Speaking earlier this week at IATA summit in Sydney, Airbus CCO, Mr. Eric Schulz, has confirmed that the idea of launching the A350-1000ULR is being considered and is on the table.
Mr. Eric has also confirmed that Airbus had a meeting with Qantas in regards to Project Sunrise and how the A390-900ULR can work with the airline on routes to London, New York, Paris, Capetown and Rio de Janeiro from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

One of the ideas Airbus has considered is to install inflight lounges, bunk beds and exercising space. Airbus also planned to convert the cargo hold into sleeping rooms, conference room, family room or 'medical care zone' using modules which are interchangeable with a standard cargo container.

According to Airbus, Qantas is interested in this idea but the operational consequences have to be considered. For Qantas, the winner of Project Sunrise won't just be about an ultra-long range jet but an all-new product which "doesn’t exist in the market today," Schulz stated.

Source: https://www.ausbt.com.au/airbus-mulls-u ... as-flights

For me I would love to see such concepts see the light.

Wow, what kind of range would this 35JULR have? 9,000nm or more? I think the 778 probably makes more sense at that point since it would still be able to haul more cargo. I think it’s really interesting about the interchangeable cargo containers for different usable modules. Interesting times ahead.

Seems to me Airbus is trying to find a way to beat the 778 and the 359 isn’t cutting it for QF.

Thats definitely thinking outside the box. Desperate times calls for desperate measures. I don't see to many airlines putting in playgrounds and fitness centers on planes. Wont work.

TranscendZac wrote:

Wow, what kind of range would this 35JULR have? 9,000nm or more? I think the 778 probably makes more sense at that point since it would still be able to haul more cargo. I think it’s really interesting about the interchangeable cargo containers for different usable modules. Interesting times ahead.

How many aircraft will be ordered for Project Sunshine.

Sayan777 wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

Wow, what kind of range would this 35JULR have? 9,000nm or more? I think the 778 probably makes more sense at that point since it would still be able to haul more cargo. I think it’s really interesting about the interchangeable cargo containers for different usable modules. Interesting times ahead.

How many aircraft will be ordered for Project Sunshine.

Although we don't know the frequency of the project sunrise flights, usually there needs to be at least 3 planes for daily service on longer flights like these.

Hey guys,
I haven't heard a definite number but generally 8-12 is speculated upon, perhaps with an initial order of something like 6 plus 8 options. Qantas is usually a fairly conservative 'orderer' of new jets and that initial tranche will have to prove themselves before more are ordered : the same as is with the Dreamliner.
IF Project Sunrise is successful, I would expect daily Sydney-LHR and possibly JFK flights (utilising 6 frames?!?!) with CDG building more slowly to a daily flight (say, two frames initially). Cape Town and Rio, if they happen at all, would be much more long term goals I believe. I can also see the Project Sunrise winner operating to Johannesburg and Santiago eventually, and possibly even some transpacific flights to San Francisco and Vancouver from Sydney.
The emergence of an A350-1000ULR is great news.
I have a feeling that IF Project Sunrise goes ahead, initiatives from Airbus such as this new model, will sway the order Airbus' way.
Can I also point out that an A350-1000ULR may well be targeted at Air New Zealand as well.... The A350-900 and A350-1000ULR may be the perfect long term combination to replace the 777-200ERs and 777-300ERs in Air New Zealand's fleet.
Cheers
Bunumuring

How are 20 hour flights ever going to be viable if oil goes above $100 which it most definitely will within the next 5 years.

Long range aircraft need a big wing and a high lift to drag ratio. Adding fuel is not an efficient solution.

The A350-1000ULH would be worse than the A350-900ULH

Airbus is scrambling because the A350 can't do Sydney to London.

The A350-900 needs a Maximum takeoff increase, an additional engine PiP, empty weight reduction. Or a combination.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
I haven't heard a definite number but generally 8-12 is speculated upon, perhaps with an initial order of something like 6 plus 8 options. Qantas is usually a fairly conservative 'orderer' of new jets and that initial tranche will have to prove themselves before more are ordered : the same as is with the Dreamliner.
IF Project Sunrise is successful, I would expect daily Sydney-LHR and possibly JFK flights (utilising 6 frames?!?!) with CDG building more slowly to a daily flight (say, two frames initially). Cape Town and Rio, if they happen at all, would be much more long term goals I believe. I can also see the Project Sunrise winner operating to Johannesburg and Santiago eventually, and possibly even some transpacific flights to San Francisco and Vancouver from Sydney.
The emergence of an A350-1000ULR is great news.
I have a feeling that IF Project Sunrise goes ahead, initiatives from Airbus such as this new model, will sway the order Airbus' way.
Can I also point out that an A350-1000ULR may well be targeted at Air New Zealand as well.... The A350-900 and A350-1000ULR may be the perfect long term combination to replace the 777-200ERs and 777-300ERs in Air New Zealand's fleet.
Cheers
Bunumuring

I’d add SYD-ORD to that list also, and maybe a rijig of DFW, but we’ll know more if the AA/QF JV is approved.

Does NZ need the 350-1000ULR? Seems too much capability for them. The standard 350-1000 will make LAX-LHR, SFO and any Asian flights easy. And the 350-9 should make it to NYC, GRU also? Do they need more capability than that. Remember they use their widebody fleet across the Tasman and PI- that extra weight can add up over the years on those flights. Why pay extra and carry the penalty about daily?

I see NZ going for the airbus combo, and QF the Boeing combo personally.

jumbojet wrote:

Thats definitely thinking outside the box. Desperate times calls for desperate measures. I don't see to many airlines putting in playgrounds and fitness centers on planes. Wont work.

Yeah, that's pie in the sky nonsense. They said the same thing when the A380 came out. Bowling alleys and restaurants and hair salons and...

Economics for these super ultra longhaul flights are iffy at best. I don't see them worsening the situation by adding heavy, non-revenue generating amenities.

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus is scrambling because the A350 can't do Sydney to London.

The stock standard first production A350-900 could do SYD-LHR nonstop, the question always has been is the payload capability over that range economic, the improvements are centered around improving the payload over the range.

As for an extended range A350-1000, Airbus already has written interest over the aircraft which is marketed as the A350-1100.

xwb777 wrote:

One of the ideas Airbus has considered is to install inflight lounges, bunk beds and exercising space. Airbus also planned to convert the cargo hold into sleeping rooms, conference room, family room or 'medical care zone' using modules which are interchangeable with a standard cargo container.
.

How naive,
not going to happen.

Looking at all the early concept of A380, none of which came to fruition perhaps except the shower on very few selected carrier.

zeke wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus is scrambling because the A350 can't do Sydney to London.

The stock standard first production A350-900 could do SYD-LHR nonstop, the question always has been is the payload capability over that range economic, the improvements are centered around improving the payload over the range.

As for an extended range A350-1000, Airbus already has written interest over the aircraft which is marketed as the A350-1100.

Quite a few planes can do Sydney to London empty.

I meant the econmics in terms of how many passengers and then how many litres of fuel burnt per passenger.

The 777-8 will do it standard with a low density cabin that is typical of historical ULH routes. The 777-8 is not the perfect solution and probably can't get a MTO bump to make it the perfect solution.

The only perfect solution lies in the hands of Airbus. An A350-1000 shrink down to A350-900 length would guarantee an order by Qantas. Making a super niche plane to beat a niche plane (777-8) is not good business decision for Airbus.

What is this "project sunrise"?

I dont check in on the latest news so often anymore,these are the snapshots of rescent ongoings..

A350 is out performing forcasted performance specs
789 Links Perth to LHR and performs well
Pays attention to many grounded 787s in certain eu airports (rr issue)
A350 needs pip and improved mtow

777PHX wrote:

Economics for these super ultra longhaul flights are iffy at best. I don't see them worsening the situation by adding heavy, non-revenue generating amenities.

^ This.

RJMAZ wrote:

An A350-1000 shrink down to A350-900 length would guarantee an order by Qantas.

That's what I'm screaming. It seems the (original) A359R would be the shoo-in for this.

But who else would order it? Guessing they don't want to have to do the recertification and re-engineering for just one customer.

Then again, SQ, NZ, and maybe even DL, ET and SA, might seriously want it.

Maybe what is being considered does encompass a shrink

LAX772LR wrote:

777PHX wrote:

Economics for these super ultra longhaul flights are iffy at best. I don't see them worsening the situation by adding heavy, non-revenue generating amenities.

^ This.

RJMAZ wrote:

An A350-1000 shrink down to A350-900 length would guarantee an order by Qantas.

That's what I'm screaming. It seems the (original) A359R would be the shoo-in for this.

But who else would order it? Guessing they don't want to have to do the recertification and re-engineering for just one customer.

Then again, SQ, NZ, and maybe even DL, ET and SA, might seriously want it.

I seriously doubt SA is in the state to order anything right now. ET is also a question.

At this point Airbus is taking an aircraft of the same size as the 778 to do the same thing as it, even tho Boeing designed it like that and Airbus didn't. As much as I'd love for this to happen, seems to me like we should see orders for 20-30 new 778's in the next few years.

OA940 wrote:

I seriously doubt SA is in the state to order anything right now.

Probably not, but there's always some sucker looking to extend credit out there...

OA940 wrote:

At this point Airbus is taking an aircraft of the same size as the 778 to do the same thing as it, even tho Boeing designed it like that and Airbus didn't. As much as I'd love for this to happen, seems to me like we should see orders for 20-30 new 778's in the next few years.

On a personal level, I'm conflicted.... been a 777-uber-alles fan since the demise of Concorde, and now I'm crazy about the A350.... but the 778 is the only thing standing in the way of officially declaring the A350 as my favorite aircraft.

That thing's going to be such a *B*E*A*S*T*!

The A359ULR, efficient and practical as it is, is just an A359 that severely shorts payload in exchange for fuel volume; nowhere near as exciting. But if Airbus were to make the (original) A359R though....... then whoa! That thing would take the 778 headon, and then some!

Unfortunately, it'd probably have the same slow sales though.

xwb777 wrote:

One of the ideas Airbus has considered is to install inflight lounges, bunk beds and exercising space. Airbus also planned to convert the cargo hold into sleeping rooms, conference room, family room or 'medical care zone' using modules which are interchangeable with a standard cargo container.

Sounds lovely, until airlines replace that with 67 additional Y seats.

Why don't Airbus wave the white flag on this one? SYD-LHR is a niche within a niche, and the A350 can still dominate and sell well even if they don't cater to this requirement. It sounds like it's a stretch for the 778 as well.

I'd love to see the whale with new engines and rewinged. But not with 2 engines...

1000ULH is probably going to be better than 900ULH on routes that are not as long in length.

I wish we could discuss topics without each having to fall in to the hands of the fan boys. It seems to me that, like Boeing itself, the Boeing fan boys are having a field day on here at the moment. Repeating assertions so often they become accepted facts.

I am finding this site less and less worth visiting. That is very sad.

If it could do LHR-SYD non stop, I think BA would be seriously interested in converting some of its current A350-1000 orders to the ULR version. Maybe even add to its current order.

I would not bet on that. The feedback on the Qantas 787 flight is mixed at best.

It's worth a look, as conceptually it could be a winner for QF (excluding all the conference room etc. silliness of course).

All the other design projects seem to be wrapping/wrapped up. A32Xneo's are flying, as are the A300-900, and also the A350 brothers. A330-800 will be soon, and nothing's coming on the A380 front. A lot of design talent must be pretty idle these days, if the A322 or the A321+ or ++ concepts are toast as we are told.

seahawk wrote:

I would not bet on that. The feedback on the Qantas 787 flight is mixed at best.

How much of that is just length of flight stuff though? I am not sure I would like to be on my own G650 with in-flight refueling that long.

If the 777-8 would be a shoe in for that route Qantas would be ordering it. The 777-8 is over hyped. It is called a payload beast and that it surly will not be.

The 777-8 will offer a higher OEW at about the same MTOW as the 777-200LR. Payload plus fuel will be a lower number. The advantage of the 777-8 will be using less fuel, but first it has to compensate for loading less. One would have to see the MZFW of the 777-8, the MZFW of the 777-200LR is 209 t. How much will it be able to be pushed up from the 209 t of the 777-200LR? The maximum payload of the 777-200LR is around, 209 t - 145 t = 64.

I would assume the 777-8 offering a similar maximum payload as the 777-200LR. A higher OEW compensated by an higher MZFW. But how much fuel will the 777-8 be able to carry at maximum payload? It will be less than the 777-200LR. The fuel for the 777-200LR at max payload is 347 t - 209 t = 138 t, how much will that number be reduced for the 777-8.

777-200LR: MTOW 347t, OEW 145 t, MZFW 209 t, max payload 64 t, fuel at max payload 138 t, range at max payload 7.400 nm.

I am guessing: 777-8, MTOW 351 t, OEW 166 t, MZFW 230 t, max. payload 64 t, fuel at max payload 121 t. In this case the 777-8 should fly the same max payload farther than the 777-200LR and should not give up as much payload for each increase in range.

Let us now look at the A350-900: MTOW 280 t, OEW 135 t, MZFW 196 t, max payload 61 t, fuel at max payload 84 t.
I assume the A350-900 has hit the maximum possible MTOW

A look at the A350-100, MTOW 311 t, OEW 155 t, MZFW 223 t, max payload 68 t, fuel at max payload 88 t.
fuel at 64 t payload 92 t.
I assume that the A350-1000 will see an increase in MTOW in the near future and an increase of fuel at max payload.
(MTOW 320 t, fuel at max payload 97 t and fuel at 64 t payload 101 t)

In my opinion there is a reason why Qantas is still talking to Airbus too.

seahawk wrote:

I would not bet on that. The feedback on the Qantas 787 flight is mixed at best.

Hence Alan Joyce being keen on room for passengers to move around in during the flight. People might ridicule the Airbus proposals but it appears to be what the customer wants. I have done the MEL-LAX on a 744 and it was just tolerable. ULR could benefit from making the trip more bearable for passengers.

LAX772LR wrote:

777PHX wrote:

Economics for these super ultra longhaul flights are iffy at best. I don't see them worsening the situation by adding heavy, non-revenue generating amenities.

^ This.

RJMAZ wrote:

An A350-1000 shrink down to A350-900 length would guarantee an order by Qantas.

That's what I'm screaming. It seems the (original) A359R would be the shoo-in for this.

But who else would order it? Guessing they don't want to have to do the recertification and re-engineering for just one customer.

Then again, SQ, NZ, and maybe even DL, ET and SA, might seriously want it.

No one else will order it that's the thing.

London to Sydney/Melbourne is very unique range wise at 9200nm.

Theres quite a few routes between 8000-8500nm but a stock 777-8 or A350-900 can handle that profitably.

New Zealand to Europe or South America to Asia are over 10,000nm so an aircraft designs for Qantas could not do that.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default ... 5%2029.pdf

New tcds for a350- confirms 316t mtow for -1000 available. This will add another hour to the aircraft's endurance. Around 8500nm with 366 passengers.

A shortened A350-1000 AKA would give a hell of a long range frame, but only for a very small niche.

How far could Airbus up the MTOW on the A350-1000 by beefing up the structure, the MLG and the wings should carry it.
Let us think about 5 t more structure and 24 t more MTOW.
MTOW 340 t, OEW 160 t, MZFW 223 , max payload 62 t, fuel at max payload 118 t.

Or having a look at the A350-900 again.
Fuel at max payload of 61 t is about 84 t. Reduce the payload to 25 t and you have 120 t of fuel, 20 t and you have the max at 125 t. But we should not forget that the A350-900 is a much lighter frame than the 777-8 and should according to that burn far less fuel per hour, so the 777-8 could need 150 t for the same distance the uses 120 t for.
If I assume the 777-8 with a max payload of 64 t and 120 t of fuel at max payload, than there would be 34 t payload left compared to the 25 t of the A350-900. This is very rough, but it is not a given that the 777-8 beats out the A350-900. For every extra mile the 777-8 has to give more payload.

I like the idea of customer bunks. There are risks and benefits to that. The idea of it is divine.

Was on a Turkish 77W last week and they have crew rest up in the crown.

mjoelnir wrote:

If the 777-8 would be a shoe in for that route Qantas would be ordering it. The 777-8 is over hyped. It is called a payload beast and that it surly will not be.

The 777-8 will offer a higher OEW at about the same MTOW as the 777-200LR. Payload plus fuel will be a lower number. The advantage of the 777-8 will be using less fuel, but first it has to compensate for loading less. One would have to see the MZFW of the 777-8, the MZFW of the 777-200LR is 209 t. How much will it be able to be pushed up from the 209 t of the 777-200LR? The maximum payload of the 777-200LR is around, 209 t - 145 t = 64.

I would assume the 777-8 offering a similar maximum payload as the 777-200LR. A higher OEW compensated by an higher MZFW. But how much fuel will the 777-8 be able to carry at maximum payload? It will be less than the 777-200LR. The fuel for the 777-200LR at max payload is 347 t - 209 t = 138 t, how much will that number be reduced for the 777-8.

777-200LR: MTOW 347t, OEW 145 t, MZFW 209 t, max payload 64 t, fuel at max payload 138 t, range at max payload 7.400 nm.

I am guessing: 777-8, MTOW 351 t, OEW 166 t, MZFW 230 t, max. payload 64 t, fuel at max payload 121 t. In this case the 777-8 should fly the same max payload farther than the 777-200LR and should not give up as much payload for each increase in range.

Let us now look at the A350-900: MTOW 280 t, OEW 135 t, MZFW 196 t, max payload 61 t, fuel at max payload 84 t.
I assume the A350-900 has hit the maximum possible MTOW

A look at the A350-100, MTOW 311 t, OEW 155 t, MZFW 223 t, max payload 68 t, fuel at max payload 88 t.
fuel at 64 t payload 92 t.
I assume that the A350-1000 will see an increase in MTOW in the near future and an increase of fuel at max payload.
(MTOW 320 t, fuel at max payload 97 t and fuel at 64 t payload 101 t)

In my opinion there is a reason why Qantas is still talking to Airbus too.

I am really enjoying your contributions on this topic.

I agree about increasing the MTOW of the A35K instead of an A359ULR-trade-payload-for-fuel concept. The A35K still seems to have some room to grow so Airbus should go that route.

Sayan777 wrote:

How many aircraft will be ordered for Project Sunshine.

I think people underestimate the potential size of an eventual ULH fleet. It's clear from AJ's comments over the past year or two that he's planning a complete change in QF's long haul business model. He's been specific about ULH from four ports (Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane). He's listed multiple non-stop ULH destinations, including London, Paris, Frankfurt, Chicago, New York, Rio as well as DFW.

So do the math. You could easily come up with a fleet of 20+.

You also have to assume that the selection won't just be about capacity on Sydney-London westbound: this will be about economics of a fleet across half a dozen destinations from four major points of origin. The math won't automatically favour the aircraft with the biggest payload to London: trip costs, flexibility, risk, overall capital cost across the whole fleet will come into it.

There's a bit more information in the Reuters report:

"Schulz said Airbus was considering development of an ultra-long-range version of the A350-900 or the larger A350-1000 to suit Qantas and a handful of other potential buyers" and
"Airbus is assessing all options, including reducing seat capacity, adding more fuel cells and modifications to engines, Schulz said".

It's unclear whether the second comment relates to both the -900 and -1000 or just the latter. He also said Airbus saw a potential market of 50-100 for a developed ULH aircraft.

Put it all together and it suggests they're prepared to look at some significant airframe/engine tweaks – more than was obvious in comments last year.

Comments from Tinseth suggest Boeing likewise is prepared to look at further modifications to the 778 in response to the QF requirement.

Interesting times...

Considering that the A330-NEO is not panning out as the 789 killer Airbus hoped it would be and with the possibility of the 787-10 eating into a significant chunk of future sales of the A359, shouldn't AIrbus be concentrating more on shoring up it's bread-and-butter wide-body offerings than embark on one-off projects for a few airlines, IMHO.

seahawk wrote:

The feedback on the Qantas 787 flight is mixed at best.

Define "feedback," because the only feedback QF is actually going to care about, is how the financials are performing relative to various costs.

StTim wrote:

It seems to me that, like Boeing itself, the Boeing fan boys are having a field day on here at the moment. Repeating assertions so often they become accepted facts.

I am finding this site less and less worth visiting. That is very sad.

Then why not jump in and correct them? ...because the one thing that people would rather hear even less than fanboy prattle, is someone whining about it.

RJMAZ wrote:

No one else will order it that's the thing . . . New Zealand to Europe or South America to Asia are over 10,000nm so an aircraft designs for Qantas could not do that.

We don't know that. I just mentioned multiple airlines that might be supremely interested in such. And take care not to fall into the pattern of believing they'd just use something like that for range, versus payload over range.

For example, ET and SA could finally have something that gives them a decent payload for westbound TATL nonstops out of ADD/JNB.

tvarad wrote:

shouldn't AIrbus be concentrating more on shoring up it's bread-and-butter wide-body offerings than embark on one-off projects for a few airlines, IMHO.

They can walk and chew gum at the same time. There's no discernible evidence they're diverting massive resources into this, to the neglect of other projects.

ikolkyo wrote:

Seems to me Airbus is trying to find a way to beat the 778 and the 359 isn’t cutting it for QF.

There's nothing to beat, QF has stated repeatedly that 778 isn't the solution either.

Jayafe wrote:

QF has stated repeatedly that 778 isn't the solution either.

No they haven't.

They're just said they continue to ask Boeing/Airbus for more.

There's no guarantee that they'll get it... so while they could of course choose to walk away, they could just as easily select the 778 short the payload, and make due with limitations that would come from that. We don't know.

xwb777 wrote:

One of the ideas Airbus has considered is to install inflight lounges, bunk beds and exercising space. Airbus also planned to convert the cargo hold into sleeping rooms, conference room, family room or 'medical care zone' using modules which are interchangeable with a standard cargo container.

Economics aside, what are the safety implications of this? I'd imagine that having passengers in the cargo hold, with a staircase separating them from the nearest exit, probably wouldn't pass most safety guidelines?

Qantas is eyeing an order next year with flights starting in 2022. The article states that boeing could extend the range of the B778

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-looks-t ... ts-in-2019

aden23 wrote:

xwb777 wrote:

One of the ideas Airbus has considered is to install inflight lounges, bunk beds and exercising space. Airbus also planned to convert the cargo hold into sleeping rooms, conference room, family room or 'medical care zone' using modules which are interchangeable with a standard cargo container.

Economics aside, what are the safety implications of this? I'd imagine that having passengers in the cargo hold, with a staircase separating them from the nearest exit, probably wouldn't pass most safety guidelines?

Airbus has already sold A340s with the toilets in the cargo hold, so it's covered just fine by regulations - it's a space only occupied while in flight, so proximity or access to exits is useless anyway.

MoKa777 wrote:

I am really enjoying your contributions on this topic.

I agree about increasing the MTOW of the A35K instead of an A359ULR-trade-payload-for-fuel concept. The A35K still seems to have some room to grow so Airbus should go that route.

They will have to do both. To get an additional 4.5-5 hours flight time out of an A35K (to match the 900ULR), they will need to carry an additional 27-30 tonnes of fuel (assuming 6 T burnt per hour). Even if Airbus can get the MTOW up from 311 to, say 320t (and apparently they already have a 316t MTOW variant on the way), they will still need to drop 18-21 tonnes of payload.

Converted into passengers at a purely speculative 150kg per passenger (including baggage, seat, etc.), Airbus needs to take around 120 people off the plane from the nominal 366 pax figure they quote ranges with.

aden23 wrote:

Economics aside, what are the safety implications of this? I'd imagine that having passengers in the cargo hold, with a staircase separating them from the nearest exit, probably wouldn't pass most safety guidelines?

There's no way they'd be allowed to be in there for takeoff/landing/taxi; they'd likely be usable only during cruise. Which again calls into question the utility of such, as aircraft will still have to have the requisite amount of normal seats for any pax carried onboard.

If they can't find a way to monetize those lower compartments, then they're just deadweight that (IMO) they'd likely not be able to justify.

DarthShatner wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

I am really enjoying your contributions on this topic.

I agree about increasing the MTOW of the A35K instead of an A359ULR-trade-payload-for-fuel concept. The A35K still seems to have some room to grow so Airbus should go that route.

They will have to do both. To get an additional 4.5-5 hours flight time out of an A35K (to match the 900ULR), they will need to carry an additional 27-30 tonnes of fuel (assuming 6 T burnt per hour). Even if Airbus can get the MTOW up from 311 to, say 320t (and apparently they already have a 316t MTOW variant on the way), they will still need to drop 18-21 tonnes of payload.

Converted into passengers at a purely speculative 150kg per passenger (including baggage, seat, etc.), Airbus needs to take around 120 people off the plane from the nominal 366 pax figure they quote ranges with.

That makes sense.

A350-1000 MTOWs above 315 tonnes have already been certified.

StTim wrote:

I wish we could discuss topics without each having to fall in to the hands of the fan boys. It seems to me that, like Boeing itself, the Boeing fan boys are having a field day on here at the moment. Repeating assertions so often they become accepted facts.

I am finding this site less and less worth visiting. That is very sad.

You just have to learn to get the grain from the chaff. This seems to be necessary in way to many things on the web. I do like some of the analysis though and I’ve got a better picture of what both planes are capable of doing there’s still some learning going on

LAX772LR wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The feedback on the Qantas 787 flight is mixed at best.

Define "feedback," because the only feedback QF is actually going to care about, is how the financials are performing relative to various costs.

I think the passenger reactions were made public, so I talk about them. It seems like few found the flight a clear improvement over the one stop connection. And it fits with previous experiments at ULH flying. It is really unpleasant in economy and even in the better classes, it still is so stressful that few could work directly after landing. And if you think that your employee needs a day to regenerate after the flight any way, the extra 6 hours or so of the one stop connection do not matter much. So the ticket prices do not command much of a premium over the one stop connection.

LAX772LR wrote:

aden23 wrote:

Economics aside, what are the safety implications of this? I'd imagine that having passengers in the cargo hold, with a staircase separating them from the nearest exit, probably wouldn't pass most safety guidelines?

There's no way they'd be allowed to be in there for takeoff/landing/taxi; they'd likely be usable only during cruise. Which again calls into question the utility of such, as aircraft will still have to have the requisite amount of normal seats for any pax carried onboard.

If they can't find a way to monetize those lower compartments, then they're just deadweight that (IMO) they'd likely not be able to justify.

Taking a leaf from PSA L-1011 lesson, I do think Boeing and Airbus are wise enough not to go down the same road.