Qantas is considering replacing its 6 744ER's with either the 777-8 or A359ULR

Qantas is considering replacing its remaining Boeing 747 jumbos with new-generation jets capable of flying non-stop between Sydney and London or New York by 2022, a move that would introduce direct access from Australia's east coast to the two global financial centres and spark a major reorganisation of the airline's international network.
In an exclusive interview with The Australian Financial Review Magazine, published today, Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has for the first time canvassed the Airbus A350-900ULR or Boeing's 777-8 (or 777X) as a legitimate successor to the airline's final six 747-400ERs loosely slated for retirement by 2022-23.

QF CEO Alan Joyce argues that while the 787 is perfect for the lower volume routes the newer larger models are more suitable for flying into slot constrained airports such as LHR, HKG, HND and PEK.

Qantas requirements for SYD-LHR

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.

http://www.afr.com/business/transport/a ... 126-gtz0gv

At this time, they are more speculations than facts.

This has been known for awhile.

Qantas Considering A350-900LR Or 777-8

Looking at what they want the aircraft to do, this has 778 written all over it. Also provides cockpit commonality with the 787.

KarelXWB wrote:

This has been known for awhile.

Qantas Considering A350-900LR Or 777-8

Actually QF considering replacing the 744ER's with either the 777-8 or A350ULR is new information as highlighted above

In an exclusive interview with The Australian Financial Review Magazine, published today, Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has for the first time canvassed the Airbus A350-900ULR or Boeing's 777-8 (or 777X) as a legitimate successor to the airline's final six 747-400ERs loosely slated for retirement by 2022-23.

For those who can not read the article due to a paywall, you can see it here

https://www.facebook.com/AIRLINESECRETS ... 7700301906

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

Both solutions would be nice birds, but both are much smaller than the 744ER, so they would represent a step backwards.

Its an ULH non stop. Needs a smaller aircraft. Group willing to sit in a Y seat for those flight times is just smaller

For Qantas, I imagine this is better than flying a 747 without local pax LAX to JFK

Is LHR-SYD feasible in a 777-8 or A359ulr?

For 777-8, the range I'm getting is 8,700nm. I'm sure they may be able to modify that a bit, but this is the only route that I see as having nearly enough demand to every justify such a distance non-stop, so we are looking at an incredibly niche aircraft.

I'm no expert on range and payload effects, especially when you factor in tail/head-winds, but wouldn't this be a seriously payload-restricted flight?

na wrote:

Both solutions would be nice birds, but both are much smaller than the 744ER, so they would represent a step backwards.

How is that a step "backwards"? A slightly smaller aircraft may allow for more than one frequency per day, which would make the nonstop product much more attractive.

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!

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.

I think the 777-8 would be great for Qantas especially since Joyce has expressed some regrets for not ordering the 777-300ER years ago. I wonder, is Qantas on the hook for the eight remaining A380s on order they said they do not want? Will they take A350s to satisfy any A380 obligation?

I, along with most people engaged in business, will always pay a premium for a non-stop.

The airlines know this, which is why they offer them (and charge more for them).

If you've got to fly the distance of syd-JFK, why stop 3/4 of the way there and make your journey that much longer (not to mention clear customs at lax, back through security, etc)

Non stop is way better here, by far, which is why they are exploring it

rlo4934 wrote:

I think the 777-8 would be great for Qantas especially since Joyce has expressed some regrets for not ordering the 777-300ER years ago. I wonder, is Qantas on the hook for the eight remaining A380s on order they said they do not want? Will they take A350s to satisfy any A380 obligation?

I was just thinking about this topic in general last night. Glad it popped up

As it stands right now, QF has 8x A380s that are "deferred indefinitely." They could convert to other Airbus models, but seeing as QF is talking about replacing the 744ERs, I do not think the A359ULR has a clear advantage here.

Yes, both aircraft would be a downsize, which allows for frequency, but not only does the 777-8 have the range, it has the payload and capacity that's the most comparable to the 744ER.

The A359ULR is perfect for airlines like SQ, but can't see it at QF.

SYD/PER-LHR/JFK, maybe and increase on frequency to LAX and DFW could result.

BlatantEcho wrote:

I, along with most people engaged in business, will always pay a premium for a non-stop.

In my own 40-year business career, I only rarely worked for companies (or knew people who worked for such companies) who would willingly fly people engaged in business half-way round the world for a meeting that demanded such dedication and commitment. I did actually work for some very successful companies that actively prohibited company work-activities within 24 hours completing a ULH trip. Maximising benefits from such trips, most companies organised other meetings around the main one

I dispute your claim that "most people engaged in business.will always pay a premium for a non-stop" when the flight is anything more than 5 or 6 hours long. Most companies these days will fly all but their very top brass in flights where premiums are avoided, and choose the "cheapest" business class whenever possible

Moreover, as someone who devoted much energy to risk mitigation in my jobs, flying a one-stop with a planned 3-hour stop somewhere seems much more reliable to organise around, than a non-stop ULH that might stop somewhere for operational reasons (too strong winds, whatever) and leaves you up the creek without the proverbial paddle (and a 24-hour unscheduled delay)

To each his own!

BlatantEcho wrote:

(not to mention clear customs at lax, back through security, etc)

Is the US really the only country that has no workable exterritoriality concept for passenger transit?

Replacing 744ER with 777-8X sounds not logical because the 744ER do not fly SYD-JFK/LHR nonstop and fly other missions. So which aircraft will take over the current 744ER routes?

Anyway, the 777-8X might have the advantage with commonality with the 787, also opens the door for 777-9X as later replacement for the A380s.

WIederling wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

(not to mention clear customs at lax, back through security, etc)

Is the US really the only country that has no workable exterritoriality concept for passenger transit?

We are talking about an international to "domestic" (in quotations since can't carry local pax) connection. Even if the US did have passenger transits set up passengers would still have to clear customs at LAX, go back through security etc as LAX would be their first point of entry into the US. Passengers don't have to immediately connect onto the JFK flight, they can stay in LAX for an extended period of time before continuing on to JFK- it just has to be on the same itinerary as their AUS flight which makes things like just making everyone who takes flight clear at JFK difficult.

sassiciai wrote:

Your own post would be more valuable (well, valuable actually) if you provided your opinion on the matter!

So to give an opinion . . . I regularly fly long-haul J-class, US east coast to Europe mostly, and east Asia occasionally. I always get off the plane, shower at the airport, and go right to work. London, Frankfurt, Hong Kong. From a business perspective, it saves me a day on the road. From a personal perspective, as long as I have a bed on the plane, I'm totally fine.

But everyone's different. Not everyone can sleep on planes. An economy seat would be a total non-starter. Some people just go stir crazy after eight hours or so. All legitimate. And that's why a smaller aircraft is better on these type of flights.

Joyce must think oil prices will not get anywhere near $80-$100 in the forseeable future.I probably agree, but I'm not risking a big plane order over it.

sassiciai wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

I, along with most people engaged in business, will always pay a premium for a non-stop.

In my own 40-year business career, I only rarely worked for companies (or knew people who worked for such companies) who would willingly fly people engaged in business half-way round the world for a meeting that demanded such dedication and commitment. I did actually work for some very successful companies that actively prohibited company work-activities within 24 hours completing a ULH trip. Maximising benefits from such trips, most companies organised other meetings around the main one

I dispute your claim that "most people engaged in business.will always pay a premium for a non-stop" when the flight is anything more than 5 or 6 hours long. Most companies these days will fly all but their very top brass in flights where premiums are avoided, and choose the "cheapest" business class whenever possible

Moreover, as someone who devoted much energy to risk mitigation in my jobs, flying a one-stop with a planned 3-hour stop somewhere seems much more reliable to organise around, than a non-stop ULH that might stop somewhere for operational reasons (too strong winds, whatever) and leaves you up the creek without the proverbial paddle (and a 24-hour unscheduled delay) To each his own!

Many of us need to use the words "some" or "many" rather than "all" or "always", but more important, your points are well taken. I go to work directly after overnight flights because I want to, not because I'm required to. I'm not aware of many businesses that would require such a thing, although I'm sure that there are some out there.

I think your most interesting point from a business perspective is your risk mitigation thought. I know of at least one exceptionally well-managed Fortune 10 companies that expressly forbids it execs to negotiate after an overnight flight. I had an experience a few years back when I concluded three long days of negotiations with a marathon all-night session. The other side wanted to release news of the deal with it quarterly earnings the next morning. After the negotiations were concluded and the deal was announced, I realized that I had made a large error on one deal point. I was panicked for a bit until the other side realized they had also made a large error. We revised the contract, trading the two deal points, but I know from experience that good business and a lack of sleep are not always compatible.

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?

SonOfABeech wrote:

Joyce must think oil prices will not get anywhere near $80-$100 in the forseeable future.I probably agree, but I'm not risking a big plane order over it.

Based on the current info, it most likely won't be a big plane order.

It probably wouldn't be more than 10 units.

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.

MTOW increase and just enable the center wing box tankage for an added 42000l / 32t of fuel capacity.

WIederling wrote:

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.

MTOW increase and just enable the center wing box tankage for an added 42000l / 32t of fuel capacity.

Thanks for the info.

I see a untapped market potential for an A380 ULH. In addition to Qantas, British Airways, Singapore Airlines and of course Emirates is potential customers.

The A380 is to big an aircraft...To many coach seats to fill. Speaking of ULH flights, how long would SYD-LHR/LHR-SYD and SYD-JFK/JFK-SYD take flying time?

The A380 is just too big and expensive. "Having enough space for people to move around a little bit" is great for pax, but means the airline is lugging around a bunch of unneeded space that is providing no revenue on the super long, super expensive to operate flight. At that point it just makes more sense to use a smaller 778 or A350ULR, cut out that wasted space, and have a plane with a similar pax load but using far less fuel. The cheap people or anyone who can't stand to be in a plane that long can still take one of the connecting flights.

jumbojet wrote:

Speaking of ULH flights, how long would SYD-LHR/LHR-SYD and SYD-JFK/JFK-SYD take flying time?

On the dark side of 20 hours, which means you'll need an aircraft with fuel for around 22 hours. With an average burn of 7 tons per hour, that's a lot of motion lotion!

Enter the A380 NEO ( once again

20 hours with a flatbed seat is doable. 20 hours in a coach seat is not something that sounds very enticing. I mean, that is a long flight. What does the airline do on a flight that long and they have to divert for lets say a medical problem? Can the crew spend an hour or so on the ground refueling, taking care of the sick passenger and get airborne again without timing out?

BlatantEcho wrote:

I, along with most people engaged in business, will always pay a premium for a non-stop.

The airlines know this, which is why they offer them (and charge more for them).

If you've got to fly the distance of syd-JFK, why stop 3/4 of the way there and make your journey that much longer (not to mention clear customs at lax, back through security, etc)

Non stop is way better here, by far, which is why they are exploring it

I agree. And not only for business travel, but for leisure flights too. If there's a nonstop available, I'll pay extra for it. On a very long flight, I can't see any reason to extend the discomfort by adding on an additional two/three hours to "stretch my legs." The only thing that's being stretched is my patience.

Another article on the matter, once again leaning more towards the 777-8.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-ad ... 1781c7cd62

An interesting quote I should bring up:

Boeing Regional Director of Product Marketing, Justin Hale, said the main reason the Dreamliner could cover the 14,500km distance was because Qantas was installing fewer seats.
Instead of the usual 300 seats in a 787-9, Qantas would provide 236 seats to help maximise the comfort of passengers on the 17-hour flight.

If QF were to select the 777-8, which it seems they might, would they do a similar course of action in terms of seating? The 777X is standardized at 10-across Y, but a 9-across Y would be exceptionally comfortable.

na wrote:

Both solutions would be nice birds, but both are much smaller than the 744ER, so they would represent a step backwards.

A step backwards? Based on what exactly?

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!

Sounds like those are your limitations. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how one views it) for a 6 month period in 2007 I was doing the SQ EWR-SIN nonstop roundtrip every two weeks. Other than the fact that the arrival in SIN was 0400L, I was totally fine on both sides. 18-19 hours gives you plenty of time to rest.

You said the operational costs would be "horrible." How so?

Ronaldo747 wrote:

Replacing 744ER with 777-8X sounds not logical because the 744ER do not fly SYD-JFK/LHR nonstop and fly other missions.

Ummm...That's hardly illogical...In fact, it's perfectly logical

It means that a stop at LAX or PER may no longer be required.

Boeing778X wrote:

Ronaldo747 wrote:

Replacing 744ER with 777-8X sounds not logical because the 744ER do not fly SYD-JFK/LHR nonstop and fly other missions.

Ummm...That's hardly illogical...In fact, it's perfectly logical

It means that a stop at LAX or PER may no longer be required.

More specifically it means QF can alter and shift it's network capacity. Right now a 744ER flies BNE-LAX-JFK (or is it from MEL? Cannot remember). With a SYD-JFK nonstop there will be less passengers flying SYD/BNE/MEL-LAX whose final destination is JFK (because many will take the nonstop/connect at SYD instead), so a route (BNE-LAX) that once needed a 744ER may now only require a 789, and you can eliminate the 744ERs no problem.

That is also assuming that the 744ER's capacity is ideal on its current routes to begin with. That may not be the case. Right now if QF wants to fly nonstop to the mainland US from AUS they only have two planes capable of it in their current fleet: the A380 and the 744. That doesn't mean every routes needs at least the 744's capacity.

People on A.net take "XXX replacement" too literally. Airlines don't always mean exact 1-to-1 seat route-to-route replacements.

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.

The 778 vs 380 involves not just having to fill more coach seats but a difference in cargo capacities (more for the 778 over a longer distance) and lower fuel consumption over a ULH route.

The business case might turn on the cargo needs for a given route plus whether they can make money on a ULH route with a less dense layout in coach 3x3x3 for example while charging a bit of a premium for the non-stop.

Whether or not I'm willing to fly ULR non-stop or break it into segments depends on my hat.

With my leisure hat on, all I can afford for an intercontinental flight (unless I'm flush with miles) is steerage. For a hypothetical NYC - SYD, I'd be amenable to stopping over in HNL for a couple of days. (Heck, I'd break NYC - HNL with a weekend stop around LAX, and HNL - SYD with a stopover in PPT.) I'm retired now, so time isn't a constraint as much as the desire to avoid peripheral vascular disease is.

With my work hat on: Several jobs over the last few decades frequently took me from NYC to LHR, SYD, HKG, NRT & ICN, with a few RTWs thrown in for good measure, and I'd always have to function shortly after deplaning, so I was always sent in J. Once, after an LHR - SYD, with a tight connection in BKK, I went right into the office and taught a 12 hour seminar.

I applied once for a job at a small importer of electronics who sold to Wal-Mart. The gentleman who interviewed me said they would only fly their employees in coach even TPAC, and that this was in their contract with Wal-Mart so I couldn't even pay or use miles to upgrade myself. I politely declined the job offer, stating my ability, cited above, to hit the ground running if flown J, and thus waste none of my time at the destination, vs. flying coach for 13+ hours and be unable to do anything but lie on the floor of my hotel room for 12 hours shivering and making beeping noises.

Intercontinental J (especially from many East Asian carriers, who were always my carriers of choice) possesses such decadent splendor that, more often than not, I was disappointed when we started our descent. I am not making this up. It was like a vacation in the sky.

The point of all this babble is that the SYD - NYC & SYD - LHR flights might appeal primarily to the business traveller, who isn't paying for it, and I would expect the cabins to be configured accordingly.

Thus, I'm sure there is a market for it (although maybe not so much after Brexit), but, alas, that market no longer includes me.

na wrote:

Both solutions would be nice birds, but both are much smaller than the 744ER, so they would represent a step backwards.

The 744ER cannot fly SYD-JFK or SYD-LHR nonstop. So both would be a step forward.

I see debate if there is a market for this. Every long haul flight we have vocal opposition to the non-stop. Yet QF flies SYD-DFW. Heck, I see that airframe replaced to make the return direct!

This has a business advantage of bypassing EK too.

I personally see QF buying 12 ULH airframes. Which one?

I have a few friends who would fly these flights. Since I'm US based in Los Angeles, that tells me there could be a market.

I personally avoid the risk of connections when on business and my employer will pay 3X the airfare for a direct. With a stop, you wake up. Why not be rested?

Lightsaber

Polot wrote:

The A380 is just too big and expensive. "Having enough space for people to move around a little bit" is great for pax, but means the airline is lugging around a bunch of unneeded space that is providing no revenue on the super long, super expensive to operate flight. At that point it just makes more sense to use a smaller 778 or A350ULR, cut out that wasted space, and have a plane with a similar pax load but using far less fuel. The cheap people or anyone who can't stand to be in a plane that long can still take one of the connecting flights.

If the A380 is "too big and expensive" for ULH, the why does QF fly it successfully daily SYD/DFW AND DFW/SYD non-stop?? With a little more range that could be SYD/JFK.



(Yes, I know DFW is the AA hub...)

lightsaber wrote:

I see debate if there is a market for this. Every long haul flight we have vocal opposition to the non-stop. Yet QF flies SYD-DFW. Heck, I see that airframe replaced to make the return direct!

This has a business advantage of bypassing EK too.

I personally see QF buying 12 ULH airframes. Which one?

I have a few friends who would fly these flights. Since I'm US based in Los Angeles, that tells me there could be a market.

I personally avoid the risk of connections when on business and my employer will pay 3X the airfare for a direct. With a stop, you wake up. Why not be rested?

Lightsaber

The return IS direct, already with the A380.

ozglobal wrote:

If the A380 is "too big and expensive" for ULH, the why does QF fly it successfully daily SYD/DFW AND DFW/SYD non-stop?? With a little more range that could be SYD/JFK. (Yes, I know DFW is the AA hub...)

They fly the 380 because its the only aircraft they have that can fly the route non-stop both ways with the mix of seats etc that are needed to AA's largest hub. I think they would like to fly a slightly smaller aircraft with superior cargo capabilities and lower fuel consumption. The 744s can't go non-stop both ways, they have no 77Ws and have yet to induct their 789s.

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.

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.

jumbojet wrote:

The A380 is to big an aircraft...To many coach seats to fill. Speaking of ULH flights, how long would SYD-LHR/LHR-SYD and SYD-JFK/JFK-SYD take flying time?

Too big for what.? It's not too big if the passenger numbers are there. If the global economy booms the A380 could be the right size. If it tanks the 778 could be too big.

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.

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.

Then the CEO of QF is wrong.