan, either a pair or a quad?

The listed range of a 777-8 is 8700nm (wiki, I'm willing to accept better sources), Airbus are claiming 'up to' 9700nm for the A350-900ULR, JFK-SYD is 8646nm, LHR-SYD is 9188nm, the 777-8 is likely the best plane for Sydney-New York, both will take a payload hit to London, the Airbus might hold up better as it's fundamentally a newer design, but they probably need an A350-1000 shrink rather than an A350-900 with extra tanks to make London sensible.

downdata wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

AsiaTravel wrote:

There is no way any airline will go to 9 abreast with the 777X, I can't see a reason why. Beside, Qantas is already 9 abreast on the 787-9.

9-abreast Y equals a weight decrease. SYD-LHR isn't exactly a short hop.

Wishful thinking. Airlines are not charities. And this is Qantas we are talking about. They put 9 abreast on the 789 for a 17+hr route and called it

very luxurious

.

Elaborate. I'm talking about this strictly from a weight/technical standpoint, not comfort.

Bricktop wrote:

Sorry, there's NFW I want to be on a plane that long. I'd need a stop for my sanity.

For Y I agree, but many do not agree and would rather just get it all done. 18-22 hours in a J seat or even an F suite would not be so bad, though.

Boeing778X wrote:

downdata wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

9-abreast Y equals a weight decrease. SYD-LHR isn't exactly a short hop.

Wishful thinking. Airlines are not charities. And this is Qantas we are talking about. They put 9 abreast on the 789 for a 17+hr route and called it

very luxurious

.

Elaborate. I'm talking about this strictly from a weight/technical standpoint, not comfort.

The plane would be operated on several routes, not just SYD-LHR. Therefore it's better to config the plane in a 10-abreast seating to capture additional revenue on the shorter routes, and block a few seats on the ULR routes.

Turnhouse1 wrote:

The listed range of a 777-8 is 8700nm (wiki, I'm willing to accept better sources.

For what payload?

sunrisevalley wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

The listed range of a 777-8 is 8700nm (wiki, I'm willing to accept better sources.

For what payload?

It's just the design range, so ~350 seats and their bags.

I've flown a lot of LH and a bit of ULH (EWR-SIN, HKG-BOS/JFK) on business, always in J. And given the opportunity, I'd always pick non-stop as long as I'm in a J or F cabin. Not so sure about Y, and as we see here, many would shout NO! Which brings me to my real point . . .

There's just not a huge, unmet passenger demand out there. There're are maybe five or six BIG unserved non-stop markets (although I can't get past SIN-US, SYD/MEL-LHR and maybe, SYD-JFK) that would generate significant demand in the front cabins. That means that there's just not a huge, unmet demand for ULH aircraft. So why would A or B spend big money to develop a specialized aircraft for two or three airlines? Would there really be demand for more than 30 or 40 units (on the high side)?

I worked for the biggest bank in New Zealand. We almost exclusively used Jetstar. Or even more often, the phone.

So if SYD got a non-stop to LHR - where does that leave the good folk of Melbourne ? Five pages of commentary - and no discussion of where that would leave the other half of QF's existing LHR bound flights.

airbazar wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

20 hours with a flatbed seat is doable. 20 hours in a coach seat is not something that sounds very enticing.

For that reason alone I don't see why they need 300 seats. I can't imagine that people who can only afford to fly in a cramped Y cabin, would ever opt for the non-stop option. The fare would have to be hugely discounted when compared to all the 1-stop options and that goes against all the economics of running a non-stop flight.

Yes you would think Business and Premium Economy only would be the way to go because 20 hours in a cramped economy seat is just horrible. I guess they could provide a more spacious legroom seat in Economy but even then not pleasant.

OccasionalVisit wrote:

So if SYD got a non-stop to LHR - where does that leave the good folk of Melbourne ? Five pages of commentary - and no discussion of where that would leave the other half of QF's existing LHR bound flights.

MEL-LHR is a similar distance to SYD-LHR, I could certainly see both with PER-LHR and even a BNE-LHR or a single one stop via DXB to take a bit more freight and more Y pax on an A380. QF have 2 sets of slots leased out some with afternoon arrivals so there may need to be some schedule rejigging.

I would expect the 778/359 LR selection to be based on a preference for 779 or 3510.

I agree with you keesje and that is why I see this being a Boeing order.

The 787-9/10 & 777-8/9 combinations should be better suited for QF's overall operations. I really can't see the rational in a 787-9/10 & A350-900/1000/shrink 1000 super ULH combo. Too many aircraft!

A shrink 1000 will probably be a very niche aircraft with a very narrow route profile. It would probably have limited appeal in the broader market. As such, it would probably be better to buy a standard 777-8 and block off seats than buy an A350SULH.

Either way, I think I would prefer to have a stopover…..or two….or maybe three. I am getting older now, so I am in no hurry to get to my final destination.

travelhound wrote:

I am getting older now, so I am in no hurry to get to my final destination.

I could not agree more!

To me there are 5 factors in play for the JFK-SYD and similar ULH flights: Equipment that can do it, can it be done at a profit, fuel costs, demand and passengers tolerance for being on a plane that long.
We are on the cusp of having the equipment in a few years or even now but with limits of numbers of pax and basically zero freight.
ULH flights mainly are for business travelers and premium seating. Even today, many companies are cutting back on travel, using Skype and other video conferencing systems to reduce travel or only in the biggest matters. You may see a tightening of the prime market most desirable pax and profits minimized that may doom such flights.
The compounding of the amount of fuel and costs needed just to transport fuel for ULH's adds huge costs with limited returns, especially if oil prices jack up to well above current relatively cheap rates.
Staffing costs, wear and tear, if there is a mx issue on a ULH flight can all hurt the profit margins.
Then you have the human tolerance factor. I have been on 12 hour flights or longer with stops and changes of planes years ago. The can be mind and body numbing. You would have to have basically business class or first class for comfort and sanity, allowed to walk around the plane in flight with risks of turbulence, security, noise to others.

As I have said for the past 4 years fuel will be 45-55$ for the next 20 years. This will mean more ulh flights as soon as the airlines realize that the the oil industry has had a paradigm shift.

Man, people are slow on this.

Turnhouse1 wrote:

Airbus are claiming 'up to' 9700nm for the A350-900ULR

They *were* claiming that... for a variant that was proposed, but apparently is no longer on offer (308Ton A359 utilizing A35K wing/box/gear)

The A359ULR as it currently exists (280Ton A359 with increased wing-tank access, for which SQ is the only customer) offers 1000nm less range, and far less payload, than the former would've.

Planeflyer wrote:

As I have said for the past 4 years fuel will be 45-55$ for the next 20 years. This will mean more ulh flights as soon as the airlines realize that the the oil industry has had a paradigm shift.

Man, people are slow on this.

They're not slow, they just don't agree with you.

There are numerous factors that can significantly affect the price of oil (one way or another) beyond basic market forces. And many, including plenty of airlines, aren't yet convinced of any such stability or anything remotely near that time frame.

Price of oil will be a factor, but not so much as it was five years ago. The 778 will be 15% more efficient than a 748i / 77W, which is 15% more efficient than the previous king of long haul, the A345.

As such, if the 778 uses 20% more fuel to do a one-stop it will still only be 3-4% less efficient than a 77W or have 2% higher trip costs. Not too bad an option considering a one stop would all have a positive impact on maintenance, airport fees and aircraft utilisation costs.

travelhound wrote:

The 778 will be 15% more efficient than a 748i / 77W, which is 15% more efficient than the previous king of long haul, the A345.

Where are you getting any of these figures from?

...and the A345 is hardly king of anything other than the scrap heap, considering how few carriers 1) operated it and 2) kept it. Most got rid of it at the first opportunity. Airlines like AC, EK, and EY then replaced it with its direct competitor; indicating that they wanted to remain in the market, just not with that model.

It was probably the biggest flop that either manufacturer has built in decades.

IAG agrees that oil price will stay low. Hence for instance the run-on of old 747 and old 777 which in previous high oil years would have been considered barmy. The benefit to BA is to reduce the capital employed in their business which increased the return on that capital, they target 15% return of shareholders funds.

Similar run-on for A340 at IB, and heavy new purchases of non-neo A330s for IB and Eire Lingus.

LAX772LR wrote:

Where are you getting any of these figures from?

...and the A345 is hardly king of anything other than the scrap heap

Woho,

I used the A345 as an example as it was, regardless of other factors the "long-haul" king.

Although I agree with the rest of your statement, it does somewhat overstate the realities of operating aircraft in a competitive environment. If we consider most airlines were operating on single digit margins when the A345 peaked in airline fleets, the 15% difference in fuel costs + the additional said maintenance costs were substantial enough to make the aircraft uneconomic. A swing of 3-5% in costs could have been enough to keep this aircraft in the world’s airline fleets.

Regardless, the basis of my post still stands. In todays’ environment of super-efficient aircraft and low fuel prices, operating long haul routes is going to be a less of a disadvantage than what it was five years ago. Technology (fuel efficiency) has/will to a large extent de-risk these types of flight operations, because fuel costs is now a smaller proportion of the overall cost equation.

Long live the 778X in the QANTAS fleet!

LAX772LR wrote:

It was probably the biggest flop that either manufacturer has built in decades.

Where did you forget the 767-400?

Strato2 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

It was probably the biggest flop that either manufacturer has built in decades.

Where did you forget the 767-400?

Well more 764s were built than A345s (38 vs 34) and all 37 commercial 764s are in service today compared to just a handful of A345s (despite the A345s being younger).

The 764 program was also of course cheaper than the A340-500/600 program as well.

LAX772LR wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

Airbus are claiming 'up to' 9700nm for the A350-900ULR

They *were* claiming that... for a variant that was proposed, but apparently is no longer on offer (308Ton A359 utilizing A35K wing/box/gear)

The A359ULR as it currently exists (280Ton A359 with increased wing-tank access, for which SQ is the only customer) offers 1000nm less range, and far less payload, than the former would've.

Thanks for clarifying that, I was assuming the 'up to' 9700nm was the current version with a significant payload hit as the numbers are from their website. I'm still pretty skeptical that either the 777-8 or A350-900ULR in their current form will actually make LHR-SYD with much on board, Airbus can at least probably predict fuel burn etc from in service A350s, Boeing may turn out better or worse than predicted but difficult to have an opinion until there are a few flying.

travelhound wrote:

Price of oil will be a factor, but not so much as it was five years ago. The 778 will be 15% more efficient than a 748i / 77W, which is 15% more efficient than the previous king of long haul, the A345.

As such, if the 778 uses 20% more fuel to do a one-stop it will still only be 3-4% less efficient than a 77W or have 2% higher trip costs. Not too bad an option considering a one stop would all have a positive impact on maintenance, airport fees and aircraft utilisation costs.

Don't a fairly significant chunk of the 15% efficiency gains for the 777X over the 777 come from a 10-across as opposed to 9-across Y cabin improving CASM, or are those fuel per plane mile cost savings?

If I was QF I would go for the 778 or 779 if they need capacity close to the B744ER but if they don't need the capacity but the distance they should just stick to the B789