What is an RFP?

Request for proposal

reltney wrote:

What is an RFP?

Request For Proposal

reltney wrote:

What is an RFP?

Request For Proposal.

Qantas is asking Airbus and Boeing to submit proposals for the aircraft they require to operate non-stop services from Sydney and Melbourne to London, amongst others.

qf789 wrote:

QF CEO says the A350 is more adaptable to places such as HKG and LAX due to it being lighter however in the longer term the 777-9 would be a better replacement for the A380

The second part (777X better replacement for the A380) was said by an “analyst”, not by CEO Joyce, correct me if I am wrong.

Wait since when is QF looking to dump the whale? I thought Sunrise was only about SYD/MEL/BNE-JFK/Europe non-stop.

Anyway, I feel this one will go to Boeing. The 777X has the same type rating as their 787s, and, if they're looking to dump the A380, then the -9 would be a better replacement than the 35K. But the QF livery on an A350 would look sexy as hell

OA940 wrote:

Wait since when is QF looking to dump the whale? I thought Sunrise was only about SYD/MEL/BNE-JFK/Europe non-stop.

Anyway, I feel this one will go to Boeing. The 777X has the same type rating as their 787s, and, if they're looking to dump the A380, then the -9 would be a better replacement than the 35K. But the QF livery on an A350 would look sexy as hell

They are not. All 12 A380s are getting refurb starting next year and you don't invest that much money, especially Qantas, unless you want to keep them for another decade.

Average age for Qantas fleet:
A333: 14.1
A332: 10.3
A380: 9.0

I'm thinking that the A35K/A359 might be a better combination, in the case of replacing old aircrafts. QF's A333 are starting to age and the A359 is a good replacement as shown by other airlines in the region ( CI, CX, SQ).

N14AZ wrote:

The second part (777X better replacement for the A380) was said by an “analyst”, not by CEO Joyce, correct me if I am wrong.

LOL, I knew the mere mention of A380 being replaced would trigger a lot of people!

I think Boeing has to be the favorite with the 777-8. It will be interesting to learn what the "tweaks" are.

Overall 92% load factors on the Perth London route (and 95% in prem').
Well I hope that ends the perennial argument on ULR flights.-Of course it won't this is A net!
But facts are facts and I note he adds the all important 'profit' word in as well.
So it would suggest that there is 100% certainty that these U ultra long flights will go ahead with one of these 2 aircraft.
As stated above the A380's are to receive a refub and no doubt 10 ish more years of service.But it would appear that they won't be running the Kangaroo route long term when the Uulr aircaft enter service.(must be annoying they can't utilise them on the Cape Town route along with so many other airlines).

If the A351 wing is similar enough to the A359 one (as in the trailing edge extension does not affect the external geometry of the structural part) could there be an opportunity to have a 316t MTOW wingbox put on to the A359 to give much higher takeoff weights. Sure it would have a much higher pavement loading but its not like its going places other than big airports.

Fred

Revelation wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

The second part (777X better replacement for the A380) was said by an “analyst”, not by CEO Joyce, correct me if I am wrong.

LOL, I knew the mere mention of A380 being replaced would trigger a lot of people!

Yes, the wish is father to the thought. A little lie is forgiven if it supports a preference.

But it seems, with the 747s going out, the gab between the 787-9 and A380 is unusual large. Most airlines have A340/A350s or 777's.

Qantas had been eyeing the A350-900ULR that rival Singapore Airlines Ltd will use to relaunch flights from Singapore to New York this year. It is still considering the Boeing 777-8, which has a higher seating capacity
...
Joyce told Reuters on Thursday the A350-1000 was the only Airbus jet that remained in contention for the Sydney-London mission, although the airline could combine that with orders for A350-900s for other routes if it selected the Airbus option.

Revelation wrote:

I think Boeing has to be the favorite with the 777-8.

Yeah, it has to be. Who cares about a stink'n extra 20t of metal doing ULH.

Joyce said Qantas was seeking more details from Boeing on the weight of the 777-8, which has not yet entered production, but added he was confident both manufacturers could meet the range challenges.

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

flipdewaf wrote:

If the A351 wing is similar enough to the A359 one (as in the trailing edge extension does not affect the external geometry of the structural part) could there be an opportunity to have a 316t MTOW wingbox put on to the A359 to give much higher takeoff weights. Sure it would have a much higher pavement loading but its not like its going places other than big airports.

Fred

One would rather look at a shrink of the A350-1000. To go to a MTOW of 316 t you need the MLG of the -1000. The MLG of the -900 is maxed out at 280 t.

A shrink should be easy, using the MLG, wings, engines and, if it is different, the wing box of the -1000, with the fuselage panels of the -900.
It would remove only little of the weight, but reducing drag and therefor fuel burn could be a consideration.

mjoelnir wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

If the A351 wing is similar enough to the A359 one (as in the trailing edge extension does not affect the external geometry of the structural part) could there be an opportunity to have a 316t MTOW wingbox put on to the A359 to give much higher takeoff weights. Sure it would have a much higher pavement loading but its not like its going places other than big airports.

Fred

One would rather look at a shrink of the A350-1000. To go to a MTOW of 316 t you need the MLG of the -1000. The MLG of the -900 is maxed out at 280 t.

A shrink should be easy, using the MLG, wings, engines and, if it is different, the wing box of the -1000, with the fuselage panels of the -900.
It would remove only little of the weight, but reducing drag and therefor fuel burn could be a consideration.

It would likely be possible, but I see a strong drive at Airbus to keep variants as close to production standards as possible. Probably to prevent orphans / expensive to build & support subfleets.

keesje wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

If the A351 wing is similar enough to the A359 one (as in the trailing edge extension does not affect the external geometry of the structural part) could there be an opportunity to have a 316t MTOW wingbox put on to the A359 to give much higher takeoff weights. Sure it would have a much higher pavement loading but its not like its going places other than big airports.

Fred

One would rather look at a shrink of the A350-1000. To go to a MTOW of 316 t you need the MLG of the -1000. The MLG of the -900 is maxed out at 280 t.

A shrink should be easy, using the MLG, wings, engines and, if it is different, the wing box of the -1000, with the fuselage panels of the -900.
It would remove only little of the weight, but reducing drag and therefor fuel burn could be a consideration.

It would likely be possible, but I see a strong drive at Airbus to keep variants as close to production standards as possible. Probably to prevent orphans / expensive to build & support subfleets.

Agree that the Gear thing might be a stretch too far but I think leaving with the smaller wing is the better bet for this. Maybe the A359 wing is ok for 300t MTOW already? with a 13kft runway in sydney and a near enough 13kft runway in heathrow would a 84klb engine be enough? I know Zeke has chimed in previously to say what the max weights for takeoff would be even if it is out of the structural limits of the aircraft.

Fred

If the Perth load factors are truely thet high, then I think it is almost certainly going to be a 778. Their choice of 2022 as a lunch year hints at 778 as well, becaus that’s when 778 starts entering the market.

But I got confuses, half the article mentions how QF is targeting a tweaked version of the A350-900ULR, while the other half mentions the A350-1000. Which Airbus product is competing?

Eyad89 wrote:

But I got confuses, half the article mentions how QF is targeting a tweaked version of the A350-900ULR, while the other half mentions the A350-1000. Which Airbus product is competing?

I think that is deliberate, it could either be a -900 or -1000 or both depending on the RFP requirements. The manufacturers will pitch their offers, the customer will work out what suits them.

The -1000 could be a prospect by adding tanks to the cargo hold, it is not like that volume will be used.

zeke wrote:

I think that is deliberate, it could either be a -900 or -1000 or both depending on the RFP requirements. The manufacturers will pitch their offers, the customer will work out what suits them.

The -1000 could be a prospect by adding tanks to the cargo hold, it is not like that volume will be used.

The article from Reuters today linked here states -

"Joyce told Reuters on Thursday the A350-1000 was the only Airbus jet that remained in contention for the Sydney-London mission, although the airline could combine that with orders for A350-900s for other routes if it selected the Airbus option."

It also mentions that the -1000 might need extra tanks, but it also might not - it is not locked in at this stage.

Also...

"Joyce said Qantas was seeking more details from Boeing on the weight of the 777-8, which has not yet entered production, but added he was confident both manufacturers could meet the range challenges."

So the two choices are the A350-1000 and the Boeing 777-8.

There are a lot of leaps being made in this discussion. All the news says is that both Boeing and Airbus have said they can meet the range/capacity requirements. The RFP hasn't been officially created yet by Qantas and neither manufacturer has responded to it with an official proposal. It says in the articles that they are still waiting on info from Boeing on the weight of the 777-8 and that Airbus hasn't locked down if the A350-1000 would need extra tanks.

I guess you could consider it news that we know which model from each manufacturer will be competing. Until the manufactures submit performance guarantees and pricing, there is no point in trying to predict the outcome. Neither aircraft has the marketing range to do the trip at full capacity. The question will be, after "tweaks" how many passengers each one can carry for the required distance and what the purchase price will be.

The flight global article says different, it says the -900ULH but left the door open for the -1000.

Interesting the flight global article talks more about the regulatory and labour issues related to operating such flights rather than the actual equipment, if those issues cannot be resolved, nothing proceeds.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... su-451348/

zeke wrote:

The flight global article says different, it says the -900ULH but left the door open for the -1000.

The Flight Global article actually says, "Airbus has been advocating its ULR variant of the A350-900"

Whereas Reuters specifically state, "Joyce told Reuters on Thursday the A350-1000 was the only Airbus jet that remained in contention for the Sydney-London mission".

Therefore, the A350-900ULR is off the table for Qantas. It is not surprising as Qantas wants to put 300 + passengers on the aircraft with four classes of service.

It is as I said before, the A350-1000 and the Boeing 777-8.

I think QF needs a fleet of maybe 30+ aircraft in this category, including these ULH frames. So the efficiency / flexiblity on e.g. Asian and US flights is as important.

keesje wrote:

I think QF needs a fleet of maybe 30+ aircraft in this category, including these ULH frames. So the efficiency / flexiblity on e.g. Asian and US flights is as important.

The more frames required, the more likely this order will go to Airbus IMO. Because they will be deployed on routes not requiring extreme capability as well as those that do, and the A350's flexibility vs. the B778 will count in its favour in that scenario.

ScottB wrote:

I don't see this being the case simply because QF already operates the 787. It'd be very easy for Boeing to tout the flexibility of a fleet of 787-9/10 and 777-9 alongside the 777-8. If QF didn't have the 787 then I'd tip it to Airbus for the simplified fleet -- but as things stand, QF would operate two types either way.

But QF wants to be able to use the same plane on SYD-LHR one day and then SYD-SIN the next, they don’t want to have a 778 for one mission and a 78K for the other. What they are asking for is something similar to the A321LR, a plane that has the legs to do longer flights but without taking a major hit to efficiency on shorter hops.

QF has basically told us that the decision will come down to two things - whether the A35K can make the trip without auxiliary tanks (which add weight and take up cargo space on flights where they aren’t required) and the final weight of the 778 (which effects that aircraft’s performance on shorter routes significantly).

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...hence the weight difference.....just as their is a weight difference between the 789 and the A359.

If you need range but less payload the 789. If you need range with greater payload the A359. I believe due to the extreme nature of the ULH mission in this RFP QF will go with e 778 because it ideally combines both range and payload needed.

qf002 wrote:

- whether the A35K can make the trip without auxiliary tanks (which add weight and take up cargo space on flights where they aren’t required)

I don’t think that’s possible, unless the payload is significantly reduced.

I assume the 777-8 can use the same extra auxiliary fuel tanks as the 777-200LR.

This is a surprise. There have been reports that the A35K is in play. But it wasn't obvious how the 35K could become a better ULR frame than the 359 (bearing in mind the 359's light weight, big wing, huge fuel capacity for its size, capacity for 300+ pax...) Any thoughts on just how the numbers could be look better for the 35K? Better economics for the double crew? More headroom on MTOW? Fuel capacity well beyond even the 165,000 l announced capacity of the A359ULR? Some positive surprises in the engine or aerodynamics?

OA940 wrote:

Wait since when is QF looking to dump the whale? I thought Sunrise was only about SYD/MEL/BNE-JFK/Europe non-stop.

Anyway, I feel this one will go to Boeing. The 777X has the same type rating as their 787s, and, if they're looking to dump the A380, then the -9 would be a better replacement than the 35K. But the QF livery on an A350 would look sexy as hell

iirc joyce has stated that 2 787s are cheaper to operate and give them more profit. he doesnt seem to be a big quad fan

qf789 wrote:

They will not order 30+ aircraft, at best it will probably be no more than 20 but more likely 12-15 and the original order may only be 6 to start with, take note that QF do not typically large orders just small tops up as required. Also they only have 44 widebodies on international now, that's not including the 12 A330's on domestic so an order for 30+ is simply unrealistic

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.

And people keep ignoring what Joyce has been saying about the number of destinations and ports of origin for the ULR services. Even assuming Perth sticks with the 789, QF seem to be looking at ULR flights from Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane to various combinations of Chicago, New York, London, Paris, Frankfurt and Rio. On top of which the new frames will presumably also pick up Dallas. That's just the known options. Simple math (@two frames per frequency per route) will quickly generate some big numbers for fleet size. Add YVR, SEA, SFO, LAX into the mix (because they will have cargo capacity on top of full pax) and you can see even more potential. No wonder the OEMs want the sale.

There is only a small difference in range between the 35K and 778, about 200 nm. So which frame can gain capability more easily for the OEM?

AsiaTravel wrote:

I'm thinking that the A35K/A359 might be a better combination, in the case of replacing old aircrafts. QF's A333 are starting to age and the A359 is a good replacement as shown by other airlines in the region ( CI, CX, SQ).

I think QF are going to use the 787-9 as an A330 replacement, just in a regional/shorter-haul configuration. If they invest in A350s, it'll be the A350-1000ULR (presuming the A350-1000ULR is capable of performing the Project Sunrise flights), and perhaps some standard-issue A350-1000s for the higher-capacity Pacific Rim type routes (HND, HKG, SFO, LAX)

StudiodeKadent wrote:

I think QF are going to use the 787-9 as an A330 replacement, just in a regional/shorter-haul configuration. If they invest in A350s, it'll be the A350-1000ULR (presuming the A350-1000ULR is capable of performing the Project Sunrise flights), and perhaps some standard-issue A350-1000s for the higher-capacity Pacific Rim type routes (HND, HKG, SFO, LAX)

It might make more sense to buy A359s for long haul services and then use the existing 789s to replace the A330s (with a reconfiguration). Also, QF wants to avoid small subfleets so I doubt we will see two types of A35K (or 778) in the fleet, they would prefer to have a single fleet that has the flexibility to cover both roles (maximising utilisation is a big thing for QF at the moment).

Eyad89 wrote:

qf002 wrote:

- whether the A35K can make the trip without auxiliary tanks (which add weight and take up cargo space on flights where they aren’t required)

I don’t think that’s possible, unless the payload is significantly reduced.

The A35K is optimistically at 8000 nm for about 360 pax and 41000gal. At 95 kg / pax, removing 60 pax frees up 5700 kg for 1800 more gallons of fuel. Approaching 9000 nm if they are real careful. But that is still air distance. It will be interesting to see the details of the Airbus proposal. But no way are they doing this without aux tanks.

BTW it seems that the 77X fuel capacity went up to about 52800 gallons . .

qf002 wrote:

StudiodeKadent wrote:

I think QF are going to use the 787-9 as an A330 replacement, just in a regional/shorter-haul configuration. If they invest in A350s, it'll be the A350-1000ULR (presuming the A350-1000ULR is capable of performing the Project Sunrise flights), and perhaps some standard-issue A350-1000s for the higher-capacity Pacific Rim type routes (HND, HKG, SFO, LAX)

It might make more sense to buy A359s for long haul services and then use the existing 789s to replace the A330s (with a reconfiguration). Also, QF wants to avoid small subfleets so I doubt we will see two types of A35K (or 778) in the fleet, they would prefer to have a single fleet that has the flexibility to cover both roles (maximising utilisation is a big thing for QF at the moment).

Most of the world outside of the ME3 wants lighter, fuel efficient planes. And will sacrifice the capability.
The 77X is the way it is because the ME3 wanted the high MTOW.
Quantas will either have a subfleet, or have excessively capable (but fuel efficient) planes, or give up their SYD - LHR 300 pax nonstop dream. Because there is no substitute for MTOW when you have to fly about 10000nm nonstop.

I think when it comes to A380 replacement they will order new A380s. The A380 serves QF very well on its A380 routes

It was the analyst not the CEO who said that the B777-9 can replace the A380

jagraham wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

qf002 wrote:

- whether the A35K can make the trip without auxiliary tanks (which add weight and take up cargo space on flights where they aren’t required)

I don’t think that’s possible, unless the payload is significantly reduced.

The A35K is optimistically at 8000 nm for about 360 pax and 41000gal. At 95 kg / pax, removing 60 pax frees up 5700 kg for 1800 more gallons of fuel. Approaching 9000 nm if they are real careful. But that is still air distance. It will be interesting to see the details of the Airbus proposal. But no way are they doing this without aux tanks.

BTW it seems that the 77X fuel capacity went up to about 52800 gallons . .

Forgive my lack of understanding. The 777-8 will be heavier, will tanker more fuel as well so surely max payload is to fall as well .

StTim wrote:

jagraham wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

I don’t think that’s possible, unless the payload is significantly reduced.

The A35K is optimistically at 8000 nm for about 360 pax and 41000gal. At 95 kg / pax, removing 60 pax frees up 5700 kg for 1800 more gallons of fuel. Approaching 9000 nm if they are real careful. But that is still air distance. It will be interesting to see the details of the Airbus proposal. But no way are they doing this without aux tanks.

BTW it seems that the 77X fuel capacity went up to about 52800 gallons . .

Forgive my lack of understanding. The 777-8 will be heavier, will tanker more fuel as well so surely max payload is to fall as well .

Max payload falls from a much higher starting point. 351t - 165t (for 778) OEW gives 186t for payload and fuel. For the A350-1000, 316t - 159t OEW leaves 157t for payload and fuel. The A35J will need over 138t (max fuel now is 124.6t for 8400 nm(?)) for fuel. 300 pax is 28.5t, giving 166t payload. Airbus is close but they need at least 10 more tons MTOW. And somewhere to store it in fuel. Whereas the 778 - even if the GE9x doesn't meet it's promise and it needs 140t of fuel) still has 46t left over to carry the same 26.5t payload. This is the MTOW benefit.

United Airline wrote:

I think when it comes to A380 replacement they will order new A380s. The A380 serves QF very well on its A380 routes

It was the analyst not the CEO who said that the B777-9 can replace the A380

But the A380 carries a lot of connecting traffic. A lot of the flyers onboard the LAX and Dallas flights are going to Chicago, New York etc. As more direct flights to various US cities become available, the amount of demand for the LAX flight will decrease. That, plus many Australians are very, very averse to connecting through LAX (hi! I'm one of those! And LAX is hell).

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

And possibly some services to Asia like HKG and HND.

I really don’t see QF using such an expensive aircraft to fly to places like Rio or Rome etc.

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.

AsiaTravel wrote:

I'm thinking that the A35K/A359 might be a better combination, in the case of replacing old aircrafts. QF's A333 are starting to age and the A359 is a good replacement as shown by other airlines in the region ( CI, CX, SQ).

Agree. Makes sense for QF to base their LH plans around the Airbus fleet. The A380 replacement is not due anytime soon and I think QF can push that decision to later. Perhaps an A380NEO will be flying by then.

BawliBooch wrote:

Agree. Makes sense for QF to base their LH plans around the Airbus fleet. The A380 replacement is not due anytime soon and I think QF can push that decision to later. Perhaps an A380NEO will be flying by then.

Once the A380 is retired in about 10 or so years time, unless some amazing leap in technology occurs between now and then, you will no longer see a four engine aircraft in service with Qantas. Twins are the future!

ClassicLover wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

Agree. Makes sense for QF to base their LH plans around the Airbus fleet. The A380 replacement is not due anytime soon and I think QF can push that decision to later. Perhaps an A380NEO will be flying by then.

Once the A380 is retired in about 10 or so years time, unless some amazing leap in technology occurs between now and then, you will no longer see a four engine aircraft in service with Qantas. Twins are the future!

Looking forward to the 500 seat, 4 class Twins replacing it on DFW, LAX and HKG. Or will they surrender marketshare on those daily flights, scaling down?

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

This is Boeing’s order to lose, AJ has taken a lot of technical expertise and input from EK regarding the 777X program and tailored their specification accordingly.
If Boeing match their conservative predictions then the 777-8 will allow a significant premium in payload over the 350 as it stands, but, the 777X is a paper aeroplane so all bets are off until the real world numbers come in.