tealnz wrote:

This isn't going to be an order of an off-the-shelf version like the 789. All indications are it will be a modified version of the 778 or 35K. Hard to see why either Boeing or Airbus would give them a competitive price for an order of just six frames.

I think the industry views an airplane that can do LHR-SYD consistently as a holy grail.

Getting this business will have a halo effect that goes beyond the sale of six frames, IMHO.

qf789 wrote:

As has already been shown with MEL-LAX earlier this year frequency can be adjusted to match demand with a smaller more efficient aircraft. FWIW as has already been demonstrated by QF they are not too bothered about market share, they are happy to keep everything to a premium and let those who want a cheaper deal go to their competitor's.

I think a fleet of 787-8/-9/-10 + 777-8/-9 and potentially 777-10 is more flexible and more modern and a better fit for QF than A330-3/-9, A350-9/-10, A380.

tommy1808 wrote:

Being about 9 to 10% heavier during the flight with ~14% more fuel on board I am sure the 778 will carry more over a long distance, but it may not be all that much of a difference.

It's not just about weight.

The additional weight brings along with it more fuel efficient engines, a longer and more efficient wing, and ability to seat 10x in economy.

If it was just about picking the lighter plane, there would be no RFP.

Revelation wrote:

The additional weight brings along with it more fuel efficient engines, a longer and more efficient wing, and ability to seat 10x in economy.

If it was just about picking the lighter plane, there would be no RFP.

I know, otherwise there wouldn´t be room for the Cargo, that the A35k wouldn´t have on board. My question was will that pay for the more expensive, heavier frame.

a longer and more efficient wing, and ability to seat 10x in economy.

which may or may not matter depending on how much payload there is left for something like SYD-LHR-SYD, as they have to offload fuel for each passenger or cargo item on top of 300 pax. And if these numbers are correct: viewtopic.php?t=769733 the A35k has a touch more floor space to work with. Not enough to overcome 9 vs. 10 abreast as it is just ~4%, but on their 789 just about 45% of the cabin length are economy class, so the A35K would overcome most of that.

best regards
Thomas

WIederling wrote:

With the prevalent winds doesn't going "the other way round" become attractive the closer you have an antipodes route?
earth circumference is 20,000nm. you only need ~30..35kn headwind to turn the tables afaics.

Leeham in their series last year reported a Qantas source as saying that the "westbound" leg (SYD-LHR) would be an eastbound polar route (imagine Anchorage as a waypoint). For flight planning this would limit ESAD to around 9500nm.

WIederling wrote:

keesje wrote:

SYD-LHR is 1300NM further than PER-LHR, around 9300NM and mainly crosses Russia and China.

With the prevalent winds doesn't going "the other way round" become attractive the closer you have an antipodes route?
earth circumference is 20,000nm. you only need ~30..35kn headwind to turn the tables afaics.

Given that a standard navigation definition is that one minute of latitude = one nautical mile, the antipode earth circumference is closer to 60 X 360 = 21,600 nautical miles.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

WIederling wrote:

keesje wrote:

SYD-LHR is 1300NM further than PER-LHR, around 9300NM and mainly crosses Russia and China.

With the prevalent winds doesn't going "the other way round" become attractive the closer you have an antipodes route?
earth circumference is 20,000nm. you only need ~30..35kn headwind to turn the tables afaics.

Given that a standard navigation definition is that one minute of latitude = one nautical mile, the antipode earth circumference is closer to 60 X 360 = 21,600 nautical miles.

Ha, I botched that.

OK, so the winds need provide a bit more advantage. :-
I get ~~70 kn head/tail wind to bring equal flighttimes for going back with headwinds and going forward with tail winds.

WIederling wrote:

OldAeroGuy wrote:

WIederling wrote:

With the prevalent winds doesn't going "the other way round" become attractive the closer you have an antipodes route?
earth circumference is 20,000nm. you only need ~30..35kn headwind to turn the tables afaics.

Given that a standard navigation definition is that one minute of latitude = one nautical mile, the antipode earth circumference is closer to 60 X 360 = 21,600 nautical miles.

Ha, I botched that.

OK, so the winds need provide a bit more advantage. :-
I get ~~70 kn head/tail wind to bring equal flighttimes for going back with headwinds and going forward with tail winds.

And finding a north/south wind pattern of that magnitude would be a pretty rare event.

tommy1808 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think this is Boeing's to lose as the 777X is a more capable frame than the A350. By more capable I mean can carry more payload over distance. Yes, to fly more payload you need more structural support....

With full tanks the 778 also hauls around 25tons more fuel.
If the OEW delta is 15t, probably not the worst guesstimate, that sums up to 40 tons. The MTOW delta between the two frames is just 35t. So it can tank just 20t extra with the same max fuel payload, which is ~35 ton on the A35K.

So the question is decided by how much more fuel the 778 goes through on a 15min longer flight, it is a touch slower after all, and to haul that extra weight around.

Being about 9 to 10% heavier during the flight with ~14% more fuel on board I am sure the 778 will carry more over a long distance, but it may not be all that much of a difference.
So, it may be able to haul more payload over a really long distance, but on top of their 350 passengers wish they would need to offload fuel for each and every piece of cargo they want to load.
So the question is if 5 to 10 tons or cargo pay for 15 million worth of plane and hauling 15 tons more around wherever they go?
What if Airbus jacks up MTOW to 320-322 tons and finds a few k litres worth of tankage somewhere?

I think that, if both OEM offer a frame that can do the mission, it will be decided by how it fits into their other plans. If they eye the 779 for later anyways, it's Boeing order to lose, if the A350 is in that position, it is Airbus to lose.

Best regards
Thomas

Project Sunrise wants 300 pax aircraft. The A359 is big enough pax wise, but it is easier for Airbus to start with the heavier and more capable A35J and remove pax. Similar to what would happen with the 778 (since the 77L is lighter, but does not have the GE9X engine).

QF742 wrote:

I think some are overestimating Qantas’ international network. I think at the very most Qantas will initially use such an aircraft to operate:
SYD-LHR daily
MEL-LHR daily
SYD-JFK daily
After this first tranche of routes, the following routes could also use such an aircraft:
SYD-DFW daily (replacing A380)
MEL-DFW daily
SYD-ORD
QF may also opt to buy in the same family to replace the A380. By that time I would imagine the only routes remaining needing an aircraft of that size:
MEL-LAX
SYD-LAX
I really don’t see QF using such an expensive aircraft to fly to places like Rio or Rome etc.

No doubt Revelation is right about the "halo" value to the OEMs. But I still don't think we're talking about a six-aircraft order. All the evidence points to QF making premium point-to-point ULH a big part of its business - and its fleet. Joyce has mentioned Chicago, New York, Rio, Paris and Frankfurt as ULH targets in addition to the current London and Dallas services. And he has referred to Brisbane as well as Sydney and Melbourne in the context of Project Sunrise. Obviously we're not talking daily to each ULH destination from each of these ports. But you only need 10 ULH city pairs to generate a fleet of 20 aircraft.

Another thing. The "300 seat" requirement has been a puzzle (as is this latest news that it's now only the A35K in play): on the face of it if QF want frequency at range a 250-seat 359ULR would be a lower risk option, and easier to optimise for ULH than the A35K. But if you assume that Joyce ultimately wants the same aircraft to take over everything from MEL-LAX (300+ pax plus cargo) to SYD-LHR (pax only, maybe with some seat blocking on bad days) it starts to make sense to go for a 778 or 35K-size airframe. SYD-LHR is the extreme case but it is only one out of maybe 20-30 sectors for which they'll need to do the numbers when they are analysing costs/revenues.

I think due to deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) issues, QF may end up ordering a 778 with slightly higher MTOW to accommodate more fuel and seating limited to 240 passengers in roomier Economy and Business class seating for their Project Sunrise jet. It will have the range to fly between SYD and LHR non-stop in both directions easily.

jagraham wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think this is Boeing's to lose as the 777X is a more capable frame than the A350. By more capable I mean can carry more payload over distance. Yes, to fly more payload you need more structural support....

With full tanks the 778 also hauls around 25tons more fuel.
If the OEW delta is 15t, probably not the worst guesstimate, that sums up to 40 tons. The MTOW delta between the two frames is just 35t. So it can tank just 20t extra with the same max fuel payload, which is ~35 ton on the A35K.

So the question is decided by how much more fuel the 778 goes through on a 15min longer flight, it is a touch slower after all, and to haul that extra weight around.

Being about 9 to 10% heavier during the flight with ~14% more fuel on board I am sure the 778 will carry more over a long distance, but it may not be all that much of a difference.
So, it may be able to haul more payload over a really long distance, but on top of their 350 passengers wish they would need to offload fuel for each and every piece of cargo they want to load.
So the question is if 5 to 10 tons or cargo pay for 15 million worth of plane and hauling 15 tons more around wherever they go?
What if Airbus jacks up MTOW to 320-322 tons and finds a few k litres worth of tankage somewhere?

I think that, if both OEM offer a frame that can do the mission, it will be decided by how it fits into their other plans. If they eye the 779 for later anyways, it's Boeing order to lose, if the A350 is in that position, it is Airbus to lose.

Best regards
Thomas

Project Sunrise wants 300 pax aircraft. The A359 is big enough pax wise, but it is easier for Airbus to start with the heavier and more capable A35J and remove pax. Similar to what would happen with the 778 (since the 77L is lighter, but does not have the GE9X engine).

They want 300 pax *in their configuration*. The 359 is too small, it would probably have less than 250 seats in Qantas’ high-premium configuration which is why it isn’t in contention.

RayChuang wrote:

I think due to deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) issues, QF may end up ordering a 778 with slightly higher MTOW to accommodate more fuel and seating limited to 240 passengers in roomier Economy and Business class seating for their Project Sunrise jet. It will have the range to fly between SYD and LHR non-stop in both directions easily.

The MTOW of the 777-8 is maxed out at 351t. It would need a new MLG to raise that.

mjoelnir wrote:

RayChuang wrote:

I think due to deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) issues, QF may end up ordering a 778 with slightly higher MTOW to accommodate more fuel and seating limited to 240 passengers in roomier Economy and Business class seating for their Project Sunrise jet. It will have the range to fly between SYD and LHR non-stop in both directions easily.

The MTOW of the 777-8 is maxed out at 351t. It would need a new MLG to raise that.

The Landing gear is being made by a new supplier this time around for the 777X, some growth could have been redesigned into the gear. But no one knows for sure.

mjoelnir wrote:

RayChuang wrote:

I think due to deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) issues, QF may end up ordering a 778 with slightly higher MTOW to accommodate more fuel and seating limited to 240 passengers in roomier Economy and Business class seating for their Project Sunrise jet. It will have the range to fly between SYD and LHR non-stop in both directions easily.

The MTOW of the 777-8 is maxed out at 351t. It would need a new MLG to raise that.

There are rumours of a planned increased in MTOW for the -8 to meet the challenge with the payload QF desires.

waly777 wrote:

There are rumours of a planned increased in MTOW for the -8 to meet the challenge with the payload QF desires.

There are rumours of MTOW increases on the -9 also to meet performance guarantees.

zeke wrote:

waly777 wrote:

There are rumours of a planned increased in MTOW for the -8 to meet the challenge with the payload QF desires.

There are rumours of MTOW increases on the -9 also to meet performance guarantees.

If the 777X misses efficiency, it will be the next A346.


But I'm not hearing rumors of a performance miss. I am hearing rumors of a MTOW increase though to provide more range (QF? I speculate, but someone wants more payload at range than current promise).


For a performance miss, it would have to be unable to meet weight targets after a redesign (there is still time, not for 1st flight articles, but later).
Or the engine. But the engine needs to the new compressor stators to test. Until then, one would assume performance is met.

On the 777X, I'm more worried about cost cutting delaying EIS.

We are before flight testing. The engine isn't at the point to declare a performance miss... Only empty weight miss might be known and there is still time to redesign.

I hear rumors engines will beat promise. Truth or not? The rumors I heard on the PW1100G were a little optimistic (but not much on fuel burn... other matters a different story).

Lightsaber

tealnz wrote:

QF742 wrote:

I think some are overestimating Qantas’ international network. I think at the very most Qantas will initially use such an aircraft to operate:
SYD-LHR daily
MEL-LHR daily
SYD-JFK daily
After this first tranche of routes, the following routes could also use such an aircraft:
SYD-DFW daily (replacing A380)
MEL-DFW daily
SYD-ORD
QF may also opt to buy in the same family to replace the A380. By that time I would imagine the only routes remaining needing an aircraft of that size:
MEL-LAX
SYD-LAX
I really don’t see QF using such an expensive aircraft to fly to places like Rio or Rome etc.

No doubt Revelation is right about the "halo" value to the OEMs. But I still don't think we're talking about a six-aircraft order. All the evidence points to QF making premium point-to-point ULH a big part of its business - and its fleet. Joyce has mentioned Chicago, New York, Rio, Paris and Frankfurt as ULH targets in addition to the current London and Dallas services. And he has referred to Brisbane as well as Sydney and Melbourne in the context of Project Sunrise. Obviously we're not talking daily to each ULH destination from each of these ports. But you only need 10 ULH city pairs to generate a fleet of 20 aircraft.

Another thing. The "300 seat" requirement has been a puzzle (as is this latest news that it's now only the A35K in play): on the face of it if QF want frequency at range a 250-seat 359ULR would be a lower risk option, and easier to optimise for ULH than the A35K. But if you assume that Joyce ultimately wants the same aircraft to take over everything from MEL-LAX (300+ pax plus cargo) to SYD-LHR (pax only, maybe with some seat blocking on bad days) it starts to make sense to go for a 778 or 35K-size airframe. SYD-LHR is the extreme case but it is only one out of maybe 20-30 sectors for which they'll need to do the numbers when they are analysing costs/revenues.

Well said. If you look at where the QF fleet is going, the 787 will be the backbone of the fleet, the 747 gone and the A380 will not be replaced after another 10 years. That leaves a gap in the fleet for something bigger than the 787. They absolutely need something a bit bigger for London, LAX and HKG. That’s why the 359 IMHO was never a contender. It’s just a 789 with more range. The 778 on the other hand gave more range and more pax.

If you take qantas 787 configuration and put first class in and a few more economy seas (160 is not enough for the trunk routes) then you’re pushing the 300 mark. And that’s a nice safe number of seats too. Not too big to fill in the quiet months like the a380. Goldilocks size.

As you say it’s likely to be more than just a few aircraft being ordered. They will need six to do BNE, SYD and MEL to LHR. 4-6 for New York and 4-6 for Dallas. You’re pushing an order for twenty or more (replacing the a380).

A35k will be interesting though. The 778 might have some competition now. However if it’s RR only....

zeke wrote:

waly777 wrote:

There are rumours of a planned increased in MTOW for the -8 to meet the challenge with the payload QF desires.

There are rumours of MTOW increases on the -9 also to meet performance guarantees.

Ooh this will be very unfortunate if the empty weight comes out too heavy, especially for the -8. But i haven't heard much of major empty weight increases tbh or performance being affected badly. I heard the wing might be better than expected though. All rumours of course until first flight.

lightsaber wrote:

zeke wrote:

waly777 wrote:

There are rumours of a planned increased in MTOW for the -8 to meet the challenge with the payload QF desires.

There are rumours of MTOW increases on the -9 also to meet performance guarantees.

If the 777X misses efficiency, it will be the next A346.


But I'm not hearing rumors of a performance miss. I am hearing rumors of a MTOW increase though to provide more range (QF? I speculate, but someone wants more payload at range than current promise).


For a performance miss, it would have to be unable to meet weight targets after a redesign (there is still time, not for 1st flight articles, but later).
Or the engine. But the engine needs to the new compressor stators to test. Until then, one would assume performance is met.

On the 777X, I'm more worried about cost cutting delaying EIS.

We are before flight testing. The engine isn't at the point to declare a performance miss... Only empty weight miss might be known and there is still time to redesign.

I hear rumors engines will beat promise. Truth or not? The rumors I heard on the PW1100G were a little optimistic (but not much on fuel burn... other matters a different story).

Lightsaber

Exactly @ the A346. Though if the impact is marginal, i expect airlines will still order as this might be the future largest widebody pax available (assuming nothing is done to the 380, which is looking extremely unlikely). Fingers crossed, it comes close to or better than expected.

The 359 and 35K being better than expected on payload/range was definitely welcome news.

zeke wrote:

waly777 wrote:

There are rumours of a planned increased in MTOW for the -8 to meet the challenge with the payload QF desires.

There are rumours of MTOW increases on the -9 also to meet performance guarantees.

he ?

Hey guys,
A few things ...
I have a feeling that Project Sunrise will be an initial order for 8 firm, 8 options and 8-12 'purchase rights'....
I have a feeling that IF Qantas had to decide right now, the A350-1000ULR and the MAX8 would get the Project Sunrise and 737-800 replacement orders, with the A350 quietly 'absorbing' those pesky eight remaining and indefinitely deferred A380 orders. If that was the case, I would expect a further battle in a few years time between the 787-10 and the A350-900 for Asian and transtasman (and maybe selected transcontinental east coast-Perth) routes, replacing the A330.
I think that an order in a year or two for a 3rd trance of 6-8 787-9s is a given, but after that I can see attention being directed to the larger -10/A350-900 category for a small subfleet of 6-8 planes.
If the 777-8SP (yes, the 'SP' moniker might return, wink) wins Project Sunrise, I'd expect the 787-10 to enter the fleet at some point in the medium term to compliment it, with a highly likely future order for 777-9s as well.
If the A350-1000ULR wins, I'd expect a small order for complementary -900s later on and perhaps even a QF launch order for the speculated stretched A350-1000....
Thus I believe the outcome of Project Sunrise will directly influence the replacement of the A330s and much later on, the A380s.
All of the above is pure speculation on my part.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

zeke wrote:

waly777 wrote:

There are rumours of a planned increased in MTOW for the -8 to meet the challenge with the payload QF desires.

There are rumours of MTOW increases on the -9 also to meet performance guarantees.

Sadly, you’ll do/say anything to disparage a Boeing product.

Not once has this been rumored at this point on here or anywhere else that I’ve seen.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

zeke wrote:

waly777 wrote:

There are rumours of a planned increased in MTOW for the -8 to meet the challenge with the payload QF desires.

There are rumours of MTOW increases on the -9 also to meet performance guarantees.

Sadly, you’ll do/say anything to disparage a Boeing product.

Not once has this been rumored at this point on here or anywhere else that I’ve seen.

Zeke knows more about those details by flying the things. RE 777X MTOW , since launch the engine thrust has been gradually grown. I think it started out at 97k lbs. Saying that would go up was dismissed as Boeing bashing at that stage. Where are we today, 103, 105k lbs? So MTOW, empty weights, payload-range and airfield performance might be under consideration.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Sadly, you’ll do/say anything to disparage a Boeing product.

Not once has this been rumored at this point on here or anywhere else that I’ve seen.

Correct me if I am wrong, MTOW was increased on the 787 and 748 ?

Didn’t we all get the memo on here how everything was doing better than projected back in the day on those projects ?

keesje wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

zeke wrote:

There are rumours of MTOW increases on the -9 also to meet performance guarantees.

Sadly, you’ll do/say anything to disparage a Boeing product.

Not once has this been rumored at this point on here or anywhere else that I’ve seen.

Zeke knows more about those details by flying the things. RE 777X MTOW , since launch the engine thrust has been gradually grown. I think it started out at 97k lbs. Saying that would go up was dismissed as Boeing bashing at that stage. Where are we today, 103, 105k lbs? So MTOW, empty weights, payload-range and airfield performance might be under consideration.

Let's not revise history. It started off at 99.5k lbs with 128" fan diameter as the GE90. It eventually increased to 102k lbs and 132" all during the design phase. After the ME carriers insisted on more thrust to better improve summer performance and avoid thrust bump option, the design was finalised at 105klbs and 133.5".

The A350-1000 saw an increase from 93k lbs to 97k lbs... primarily for more payload/range. Why haven't you turned that around too?

The only real option is the 777-8. If it does not win that order it is in deep trouble.

Well the 777X has seen an MTOW increase since the launch in 2013. The launch MTOWs were 315,000kg and 342,000kg, respectively, for the 778 and 779 and then Aspire Aviation reported Boeing was raising both to 351,000kg, which was later confirmed by Boeing (at least for the 777-9).

Boeing 777X Program VP/GM Eric Lindblad also did say in December 2017 that Boeing was considering an MTOW boost for the 777-8 to better meet Qantas RFP for Project Sunrise, though it would impact MZFW (and therefore maximum payload).

Stitch wrote:

Well the 777X has seen an MTOW increase since the launch in 2013. The launch MTOWs were 315,000kg and 342,000kg, respectively, for the 778 and 779 and then Aspire Aviation reported Boeing was raising both to 351,000kg, which was later confirmed by Boeing (at least for the 777-9).

Boeing 777X Program VP/GM Eric Lindblad also did say in December 2017 that Boeing was considering an MTOW boost for the 777-8 to better meet Qantas RFP for Project Sunrise, though it would impact MZFW (and therefore maximum payload).

The 777-200LR has 247t and the 777-300ER already has 351t MTOW , the 777-8 and -9 were launched with that MTOW. Do you have a quote for Eric Lindblad declaring to lift the MTOW of the 777-8 over 351t? How would they manage it, an extra center MLG?

mjoelnir wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Well the 777X has seen an MTOW increase since the launch in 2013. The launch MTOWs were 315,000kg and 342,000kg, respectively, for the 778 and 779 and then Aspire Aviation reported Boeing was raising both to 351,000kg, which was later confirmed by Boeing (at least for the 777-9).

Boeing 777X Program VP/GM Eric Lindblad also did say in December 2017 that Boeing was considering an MTOW boost for the 777-8 to better meet Qantas RFP for Project Sunrise, though it would impact MZFW (and therefore maximum payload).

The 777-200LR has 247t and the 777-300ER already has 351t MTOW , the 777-8 and -9 were launched with that MTOW. Do you have a quote for Eric Lindblad declaring to lift the MTOW of the 777-8 over 351t? How would they manage it, an extra center MLG?

If flying only between certain airports with known high strength concrete, it is possible to certify the existing gear for more. Just like the freighters, this comes at a cost of reduced cycle life; not an issue for this application.

It is also possible that new wheels, tires and breaks are developed. I don't know. My contacts at those vendors are sparse. In particular as a smaller gear vendor was selected for the 777X (United Technologies was the vendor for the 77W).

Lightsaber

mjoelnir wrote:

The 777-200LR has 247t...Do you have a quote for Eric Lindblad declaring to lift the MTOW of the 777-8 over 351t? How would they manage it, an extra center MLG?

The 777-200LR MTOW is 347t (which I expect you meant and mis-typed).

And looking at the article, it was actually 777X chief project engineer Michael Teal:

“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,” he says.
One option is to increase the MTOW of the aircraft, which would allow it to carry more fuel in the enlarged wing. Teal says however that this would mean some trade-off in the aircraft’s available payload.
“We’ve got to work with them to find what that range balance is,” he adds./

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-443860/

Buying B777-8 is just stupid. It's just a bigger B777-200LR. Not a good aircraft to invest.

Also, with all these ultra long haul flights planned in the future for Qantas, they wouldn't need massive aircraft like A380. Instead they would just use 2 A350-1000. One of them would be use for the non-stop flights to London, Paris and NYC. The other are for the Singapore/LA stopover flights.

B777-8/-9 combo wouldn't be able to gave them the freedom to do so.

Also, A350-900/ULR and A350-100/ULR combo would give them superb flexibility for most of their long-haul flights.

Qantas needs to stop thinking about First Class it takes up too much space and too heavy for 18 to 20 hour flights. Leave First Class for the 777-9 to LHR via Singapore and Sydney to LAX. The nonstop to LHR and JFK needs Business Class and Premium Economy. The Economy passenger takes the one stop over SIngapore or LAX. Qantas needs to study how Singapore Air does it.

Singapore does NOT use the forward cargo compartment on its A350-900 ULR so maybe Qantas will have below deck sleeping compartments. Just one thing which could happen.

keesje wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

zeke wrote:

There are rumours of MTOW increases on the -9 also to meet performance guarantees.

Sadly, you’ll do/say anything to disparage a Boeing product.

Not once has this been rumored at this point on here or anywhere else that I’ve seen.

Zeke knows more about those details by flying the things. RE 777X MTOW , since launch the engine thrust has been gradually grown. I think it started out at 97k lbs. Saying that would go up was dismissed as Boeing bashing at that stage. Where are we today, 103, 105k lbs? So MTOW, empty weights, payload-range and airfield performance might be under consideration.

The engine started at 99500 lb. For a 320t to 330t MTOW. Right where the A350-1000 is headed, and for the same reasons.

But the ME3 wanted more performance. And EK were willing to commit to more than 100. So Sir Tim got what he wanted. 351t. And 105k for good hot performance.

There are articles suggesting that GE may still be working on a 100k version or even less thrust.

Stitch wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The 777-200LR has 247t...Do you have a quote for Eric Lindblad declaring to lift the MTOW of the 777-8 over 351t? How would they manage it, an extra center MLG?

The 777-200LR MTOW is 347t (which I expect you meant and mis-typed).

And looking at the article, it was actually 777X chief project engineer Michael Teal:

“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,” he says.
One option is to increase the MTOW of the aircraft, which would allow it to carry more fuel in the enlarged wing. Teal says however that this would mean some trade-off in the aircraft’s available payload.
“We’ve got to work with them to find what that range balance is,” he adds./

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-443860/

The latest 77L ACAP range chart shows a 776000 lb (351t) line. I can't say if anyone ever ordered it, but Boeing has been thinking about it.

ewt340 wrote:

Buying B777-8 is just stupid. It's just a bigger B777-200LR. Not a good aircraft to invest.

Also, with all these ultra long haul flights planned in the future for Qantas, they wouldn't need massive aircraft like A380. Instead they would just use 2 A350-1000. One of them would be use for the non-stop flights to London, Paris and NYC. The other are for the Singapore/LA stopover flights.

B777-8/-9 combo wouldn't be able to gave them the freedom to do so.

Also, A350-900/ULR and A350-100/ULR combo would give them superb flexibility for most of their long-haul flights.

Haha. Someone isn’t biased at all is he. The 778 and 779 will be able to do things and routes no other plane economically do. Likewise, the 359 and 351 can also do flights that others cannot do.

You have a lot more credibility when you are fair and balanced like I’ve been. Realize that all frames have their strengths and weaknesses.

Qantas is looking at a plane that would fly none spot from Sidney to London. In turn would British Airway not be looking at this as well? You got to step up. You can’t let Qantas walks all over BA.

How long is too long for a flight!!

I have a question. Does it really make sense to tanker large amounts of extra fuel just so an aircraft can maybe make a 15 to 20 thousand mile flight nonstop. You may save on fueling costs and landing fees. Non stops like this mean doubling and tripling crews due to required rest periods. Due to the extra weight of fuel you can loose passenger and cargo payload. There is also the cost of operating the aircraft on shorter flights and having to carry the extra structure such as fuel tanks which reduce cargo capacity and increase operating cost. Also there may be a possibility that a heaver duty landing gear may be required. Yes you can buy removable fuel tanks that can be installed in the cargo compartments. But they cost money, maintenance and time to remove and install these tanks. There has to be a break even point at which when is a longer range aircraft really worth the extra purchase price and operating price. You need to have a full load of passengers to have any opportunity to make a profit fly the UUL range aircraft.

It is a puzzle why anyone would want a 15,000 mile design range airplane.

Half way around the world is about 12,500 sm or 10,800nm. With these ranges, you can always fly in the direction of the best winds. Anything more is really not needed.

jfk777 wrote:

Qantas needs to stop thinking about First Class it takes up too much space and too heavy for 18 to 20 hour flights. Leave First Class for the 777-9 to LHR via Singapore and Sydney to LAX. The nonstop to LHR and JFK needs Business Class and Premium Economy. The Economy passenger takes the one stop over SIngapore or LAX. Qantas needs to study how Singapore Air does it.

Singapore does NOT use the forward cargo compartment on its A350-900 ULR so maybe Qantas will have below deck sleeping compartments. Just one thing which could happen.

I doubt that QF will operate ANY 5th freedom flights once Project Sunrise comes to fruition. They seem not to be interested in low yield traffic hence EK operate the A380s out of MEL via Asia to Europe.

Gemuser

tealnz wrote:

WIederling wrote:

With the prevalent winds doesn't going "the other way round" become attractive the closer you have an antipodes route?
earth circumference is 20,000nm. you only need ~30..35kn headwind to turn the tables afaics.

Leeham in their series last year reported a Qantas source as saying that the "westbound" leg (SYD-LHR) would be an eastbound polar route (imagine Anchorage as a waypoint). For flight planning this would limit ESAD to around 9500nm.

From airmilescalculator.com

The flight distance Sydney Airport - Vladivostok International Airport - Heathrow Airport is 10766 miles / 17327 kilometers / 9356 nautical miles.

jfk777 wrote:

Qantas needs to stop thinking about First Class it takes up too much space and too heavy for 18 to 20 hour flights. Leave First Class for the 777-9 to LHR via Singapore and Sydney to LAX. The nonstop to LHR and JFK needs Business Class and Premium Economy. The Economy passenger takes the one stop over SIngapore or LAX. Qantas needs to study how Singapore Air does it. .

We're talking about SYD-LHR nonstop here. Of course Qantas needs to be talking about first class - there is tons of demand for this route in first. Besides, the density of the plane is not the issue. We're talking about a plane designed for 360 people with probably 300 seats. Making a big F and J cabin makes tons of sense.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

I have a question. Does it really make sense to tanker large amounts of extra fuel just so an aircraft can maybe make a 15 to 20 thousand mile flight nonstop. You may save on fueling costs and landing fees. Non stops like this mean doubling and tripling crews due to required rest periods. Due to the extra weight of fuel you can loose passenger and cargo payload.

There will not be any 15 or 20 thousand mile flights.

But for flights like syd-lhr, syd-jfk, mel-lhr, ect it makes a ton of sense. These are highly premium markets and right now QF is competing with a huge number of Asian carriers as well as the ME3 for Europe-Australia traffic.

QF also competes with the US3 as well as ME3 for JFK-SYD.

Being the only option for these flights, non-stop will be a huge competitive advantage. They will be priced at a premium and they will sell.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Half way around the world is about 12,500 sm or 10,800nm. With these ranges, you can always fly in the direction of the best winds. Anything more is really not needed.

I would agree except for the caveat that ATC route restrictions could be a factor.

What's the most distant city pair that could actually support a non-stop route?

edit: kinda answered my own question through a bit of research, Buenos Aires - Shanghai, New Zealand - Spain/France/UK, and Perth - NYC seem to be the most likely contenders for a (potential, if unlikely) longest scheduled non-stop.

Honestly I'm not really convinced. Going non stop is worse for the environment isn't it? You burn a lot more to avoid a "bad" place like SIA or KUL for a shower & walk.

All because everybody is stumbling over each other to pay a fortune to sit 20 hours & save 2 hours over 1-2 days travel days spent anyway.

Lets hope Emirates, SingaporeAir and BA keep quiet and sit on their hands.

Maybe this is a real smart idea, maybe QF will have second thoughts if passengers get less excited & flying around gas tanks becomes costly.

I wouldn't invest too much of my childrens study fund here, if I had the choice really.

Does anyone have a list of now defunct airlines that were gonna leave long haul economy passengers home and focus on the high fares only, by offering the very best product?

keesje wrote:

All because everybody is stumbling over each other to pay a fortune to sit 20 hours & save 2 hours over 1-2 days travel days spent anyway.

Not "everybody", QF is only targeting the top few percent of the market with these flights.

tealnz wrote:

This isn't going to be an order of an off-the-shelf version like the 789. All indications are it will be a modified version of the 778 or 35K. Hard to see why either Boeing or Airbus would give them a competitive price for an order of just six frames.

While it might be an smallish order for Boeing or Airbus - it will still be an order that will help give there product range some prestige being able to say you product can do SYD-LHR or AKL-EWR non-stop with an full payload with give there product hype more than anything.

At the recent IATA conference in SYD QF/NZ publicly said they had been talking about project sunrise, there is an chance that they will both place an order for the same aircraft. NZ's order might be an little bit bigger to start off with, which may allow it get an combined deal over the line.

Take NZ's 8x 77E which all need to be replaced within the next couple of years, so say an NZ order of 8x for replacement and 2x for growth plus another 6 from QF to start that has already taken them to 16 orders for an 777X-LR product.

qf002 wrote:

keesje wrote:

All because everybody is stumbling over each other to pay a fortune to sit 20 hours & save 2 hours over 1-2 days travel days spent anyway.

Not "everybody", QF is only targeting the top few percent of the market with these flights.

Having done those flight via KUL & SIN C-Class, like the few percent you are referiing too, this isn't gonnna be easy.

Specially if the prices & frequencies are better with a stop and you are living / going to Birmingham, Manchester, Brisbane or Adelaide and have to make a stop anyhow. And someone starts labelling the passengers of those flights as "not really caring about the environment".



Over the last 10 years those flight could have been done by A345s, 772LRs, A380's if someone really wanted. But airlines stayed away, discontinued. And now fuel is going up. I give this QF project a 50% chance of success.

SIN-LAX, SIN-SFO, SIN-NY in it self will probably be marginally profitable & SQ knows. As an Asian business hub under pressure, the Singapore government decided it is strategically important to have the USA as close as possible, and no doubts helps SQ somehow to offer offerdable tickets on those ULH routes. Kangaroo is different, there are dozens single stop competitive alternatives. QR, CX, Turkish are there too.

zkncj wrote:

At the recent IATA conference in SYD QF/NZ publicly said they had been talking about project sunrise, there is an chance that they will both place an order for the same aircraft. NZ's order might be an little bit bigger to start off with, which may allow it get an combined deal over the line.
Take NZ's 8x 77E which all need to be replaced within the next couple of years, so say an NZ order of 8x for replacement and 2x for growth plus another 6 from QF to start that has already taken them to 16 orders for an 777X-LR product.

Interesting. For what it's worth, AKL-LHR over the pole looks to be much the same distance as the SYD-LHR polar route (assume Anchorage as a waypoint). Leeham have reported that SYD-LHR eastbound over the pole will come out at a maximum 9500nm ESAD. Leeham basically argued that using the polar route for the "westbound" SYD-LHR route meant that QF could plan for a maximum of 9500nm ESAD for the Project Sunrise fleet.

Prevailing winds would also presumably shorten effective distance for LHR-AKL eastbound - can anyone come up with a number? Would it be more than 9500nm?

Even after the results of Perth - London people still wish to pretend that the marketplace does not want a non stop flight from Syd to London.
Ok it's a forum people can say what they want.Even without a shred of evidence and plenty the other way.So I guess Qantas,Boeing and Airbus are all wrong to invest so much time and money in this ludicrous and silly idea.
I guess 'they' will still be saying it 9 months after EIS with 90% load factors.
It (of course) does not mean the demise of the one stop routes in any way.And of course those one stop routes offer far greater end destination flexibility (as well as price).But they will most likely have to adjust their high yield content a little.There is obviously room for both.
As a 'poor' person I am flying to Cape Town soon on leisure.I could go the expensive (and far nicer) non stop overnight route but I choose to save my money and one stop.But never when clients are paying !!

zeke wrote:

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Half way around the world is about 12,500 sm or 10,800nm. With these ranges, you can always fly in the direction of the best winds. Anything more is really not needed.

I would agree except for the caveat that ATC route restrictions could be a factor.

You choose the route where the favorable winds make up for the ATC additional distance.