Qantas still evaluates potential A350-900ULR and 777-8 orders and has 1 key requirement for its future ULR operations: the aircraft must be able to fly a full load nonstop from Australia's east coast to Europe and the US east coast.

Qantas’s evaluation of ultra-long-range aircraft from Boeing and Airbus will come down to which jet will allow it to operate with a full load nonstop from Australia's east coast to Europe and the east coast of the United States.

“We’re trying to work on how we get the aircraft capable of being able to make the distance, but the important thing is not only to make the distance, but to make it with a full passenger load,” he says.

“We want both manufacturers to have an aircraft that is capable of doing it. If that’s the case we’ll do an RFP next year.”

Article
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... lr-445523/

Interestingly, the carrier does not specify the 300-seat requirement anymore, suggesting any aircraft that can perform the mission at full nominal load will be good enough. Another observation is the focus on east coast direction, clearly the planes won't be able to fly the westbound sector at full load as it adds about 1 hour flight time.

Both A350-900ULR and 777-8 need a few_tweaks in order to fly the 20-hour missions Qantas has in mind.

An order is not expected until next year.

I imagine he has already had tentative 'Yes's ' to the fundamental question with an announcement like this.Othwise it's somewhat pointless.
Dropping the 300pax requirement has to help Airbus I would have thought.

I think the only comprehensible response to these "requirements" Qantas is going to get in the next 10-15 years is, DREAM ON. If it was Emirates who put up these requirements, Boeing and Airbus would probably try to do it. Changes A350 and B777-8 need to perform those missions would mean redesigning half the airplane, and Qantas is too small an airline for this process to be anything more than a fantasy. Besides, Boeing is still a bit grumpy about Qantas not ordering 777 when Boeing needed the sales in the 90s.

I'll play Leeham here and predict that it won't happen. Unlike Leeham, I won't enundate the audience with two pages of nonsense to somehow substantiate it.

The best case scenario for Qantas will be adjusting its expectations and "requirements" to something A LOT less ambitious. Like 200 pax Perth to London.

BREECH wrote:

I think the only comprehensible response to these "requirements" Qantas is going to get in the next 10-15 years is, DREAM ON. If it was Emirates who put up these requirements, Boeing and Airbus would probably try to do it. Changes A350 and B777-8 need to perform those missions would mean redesigning half the airplane, and Qantas is too small an airline for this process to be anything more than a fantasy. Besides, Boeing is still a bit grumpy about Qantas not ordering 777 when Boeing needed the sales in the 90s.

I'll play Leeham here and predict that it won't happen. Unlike Leeham, I won't enundate the audience with two pages of nonsense to somehow substantiate it.

Boeing did it before with the 747-400ER for Qantas, Airbus with the A350-900ULR for Singapore. Airbus and Boeing seem to want to prove they an do it. I think the idea is if they do it for Qantas, then Emirates, Air New Zealand, etc will follow up with additional orders.

20 hours on a plane? That will be cruel and inhumane.

KarelXWB wrote:

Another observation is the focus on east coast direction

Huh?

They say they want to reach the US east coast, and from eastern Australia to Europe.
Nowhere in that article do they say that they aren't focusing on the entire roundtrip being nonstop as well.

In fact, what they do say, is:

which jet will allow it to operate with a full load nonstop from Australia's east coast to Europe

...that's focusing on the westbound.

BREECH wrote:

I think the only comprehensible response to these "requirements" Qantas is going to get in the next 10-15 years is, DREAM ON. If it was Emirates who put up these requirements, Boeing and Airbus would probably try to do it.

What are you talking about?

Both OEMs have already publicly confirmed that they're actively proposing modifications to their respective models in order to secure QF's rfp.

BREECH wrote:

Changes A350 and B777-8 need to perform those missions would mean redesigning half the airplane

Which is a completely false statement.

Airbus is already on record as mentioning "minor tweaks" (see QF A380-A359ULR thread for the quote).... and Boeing could easily place an ACT in the 77X similar to the 77L's offering.

BREECH wrote:

Boeing is still a bit grumpy about Qantas not ordering 777 when Boeing needed the sales in the 90s.

K, now try to corroborate that statement. I'll wait.

Dutchy wrote:

20 hours on a plane? That will be cruel and inhumane.

Tell me: why do people persist in making posts like this EVERY FREAKIN' TIME there's a thread about ULR routes?

JBusworth wrote:

BREECH wrote:

I think the only comprehensible response to these "requirements" Qantas is going to get in the next 10-15 years is, DREAM ON. If it was Emirates who put up these requirements, Boeing and Airbus would probably try to do it. Changes A350 and B777-8 need to perform those missions would mean redesigning half the airplane, and Qantas is too small an airline for this process to be anything more than a fantasy. Besides, Boeing is still a bit grumpy about Qantas not ordering 777 when Boeing needed the sales in the 90s.

I'll play Leeham here and predict that it won't happen. Unlike Leeham, I won't enundate the audience with two pages of nonsense to somehow substantiate it.

Boeing did it before with the 747-400ER for Qantas, Airbus with the A350-900ULR for Singapore. Airbus and Boeing seem to want to prove they an do it. I think the idea is if they do it for Qantas, then Emirates, Air New Zealand, etc will follow up with additional orders.

The 747-400ER flew only 500km further than a regular -400 and it wasn't too much of a remake. A350ULR also was a relatively (!) simple thing to do. Qantas demands a 20% increase in range while keeping the pax numbers intact. I don't think it's possible so soon after the introduction. Progress takes time. And I don't think Boeing and Airbus care to prove anything. They are huge companies with a lot of shareholders who don't want ambitious projects to affect their divident payments and share price.

LAX772LR wrote:

Both OEMs have already publicly confirmed that they're actively proposing modifications to their respective models in order to secure QF's rfp.

Of course they are. And Qantas is actively proposing modifications to their request. I think the scientific term I'm looking for is, reality check. And by "publicly confirmed" do you mean this:

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

Do you need translation from corporate speak?

LAX772LR wrote:

Tell me: why do people persist in making posts like this EVERY FREAKIN' TIME there's a thread about ULR routes?

Because this reaction is SO much fun to watch.

BREECH wrote:

Do you need translation from corportate speak?

From the likes of you? ...clearly not.

Though I do find it amusing that you don't seem to grasp the significance of the word "today" relative to the phrase "not a firm configuration."

^^You can see this is not an Australian Aviation thread!!. Amazing, the Aussie Avn Thread reached 1024 in Jan, and now we have subjects relevant to Aussie matters in threads other than Aust Avn. Yes, I know, subject is relevant to all, however its a known fact that if you want anything Aust Avn you go to that thread. And there is respect for differing views in the Aussie thread (well, mostly) not like the above. Rant over, cheers.

Dutchy wrote:

20 hours on a plane? That will be cruel and inhumane.

Having an airplane that can do this is one thing!.......Finding 200 people every day willing to do it each way is ANOTHER WHOLE DIFFERENT thing. When Singapore operated EWR to SIN on the A346 17+hrs block they had to make the 340 a 150 seater to make the thing work. They ended up exiting the route as the main complaint was the stage lenght ....... Anything above 12.5h in an airliner should be classified as TORTURE.

Maybe westbound is not the answer from Sydney to London


While it may be further a north easterly routing, transpacific/ polar May be more favorable with a mostly positive wind component

The reason I see the A350 as the better option is that it can be a more versatile plane if things don’t work out on the ULR missions.

It is a smaller, lighter plane than the 778, likely giving it an opportunity operate flights in their network also without having as many seats. It goes a long way to helping QF be as flexible as possible.

At the end of the day it will be about which manufacturer can achieve QF’s requirements, but the lack of a 300 seater requirement does seem to open things up more.

KarelXWB wrote:

Qantas still evaluates potential A350-900ULR and 777-8 orders and has 1 key requirement for its future ULR operations: the aircraft must be able to fly a full load nonstop from Australia's east coast to Europe and the US east coast.

Qantas’s evaluation of ultra-long-range aircraft from Boeing and Airbus will come down to which jet will allow it to operate with a full load nonstop from Australia's east coast to Europe and the east coast of the United States.

“We’re trying to work on how we get the aircraft capable of being able to make the distance, but the important thing is not only to make the distance, but to make it with a full passenger load,” he says.

“We want both manufacturers to have an aircraft that is capable of doing it. If that’s the case we’ll do an RFP next year.”

East Coast Australia to Europe "is" a Westbound route.

It's the extra bit that makes it even tougher. East Oz is Sydney and Melbourne.

Can't see this happening any time soon, especially for such a small order. The Gulf carriers already have their Long Range orders put in and nobody else is buying. Where is the profit for Boeing or Airbus?

xdlx wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

20 hours on a plane? That will be cruel and inhumane.

Having an airplane that can do this is one thing!.......Finding 200 people every day willing to do it each way is ANOTHER WHOLE DIFFERENT thing. When Singapore operated EWR to SIN on the A346 17+hrs block they had to make the 340 a 150 seater to make the thing work. They ended up exiting the route as the main complaint was the stage lenght ....... Anything above 12.5h in an airliner should be classified as TORTURE.

Lol, I always find these posts amusing. I will go out on a limb and make an assumption that you're not an Aussie or a Kiwi.... We are a nation of travellers.. Driving between our capital cities is always a minimum 8 hour slog for the 2 closest. 12 hours on a plane? thats when we stop over 1/2 way to where we're going! I don't purport to speak for all Aussies (or travellers from other countries) but I do know a LOT of us who will be opting for the direct, non stop flights. In fact I have recently booked a flight to London later this year and paid a somewhat painful $4000 premium to go direct PER-LHR instead of stopping in the UAE. My Mum has just done the same thing, and I know of few others who have also said they'll do the same in preference to stopping over... I hate airports and security stops, I just want to get there! Rather than just my anecdotal evidence though, we could look at Qantas saying that the forward bookings on the sector are outstripping their expectations. From a 17 hour flight to a 20 hour flight? Its not so much of a stretch... long is long.

Each time a new long haul flight is released, theres a cry of "thats too far" and yet we all end up adjusting. Over the history of this country, we've seen the "Kangaroo Route" drop from 5-6 stops down down down to 1 stop, and now to none (if you're from Perth anyway). I can totally understand that you may personally feel its too far for you, but I don't think that your personal opinion will be reflected in the passenger numbers. I put my money where my mouth is too... i bought Qantas shares about 2 years ago because I'm betting that they're going to turn a healthy profit on all these direct routes they're planning...

Dutchy wrote:

20 hours on a plane? That will be cruel and inhumane.

Well, SQ has done it also with the flights to and from New York and LA. But it is a very long time to spend in an aircraft. But no doubt there is a market for it. In case of Qantas the A350, which is smaller than the B777-8, looks to me more suitable considering how large that market is or can be. But I am sure they will know better than all of us here how that market will develop and which aircraft will fit their needs best.

From: Enobar in reply 16
"Over the history of this country, we've seen the "Kangaroo Route" drop from 5-6 stops down down down to 1 stop, and now to none (if you're from Perth anyway)"

Actually its down from 22 stops in 1938 to 1/0 now and hopefully down to 0 in the early 2020.

Gemuser

Enobar wrote:

xdlx wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

20 hours on a plane? That will be cruel and inhumane.

Having an airplane that can do this is one thing!.......Finding 200 people every day willing to do it each way is ANOTHER WHOLE DIFFERENT thing. When Singapore operated EWR to SIN on the A346 17+hrs block they had to make the 340 a 150 seater to make the thing work. They ended up exiting the route as the main complaint was the stage lenght ....... Anything above 12.5h in an airliner should be classified as TORTURE.

Lol, I always find these posts amusing. I will go out on a limb and make an assumption that you're not an Aussie or a Kiwi.... We are a nation of travellers.. Driving between our capital cities is always a minimum 8 hour slog for the 2 closest. 12 hours on a plane? thats when we stop over 1/2 way to where we're going! I don't purport to speak for all Aussies (or travellers from other countries) but I do know a LOT of us who will be opting for the direct, non stop flights. In fact I have recently booked a flight to London later this year and paid a somewhat painful $4000 premium to go direct PER-LHR instead of stopping in the UAE. My Mum has just done the same thing, and I know of few others who have also said they'll do the same in preference to stopping over... I hate airports and security stops, I just want to get there! Rather than just my anecdotal evidence though, we could look at Qantas saying that the forward bookings on the sector are outstripping their expectations. From a 17 hour flight to a 20 hour flight? Its not so much of a stretch... long is long.

Each time a new long haul flight is released, theres a cry of "thats too far" and yet we all end up adjusting. Over the history of this country, we've seen the "Kangaroo Route" drop from 5-6 stops down down down to 1 stop, and now to none (if you're from Perth anyway). I can totally understand that you may personally feel its too far for you, but I don't think that your personal opinion will be reflected in the passenger numbers. I put my money where my mouth is too... i bought Qantas shares about 2 years ago because I'm betting that they're going to turn a healthy profit on all these direct routes they're planning...

Agreed. People should more clearly state that it's too long a flight for THEM, personally. Like me. I couldn't do it; 15 or so hrs. nonstop LAX-HKG on CX nearly had me climbing the bulkheads, and that was in FIRST! In economy? LOL Total torture. For ME. Wouldn't do it. But many would, and for them this is a great advancement! Cheers!

The main point seems to be, that neither Airbus with the A350-900 nor Boeing with the 777-8 have nailed it yet. So Qantas is extending the time frame for the decision.

If the A350-900 does not work out at Airbus for this project, how would a shrink of the A350-1000 to the length of the -900 do? It would be a heavier frame than the A350-900, but still quite a bit lighter than the 777-8.

I know Airbus or Qantas shut down rumors on the A350-800. Though, they could look at that, though it's highly unlikely.

More data is being collected I would imagine on the new engines for the 778 monthly. Boeing and GE almost invariably improve performance by a percent or two, with real confirmed data, vs projections.

I’m sure Leeham will have an article about how this is a sign Airbus will win though, in a few minutes, with an A359 configured for 150 seats.

KarelXWB wrote:

Another observation is the focus on east coast direction, clearly the planes won't be able to fly the westbound sector at full load as it adds about 1 hour flight time

The article say, "a full load nonstop from Australia's east coast to Europe", this is westbound.

Well I routinely do 16 - 17 hour flights in economy and I don’t have a problem with it, in fact neither do the hundreds of people who are flying with me. An extra 3 hours really isn’t going to make too much of a difference.

I prefer to just get to my destination. A stopover adds an extra couple of hours and you’re actually going to spend longer sitting in the plane if you do stopover somewhere. I also don’t understand the argument of breaking flights up to stretch your legs as you are allowed to walk around on planes.

xdlx wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

20 hours on a plane? That will be cruel and inhumane.

Having an airplane that can do this is one thing!.......Finding 200 people every day willing to do it each way is ANOTHER WHOLE DIFFERENT thing. When Singapore operated EWR to SIN on the A346 17+hrs block they had to make the 340 a 150 seater to make the thing work. They ended up exiting the route as the main complaint was the stage lenght ....... Anything above 12.5h in an airliner should be classified as TORTURE.

What? That is not 150 seats but 150 premium seats. And the reason why they ended it was they keep losing millions on it despite they can fil the flight due to the oil price. Travellers have expressed how they miss the service when it was cut. That is also why they are re-introducing the service with their new planes.

I do believe they mean from east coast Australia to Europe westbound, and to east coast North America eastbound.

The real question is not how to get there, it's how to get there with a meaningful load.

texl1649 wrote:

...... with an A359 configured for 150 seats.

A359?
They'll use an A321LXLR with a towed tank-glider.
to get the tank glider into the air an A320Z is in the works.

Dutchy wrote:

20 hours on a plane? That will be cruel and inhumane.

Maybe its time to revive the concorde

JBusworth wrote:

BREECH wrote:

I think the only comprehensible response to these "requirements" Qantas is going to get in the next 10-15 years is, DREAM ON. If it was Emirates who put up these requirements, Boeing and Airbus would probably try to do it. Changes A350 and B777-8 need to perform those missions would mean redesigning half the airplane, and Qantas is too small an airline for this process to be anything more than a fantasy. Besides, Boeing is still a bit grumpy about Qantas not ordering 777 when Boeing needed the sales in the 90s.

I'll play Leeham here and predict that it won't happen. Unlike Leeham, I won't enundate the audience with two pages of nonsense to somehow substantiate it.

Boeing did it before with the 747-400ER for Qantas, Airbus with the A350-900ULR for Singapore. Airbus and Boeing seem to want to prove they an do it. I think the idea is if they do it for Qantas, then Emirates, Air New Zealand, etc will follow up with additional orders.

What do Emirates want with an ULR jet? The longest route they have is AKL which the A380 can fly non stop.

What is considered a "full load"? It seems like that could determine whether these planes can make it or not.

Arion640 wrote:

JBusworth wrote:

Boeing did it before with the 747-400ER for Qantas, Airbus with the A350-900ULR for Singapore. Airbus and Boeing seem to want to prove they an do it. I think the idea is if they do it for Qantas, then Emirates, Air New Zealand, etc will follow up with additional orders.

What do Emirates want with an ULR jet? The longest route they have is AKL which the A380 can fly non stop.

That is a very good question! Nobody else needs those planes. Singapore can do with much shorter range. Air New Zealand, if it decides they want to have a non-stop service to London... will probably think otherwise. So, unless Aeroperu decides to have a regular non-stop to Beijing or a significant Indian diaspora forms in Buenos Aires, there is very little market for that kind of plane. Boeing struggles to sell 777LR in any significant quantities, and this one would be aimed at an even narrower market. As a matter of fact, at the market that doesn't exist out of Qantas.

Actually I just thought about something. If Airbus takes A350-1000 and makes it as many seats as in A350-900 filling the rest of the payload with fuel, they may have a good shot. A much better shot than increasing 778 MTOW. I have a feeling that 777X is at its limits at quite a few fronts, particularly at wing loading and landing gear. I just don't believe those two poor old legs can be loaded with any more kilograms.

BREECH wrote:

Actually I just thought about something. If Airbus takes A350-1000 and makes it as many seats as in A350-900 filling the rest of the payload with fuel, they may have a good shot. A much better shot than increasing 778 MTOW. I have a feeling that 777X is at its limits at quite a few fronts, particularly at wing loading and landing gear. I just don't believe those two poor old legs can be loaded with any more kilograms.

Or if they install the 97,000 lbf Trent XWB engines meant for the A350-1000 onto the A350-900ULR (280tn MTOW, -1000 type landing gear), and install additional ACT in the belly. It would help significantly on the range without having to add all the extra weight of the -1000. The A350-900ULR should be able to fly 19 hours / 9700nm.

JetBuddy wrote:

BREECH wrote:

Actually I just thought about something. If Airbus takes A350-1000 and makes it as many seats as in A350-900 filling the rest of the payload with fuel, they may have a good shot. A much better shot than increasing 778 MTOW. I have a feeling that 777X is at its limits at quite a few fronts, particularly at wing loading and landing gear. I just don't believe those two poor old legs can be loaded with any more kilograms.

Or if they install the 97,000 lbf Trent XWB engines meant for the A350-1000 onto the A350-900ULR (280tn MTOW, -1000 type landing gear), and install additional ACT in the belly. It would help significantly on the range without having to add all the extra weight of the -1000. The A350-900ULR should be able to fly 19 hours / 9700nm.

What's ACT? I understand it's the additional tank, but can't get the C.

We've been over these questions before. The idea that Joyce needs 300 seats is a myth. He has talked publicly about carrying full load or full passenger load. What's a full passenger load for ULH? SQ are flying their long-haul A359s with 253 seats. Roughly the same density as QF's 789s. So assume Joyce's "full passenger load" means 250ish in the case of the 359. Around 300 if he goes with the 778.

You think the aircraft can't do it? Leeham last year did their analysis which we've talked about here. Going over the pole for the "westbound" leg they reckon the 778 can carry around 300 pax, the 359ULR in current form around 230. No-one has seriously challenged the Leeham calculation.

Joyce is clearly looking for better/firmer numbers from both manufacturers. But he has said they're already close. Just get used to the idea it's do-able and it's going to happen, folks. And QF is going to end up with a a big fleet, doing ULH non-stop from multiple Australian cities (he has mentioned Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane as well as Perth) to multiple destinations in Europe and the Americas. He wants to transform QF's long-haul business model. He's already starting with Perth-London. There's plenty of business in it for whichever of the OEMs gets the contract.

For 300 pasengers....the only choice is the B777-8X

I suppose adding inflight re-fueling capability is out of the question? LOL

BREECH wrote:

I think the only comprehensible response to these "requirements" Qantas is going to get in the next 10-15 years is, DREAM ON.

I'm going to agree with that. Qantas doesn't have anywhere near the mass to drive frame requirements, given the cost of engineering and development these days. QF isn't Pan Am of the late 60s, nor Emirates of the early 00s.

I still think this is the 778s order to lose, it already has that massive wing and capacity and has plenty of space for ACTs in the belly. With the tweaks made to the landing gear I wonder if they could maybe bump up the MTOW if necessary. I know the existing gear for the 77W/77L is maxed out but I believe the 777X is using landing gear made from a different company.

KarelXWB wrote:

Interestingly, the carrier does not specify the 300-seat requirement anymore, suggesting any aircraft that can perform the mission at full nominal load will be good enough.

But design payload of the 777-8 is a fair bit higher than design payload of the A350-900ULR. A 777-8 at an A359-900ULRs design payload would probably be able to fly a fair bit farther if the frame does not become fuel-volume/fuel-weight limited.

LAX772LR wrote:

In fact, what they do say, is:

which jet will allow it to operate with a full load nonstop from Australia's east coast to Europe

...that's focusing on the westbound.

Channex757 wrote:

East Coast Australia to Europe "is" a Westbound route.

c933103 wrote:

The article say, "a full load nonstop from Australia's east coast to Europe", this is westbound.

JetBuddy wrote:

I do believe they mean from east coast Australia to Europe westbound, and to east coast North America eastbound.

They may be looking at just flying eastbound for both legs. When Boeing did their HKG-LHR non-stop on the 777-200LR they flew eastbound to take advantage of winds aloft.

I guess A350-900ULR has one advantage against 777-8. It is more versatile A/C and can be easily reconfigurated to standart A350 and used on usual routes without penalty of heavy niche airframe.

Mrakula wrote:

I guess A350-900ULR has one advantage against 777-8. It is more versatile A/C and can be easily reconfigurated to standart A350 and used on usual routes without penalty of heavy niche airframe.

Depends on what Qantas Group's overall long-haul fleet strategy entails. If the A350-900ULR or the 777-8 would be the only models of each family (A350/777X) in the fleet, it probably doesn't matter as much. If QF decides to add other members of the family (A350-1000 or 777-9), then that could favor choosing one ULH model over the other.

ikolkyo wrote:

I still think this is the 778s order to lose, it already has that massive wing and capacity and has plenty of space for ACTs in the belly. With the tweaks made to the landing gear I wonder if they could maybe bump up the MTOW if necessary. I know the existing gear for the 77W/77L is maxed out but I believe the 777X is using landing gear made from a different company.

Different company not different size.

IMO Boeing would have to look at a additional center MLG to increase MTOW.

BREECH wrote:

What's ACT? I understand it's the additional tank, but can't get the C.

C stands for Centre (or Center for those on the west end of the atlantic). Or in other words, a fuselage tank, not a wing tank.

I initially thought it could also stand for Container, or Cargo tank, as it would fit into the cargo bay . . . but apparently it is Centre.

texl1649 wrote:

More data is being collected I would imagine on the new engines for the 778 monthly. Boeing and GE almost invariably improve performance by a percent or two, with real confirmed data, vs projections.

I’m sure Leeham will have an article about how this is a sign Airbus will win though, in a few minutes, with an A359 configured for 150 seats.

GEnx customers might disagree with you...

JBusworth wrote:

Boeing did it before with the 747-400ER for Qantas, Airbus with the A350-900ULR for Singapore. Airbus and Boeing seem to want to prove they an do it. I think the idea is if they do it for Qantas, then Emirates, Air New Zealand, etc will follow up with additional orders.

NZ is probably going to make an order before Qantas, NZ is ready to make its order within the next 6months while Qantas is waiting till 2019.

An standard A359ULR should be able to make AKL-EWR without any issues.

777-8 with auxilllary tanks should be able to do the job. If QANTAS doesn't demand cargo, that space can be taken out so the aircraft can perform.
I'm not sure about A350-900LR, though...

JBusworth wrote:

Boeing did it before with the 747-400ER for Qantas

BREECH wrote:

The 747-400ER flew only 500km further than a regular -400 and it wasn't too much of a remake.

Yeah the 744ER's a bit of a bad example in that it pretty much only added one (or optionally two) ACTs. The rest was just fuselage, wing, and landing gear strengthening as well as LCD cockpit displays.

The passenger variant can fly 500 mi (805 km) further or carry an additional 6800 kg of payload.
The freight variant can fly 972 km further or carry an additional 9980 kg of payload.

The only six -400ERs built are in service with QF, but I understand both UA and CX were also interested. UA in the end were financially unable to commit (and I imagine the fact they would have had to take GE engines would not have helped) and CX in the end decided that the additional range would only be of marginal use to them.

However the type has also seen reasonable success in the freighter market (forty-plus deliveries, IIRC).

Sounds like AJ is going with less seats in this recent interview.

From Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2 ... ends-video